DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed on 08/04/2026. Claims 1, 3-8 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1, 3-4, 6 have been amended; claim 2 cancelled; claims 7-8 have been newly added.
It is noted that claim 6 has been withdrawn because claim 6 belongs to the non-elected invention. Applicant elected Group I (claims 1-5) in the Response to Election/Restriction Filed on 02/24/2026. Examiner replied to Applicant’s arguments regarding the restriction requirement in the Non-Final Office Action dated 05/05/2026 and insisted that the restriction requirement is deemed proper and that Group II (consisting of claim 6) is withdrawn from consideration in the Non-Final Office Action dated 05/05/2026. Applicant did not provide any further arguments in the latest response regarding the restriction requirement.
Accordingly, claim 6 is withdrawn from consideration; claims 1, 3-5, 7-8 are examined as follows.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 08/04/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 05/05/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Specifically, the newly added limitations “the aggregating structure is a trench having a bottom portion and wall portions, the bottom portion has a semicircular cross section pointing toward a rotation center of the rotating body, the wall portions extend parallel to a radial direction of the rotating body from both end edges of the bottom portion” to the independent claim 1, and the newly added claims 7-8 are rejected using the newly cited reference Kishimoto et al. (JP 2013099824 A, Translation is attached, newly cited) in this Office Action. The previously cited prior art Inoue (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0002794 A1, previously cited) is longer relied upon in any rejections in this Office Action. Accordingly, Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 08/04/2026 regarding the previously cited prior art Inoue and the combination of Oshima in view of Inoue, are moot.
Furthermore, Examiner would like to note that in response to Applicant(s)’ arguments regarding the prior art of record Oshima (JP 2006335624 A, previously cited), Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant(s)’ Arguments: (Regarding the prior art of record Oshima – see detail on pages 5-7 of the Remarks dated 08/04/2026)
Applicant alleged that “Oshima merely teaches that the electrode 14 can have a grooved cylindrical shape (see Oshima, Fig. 2a and paragraph [0047]). Figure 2a is reproduced below. Oshima completely fails to disclose the specific shape of the aggregating structure, which has a semicircular cross-sectional bottom and parallel walls extending from the end edges of the bottom.” – see detail on page 5 of the Remarks dated 08/04/2026, and that “both Oshima and Inoue concern carbon nanotube (CNT) fibers or yarns, rather than carbon fibers (CFs). As described in Oshima, CNTs are short fibers, and a single fiber spun from the CNTs is heated in a furnace while being energized. As a result, the short fibers that are merely in physical contact with each other are chemically bonded, i.e., covalently bonded, thereby forming longer fibers.
Carbon fibers (CFs), on the other hand, are obtained by further heating and carbonizing long PAN-based or pitch-based fibers. The fiber bundle of the present application is an assembly of a plurality of long fibers. The present application and the cited references differ both in the materials being processed and in the mechanisms by which those materials are affected during energization.” – see detail on page 7 of the Remarks dated 08/04/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Oshima completely fails to disclose the specific shape of the aggregating structure, which has a semicircular cross-sectional bottom and parallel walls extending from the end edges of the bottom.” – see detail on page 5 of the Remarks dated 08/04/2026, Examiner would like to note that the newly cited reference Kishimoto et al. (JP 2013099824 A, Translation is attached, newly cited) has been added to this Office Action to teach the newly added limitations “the aggregating structure is a trench having a bottom portion and wall portions, the bottom portion has a semicircular cross section pointing toward a rotation center of the rotating body, the wall portions extend parallel to a radial direction of the rotating body from both end edges of the bottom portion” to the independent claim 1, see detail in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below regarding the rejection of claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Carbon fibers (CFs), on the other hand, are obtained by further heating and carbonizing long PAN-based or pitch-based fibers. The fiber bundle of the present application is an assembly of a plurality of long fibers. The present application and the cited references differ both in the materials being processed and in the mechanisms by which those materials are affected during energization.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, claim 1 does not require PAN-based fibers, pitch-based fibers, carbonization, or any particular length of the constituent fibers. Rather, claim 1 recites a fiber bundle moved lengthwise in contact with a pair of electrodes and heated by applying voltage between the pair of electrodes. The specification of the Instant Application likewise states that the fibers are not limited in material or state, provided that they have electrical conductivity between electrodes in Pars.0015, 0045. The prior art Oshima fiber 100 is formed by spinning a plurality of carbon nanotubes that physically contact one another within the resulting fiber structure. Thus, describing structure 100 as a fiber does not establish that it is a single constituent filament; Oshima explicitly discloses multiple constituent nanotubes within that structure. Therefore, Applicant’s distinction based on the short lengths of those constituents does not identify a length requirement in claim 1.
Furthermore, Oshima conveys structure 100 lengthwise between supply and take up bobbins 10 and 11, maintains electrical contact with a pair of electrodes 14 connected to power source 15, and generates Joule heat at the constituent nanotube contact regions through energization. Accordingly, Oshima’s additional furnace heating and chemical bonding do not negate its disclosure of the claimed movement, electrode contact, and heating by energization. Claim 1 does not require that energization produces carbonization or exclude chemical bonding.
It is further noted that claim 5 requires the fiber bundle includes at least either a stabilized fiber, an infusibilized fiber or a pre-carbonized fiber. The prior art Jeong et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0069666 A1, previously cited) is relied upon to teach stabilized fiber.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art of record Oshima are not persuasive.
Moreover, in response to Applicant’s argument that “claims 1 and 6 are patentable over the applied art.” – see detail on page 7 of the Remarks dated 08/04/2026, Examiner respectfully disagrees because regarding claim 1, Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claim 1 are not persuasive, as explained above. In this case, Oshima in view of Kishimoto properly teaches all limitations recited in independent claim 1, see detail in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejection section below regarding the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is withdrawn from consideration because claim 6 belongs to the non-elected invention. Applicant elected Group I (claims 1-5) in the Response to Election/Restriction Filed on 02/24/2026. Examiner replied to Applicant’s arguments regarding the restriction requirement in the Non-Final Office Action dated 05/05/2026 and insisted that the restriction requirement is deemed proper and that Group II (consisting of claim 6) is withdrawn from consideration in the Non-Final Office Action dated 05/05/2026. Applicant did not provide any further arguments in the latest response regarding the restriction requirement. Accordingly, claim 6 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 stated “(Currently Amended)”, this should be changed to (Withdrawn-Currently Amended) because claim 6 belongs to the non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.121(c).
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note: Applicant elected Group I (claims 1-5) in the Response to Election/Restriction Filed on 02/24/2026. Examiner replied to Applicant’s arguments regarding the restriction requirement in the Non-Final Office Action dated 05/05/2026 and insisted that the restriction requirement is deemed proper and that Group II (consisting of claim 6) is withdrawn from consideration in the Non-Final Office Action dated 05/05/2026. Applicant did not provide any further arguments in the latest response regarding the restriction requirement. Accordingly, claim 6 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima (JP 2006335624 A, previously cited) in view of Kishimoto et al. (JP 2013099824 A, Translation is attached, newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Oshima discloses a method (Oshima Translated Abstract & Fig.1) comprising:
moving a fiber bundle (fiber 100 comprises multiple carbon nanotubes, Oshima Fig.1, Oshima Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 5 discloses: “The present embodiment provides a manufacturing method in which a carbon nanotube fiber in a fiber is chemically bonded to each other by applying electricity while heating to a fiber (carbon nanotube fiber) made of spun carbon nanotubes. is there.”) to length direction (as shown in Oshima Fig.1 & Oshima Translated Abstract discloses: “The spun carbon nanotube fiber 100 is passed through an electric oven 12 to be heated using 2 bobbins 10 and 11”) so that conductive surface of the fiber bundle (carbon nanotube fiber 100, Oshima Fig.1) is in contact with at least a pair of electrodes (pair of electrodes 14, Oshima Fig.1) (it is known that carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are highly conductive, and Oshima Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 2 discloses: “the electrode 14 and the carbon nanotube fiber 100 are sufficiently in contact with each other in the protective tube 13 by adjusting the positions of both the bobbins 10 and 11 and the rotational torque. Thereby, a current flows through the fiber 100 via the pair of electrodes 14 by the power source 15.”; therefore, conductive surface of the carbon nanotube fiber 100 is in contact with pair of electrodes 14); and
heating the fiber bundle (carbon nanotube fiber 100, Oshima Fig.1) by applying a voltage between at least the pair of electrodes (pair of electrodes 14, Oshima Fig.1) (Oshima Translated Document from the last paragraph on page 5 to the first paragraph on page 6 discloses: “while heating the fiber 100 with the electric furnace 12 as a heating means, an electric current is sent with respect to the fiber 100 of the state heated via the pair of electrodes 14 and the power supply 15 as an electricity supply means. Here, the heating temperature can be, for example, about 500 ° C. to 1300 ° C. The contact portions of the carbon nanotubes in the fiber 100 are chemically bonded to each other by energy generated by heating and energization.”, and Oshima Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 11 discloses: “by heating, the entire carbon nanotube fiber is activated to a certain extent for the reaction of chemical bonding, and further, Joule heat is applied to this contact portion by energization utilizing the high resistance of the physical contact portion described above. To generate chemical bonds.”; therefore, Oshima discloses applying voltage between the pair of electrodes 14 to pass current through the carbon nanotube fiber 100, whereby Joule heating is generated within the carbon nanotube fiber 100, thereby heating the carbon nanotube fiber 100);
wherein at least either electrode in the pair of electrodes (pair of electrodes 14, Oshima Fig.1) has an aggregating structure (groove 14a, Oshima Fig.2a) that aggregates the fiber bundle (carbon nanotube fiber 100, Oshima Fig.1) while being in contact with an outer surface of the fiber bundle (outer surface of the carbon nanotube fiber 100, Oshima Fig.1) (It is noted that the Instant Application defines “an aggregating structure that aggregates the fiber bundle” as “The fiber bundle is in a state of being aggregated by the aggregating structure of the electrodes (a state in which fibers that constitute the fiber bundle are converged in close contact with each other). This allows the fiber bundle to maintain a state of stably contacting the electrodes (aggregating structure) over a wide area without fluttering even during the movement between the electrodes.” in Par.0012 of the Instant Application. In this case, the prior art Oshima groove 14a of each electrode 14 positions and retains the carbon nanotube fiber 100 in stable contact with the electrodes 14, thereby ensuring continuous current flow through the carbon nanotube fiber 100; therefore, the groove 14a aggregates the carbon nanotube fiber 100 while being in contact with outer surface of the carbon nanotube fiber 100);
the electrode (electrodes 14, Oshima Figs.1 & 2a) having the aggregating structure (each electrode 14 has groove 14a, Oshima Fig.2a) is a rotating body (as shown in Oshima Figs.1 & 2a, and Oshima Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 4 also teaches: “a pair of electrode 14 is made into a roller shape in order to enable such rotation”)
Oshima does not explicitly disclose:
the aggregating structure is a trench having a bottom portion and wall portions, the bottom portion has a semicircular cross section pointing toward a rotation center of the rotating body, the wall portions extend parallel to a radial direction of the rotating body from both end edges of the bottom portion.
Kishimoto teaches a roller (roller 12, Kishimoto Fig.3) having a rotating body (body of the roller 12, Kishimoto Fig.3) and an aggregating structure (groove 20, Kishimoto Fig.3):
the aggregating structure (groove 20, Kishimoto Fig.3) is a trench (main portion 24 and guide portion 26, Kishimoto Fig.3) (Kishimoto Translated Document on page 2 – second paragraph from the bottom of page 2 teaches: “Each groove 20 includes a main portion 24 and a guide portion 26.”) having a bottom portion (bottom portion 32, Kishimoto Fig.3) and wall portions (side wall portions 34, Kishimoto Fig.3), the bottom portion (bottom portion 32, Kishimoto Fig.3) has a semicircular cross section (Kishimoto Fig.3 shows the bottom portion 32 has a semicircular cross section, and Kishimoto Translated Document on page 2 – last paragraph teaches: “The bottom 32 has a semicircular cross-sectional shape. What is indicated by an arrow R in FIG. 3 is the radius of curvature of the bottom 32.”) pointing toward a rotation center (rotation center, Kishimoto annotated Fig.2 below) of the rotating body (body of the roller 12, Kishimoto Figs.1, 3) (Kishimoto teaches the bottom portion 32 pointing toward a rotation center of the body of the roller 12 because as shown in Kishimoto Figs.1-3), the wall portions (side wall portions 34, Kishimoto Fig.3) extend parallel to a radial direction (radial direction, Kishimoto annotated Fig.2 below) of the rotating body (body of the roller 12, Kishimoto Figs.1, 3) from both end edges of the bottom portion (bottom portion 32, Kishimoto Fig.3) (Kishimoto Figs.2-3 shows that the side wall portions 34 extend parallel to a radial direction of the body of the roller 12 from both end edges of the bottom portion 32).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Oshima, by making the groove to be trench having a bottom portion and wall portions, the bottom portion has a semicircular cross section pointing toward a rotation center of the rotating body, the wall portions extend parallel to a radial direction of the rotating body from both end edges of the bottom portion, as taught by Kishimoto, in order to facilitate placement of the fiber into the groove and restrain lateral displacement or escape during conveyance because the Kishimoto groove combines U-shaped lower portion, which restrains lateral movement and escape, with a widened, tapered entrance, which guides the fiber into that lower portion; thus, ensure precise alignment during continuous processing of the carbon nanotube fiber. Therefore, the modification enhances the consistency of electrical contact between the electrodes and the carbon nanotube fiber for delivering current to generate localized Joule heating, and thus, improve contact stability and process performance.
Regarding claim 3, Oshima in view of Kishimoto teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Oshima in view of Kishimoto also teaches:
the trench (main portion 24 and guide portion 26, Kishimoto Fig.3; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) (Kishimoto Translated Document on page 2 – second paragraph from the bottom of page 2 teaches: “Each groove 20 includes a main portion 24 and a guide portion 26.”) is located in an outer surface of the rotating body (body of the roller 12, Kishimoto Figs.1, 3) (Kishimoto Fig.3 shows that the trench having main portion 24 and guide portion 26 is located in an outer surface of the body of the roller 12. It is noted that the trench having main portion 24 and guide portion 26 is already incorporated into the Oshima electrode, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 4, Oshima in view of Kishimoto teaches the method set forth in claim 3, Oshima in view of Kishimoto also teaches:
wherein the trench (main portion 24 and guide portion 26, Kishimoto Fig.3; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) (Kishimoto Translated Document on page 2 – second paragraph from the bottom of page 2 teaches: “Each groove 20 includes a main portion 24 and a guide portion 26.”) has a sloping part (guide portion 26, Kishimoto Fig.3) in the outer surface of the rotating body (body of the roller 12, Kishimoto Figs.1, 3) (Kishimoto Fig.3 shows that the guide portion 26 in the outer surface of the body of the roller 12. It is noted that the trench having main portion 24 and guide portion 26 is already incorporated into the Oshima electrode, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 7, Oshima in view of Kishimoto teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Oshima in view of Kishimoto also teaches:
wherein a width (width W1, Kishimoto Fig.3) between the wall portions (side wall portions 34, Kishimoto Fig.3) is equal to or greater than twice a radius (R, Kishimoto Fig.3) of the semicircular cross section of the bottom portion (bottom portion 32, Kishimoto Fig.3) (It is noted that the limitation “equal to or greater than” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Kishimoto Fig.3 & Kishimoto Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 4 teach that the width between the side wall portions 34 is equal to twice the radius R of the semicircular cross section of the bottom portion 32, specifically, Kishimoto Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 4 teaches: “In FIG. 3, the width of the inner end 28 of the guide portion 26 is indicated by the arrow W <b> 1, and the width of the outer end 30 of the guide portion 26 is indicated by the arrow W <b> 2. The width W1 is also the width of the side wall portion34. In this embodiment, the width W 1 is twice the radius of curvature R of the bottom surface 32”).
Regarding claim 8, Oshima in view of Kishimoto teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Oshima in view of Kishimoto also teaches:
wherein a width (width W1, Kishimoto Fig.3) between the wall portions (side wall portions 34, Kishimoto Fig.3) and a radius (R, Kishimoto Fig.3) of the semicircular cross section of the bottom portion (bottom portion 32, Kishimoto Fig.3) are adjusted based on a size of the fiber bundle (wire 16, Kishimoto Fig.3) (Kishimoto Translated Document on page 2 – last paragraph discloses: “the radius of curvature R is equal to or slightly larger than the radius of the wire 16”, and Kishimoto Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 4 teaches: “the width W 1 is twice the radius of curvature R of the bottom surface 32”; therefore, Kishimoto teaches the width W1 between the side wall portions 34 and the radius R of the semicircular cross section of the bottom portion 32 are selected based on a size of the wire 16, thus, Kishimoto teaches the width W1 between the side wall portions 34 and the radius R of the semicircular cross section of the bottom portion 32 are adjusted based on a size of the wire 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the method of Oshima in view of Kishimoto, by making the width between the wall portions and the radius of the semicircular cross section of the bottom portion are adjusted based on size of the fiber bundle, as taught by Kishimoto, in order to accommodate the fiber bundle size and restrain lateral displacement within the electrode groove, thereby maintaining stable electrical contact between the moving fiber bundle and the electrode for consistent current delivery during heat treatment.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima (JP 2006335624 A, previously cited) in view of Kishimoto et al. (JP 2013099824 A, Translation is attached, newly cited), and further in view of Jeong et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0069666 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Oshima in view of Kishimoto teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Oshima in view of Kishimoto does not explicitly teach:
wherein the fiber bundle includes at least either a stabilized fiber, an infusibilized fiber or a pre-carbonized fiber.
Jeong teaches a method (Jeong Abstract & Fig.1):
wherein the fiber bundle includes at least either a stabilized fiber, an infusibilized fiber or a pre-carbonized fiber (It is noted that the limitation “at least either a stabilized fiber, an infusibilized fiber or a pre-carbonized fiber” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Jeong teaches a stabilized fiber because Jeong Par.0016 teaches: “stabilizing the carbon nanotube fibers dried in the step (b) through heat treatment at 100 to 400.degree. C. under air atmosphere”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Oshima in view of Kishimoto, by adding the teaching of the fiber bundle includes stabilized fiber, as taught by Jeong, in order to improve mechanical strength and enhance electrical and thermal conductivity; and therefore, improve electrode energizing and chemical bonding efficiency, and prevent deformation.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Jin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2019/0345638 A1) discloses an apparatus for continuous needless electrospinning of a liquid polymer source into a nanoscale or submicron scale polymer fiber web including an electrospinning enclosure, a wire drive system located external to the electrospinning enclosure and a plurality of continuous electrode wires. The electrospinning enclosure includes and electrospinning zone and one or more liquid polymer coating devices where liquid polymer is coated onto the plurality of continuous electrode wires. The plurality of continuous electrode wires are parallel to each other, engaged with the wire drive system, and extend through the electrospinning enclosure and the one or more liquid polymer coating devices located therein.
Grohmann et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0348874 A1) discloses a semi-finished fiber product lay-up head for laying flat semi-finished fiber products, the semi-finished fiber product lay-up head having an electrically conductive electrode which is contacted with the semi-finished fiber products to be layed.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 10/07/2026
Prosecution Insights