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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“specigically” in para. 0001
“converting the determined the secondary thermal simulation parameters into welding heat input parameters” in para. 0012
“parametersd” in para. 0053
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show corresponding structures for: welding specimens, processing samples into CTOD samples, pre-loading of specimens by uniaxial tension, processing samples, conducting a slow strain rate tension test, comparing elongations, calculating parameters, analyzing parameters, converting parameters, determining welding parameters, determining an optimal role, and knife-edge as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 1:
the step of “determining” in “A method for determining filling welding parameters of a large deformation pipeline steel…” is being interpreted as any structure capable of, based on a secondary regulation method, welding specimens, processing samples into CTOD samples, pre-loading of specimens by uniaxial tension, processing samples, conducting a slow strain rate tension test, comparing elongations, calculating parameters, analyzing parameters, converting parameters, determining welding parameters, and determining an optimal role [e.g., a system including a processor with software, memory, sensors, input devices, displays, relevant conventional test benches, welding device, etc.], since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below,
wherein “filling welding parameter” is used to mean the final welding parameter to be used in an actual welding process [para. 0041: “the present invention conducts actual welding and testing after converting the optimal thermal simulation parameters into welding heat input to verify the accuracy of experimental results and ensure the safety of welded pipes in service.”]
[paras. 0034-37: “Optionally, after determining the welding parameters according to the welding heat input parameters, it also includes: welding according to welding parameters using CO2 flux cored gas shielded welding to obtain test samples; conducting CTOD tests, pre-strain tests and stress corrosion tests on test samples to obtain experimental results; determining the final welding parameters by combining the experimental results.”];
the step of “welding” in “welding specimens to be welded for secondary welding thermal simulation experiments based on a thermal simulation to obtain samples after thermal simulation” is being interpreted as preparing multiple samples after thermal simulation via a conventional thermal simulation tester [e.g., Gleeble 3500; para. 0049], and equivalents thereof [i.e., to simulate the microstructure of the critical reheated coarse grain zone in the complex HAZ of a multi-layer, multi-pass welded pipeline steel, multiple specimens to be welded undergo thermal simulation wherein the cooling rate between a primary and a secondary heat cycle of the simulation is varied to obtain samples after thermal simulation, (paras. 0015, 48-49); paras. 0051-52: “FIG. 1 provides a method for determining the filling welding parameters of large deformation pipeline steel based on the secondary control method…the process may comprise the steps: step 102: welding specimens to be welded for secondary welding thermal simulation experiments based on a thermal simulation to obtain samples after thermal simulation;”],
wherein “secondary welding thermal simulation experiments” is used to mean experiments (i.e., procedures carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law) performed on the thermally simulated specimens directed at the effects of, e.g., prestrain, stress, and corrosive media [paras. 0002-4];
the step of “processing” in “processing the samples after thermal simulation into Crack-tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) samples and calculating fracture toughness parameters” is being interpreted as any structure capable of obtaining CTOD samples from prepared specimens [i.e., samples after thermal simulation are processed into CTOD samples by, e.g., a conventionally known CTOD test bench] so as to calculate fracture toughness parameters, since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below,
the step of “calculating” in “calculating fracture toughness parameters” is being interpreted as any structure capable of calculating solutions via corresponding formulas/equations from corresponding relevant variables [i.e., the conventional practice wherein experimental results (i.e., from CTOD testing) are used to calculate an index of a corresponding relevant quality (i.e., fracture toughness of the welded heat affected zone) by, e.g., a processor; paras. 0016-19, 75-81] since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below;
wherein “fracture toughness parameter” is used by the claim to mean the index of the inherent fracture toughness of each welded heat affected zone of the CTOD samples [paras. 0016-19, 75-81];
the step of “pre-loading” in “pre-loading of specimens requiring pre-strain after thermal simulation by uniaxial tension, then processing samples before and after pre-strain after thermal simulation, conducting slow strain rate tension tests, and calculating stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameters” is being interpreted as any structure capable of utilizing the conventional practice of uniaxial tension to induce a pre-strain on specimens [i.e., a tension is put on specimens along a single axis by, e.g., a conventional test bench configured according to standard NACE TM 0177; para. 0096], since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below;
the step of “processing” in “processing samples before and after pre-strain after thermal simulation” is being interpreted as any structure capable of measuring and recording relevant variables [i.e., the conventional practice, in an experiment, of measuring dimensions/values of prepared samples before and after being tested by, e.g., a processor, sensors, etc.; paras. 0020-24], since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below,
wherein “samples” in “samples before and after pre-strain after thermal simulation” is used by the claim to refer to the pre-loaded specimens, and that the relevant variables of a specimen that has undergone thermal simulation but has not been pre-strained are processed, and the relevant variables of the specimen after being pre-strained are processed;
the step of “conducting” in “conducting slow strain rate tension tests” is being interpreted as any structure capable of performing a slow strain rate tension test [i.e., samples after pre-strain, and after being processed, have a slow strain rate tension test performed thereon, by, e.g., the conventional test bench configured according to standard NACE TM 0177; para. 0096], since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below,
wherein “slow strain rate tension test” is used by the claim as including the conventional practice of stretching prepared samples in air at a first rate, and stretching prepared samples in a solution at a second rate [e.g., according to standard NACE TM 0177; paras. 0020-22];
the step of “calculating” in “calculating stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameters” is being interpreted as any structure capable of calculating solutions via corresponding formulas/equations from corresponding relevant variables [i.e., the conventional practice wherein experimental data (i.e., from pre-loading, and tension tests) is used to calculate an index of a corresponding relevant quality (i.e., stress corrosion resistance of the welded heat affected zone) by, e.g., a processor; paras. 0020-23] , since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below;
wherein “stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameter” is used by the claim to mean the index of the inherent stress corrosion resistance of each welded heat affected zone of the samples [para. 0023]
the step of “comparing” in “comparing a change in elongation of the samples before and after pre-strain” is being interpreted as any structure capable of comparing relevant variables [i.e., the conventional practice of comparing measurements before and after an experiment, by, e.g., a processor; para. 0023], since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below,
wherein “samples” in “samples before and after pre-strain” is used by the claim to refer to the pre-loaded specimens, and that the measured and recorded (i.e., processed) relevant variables of the pre-loaded specimens, before and after slow strain rate tension testing, are being compared;
the step of “calculating” in “calculating pre-strain sensitivity parameters” is being interpreted as any structure capable of calculating solutions via corresponding formulas/equations from corresponding relevant variables [i.e., the conventional practice wherein experimental data (i.e., from pre-loading, and tension tests) is used to calculate an index of a corresponding relevant quality (i.e., pre-strain sensitivity of the welded heat affected zone) by, e.g., a processor; paras. 0024] , since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below;
wherein “pre-strain sensitivity parameter” is used by the claim to mean the index of the pre-strain sensitivity of each welded heat affected zone of the samples [para. 0024];
the step of “analyzing” in “analyzing, in a comprehensive manner, determination of secondary thermal simulation parameters by combining the pre-strain sensitivity parameters, the fracture toughness parameters and the stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameters” is being interpreted as any structure capable of observing and recognizing a relationship between secondary thermal simulation parameters and the calculated parameters [i.e., the conventional practice of reviewing measured and recorded experimental data, including results from experimental testing (i.e., the secondary regulation/control method including the calculation of the pre-strain sensitivity parameters, the fracture toughness parameters, and the stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameters) in order to establish a hypothesis, by, e.g., a processor and corresponding software; paras. 0025-27] since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below,
wherein “secondary thermal simulation parameter” is used by the claim to mean the relevant variables (e.g., target cooling time period, starting/end temperatures, preheating temperature, welding heat input, plate thickness, thermal conductivity, etc.; para. 0027) corresponding to the calculated parameters obtained from the secondary welding thermal simulation experiments, and
wherein “a comprehensive manner” is used by the claim to mean “including all”, specifically that the step includes each element of “determination of secondary thermal simulation parameters by combining the pre-strain sensitivity parameters, the fracture toughness parameters and the stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameters”;
the step of “converting” in “converting the secondary thermal simulation parameters into welding heat input parameters by calculation in accordance with a three-dimensional heat transfer formula” is being interpreted as any structure capable calculating solutions via corresponding formulas/equations from corresponding relevant variables [i.e., the conventional practice wherein welding heat input is calculated according to a three-dimensional heat transfer formula in the standard NACE SP0472-2010 and from the secondary thermal simulation parameters, by, e.g., a processor; paras. 0090] since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below;
wherein “welding heat input parameter” is used by the claim to mean welding heat input into the thermal simulation tester [i.e., Q; para. 0027], and
wherein “three-dimensional heat transfer formula” is used by the claim to mean a conventionally known heat transfer formula [such as in paras. 0025 and 29], e.g., as found in the standard NACE SP0472-2010 [para. 0090]
[para. 0049: “The Gleeble 3500 thermal simulation tester can accurately simulate the microstructure of the critical reheated coarse grain zone in the heat-affected zone under different heat inputs by varying the cooling rate under the premise of determining the heating rate and peak temperature. The base material is processed into a block specimen with a cross section of 10 x 10 mm2 and a 2 mm thick plate specimen after the Gleeble3500 is used for thermal simulation of welding with different cooling rates. Firstly, fracture toughness tests and stress corrosion tests before and after pre-strain were carried out on thermally simulated specimens to determine the most desirable cooling rate. Then, the cooling rate is converted into welding heat input according to the thermal conductivity equation, and the process parameters are developed for carbon dioxide gas shielded welding, and the welded specimens are subjected to double cantilever beam experiments to verify the safety of the welding process.”];
the step of “determining” in “determining welding parameters based on the welding heat input parameters” is being interpreted as any structure capable of calculating solutions via corresponding formulas/equations from corresponding relevant variables [i.e., the conventional practice wherein welding parameters for the actual welding process are calculated from input parameters, by, e.g., a processor; para. 0035] since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below;
wherein “welding parameter” is used by the claim to mean welding current, arc voltage, welding speed, welding thermal efficiency factor, etc. [paras. 0028-30];
the step of “determining” in “determining an optimal role of the welding parameters by comparing the welding parameters with conventional welding parameters of a sulfide stress corrosion cracking stress intensity factor” is being interpreted as any structure capable of comparing relevant variables [i.e., the conventional practice of comparing experimental results (i.e., the determined welding parameters) with a known index of a corresponding relevant quality (i.e., the conventional welding parameters of a given sulfide stress corrosion cracking stress intensity factor) in order to determine a value corresponding to an optimal result (i.e., to optimize a welding process of a pipeline configured for a sulfide, while ensuring safety), by, e.g., a processor; paras. 0039-41], since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below,
wherein “optimal role” has been interpreted as indicating that the welding parameters have been optimized such that when actual welding is done with these settings, the welding process efficiency is improved while ensuring safety [paras. 0039-41] see claim rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) below,
wherein “sulfide stress corrosion cracking stress intensity factor” is used by the claim to mean the index of the inherent stress intensity of each welded heat affected zone of the specimens [paras. 0031-33];
Regarding claim 4,
the step of “stretching” in “wherein a slow tensile test comprises: stretching the samples after thermal simulation to a specified strain in air at a first preset stretching rate; and stretching the samples after thermal simulation in a selected stretching solution at a second preset stretching rate at a preset tensile test temperature” is being interpreted as any structure capable of utilizing uniaxial tension to induce a pre-strain on specimens (i.e., specimens are stretched along a single axis) since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may:
a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1,
the recitation of “determining” in “A method for determining filling welding parameters of a large deformation pipeline steel…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV. In this case, as presented below, the written description does not provide the corresponding structure for all the functions required in the claim.
the recitation of “processing” in “processing the samples after thermal simulation into Crack-tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) samples and calculating fracture toughness parameters” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In this case, although the specification restates processing samples into CTOD samples [paras. 0008] in order to calculate fracture toughness parameters [para. 0016], the calculation including a knife-edge thickness [para. 0019], the specification does not provide any corresponding structure capable of obtaining CTOD samples;
the recitation of “calculating” in “calculating fracture toughness parameters” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
the recitation of “pre-loading” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In this case, although the specification discloses “a tensile machine” for stretching in order to calculate a “critical stress intensity factor for sulfide stress corrosion” [para. 0096, which examiner has taken to be equivalent to “stress intensity factor of sulfur induced stress corrosion cracking”, para. 0031], this does not provide sufficient details to be considered providing corresponding structure capable of pre-loading;
the recitation of “processing” in “processing samples before and after pre-strain after thermal simulation” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
the recitation of “conducting” in “conducting slow strain rate tension tests” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
the recitation of “calculating” in “calculating stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameters” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
the recitation of “comparing” in “comparing a change in elongation of the samples before and after pre-strain” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
the recitation of “calculating” in “calculating pre-strain sensitivity parameters” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
the recitation of “analyzing” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
the recitation of “converting” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
the recitation of “determining” in “determining welding parameters based on the welding heat input parameters” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
the recitation of “determining” in “determining” in “determining an optimal role of the welding parameters by comparing the welding parameters with conventional welding parameters of a sulfide stress corrosion cracking stress intensity factor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding claim 4,
the recitation of “stretching” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In this case, although the specification discloses “a tensile machine” for stretching in order to calculate a “critical stress intensity factor for sulfide stress corrosion” [para. 0096, which examiner has taken to be equivalent to “stress intensity factor of sulfur induced stress corrosion cracking”, para. 0031], this does not provide sufficient details to be considered providing corresponding structure capable of stretching;
Claims 2-10 are rejected because of dependence on a rejected claim.
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1,
the recitation of “determining” in “A method for determining filling welding parameters of a large deformation pipeline steel…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite;
the recitation of “processing” in “processing the samples after thermal simulation into Crack-tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) samples and calculating fracture toughness parameters” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite;
the recitation of “calculating” in “calculating fracture toughness parameters” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite;
the recitation of “pre-loading” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite;
the recitation of “processing” in “processing samples before and after pre-strain after thermal simulation” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite;
the recitation of “specimens requiring pre-strain after thermal simulation by uniaxial tension” renders the claim indefinite because, in view of the welding specimens being prepared into samples after thermal simulation, wherein the samples after thermal simulation are then processed into CTOD samples, it is unclear if the “specimens requiring pre-strain after thermal simulation” is intended to be distinct from the CTOD samples (which have been obtained from the welding specimens) or is to be selected from a separated subset of the samples after thermal simulation. In view of para. 0107, wherein a step 2 of processing thermally simulated specimens into CTOD specimens (para. 0073) and a step 3 of pre-straining or no manipulation of specimens after thermal simulation (para. 0082) is disclosed as being carried out in order, in reverse order, or at the same time, Examiner will interpret the claim as indicating that the specimens used in the tests/experiments are selected from the prepared samples of the welding step.
the recitation of “conducting” in “conducting slow strain rate tension tests” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite;
the recitation of “calculating” in “calculating stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameters” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite;
the recitation of “comparing” in “comparing a change in elongation of the samples before and after pre-strain” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite;
the recitation of “calculating” in “calculating pre-strain sensitivity parameters” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite;
the recitation of “analyzing” in invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite;
the recitation of “converting” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite;
the recitation of “determining” in “determining welding parameters based on the welding heat input parameters” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite;
the limitation “optimal role” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” 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. It is unclear which of the result effective variables encompassed by ‘welding parameter’ is optimized, or how a PHOSITA would determine if a value is of an optimal role, or if a value is within a range of an optimal role.
the recitation of “determining” in “determining” in “determining an optimal role of the welding parameters by comparing the welding parameters with conventional welding parameters of a sulfide stress corrosion cracking stress intensity factor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite;
Regarding claim 4,
the limitation “slow tensile test” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this is intended to be distinct from the “slow strain rate tension tests” of claim 1. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claim 4 referring to the tension tests of claim 1.
the recitation of “stretching” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite;
Regarding claim 9,
the limitation “the final welding parameters” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and will be interpreted as referring to the “filling welding parameters” of claim 1.
Claims 2-10 are rejected because of dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea (mental process of determining welding parameters) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
the claims are directed to statutory subject matter as claim 1 recites a method for determining filling welding parameters of a large deformation pipeline steel based on a secondary regulation method,
wherein the recited steps of claim 1 are directed to a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (i.e., processing samples, calculating parameters, comparing elongations, analyzing (determining/combining) parameters, converting parameters, determining welding parameters/an optimal role) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the steps of claim 1 are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a laboratory testing system. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a system does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of preparing specimens to be welded, obtaining CTOD samples and conducting slow strain rate tension tests, amount to no more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering, which does not amount to an inventive concept. Further, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In this case, experiments are conducted on prepared samples in a secondary regulation method, in order to determine, through a recognized correlation of the results of testing with expected outcomes in an actual welding process, so as to determine optimal welding parameters for the actual welding process, including verification testing on testing samples.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, the limitations of claims further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
In particular, although claims 9 and 10 further describe a step of welding test samples in order to determine the final welding parameters, this is also mere pre-solution activity of data gathering (i.e., verification of experimental results), which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (CN 113579413 A).
Regarding claim 1,
Han teaches:
A method for determining filling welding parameters of a large deformation pipeline steel based on a secondary regulation method, comprising:
welding specimens to be welded for secondary welding thermal simulation experiments based on a thermal simulation to obtain samples after thermal simulation [para. 0049: “The Gleeble 3500 thermal simulation testing machine can accurately simulate the weld microstructure of different regions with different heat inputs while ensuring low cost and high efficiency. By changing welding parameters such as peak temperature and cooling rate, the coarse-grained microstructure of the heat-affected zone with different heat inputs can be obtained. After processing the base material into φ10mm rod-shaped specimens, 10×10mm2 block-shaped specimens and 2mm thick plate-shaped specimens, welding thermal simulations with different cooling rates were performed using Gleeble3500.”];
processing the samples after thermal simulation into Crack-tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) samples and calculating fracture toughness parameters [para. 0067: “Step 3: The thermally simulated sample is processed into a CTOD sample using the CTOD test method, and the fracture toughness parameters are calculated.”];
pre-loading of specimens requiring pre-strain after thermal simulation by uniaxial tension [para. 0016: “The thermally simulated sample was charged with hydrogen in a selected hydrogen-charging solution at a first preset stretching rate for a preset hydrogen-charging time.”], then processing samples before and after pre-strain after thermal simulation [para. 0017: “The hydrogen embrittlement sensitivity parameter includes the section reduction rate loss, which is calculated using the formula: … Z0 is the section reduction rate without hydrogen charging, and ZH is the section reduction rate after hydrogen charging.”], conducting slow strain rate tension tests, and calculating stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameters [paras. 0022-24: “In some embodiments, the slow stretching test specifically includes: The thermally simulated sample is stretched in a selected stretching solution at a preset tensile test temperature and a second preset tensile rate. The corrosion cracking sensitivity parameter includes the SSCC sensitivity coefficient, which is calculated using the formula: … where Sψ is the SSCC sensitivity coefficient, ψs is the cross-sectional area reduction rate in the corrosive medium, and ψ0 is the cross-sectional area reduction rate in air.”];
comparing a change in elongation of the samples before and after pre-strain and calculating pre-strain sensitivity parameters [para. 0062: “Hydrogen embrittlement sensitivity calculation: The dimensions of the samples before and after hydrogen charging were measured, the reduction of area loss lZ was calculated, and the hydrogen embrittlement resistance under different t8/5 conditions was evaluated.”];
analyzing, in a comprehensive manner, determination of secondary thermal simulation parameters by combining the pre-strain sensitivity parameters, the fracture toughness parameters and the stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameters [para. 0004: “When using Reel-lay for oil and gas transportation, the pipeline will experience performance degradation due to the welding process and will be affected by the combined effects of prestrain, stress, and acidic corrosive media.”; para. 0011: “The target cooling time period was determined by combining hydrogen embrittlement sensitivity parameters, fracture toughness parameters, and corrosion cracking sensitivity parameters.”];
converting the secondary thermal simulation parameters into welding heat input parameters by calculation in accordance with a three-dimensional heat transfer formula [para. 0081: “Step 5, Welding heat input calculation: Based on the three-dimensional heat transfer formula in standard NACE SP0472-2010, calculate the relationship between the selected t8/5 and the welding heat input”];
determining welding parameters based on the welding heat input parameters [para. 0084: “By substituting the obtained welding heat input into the following formula (6) according to the above steps, the relationship between welding current (I), arc voltage (U) and welding speed (V) can be obtained, thus obtaining the welding parameters.”]; and
determining an optimal role of the welding parameters by comparing the welding parameters with conventional welding parameters of a sulfide stress corrosion cracking stress intensity factor [Han teaches a conventional experimental process, directed at the fact that sulfide stress corrosion cracking sensitivity correlates to the secondary thermal simulation parameters, i.e., SSCC sensitivity corresponds cooling time, pre-strain, (paras. 0090) and that actual welding is done in order to verify the welding parameters as appropriate (para. 0087), and is used to determine the final welding parameters, i.e., if the parameters are not appropriate, this result (i.e., a welding process with ‘conventional’ welding parameters) is compared with a subsequent experiment so as to arrive at a more appropriate set of welding parameters].
Regarding claim 2, Han teaches the method according to claim 1.
Han further teaches:
wherein the samples to be welded are multiple [para. 0014: “In some embodiments, there are multiple samples to be welded, and the multiple samples to be welded may be the same or different.”], and multiple samples to be welded have different cooling rates for a secondary heat cycle [i.e., Han discloses a thermal simulation testing machine for preparing multiple samples, wherein the multi-pass welding process is simulated by a Gleeble3500, wherein cooling rate between cycles is changed; para. 0049].
Regarding claim 3, Han teaches the method according to claim 1.
Han further teaches:
wherein the fracture toughness parameters comprise a CTOD value [i.e., CTOD value is used by the instant claim to mean δ, to evaluate a different t8/5 fracture toughness under different conditions, see paras. 0076-78], and a calculation formula of the fracture toughness parameters is:
PNG
media_image1.png
177
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, F is load, S is span, W is width, B is thickness, a0 is initial crack length, v is Poisson's ratio, σYS is yield strength, E is elastic modulus, VP is plastic component of a notch opening displacement, Z is knife-edge thickness [Han teaches using see paras. 0019-20, 71-72 showing a CTOD value and calculation formula].
Regarding claim 4, Han teaches the method according to claim 1.
Han further teaches:
wherein a slow tensile test [para. 0022] comprises:
stretching the samples after thermal simulation to a specified strain in air at a first preset stretching rate [Han teaches a variable used in calculating SSCC sensitivity that corresponds to a sample after thermal simulation to a strain in air at a stretching rate; para. 0024: “The corrosion cracking sensitivity parameter includes the SSCC sensitivity coefficient, which is calculated using the formula: where Sψ is the SSCC sensitivity coefficient, ψ<sub>s</sub> is the cross-sectional area reduction rate in the corrosive medium, and ψ<sub>0</sub> is the cross-sectional area reduction rate in air.”]; and
stretching the samples after thermal simulation in a selected stretching solution at a second preset stretching rate at a preset tensile test temperature [Han teaches stretching a sample in a hydrogen charging solution at a stretching rate, at room temperature; para. 0016: “The thermally simulated sample was charged with hydrogen in a selected hydrogen-charging solution at a first preset stretching rate for a preset hydrogen-charging time.”];
wherein the stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameters comprise a Sulfide Stress Corrosion Cracking (SSCC) sensitivity coefficient, wherein the SSCC sensitivity coefficient is calculated according to the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
44
192
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Sψ is SSCC sensitivity coefficient, ψS is elongation in corrosive medium, and ψ0 is elongation in air [see para. 0079].
Regarding claim 5, Han teaches the method according to claim 1.
In this case, since Han discloses a sensitivity parameter is calculated according to values before and after shrinking [para. 0024: “The corrosion cracking sensitivity parameter includes the SSCC sensitivity coefficient, which is calculated using the formula: where Sψ is the SSCC sensitivity coefficient, ψ<sub>s</sub> is the cross-sectional area reduction rate in the corrosive medium, and ψ<sub>0</sub> is the cross-sectional area reduction rate in air.”], and since the variables in a formula may be arranged without any criticality to the information represented, other than design requirements of the given value (e.g., in order to use the same units as related formulas, or to present a percentage in the form of a decimal or a whole number), Han also teaches:
wherein a pre-strain sensitivity calculation equation [p. 3: “the hydrogen embrittlement sensitivity parameter comprises section shrinkage loss; the section shrinkage loss calculation formula is wherein: Z0 is the section shrinkage of the uncharged hydrogen, ZH is the section shrinkage after charging hydrogen.”] is:
PNG
media_image3.png
84
271
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein ψp0 is an elongation before pre-strain, and ψp1 an elongation after pre-strain [see para. 0064, showing a pre-strain sensitivity calculation equation including elongation before and after stretching].
Regarding claim 6, Han teaches the method according to claim 1.
In this case, since Han teaches the relationship between secondary thermal simulation parameters and welding heat input [para. 0090], and since the variables in a formula may be arranged without any criticality to the information represented, other than design requirements of the given value (e.g., in order to use the same units as related formulas, or so as to be used to solve for a certain variable), and since Han is directed towards improving the welding process of X65 pipeline steel [X65 inherently having dimensions and properties, e.g., thickness, thermal conductivity, density, specific heat capacity; para. 0052-54], Han also teaches:
wherein a relationship between the secondary thermal simulation parameters and the welding heat input parameters in the secondary regulation method [para. 0012: “The relationship between the target cooling time period and the welding heat input is determined according to the three-dimensional heat transfer formula, and the welding heat input is calculated.”] is:
PNG
media_image4.png
120
365
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein Δt is target cooling time period, i.e. the secondary thermal simulation t8/5, T1 and T2 are starting and ending temperatures of cooling, respectively, T0 is preheating temperature, Q is the welding heat input parameters, d is plate thickness, l is thermal conductivity, p is material density, and c is specific heat capacity [see para. 0026, showing a relationship between Q and target cooling time period t8/5 and preheating temperature Tp, and a three dimensional heat flow shape factor, wherein, since the material properties and dimensions of the specimens/samples are known, they need not appear in the formulas related to the experimental samples, and would only need to be included if those values were to be changed, e.g., in order to do actual welding on a specimen with different material/dimensions; para. 0052-54].
Regarding claim 7, Han teaches the method according to claim 1.
Han further teaches:
wherein the welding parameters are determined according to the welding heat input parameters, specifically comprising:
using the following formula for calculation:
Q=IUη/V [para. 0085];
wherein Q is the welding heat input parameters, I is welding current, U is arc voltage, V is welding speed, and η is welding thermal efficiency factor [para. 0028: “In some embodiments, the relationship of the welding heat input and the welding parameter is Q=IUη/V, wherein Q is the welding heat input, I is welding current; U is arc voltage; V is the welding speed; η is the welding heat efficiency coefficient.”].
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (CN 113579413 A).
Regarding claim 8, Han teaches the method according to claim 1.
In this case, since Han verifies welding parameters according to conventional and known standard NACE TM 0177 with a four point bend testing process [para. 0087], and since Han has been shown to teach the conventional practice of comparing experimental values with a known index of sulfide stress corrosion cracking sensitivity in order to determine a value corresponding to an optimal result [see claim 1 above, determining an optimal role], Han also teaches:
wherein the sulfide stress corrosion cracking stress intensity factor is calculated as:
PNG
media_image5.png
98
470
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein KISSC is the sulfide stress corrosion cracking stress intensity factor; P is load of balanced wedge block, measured values for loading surfaces; a is cracking length; h is the height of each cantilever, B is specimen thickness; and Bn is the web thickness.
Specifically, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a different, known and conventional testing process from the NACE TM 0177 standard such that corresponding values for relevant variables therein (i.e., P, a, h, B, Bn) are used to calculate the index of sulfide stress corrosion cracking sensitivity generated therefrom, and can then be compared to experimental values, so as to determine the optimal role, according to the requirements of the given application, e.g., cost and speed concerns.
Regarding claim 9, Han teaches the method according to claim 1.
In this case, since Han is also directed at arc welding X65 pipeline steel [i.e., wherein arc welding is conventionally known to include a shield gas and filler wire; para. 0052], Han also teaches:
wherein after determining the welding parameters based on the welding heat input parameters, further comprising:
welding according to welding parameters using CO2 flux cored gas shielded welding to obtain test samples [para. 0030: “Welding was performed using manual arc welding according to the aforementioned welding parameters to obtain the test sample;”];
conducting CTOD tests, pre-strain tests and stress corrosion tests on the test samples to obtain experimental results [para. 0031: “Deformation test, hydrogen embrittlement test and CTOD test were performed on the test sample respectively to obtain the experimental results;”]; and
determining the final welding parameters by combining the experimental results [para. 0032: “The final welding parameters were determined based on the experimental results.”].
Specifically, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a shielding gas and type of filler wire such that the final welding parameters were determined by test samples that were obtained by arc welding with CO2 shield gas utilizing flux cored filler wire, according to the requirements of the given application, e.g., cost and speed concerns.
Regarding claim 10, Han discloses the method according to claim 9.
In this case, since Han has been shown to teach the conventional practice of verifying experimental results of actual welding, with a deformation test, hydrogen embrittlement test, and CTOD test [para. 0031], Han further discloses:
wherein
an experimental rate of the CTOD tests is 0.5 mm/min, an experimental temperature is -10 °C [i.e., CTOD tests, wherein Han teaches the experimental rate and temperature; para. 0033: “In some embodiments, the CTOD experiment is conducted at a rate of 0.5 mm/s and a temperature of -10°C.”];
an experimental rate of the pre-strain tests is 0.5 mm/min [i.e., a first stretching rate; para. 0061]; an experimental rate of the stress corrosion tests is 2 x 10-5 mm/s, and an experimental temperature is 23 °C [i.e., a second stretching rate and experimental temperature, wherein room temperature is considered 23C; para. 0077].
Specifically, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select values for the first and second stretching rates and experimental temperature such that the pre-strain test is 0.5 mm/min, the second stretching rate is 2 x 10-5 mm/s, and an experimental temperature is 23 °C, according to the requirements of the given application, e.g. cost and speed concerns, or in response to a different testing standard/protocol.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm 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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761