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 .
Responsive to communications on 07/23/2024
Claims 1-6 Pending
Claims 1-6 Rejected
Priority
Responsive to application data sheet received on 06/06/2023. Application data sheet claims earliest priority to foreign application JP2020203148 filing date 12/08/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
Responsive to IDS forms received on 06/06/2023 and 07/23/2024. IDS forms accepted by examiner and all references considered.
Drawings
Responsive to drawings filed on 06/06/2023. Drawings accepted by the examiner.
Specification
Responsive to amended abstract received on 06/06/2023. Amended abstract contains less than 150 words and contains no legal or implied phraseology. Abstract is accepted by the examiner.
Responsive to amended specifications received on 06/06/2023. Specification is accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states “and a residual stress determination step of determining, as residual stress of the deformed portion, the stress of the deformed portion at the end of the deformation in the deformation process among the stresses sequentially updated in the sequential stress updating step.
“ Was likely meant to be written as “and a residual stress determination step of determining, residual stress of the deformed portion at the end of the deformation in the deformation process using the stresses sequentially updated in the sequential stress updating step.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites A method of calculating residual stress, the method calculating residual stress of a metal sheet subjected to plastic deformation and comprising: There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should likely be written as “A method of calculating residual stress of a metal sheet subjected to plastic deformation, comprising” or “A method of calculating residual stress of a metal sheet subjected to plastic deformation, the method of calculating residual stress of the metal sheet subjected to plastic deformation comprising:”
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, an abstract idea, which has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? :
YES. The claim recites A method of calculating residual stress, the method calculating residual stress of a metal sheet subjected to plastic deformation and comprising: which is a process.
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?":
YES. Claim 1 recites: a sequential stress updating step of calculating a stress increment of the deformed portion in the deformation process according to a material constitutive model using an acquired strain increment calculated from the strain history and an assumed strain increment calculated, by assuming a deformation state of the deformed portion, from strain other than the strain from which the strain history is acquired,
This claim limitation is a calculation of a numeric value (a stress increment for a given time step) based on numeric data (an acquired strain and an assumed strain) using a mathematic model (a material constitutive model). Where the assumed strain is further calculated using a mathematic calculation. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Because this claim limitation pertains to calculating numeric values using mathematic models, the claim recites an abstract idea.
and sequentially updating stress from a start to an end of deformation of the deformed portion using the calculated stress increment;
Updating stress is the process of performing sequential mathematic calculations to calculate a stress value using a numeric value (the calculated stress increment). The term updating is a textual replacement for the calculation of a new stress value across each time step. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Because this claim limitation pertains to calculations of numeric values, the claim recites an abstract idea.
and a residual stress determination step of determining, as residual stress of the deformed portion, the stress of the deformed portion at the end of the deformation in the deformation process among the stresses sequentially updated in the sequential stress updating step.
Determining the residual stress of the deformed portion at the end of the deformation process is the end result of the sequential updating of stress recited above. The term “determining” is a textual replacement for calculate a residual stress value using the calculated sequential stresses. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Because this claim limitation pertains to calculations of a numeric value, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. Claim 1 additionally recites the method calculating residual stress of a metal sheet subjected to plastic deformation
This claim limitation describes the goal of the process, in that the abstract idea of “calculating residual stress” is applied to metal sheets subjected to plastic deformation. This claim limitations outlines the field in which the judicial exception of performing a mathematic calculation is applied in. The MPEP 2106.05(h) states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” therefore this claim limitation does not apply a judicial exception to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application
a strain history acquisition step of measuring strain of a deformed portion of the metal sheet in a deformation process of plastically deforming the metal sheet and acquiring a strain history of the measured strain;
The strain history acquisition step above is used as a method of gathering data (a strain history) which is then used in the calculations performed above in calculating the stress increment. The MPEP considers Mere Data Gathering: 2106.05(g) as an example of insignificant extra solution activity, with an example being “Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);” This claim limitation is “performing tests on metal to obtain input for an equation. Therefore, this claim limitation is insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
a strain history acquisition step of measuring strain of a deformed portion of the metal sheet in a deformation process of plastically deforming the metal sheet and acquiring a strain history of the measured strain;
When considering if a claim limitation is insignificant extra solution activity, the examiner considers if the additional element is well known, routine, or conventional. In “Measurement of strain history during the stretching of forming-grade steel sheets” by Nandedkar and Narasimhan, Nendedkar_1999 states “It is well known that the strain history (the strain paths) greatly affects the forming limit strains of sheet metals,” where the paper discusses measurements of strain history for metal sheets. Therefore, as understood by the examiner, the limitation of acquiring strain history for a metal sheet is well understood in the art.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 1 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2:
The method of calculating the residual stress according to Claim 1, wherein, in the strain history acquisition step, a strain history of strain in in-plane two directions and in-plane shear strain at the deformed portion are measured by a digital image correlation method, and these strain histories are acquired.
As stated above, the step of acquiring strain history was determined to be mere data gathering. The recitation of “in-plane two directions and in-plane shear strain” is a recitation of what is being gathered which is a further recitation of the insignificant data gathering of strain recited in claim 1. The examiner further understands the digital image correlation method to also be a known method of measuring strain in the art. Garcia-Alcala in “Digital Assisted Image Correlation for Metal Sheet Strain Measurement” states introduction par 1: “One of the most popular methods in mechanics to strain estimation is called Digital Image Correlation (DIC).” Therefore, the method of using DIC method to measure strain is well understood in the art.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 2 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3:The method of calculating the residual stress according to claim 1 wherein, in the sequential stress updating step, the deformation state of the deformed portion is assumed from the deformation process of the deformed portion, and the assumed strain increment is calculated based on a plasticity theory in the assumed deformation state.
This claim further expands on the calculation of residual stress which was determined to recite the judicial exception of mathematic calculation. This modifies the mathematical calculation by outlining the terms used (assumed strain increment is calculated based on plasticity theory, the deformed portion is assumed from the deformation process). Therefore, this claim limitation is a further recitation of the above mathematical calculation.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 3 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4:The method of calculating the residual stress according to claim 1, wherein, in the sequential stress updating step, the deformation state of the deformed portion is assumed by finite element analysis in the deformation process of the metal sheet, and the assumed strain increment is calculated based on the assumed deformation state.
This claim further expands on the calculation of residual stress which was determined to recite the judicial exception of mathematic calculation. This modifies the mathematical calculation by outlining the terms used (assumed strain increment is calculated based on the assumed deformation state, the deformed portion is assumed by finite element analysis). Therefore, this claim limitation is a further recitation of the above mathematical calculation.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 4 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 5 and 6:
Claims 5 and 6 are effectively similar to claims 3 and 4 respectively except that they depend on claim 2. Therefore, claims 5 and 6 are rejected based off the same rational as claims 2, 3, and 4.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claims 5 and 6 are not eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musial_2019 (“Stress field determination based on digital image correlation results”) and Withers_2001 (“Residual stress Part 2 – Nature and origins”)
Claim 1:
Musial_2019 makes obvious A method of calculating page 1191 summary and conclusions: “In the present paper, the original DIC-based stress determination method has been proposed “) the method calculating page 1186 col 2 par 1: “The uniaxial tension and simple shear tests were performed on the samples made from 304L austenitic stainless steel (examiner note: metal). The samples were cut out from the 0.8 mm thick sheet “subjected to plastic deformation and comprising: (abstract: “The aim of this work was to determine the stress distribution during plastic deformation, based on the displacement field obtained using the digital image correlation (DIC) method.”)
a strain history acquisition step of measuring strain of a deformed portion of the metal sheet in a deformation process of plastically deforming the metal sheet and acquiring a strain history of the measured strain; (par 1184: “The analysis presented below concerns two-dimensional case, therefore 2D DIC, and the plane stress condition were applied. In the proposed approach the experimentally obtained evolution of the field of displacement gradient and J2 plasticity constitutive model are used for determining stress distribution. The displacement gradient tensor H obtained from the 2D DIC analysis (examiner note: where the tensor H is used to calculate the strain, where this are mathematically related) … the Hencky strain (true strain) tensor was chosen and was calculated for each instant of the deformation process. (Examiner note: This is the determination/acquisition of a strain history) ”
See also page 1190 col 1 par 1, which makes further obvious that the DIC approach in this paper is used to measure strain in a deformation process: “in the DIC-based approach the strain field used for the stress calculations is measured in the experiment, which takes into account all inaccuracies that influence the deformation process”
a sequential stress updating step of calculating a stress increment of the deformed portion in the deformation process according to a material constitutive model
PNG
media_image1.png
476
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: see figure 1 above. See “Updating” step for I = t1, t2…. Where this is understood to be a sequential stress updating step. See “Hencky strain tensor increment” which is a calculated stress increment. See “plasticity constitutive model” which is understood to be a material constitutive model.
using an acquired strain increment calculated from the strain history (See figure 1 above. “Input from DIC analysis” as a input to the Hencky strain tensor calculation (ie: the calculated strain), where the portion gained from DIC analysis is the acquired strain increment.
and an assumed strain increment calculated, by assuming a deformation state of the deformed portion, from strain other than the strain from which the strain history is acquired, (page 1184 col 2 section 2: “The @uz/@Z and corresponding ezz strain component, which is not measured in 2D DIC analysis, is usually calculated under assumption of a constant volume. Here, the ezz component is calculated iteratively to ensure the plane stress condition. Examiner note: Where the ezz component is the strain from which other than strain history is acquired, since it is not measured in the DIC analysis/strain history.
and sequentially updating stress from a start to an end of deformation of the deformed portion using the calculated stress increment;
(See figure 1 above, iterative loop i=t1, t2 …., which shows an updating of stress parameters e and sigma based on a stress increment)
and a “Fig. 8 – The evolution of distributions of exy (examiners note: the stress) determined using a DIC-based approach and FEA for time instance (a) 25 s, (b) 85 s and (c) 160 s (end of the process).”) among the stresses sequentially updated in the sequential stress updating step. (see figure 1 sequentially updated stresses, where the final updated stresses before writing to final is the final stress determination)
Musial_2019 does not expressly recite residual
Withers_2001 makes obvious residual (page 1 abstract: “Residual stress is that which remains in a body that is stationary and at equilibrium with its surroundings.”)
Musial_2019 and Withers_2001 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called stress modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Musial_2019 and Withers_2001. The rational for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Musial_2019 describes a process which determines stress distribution of a metal sheet during plastic deformation using the DIC method. Musial_2019 does not explicitly state to determine residual stresses, but does model stresses in the deformation, including at the end of the process. Withers_2001 defines residual stress as the stress that remains after deformation. Withers_2001 par 1 states “As the design of engineering components becomes less conservative, there is increasing interest in how residual stress affects mechanical properties. This is because structural failure can be caused by the combined effect of residual and applied stresses. In practice, it is not likely that any manufactured component would be entirely free from residual stresses introduced during processing.” Musial_2019 is also aware of the DIC method being used for residual stresses, see page 1184 col 1 “The DIC method is also used with the hole drilling method for determining residual stresses” One reasonably skilled in the art would recognize that the system of Musial_2019 which gives the stress distribution using the DIC method at the end of the deformation process could be modified to give the residual stress as defined by Withers_2001 by the fact that the DIC method is a known method used for determining residual stresses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to apply the known technique of modeling stresses of Musial_2019 to the known concept of residual stresses of Withers_2001 for the benefit of modeling the stress that remains in the body after plastic deformation process of is complete to help avoid structural failure and to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 2:
The method of calculating the residual stress according to claim 1 wherein, in the strain history acquisition step, (see claim 1 mapping) a strain history of strain in in-plane two directions and in-plane shear strain at the deformed portion are measured by a digital image correlation method, and these strain histories are acquired.
PNG
media_image2.png
185
587
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See equation 1, where the examiner understands the DIC analysis to provide @ux/x and @uy/ay which correspond to a strain history of the strain in in-plane two directions. See below equation 1 “The @uz/@Z and corresponding ezz strain component,” which implies that @ux/x and @uy/ay correspond to the exx and eyy strain components.
Furthermore, where the examiner understands @ux/y and @uy/x terms to represent shear strains. Based on page 1181 conclusion:” Figs. 8 and 9 show the shear strains exy”. Where the @ux/y and @uy/x terms are understood to correspond to the exy component.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musial_2019, Withers_2001, and Cambridge_2016 (“Plane stress”)
Claim 3:Musial_2019 makes obvious The method of calculating the residual stress according to claim 1 wherein, in the sequential stress updating step, (see claim 1)
the deformation state of the deformed portion is assumed page 1184 section 2 par 1: “The analysis presented below concerns two-dimensional case, therefore 2D DIC, and the plane stress condition were applied”)
Examiner note: The examiner would like to remark how this claim limitation is understood. The examiner understands this claim limitation to reference paragraph 28 in the specifications “In general, since the surface of the metal sheet in the deformation process is a free surface, no stress is generated in the direction perpendicular to the surface of the metal sheet. That is, the deformation state of the deformed portion of the metal sheet can be assumed as a plane stress state.“
and the assumed strain increment is calculated based on a plasticity theory in the assumed deformation state. (page 1185 col 1 par 3: “The evolution of the stress tensor is calculated using an elastic-plastic material model with isotropic hardening. At the beginning of each calculation step, the trial elastic stress is obtained using isotropic Hooke's law. Then, the plasticity condition is checked (whether the step is elastic or plastic) according to the Huber–von Mises yield criterion. If the deformation is elastic, the trial stress is correct and the procedure is closed; otherwise, the final stress is calculated using the return mapping algorithm [24]. For the plane stress condition, the modified ezz component is also returned. Finally, the calculated stress, elastic and plastic parts of the strain and equivalent plastic strain are saved and are treated as a new input for the next calculation step.”) Examiner note: Where the examiner understands the usage of a plastic material model which checks for the plasticity condition for the ezz component (the assumed strain increment) to be the usage of plasticity theory
Musial_2019 does not expressly recite from the deformation process of the deformed portion
Musial_2019 states that the plane stress condition is applied, but does not relate the application of the plane stress condition specifically to the deformation process of the deformed portion.
Cambridge_2016 however makes obvious from the deformation process of the deformed portion (par 1: “More generally, plane stress conditions occur in sheet metal forming when a thin sheet is subjected to uniaxial or biaxial tension.”) Examiner note: Where this assumes a plane stress condition based on the deformation process being done.
Musial_2019 and Cambridge_2016 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called stress modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Musial_2019 and Cambridge_2016. The rational for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predicable result.
Cambridge_2016 states that the plane stress condition occurs when a thin sheet is subjected to uniaxial tension. Musial_2019 specifically does uniaxial tension tests on metal sheets, see page 1186 col 2 par 1: “The uniaxial tension and simple shear tests were performed on the samples made from 304L austenitic stainless steel. The samples were cut out from the 0.8 mm thick sheet using electro-erosion machining.” It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make the plane stress condition assumption of Musial_2019 based on the deformation process of Musial_2019 using the understanding from Cambridge_2016 that the deformation process used by Musial_2019 leads to the plane stress assumption. Therefore, it would have been obvious to apply the known technique of making a plane stress assumption based on the deformed portions of Cambridge_2016 with the modeling process of Musial_2019 for the predictable result of making a reasoned assumption to solve the modeling system.
Claim 5:Claim 5 is an effective duplicate to claim 3 except that it depends on claim 2,and is therefore rejected under the same rational as claims 3 and 2.
Claim 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musial_2019, Withers_2001, and Gerbig_2016 (“Coupling digital image correlation and finite element analysis to determine constitutive parameters in necking tensile specimens”)
Claim 4:
The method of calculating the residual stress according to claim 1, wherein, in the sequential stress updating step, (see claim 1)
Musial_2019 does not expressly recite the deformation state of the deformed portion is assumed by finite element analysis in the deformation process of the metal sheet, and the assumed strain increment is calculated based on the assumed deformation state.
Gerbig_2016 however makes obvious the deformation state of the deformed portion is assumed by finite element analysis in the deformation process (page 498 col 2 par 2: “To fit material properties, we compute numerical approximations to the displacement field and the external work done on the specimen (examiner note: deformation) using the finite element method.”) of the metal sheet, (page 500 col 2 par 1: “The coupled FEA-DIC method described in Section 2 is then used to extract the flow stress and stress exponent of the sheet steel. “) and the assumed strain increment is calculated based on the assumed deformation state. (page 497: “In this approach (known as “finite element model updating” or FEMU), a finite element model is constructed of the specimen and is used to predict the displacement and strain fields in the material . … page 498 col 2 par 2 “The finite element computations yield a set of n c nodal displacement increments u b ( Q α) between successive time-steps, and can also be used to compute a numerical approximation to the increment of external work done on the specimen.” Examiner note: Where the displacement field is used to calculate the strain increment, see claim 1. See also page 501 col 1 :” To implement the parameter fitting procedure described in Section 2 , a standard fully implicit radial return algorithm is used to calculate the stress at the end of a plastic strain increment” which shows that Garbig_2016 also uses a strain increment in the calculations.
Musial_2019 and Gerbig_2016 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called stress modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Musial_2019 and Gerbig_2016. The rational for doing so would have been the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
The prior art of Musial_2019 teaches an iterative approach to stress calculation using the DIC method. The prior art of Musial_2019 acknowledges the use of finite element analysis for the same goal, see abstract “The macroscopic force obtained from the DIC-based stresses and its finite element analysis (FEA) equivalent were compared with that measured during the experiment.” Which shows that Musial_2019 understood FEA to be a tangential and related method for the same goal. The prior art of Gerbig_2016 contains an iterative approach which estimates parameters based on a FEA. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that FEA of Gerbig_2016 is a known method in the art which could be used to calculate strain through simulation rather than direct measurement, and one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably apply the known technique of FEA to Musial_2019 to receive information to generate the unknown strains. Therefore, it would have been obvious to apply the strain increment calculation workflow of Musial_2019 with the usage of FEA coupled with DIC for the predictable result of assuming unmeasured strains to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 6:Claim 6 is an effective duplicate to claim 4 except that it depends on claim 2,and is therefore rejected under the same rational as claims 4 and 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD HUSSAM SHALABY whose telephone number is (571)272-7414. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.
/A.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights