DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Acknowledgement is made of amendments filed 07/21/2026. Upon entering the amendments, claim 16 is canceled, claims 20-25 are added, and claims 2-9, 14-15, and 17-19 are amended. The claims 1-15 and 17-25 are pending and presented for the examination.
Objection Withdrawn
Claim 16 is canceled, and the objection previously set forth for the claim is therefore withdrawn.
Rejections Over USC 112 Withdrawn
Claims 4 and 8-9 have been amended to overcome the indefiniteness rejections set forth in the previous office action. Therefore, these grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-13, 21-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being rejected by Zhu et al (US 7001859).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu et al teaches a thermal barrier coating material that constitutes a high entropy oxide material in that it has the low thermal conductivity called for by the instant disclosure and it comprises multiple component oxides; the Zhu material can also comprise five differing oxides, and as such, it meets the preamble definition of a HEO material. The Zhu et al material has a thermal conductivity of 0.5-0.72 W·m-1K-1, and as such meets the further limitations of the instant claim. Claim 1 is therefore anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, the Zhu et al material is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of instant claim 1; the Zhu material can comprise the five separate oxides that the instant Specification discloses as leading to the scattering properties of the claimed material (see Table 3). As such, the total scattering of the Zhu material is inherently also equivalent to that of the instantly claimed material, and would have a value above 35. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 3, the Zhu et al material is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of instant claim 1; the Zhu material can comprise the five separate oxides that the instant Specification discloses as leading to the scattering properties of the claimed material (see Table 3). As such, the total scattering of the Zhu material is inherently also equivalent to that of the instantly claimed material, and would have a value above 30. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 4, the Zhu et al material is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of instant claim 1, and further has a thermal conductivity below the level of claim 1. The instant Specification discloses that the thermal inertia property of the material is resultant from the composition and that a low thermal conductivity leads to a low value for this thermal inertia property. As such, the thermal inertia of the Zhu material is inherently also equivalent to that of the instantly claimed material, and would have a value of less than 3.0 J m-2 K-1 s-1/2. MPEP 2112.01 states "A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present."
Regarding claim 5, the Zhu et al material is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of instant claim 1, and further has a thermal conductivity below the level of claim 1. As such, the specific heat capacity of the Zhu material is inherently also equivalent to that of the instantly claimed material, and would have a value of less than 900 J kg-1 K-1. MPEP 2112.01 states "A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present."
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, Zhu et al teaches that the inventive material is used as a thermal barrier coating.
Regarding claim 9, Zhu et al teaches that the inventive material is usable as a thermal barrier coating for combustors (see column 13, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 10, Zhu et al teaches embodiments wherein the material comprises five different oxides (see Table 3, example 4). The material can thus be represented by MxOy with M representing the oxide-forming cations.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above, the Zhu et al material can be represented by MxOy with M representing the oxide-forming cations, and teaches embodiments wherein the cations include lanthanide elements (see Table 3).
Regarding claim 13, as discussed above, the Zhu et al material can be represented by MxOy with M representing the oxide-forming cations, and teaches embodiments wherein the cations include transition metal yttrium (see Table 3).
Regarding claim 21, Zhu et al teaches that the inventive material is a ceramic alloy solid solution wherein the base oxide and dopant oxides are present in a single phase solid solution (see column 4, lines 50-60). As discussed above, Zhu et al teaches that the inventive material can comprise five oxides.
Regarding claim 22, the Zhu et al material is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of instant claim 21; the Zhu material can comprise the five separate oxides that the instant Specification discloses as leading to the scattering properties of the claimed material (see Table 3). As such, the total scattering of the Zhu material is inherently also equivalent to that of the instantly claimed material, and would have a value above 30. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 24, the Zhu et al material is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of instant claim 21; the Zhu material can comprise the five separate oxides that the instant Specification discloses as leading to the scattering properties of the claimed material (see Table 3). As such, the total scattering of the Zhu material is inherently also equivalent to that of the instantly claimed material, and would have a value above 35. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 25, Zhu et al teaches a thermal barrier coating material that constitutes a high entropy oxide material in that it has the low thermal conductivity called for by the instant disclosure and it comprises multiple component oxides; the Zhu material can also comprise five differing oxides, and as such, it meets the preamble definition of a HEO material. The Zhu et al material has a thermal conductivity of 0.5-0.72 W·m-1K-1, and Zhu et al teaches that the inventive material is a ceramic alloy solid solution wherein the base oxide and dopant oxides are present in a single phase solid solution (see column 4, lines 50-60). Claim 25 is therefore anticipated by the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 6-7, 11, 14-19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (US 7001859).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu et al teaches that the inventive thermal barrier coating material can be substantially composed of tetragonal phase (see column 9, lines 1-10 and claim 22). The quantitative percentage of tetragonal phase is not specified. However, examples are taught wherein the dopant content of the material is less than 10%, and thus the balance zirconia content is greater than 90%. Routine choosing by one of ordinary skill of tetragonal phase for this zirconia portion would therefore lead to a material having greater than 90% tetragonal zirconia phase. The further limitations of instant claim 6 are therefore met by the Zhu et al teachings, and the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 7, Zhu et al does not quantitatively specify any oxide vacancy concentration. Because the thermal barrier coating material taught by Zhu et al is equivalent to that of the instant claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this lack of teaching of oxide vacancies would indicate that the concentration of these can be near 0, and as such the value 0.05 of claim 7 is rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, the Zhu et al material can be represented by MxOy with M representing the oxide-forming cations. Zhu further teaches that the material can comprise MgO as dopant (see claim 2). Therefore, routine optimization and experimentation with the small and finite list of dopants taught by Zhu would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to a thermal barrier coating according to Zhu that contains MgO and thus meets the further limitation of instant claim 11. Therefore, the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 14, Zhu et al teaches that the inventive thermal barrier coating material comprise ZrO2 balance as the primary component, and contains Y2O3 as the primary stabilizer. The material further contains dopants that can comprise M2O3 oxides and MO2 oxides (see claims 1-2). The Y2O3 (stabilizer) amount of 2-25 mol% overlaps the corresponding range for this component of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Similarly, the ranges taught by Zhu et al for the dopant components overlap those of the instant claim for the M2O3 components. In the Zhu et al material, the A dopant component can comprise a MO2 oxide and the B dopant component is a M2O3 oxide. As such, routine optimization and experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art in choosing a MO2 A dopant, and with the overlapping ranges, would lead a skilled artisan to a material comprising Y2O3, MO2, and M2O3 in amounts falling within the ranges of the instant claim 14. As above, per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. The remainder in these compositions would be ZrO2. Each limitation of claim 14 is therefore met by the Zhu et al teachings, and the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 15, Zhu et al teaches that the inventive thermal barrier coating material comprise ZrO2 balance as the primary component, and contains Y2O3 as the primary stabilizer. The material further contains dopants that can comprise M2O3 oxides and MO oxides (see claims 1-2). The Y2O3 (stabilizer) amount of 2-25 mol% overlaps the corresponding range for this component of the instant claim when converted to percentage by weight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Similarly, the ranges taught by Zhu et al for the dopant components overlap those of the instant claim for the M2O3 components. In the Zhu et al material, the A dopant component can comprise a MO oxide and the B dopant component is a M2O3 oxide. As such, routine optimization and experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art in choosing a MO A dopant, and with the overlapping ranges, would lead a skilled artisan to a material comprising Y2O3, MO, and M2O3 in amounts falling within the ranges of the instant claim 15. As above, per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. The remainder in these compositions would be ZrO2. Each limitation of claim 15 is therefore met by the Zhu et al teachings, and the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 16, Zhu et al teaches that the inventive thermal barrier coating material comprise ZrO2 balance as the primary component, and contains Y2O3 as the primary stabilizer. The material further contains dopants that can comprise M2O3 oxides and MO2 oxides (see claims 1-2). The Y2O3 (stabilizer) amount of 2-25 mol% overlaps the corresponding range for this component of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Similarly, the ranges taught by Zhu et al for the dopant components overlap those of the instant claim for the M2O3 components. In the Zhu et al material, the A dopant component can comprise a MO2 oxide and the B dopant component is a M2O3 oxide. As such, routine optimization and experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art in choosing a MO2 A dopant, and with the overlapping ranges, would lead a skilled artisan to a material comprising Y2O3, MO2, and M2O3 in amounts falling within the ranges of the instant claim 16. As above, per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. The remainder in these compositions would be ZrO2. Each limitation of claim 16 is therefore met by the Zhu et al teachings, and the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 17, Zhu et al teaches that the inventive thermal barrier coating material comprise ZrO2 balance as the primary component, and contains Y2O3 as the primary stabilizer. The material further contains dopants that can comprise M2O3 oxides, MO2 oxides, and/or MO oxides (see claims 1-2). The Y2O3 (stabilizer) amount of 2-25 mol% overlaps the corresponding range for this component of the instant claim when converted to percentage by weight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Similarly, the ranges taught by Zhu et al for the dopant components overlap those of the instant claim for the M2O3 components. In the Zhu et al material, the A dopant component can comprise a MO2 and/or MO oxide and the B dopant component is a M2O3 oxide. As such, routine optimization and experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art in choosing MO2 and MO compounds as the A dopants, and with the overlapping ranges, would lead a skilled artisan to a material comprising Y2O3, MO, MO2, and M2O3 in amounts falling within the ranges of the instant claim 17. As above, per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. The remainder in these compositions would be ZrO2. Each limitation of claim 17 is therefore met by the Zhu et al teachings, and the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 18, Zhu et al teaches that the inventive thermal barrier coating material comprise ZrO2 balance as the primary component, and contains Y2O3 as the primary stabilizer. The material further contains dopants that can comprise M2O3 oxides, MO2 oxides, and/or MO oxides (see claims 1-2). The Y2O3 (stabilizer) amount of 2-25 mol% overlaps the corresponding range for this component of the instant claim when converted to percentage by weight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Similarly, the ranges taught by Zhu et al for the dopant components overlap those of the instant claim for the M2O3 components. In the Zhu et al material, the A dopant component can comprise a MO2 and/or MO oxide and the B dopant component is a M2O3 oxide. As such, routine optimization and experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art in choosing MO2 and MO compounds as the A dopants, and with the overlapping ranges, would lead a skilled artisan to a material comprising Y2O3, MO, MO2, and M2O3 in amounts falling within the ranges of the instant claim 18. As above, per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. The remainder in these compositions would be ZrO2. Each limitation of claim 18 is therefore met by the Zhu et al teachings, and the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 19, Zhu et al teaches that MgO can be a MO compound as a dopant component of the inventive material. Zhu et al further teaches that Yb2O3 can be a dopant component, and that TiO2 can be an A dopant component.
Regarding claim 23, Zhu et al does not quantitatively specify any oxide vacancy concentration. Because the thermal barrier coating material taught by Zhu et al is equivalent to that of the instant claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this lack of teaching of oxide vacancies would indicate that the concentration of these can be near 0, and as such the value 0.05 of claim 23 is rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a material according to instant claim 1, wherein the material comprises five or more oxides each in an amount of 5 mol% or greater.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The arguments are based on the contention that the previously applied prior art to Zhu et al does not teach an HEO with the properties of the instant claims. Applicant argues that it is incorrect to take the presence of multiple oxide components, and infer that this necessarily leads to an HEO with the claimed properties; applicant further contends that the Office did not identify any Zhu et al teaching that shows its multi-component oxide would have the “structural and thermal characteristics required of the claimed HEO materials”. As they pertain to instant claim 1, these arguments are not commensurate in scope with what is actually in the claims. Claim 1 contains a limitation only to the property of thermal conductivity, and as discussed in the previous Office Action and above, Zhu et al teaches a thermal barrier oxide material having thermal conductivity of 0.5-0.72 W·m-1K-1, and thus meeting the thermal characteristic required of the claimed HEO material.
Any further characteristics that applicant may feel are required of their disclosed HEO materials are not germane to the patentability of claim 1, because any further features are not found in the claims. Applicant has not, in the instant disclosure, specifically defined “high entropy oxide (HFO)” to necessarily mean that a material has any particular quantitative features, and thus applicant has not given any special definition to said HFO term that would mean that the Zhu et al material does not meet the term definition as a claim limitation. Applicant’s citation of the content of paragraph 0007 in the instant remarks only shows that applicant has contemplated certain properties and whether or not they are present in what they take to be HFOs. The cited sections are not showings that the term “HFO” must necessarily have any of the features (atomic size, mass variance, heat capacity), and as these features are not in the instant claims, their presence or lack thereof in the Zhu et al teachings is not a persuasive showing of any difference at all between the prior art thermal barrier oxide material and the instantly disclosed material.
These same conclusions also pertain to the cited portions of the instant disclosure at paragraphs 0010-011 and 0017 of the Specification. A single-phase structure is not found in any of the claims previously examined, and as such its presence is not a showing of any difference between the Zhu et al materials and that described in said claims. Further, while the Specification may show property variations between different HEO compositions, these teachings are not persuasive at showing differences between the instantly claimed HEO material and that of Zhu et al. As the arguments in this regard pertain to at least claim 1, the properties in question are either not present in the claim itself, or are met by the Zhu et al material (thermal conductivity), and thus any variation showing by the Table of the instant Specification is not persuasive evidence of any claim feature not found in Zhu et al.
Applicant further argues that the previously presented rejections are based on the Zhu et al materials being compositionally and structurally equivalent to those of the instant claims and thus necessarily meet the further property limitations of i.e. claims 2-5, and applicant contends that this equivalence does not properly stem from the Zhu et al teachings. Regarding this argument, applicant asserts that the instant Specification shows that the presence of multiple oxide components alone does not result in a high entropy oxide material having the claimed properties, and that the claimed HEO materials result from the particular selection and combination of oxide constituents to achieve the claimed thermal properties. As discussed above, the contentions regarding a material with the claimed properties being different from the Zhu et al material is not persuasive, in that many instant claims do not contain any limitation to a property shown to be variable according to composition, in i.e. Table 1.
Regarding the second line of argument, that the claimed HEO materials result from the particulate combination of oxide constituents, this contention seems to be based on the instantly claimed compositions being a critical feature that would not be obvious from the ranges taught by Zhu et al. In as much as this is the argument regarding the Zhu et al compositional teachings, it is not persuasive. To show that the instantly disclosed and claimed compositional features are critical (that they lead to the desired properties), applicant cites the exemplary embodiments of Table 1 to show variation in properties between different HFO materials. However, these showings are insufficiently specific and do not constitute evidence of criticality, because they are not a comparison between compositions falling within the instantly claimed embodiments and compositions outside of the claimed ranges.
The previous Office Action showed that each of the components of the instantly claimed HFOs are taught by Zhu et al in ranges overlapping, and thus rendering obvious, the corresponding ranges of the instant claims. It was further shown that routine experimentation and optimization of the Zhu et al ranges would lead to compositions that are the same as those of the instant claims and disclosure, and that would therefore have the same properties. This prima facie case of obvious based on the range overlap is not overcome by applicant’s arguments and the embodiments cited. Said embodiments, i.e. HEO-4, 7, 8, and 12, are only described in terms of broad ranges of the components; the embodiments are not taught as specific quantitative compositions. There is therefore no evidence of specific compositions leading to the desired results, and other compositions that do not lead to the desired results. As discussed above, there are only assertions that not all HEO have these desirable properties.
The cited Specification portions thus contain no persuasive showing of criticality for any particular range or portion of the broadly disclosed compositions, and therefore also no successful argument that the previously issued grounds of prima facie obviousness rejections should be withdrawn. It is not evident from the instant Specification which quantitative oxide combinations would lead to HEOs having the supposed unexpected and desirable properties, and which would not. This is because the actual exemplary embodiments disclosed are only described in broad compositional ranges, not specific materials one of ordinary skill in the art could actually reproduce. Therefore, when stating that certain HEO exemplary embodiments (HEO-4, etc) have the desirable properties, one of ordinary skill would have not have a specific understand of which compositions actually meet the desirable criteria. Should it be assumed that each and every combination within the broad ranges used to describe the named embodiments leads to unexpected/desirable results, while any combination outside of these broad ranges does not? There is no comparison made with compositions outside of any ranges, and thus the Specification does not contain evidence showing criticality; one of ordinary skill would not have been able to make the aforementioned determination as to which actual compositions to use that would be expected to have the desirable results.
Because the arguments regarding criticality are not persuasive at overcoming the rejections based on resulting equivalent compositions, it remains the case that the Zhu et al teachings would lead to materials meeting each compositional limitation of the instant claims. As the claimed properties stem from the compositions, these equivalent Zhu et al compositions would therefore also meet the instant property limitations. The previously issued grounds of rejection are therefore maintained for pending claims 1-15 and 17-19.
Conclusion
12. Claims 1-15, 17-19, and 21-25 are rejected. Claim 20 is objected to.
13. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW23 September 2026
Prosecution Insights