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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final rejection in response to the amendments and arguments filed 01/23/2026. Claims 1, 3-15 and 17-18 are currently pending with claims 8-15 withdrawn from consideration, claims 1, 3-7 and 18 amended (of the elected claims), and claims 2, 16 and 19 canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026, with respect to the art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to arguments on page 9 to 10 of the response, examiner contends that the limitations, amendment to the claims, of “dry” fibre-reinforced layers is new matter. See rejection below.
In response to arguments to the amendments of limitations of “two connected layers with two different properties, the two connected layers with two different properties,” examiner contends that the combination of prior art still teaches the limitation. The prior art Dah’515, for instance, teaches that a pre-impregnated fibre (¶ [0068], layers of 237 for instance) which has a top layer and a bottom layer and are connected by other layers. Further, the prior art Dahl ‘404 teaches the application adhesion promoter to a surface layer and thus only one layer would have this promoter and this layer having a different property than further layers by virtue of having the adhesion promoter. See rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 recite “a number of dry fibre-reinforced layers” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant points to support from ¶ [0039]-[0043], of the publication of the application, and that the limitation “is supported in the specification in that the fibre-reinforced layers are not impregnated before being placed on the moulding surface and then such layers are subsequently infused with a resin.” However, examiner disagrees that the cited paragraphs support the fibre-reinforced layers being dry. The absence of designating the fibre-reinforced layers as pre-impregnated does not convey to one of ordinary skills in the art of the fibers being dry. Similarly, the fact that the fibre-reinforced layers are infused with resin does not convey that the fiber layers are dry as the pre-impregnated sheet in the system is also infused with resin. One having ordinary skills in the art understands that various forms of fibers in various resin stages may be incorporated in an infusion process. Such layers, in various resin stages, is understood to be fully cured or semi cured and further have some form of tackiness when layered in a mold. Thus the subject matter, of “dry fibre-reinforced layers,” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2012/0067515 to Dahl et al. (Dahl ‘515) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0093656 to Esaki et al. (Esaki) in view of in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0245286 to Younes (Younes) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0308404 to Dahl et al. (Dahl ‘404).
In Reference to Claim 1
Dahl ‘515 discloses a blade shell member for a wind turbine blade (Fig. 3, 152 and 154 for instance), comprising:
a pre-manufactured spar cap (Figs. 3 and 5, portion 133 of 130 for instance, the spar structure, reinforcing element, being pre-fabricated for instance, see also ¶ [0014]);
a number of fiber-reinforced layers (152 and 154 for instance), and
a pre-impregnated fibre sheet (Figs. 8-9, 237 or 337 for instance, see also ¶ [0019]),
wherein the pre-impregnated fibre sheet extends in a longitudinal direction (along reinforcement element 230 or 330 for instance) and in a transverse direction (left to right extension for instance), the pre-impregnated fiber sheet (237 or 337) comprising two connected layers (¶ [0068], layers of 237 and having at least an upper layer of the layers and a lower layer of the layers and connected by further layers for instance), the two connected layers with comprising a first fibre layer forming part of an upper surface of the pre-impregnated fibre sheet (237 or 337, an upper layer of the layers) and a second fibre layer forming part of a lower surface of the pre-impregnated fibre sheet (237 or 337, a lower layer of the layers for instance),
wherein the pre-impregnated fibre sheet (237 for instance) is arranged at an interface between the pre-manufactured spar cap (233 for instance) and remaining parts of the blade shell member (152 and 154, see also figure 3), such that the first fibre layer (a layer of 237 adjacent 233 for instance) faces the pre-manufactured spar cap (faces 233 for instance) and the second fibre layer (a layer of 237 having bonding surface 234 for instance) faces the number of fibre-reinforced layers (of the shell part with 152 and 154 for instance, see figure 3), and
wherein the first fibre layer (Fig. 8, an upper layer of the layers of 237 for instance and adjacent 233) facilitates adhesion (¶ [0019], ensured bonding strength for instance) between the pre-manufactured spar cap (233 of 230 for instance) and the pre-impregnated fibre sheet (237 for instance), and
wherein the second fibre layer facilitates adhesion to the number of fibre-reinforced layers during resin infusion (see ¶ [0002] and [0068]).
Dahl ‘515 does not teach the fiber-reinforced layers being “... dry ...”, the two connected layers “... with two different properties ...“ or “... wherein the first fibre layer is pre-impregnated with an adhesion promoter, wherein the second fibre layer is not pre-impregnated with the adhesion promoter ....”
Esaki is related to a composite structure for a wind turbine blade with a spar formed with an outer skin of the blade (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a number of layers that form the outer skin of the blade are dry fiber-reinforced layers (¶ [0005] and [0010]).
Younes is related to a composite structure of pre-impregnated fibre sheet (¶ [0032], multi-ply mat structures capable of being impregnated with resin for instance) comprising a fibre layer (¶ [0032]), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the fibre layer is pre-impregnated with an adhesion promoter (¶ [0032], pre-treating of the reinforcing fibres with adhesion promoters for instance).
Dahl ‘404 is related to a blade shell member with an adhesion promoter (¶ [0128], primer for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches that the adhesion promoter may be applied to an outer surface of the spar cap before attachment to a blade shell (¶ [0128], applied to an outer surface and thus only to an outer layer for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Dahl ‘515 wherein the number of fiber-reinforced layers are dry fiber-reinforced layers (as taught by Esaki), wherein the first fibre layer (an outer layer of the layers of Dahl ‘515 for instance) is pre-impregnated with an adhesion promoter (as taught by Younes), and wherein the second fibre layer is not pre-impregnated with the adhesion promoter (the application of adhesion promoter only to an outer surface/layer for instance, as taught by Dahl ‘404, and thus not to other layers) the teachings such that the two connected layers have two different properties (the application of adhesion promoter only to an outer surface/layer for instance, as taught by Dahl ‘404, and thus not to other layers and each having different properties) and such that the second fibre layer (of Dahl ‘515) not being pre-impregnated with the adhesion promoter (as opposite a surface layer, as taught by Dahl ‘404 as applicable to Dahl ‘515) facilitates adhesion to the number of dry (as taught by Esaki) fibre-reinforced layers during resin infusion (of Dahl ‘515), so as to use an art known technique (of using dry fiber-reinforced layers in the forming of wind turbine blades as taught by Esaki, and of using adhesion promoters in wind turbine fibre reinforced composite systems as taught by Younes and Dahl ‘404) into the system of Dahl ‘515 and predictably form the wind turbine blade of Dahl ‘515 including improving adhesion of the composite portions.
In Reference to Claim 7
Dahl ‘515, as modified by Esaki, Younes and Dahl ‘404, discloses the blade shell member according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first plurality of fibres or the second plurality of fibres comprises glass fibres (Dahl ‘515, ¶ [0002], the known use of glass fibres to form wind turbine components for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Dahl ‘515 wherein the first and/or second plurality of fibres comprises or essentially consists of glass fibres (the known use of glass fibres to form wind turbine components), so as to use an art known technique (of using glass fibre in the forming of wind turbine components) into the system of Dahl ‘515 and predictably and suitably form the wind turbine blade.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2012/0067515 to Dahl et al. (Dahl ‘515) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0093656 to Esaki et al. (Esaki) in view of in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0245286 to Younes (Younes) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0308404 to Dahl et al. (Dahl ‘404) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/02500308 to Dobosz et al. (Dobosz).
In Reference to Claim 3
Dahl ‘515, as modified by Esaki, Younes and Dahl ‘404, discloses the blade shell member according claim 1, Dahl ‘404 further teaching wherein the adhesion promoter is compatible with at least one of polyester resin, epoxy ester resin, vinyl ester resin (limitations satisfied as being in the alternative), wherein the adhesion promoter is a primer (¶ [00128]), except, "... wherein the adhesion promoter is at least one of isocyanate based, silane based, acrylate based, urethane based ....”
Dobosz is related to the forming of a wind turbine blade (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein an adhesion promoter is at least one of isocyanate based (see ¶ [0249]), silane based (see ¶ [0249]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Dahl ‘515 wherein the adhesion promoter is at least one of isocyanate based, silane based, acrylate based, urethane base (at least isocyanate based or silane based as taught by Dobosz), so as to use an art known technique (of using adhesion promoters, in wind turbine composite systems as taught by Doboz) into the system of Dahl ‘515 and so as to predictably form the wind turbine blade of Dahl ‘515 including improving adhesion of the composite portions.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2012/0067515 to Dahl et al. (Dahl ‘515) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0093656 to Esaki et al. (Esaki) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0245286 to Younes (Younes) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0308404 to Dahl et al. (Dahl ‘404) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2013/0034684 to Meyer et al. (Meyer).
In Reference to Claim 4
Dahl ‘515, as modified by Esaki, Younes Dahl ‘404, discloses the blade shell member according to claim 1, except explicitly, “... wherein the first fibre layer comprises a first plurality of fibres arranged along a first fibre direction and the second fibre layer comprises a second plurality of fibres arranged along a second fibre direction ....”
Meyer is related to a fibre reinforced composite (abstract) having a first fibre layer (Fig. 4, 30 for instance) and a second fibre layer (33 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the first fibre layer (30) comprises a first plurality of fibres (34 of 30 for instance) arranged along a first fibre direction (see lines in 30 for instance) and the second fibre layer (33) comprises a second plurality of fibres (34 of 33 for instance) arranged along a second fibre direction (see lines in 30 for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Dahl ‘515 wherein the first fibre layer (of Dahl ‘515) comprises a first plurality of fibres (of Dhal ‘515) arranged along a first fibre direction (as taught by Meyer) and the second fibre layer (of Dhal ‘515) comprises a second plurality of fibres (of Dahl ‘515) arranged along a second fibre direction (as taught by Meyer), so as to tailor the composite to various loads by arrangement of the fibres in the composite (Meyer ¶ [0002]).
In Reference to Claim 5
Dahl ‘515, as modified by Esaki, Younes, Dahl ‘404 and Meyer, discloses the blade shell member according to claim 4, as further taught by Meyer wherein the first and second fibre directions (of 30 and of 33, respectively, as taught by Meyer for instance) are different (as seen in figure 4, as taught by Meyer) and wherein a fibre angle between the first and second fibre directions is between 40 degrees and 150 degrees (90 degrees for instance, between the directions of fibres in 30 and of fibres in 33 as taught by Meyer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Dahl ‘515 wherein the first and second fibre directions are different (as taught by Meyer) and wherein a fibre angle between the first and second fibre directions is between 40 degrees and 150 degrees, preferably 90 degrees (as taught by Meyer), so as to tailor the composite to various loads by arrangement of the fibres in the composite (Meyer ¶ [0002]).
In Reference to Claim 17
Dahl ‘515, as modified by Esaki, Younes, Dahl ‘404 and Meyer, discloses the blade shell member according to claim 5, wherein the fibre angle is 90 degrees (90 degrees for instance, between the directions of fibres in 30 and of fibres in 33 as taught by Meyer).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2012/0067515 to Dahl et al. (Dahl ‘515) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0093656 to Esaki et al. (Esaki) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0245286 to Younes (Younes) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0308404 to Dahl et al. (Dahl ‘404) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2008062818 to Kawabe (and based on English machine translation)(Kawabe) and US Patent Application Publication 2008/0260954 to Paton et al (Paton).
In Reference to Claim 6
Dahl ‘515, as modified by Esaki, Younes and Dahl ‘404, discloses the blade shell member according to claim 1, except, “... wherein an arrangement of the first plurality of fibres and an arrangement of the second plurality of fibres are maintained in the pre-impregnated fibre sheet relative to each other by a plurality of stitching rows and wherein the plurality of stitching rows are parallel and arranged along a first stitch direction and wherein the first stitch direction is between the first and second fibre directions ....”
Kawabe is related to a fibre reinforced composite fibre sheet (abstract, see also figure 1, 11) having a first fibre layer (21D for instance) and a second fibre layer (21A for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the arrangement of the first plurality of fibres (21D) and the arrangement of the second plurality of fibres (21A) are maintained in the fibre sheet (11) relative to each other by a plurality of stitching rows (51) and wherein the plurality of stitching rows are parallel and arranged along a first stitch direction (as seen in figure 1 for instance).
Paton is related to a fibre reinforced composite fibre sheet (abstract) having a first fibre layer and a second fibre layer (see layers in figure 2b for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches and wherein a first stitch direction (of 32 for instance) is between a first and second fibre directions (of adjacent layers at top and middle for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Dahl ‘515 wherein the arrangement of the first plurality of fibres (of Dahl ‘515) and the arrangement of the second plurality of fibres (of Dahl ‘515) are maintained in the pre-impregnated fibre sheet (of Dahl ‘515) relative to each other by a plurality of stitching rows (as taught by Kawabe) and wherein the plurality of stitching rows are parallel and arranged along a first stitch direction (as taught by Kawabe) and wherein the first stitch direction is between (as taught by Paton) the first and second fibre directions (of Dahl ‘515), so as to use an art known technique (of stitching of pre-arranged fibres in a fibre sheet as taught by Kawabe and Paton) into the system of Dahl ‘515 and predictably form the wind turbine blade of Dahl ‘515 including holding the fibrous layers during forming.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2012/0067515 to Dahl et al. (Dahl ‘515) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0093656 to Esaki et al. (Esaki) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0252202 to Johnson et al. (Johnson) in view of in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0245286 to Younes (Younes) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0308404 to Dahl et al. (Dahl ‘404).
In Reference to Claim 18
Dahl ‘515 discloses a blade shell member for a wind turbine blade (Fig. 3, 152 and 154 for instance) comprising:
a pre-manufactured spar cap (Figs. 3 and 5, portion 133 of 130 for instance, the spar structure, reinforcing element, being pre-fabricated for instance, see also ¶ [0014]);
a number of fibre-reinforced layers (152 and 154 for instance); and
a pre-impregnated fibre sheet (Figs. 8-9, 237 or 337 for instance, see also ¶ [0019]),
wherein the pre-impregnated fibre sheet extends in a longitudinal direction (along reinforcement element 230 or 330 for instance) and in a transverse direction (left to right extension for instance), the pre-impregnated fibre sheet (237 or 337) comprising two connected layers (¶ [0068], layers of 237 and having at least an upper layer of the layers and a lower layer of the layers and connected by further layers for instance), the two connected layers comprising a first fibre layer forming part of an upper surface of the pre-impregnated fibre sheet (237 or 337, an upper layer of the layers) and a second fibre layer forming part of a lower surface of the pre-impregnated fibre sheet (237 or 337, a lower layer of the layers for instance),
wherein the pre-impregnated fibre sheet (237 for instance) is arranged as a separate sheet (¶ [0018] and [0019], the pre-impregnated fibre sheet being uncured and the pre-manufactured spar cap, reinforcement element, is pre-cured and thus separate elements) at an interface between the pre-manufactured spar cap (233 of 230 for instance) and remaining parts of the blade shell member (Fig. 3, 152 and 154 for instance), and
wherein the first fibre layer (Fig. 8, outer layer of the layers of 237 for instance and adjacent 233) facilitates adhesion (¶ [0019], ensured bonding strength for instance) between the pre-manufactured spar cap (233 of 230 for instance) and the pre-impregnated fibre sheet (237 for instance), and
wherein the second fibre layer facilitates adhesion to the number of fibre-reinforced layers during resin infusion (see ¶ [0002] and [0068]).
Dahl ‘515 does not teach the pre-manufactured spar cap “... comprising a plurality of elongated pultruded elements arranged in a stacked array in a cured resin ...”, the fiber-reinforced layers being “... dry ...”, the two connected layers “... with two different properties ...“ or “... wherein the first fibre layer is pre-impregnated with an adhesion promoter, wherein the second fibre layer is not pre-impregnated with the adhesion promoter ....”
Regarding the limitation the pre-manufactured spar cap “... comprising a plurality of elongated pultruded elements arranged in a stacked array in a cured resin ...”: Johnson is related to a composite with pultruded material (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches a pre-manufactured spar cap comprising a plurality of elongated pultruded elements (¶ [0005]) arranged in a stacked array (see figure 3 for instance) in a cured resin (see ¶ [0005] and [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Dahl ‘515 wherein the pre-manufactured spar cap (of Dahl ‘515) comprises a plurality of elongated pultruded elements arranged in a stacked array in a cured resin (as taught by Johnson), so as to use an art known technique (of using pultruded elements to form spar cap systems in wind turbine blades as taught by Johnson for instance) into the system of Dahl ‘515 and predictably and suitably form the wind turbine blade of Dahl ‘515.
Regarding the limitations the fiber-reinforced layers being “... dry ...”, the two connected layers “... with two different properties ...“ or “... wherein the first fibre layer is pre-impregnated with an adhesion promoter, wherein the second fibre layer is not pre-impregnated with the adhesion promoter ....”:
Esaki is related to a composite structure for a wind turbine blade with a spar formed with an outer skin of the blade (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a number of layers that form the outer skin of the blade are dry fiber-reinforced layers (¶ [0005] and [0010]).
Younes is related to a composite structure of pre-impregnated fibre sheet (¶ [0032], multi-ply mat structures capable of being impregnated with resin for instance) comprising a fibre layer (¶ [0032]), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the fibre layer is pre-impregnated with an adhesion promoter (¶ [0032], pre-treating of the reinforcing fibres with adhesion promoters for instance).
Dahl ‘404 is related to a blade shell member with an adhesion promoter (¶ [0128], primer for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches that the adhesion promoter may be applied to an outer surface of the spar cap before attachment to a blade shell (¶ [0128], applied to an outer surface and thus only to an outer layer for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Dahl ‘515 wherein the number of fiber-reinforced layers are dry fiber-reinforced layers (as taught by Esaki), wherein the first fibre layer (an outer layer of the layers of Dahl ‘515 for instance) is pre-impregnated with an adhesion promoter (as taught by Younes), and wherein the second fibre layer is not pre-impregnated with the adhesion promoter (the application of adhesion promoter only to an outer surface/layer for instance, as taught by Dahl ‘404, and thus not to other layers) the teachings such that the two connected layers have two different properties (the application of adhesion promoter only to an outer surface/layer for instance, as taught by Dahl ‘404, and thus not to other layers and each having different properties) and such that the second fibre layer (of Dahl ‘515) not being pre-impregnated with the adhesion promoter (as opposite a surface layer, as taught by Dahl ‘404 as applicable to Dahl ‘515) facilitates adhesion to the number of dry (as taught by Esaki) fibre-reinforced layers during resin infusion (of Dahl ‘515), so as to use an art known technique (of using dry fiber-reinforced layers in the forming of wind turbine blades as taught by Esaki, and of using adhesion promoters in wind turbine fibre reinforced composite systems as taught by Younes and Dahl ‘404) into the system of Dahl ‘515 and predictably form the wind turbine blade of Dahl ‘515 including improving adhesion of the composite portions.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show the joining of spar portions to shell portions in wind turbine blades including using dry fibres.
Conclusion
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 WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 pm.
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, Nathaniel E Wiehe can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights