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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 5-12, in the reply filed on November 25, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed November 25, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4 have been canceled. Claims 16-18 are new. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 5-12 and 16-18 are under examination.
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 7-9 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.
As to claim 7, the claim recites “the elastic element”. The recitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim and it is not clear what element is necessarily intended. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected as dependent claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 2021/0370546) in view of Bongiorno (US 10,041,252).
Regarding claim 5, Mayer teaches a device for 3D-printing a concrete interlayer structure (paragraphs [0002], [0009] and [0026]; Figures 1, 2 and 13 (1) (2) (3)) characterized by comprising rebar/rods/chains/cables/reinforcing elements (Abstract; paragraphs [0028]-[0032], [0047]; Figures 1, 2 and 13 (4) (5) (10a) (10)); wherein the device further comprises a concrete printing system configured to print cement-based slurry layers stacked from bottom to top on a building base (Figures 1, 2 and 13 (6); paragraphs [0026]-[0032] and [0047]; whatever the structure is built upon is a building base; further, lower layers also form a building base for additional layers); a rebar/rod/chain/cable/reinforcing element distributing system configured to lay the rebar on the printed cement-based slurry layers (Figures 1, 2 and 13, in particular (10), but also (4) (5) and (10a); wherein the rebar/rods/chains/cable/reinforcing elements are capable of being sandwiched between two upper and lower adjacent cement-based slurry layers (paragraphs [0026]-[0032] and [0047]; Figures 1, 2 and 13, in particular (10), but also (4) (5) and (10a)).
Mayer does not explicitly teach the rebar at least comprises: a body in the form of a chain structure, comprising a plurality of sub-parts mutually spliced, the body being adapted for being sandwiched between two adjacent upper and lower cement-based slurry layers; a rotatable joint arranged between two adjacent sub-parts in such a way that the two adjacent sub-parts are rotatably connected to each other; insertion members, wherein both sides of each of the sub-parts are provided with the insertion members extending away from the center of each of the sub-parts, the insertion member on one side of each of the sub-parts is adapted for being inserted in an upper cement-based slurry layer, and the insertion member on an opposite side of each of the sub-parts is adapted for being inserted in a lower cement-based slurry layer, such that the sub-parts are capable of being sandwiched between two upper and lower adjacent cement-based slurry layers, the insertion member on one side of each of the sub-parts is configured to be inserted in an upper cement-based slurry layer, and the insertion member on an opposite end of each of the sub-parts is configured to be inserted in a lower cement-based slurry layer.
However, Bongiorno teaches and discloses analogous concrete reinforcing bars/rebar comprises: a body in the form of a chain structure, comprising a plurality of sub-parts mutually spliced, the body being adapted for being sandwiched between two adjacent upper and lower cement-based slurry layers; a rotatable joint arranged between two adjacent sub-parts in such a way that the two adjacent sub-parts are rotatably connected to each other; insertion members, wherein both sides of each of the sub-parts are provided with the insertion members extending away from the center of each of the sub-parts, the insertion member on one side of each of the sub-parts is adapted for being inserted in an upper cement-based slurry layer, and the insertion member on an opposite side of each of the sub-parts is adapted for being inserted in a lower cement-based slurry layer (Abstract; Figures 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 9A, 9B; col. 2, line 41-col. 3, line 25; col 6, line 22-col. 7, line 44; pieces of rebar (1) are brought together with a rotatable joint/sleeve (5)/sleeve lock (7) which forms a chain structure of rebar pieces wherein each piece of rebar is a sub-part and these sub-parts are rotatably connected to each other and the sub-parts/pieces of rebar each contain threads/insertion members that extend away from the center of each of the sub-parts/pieces of rebar).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mayer and Bongiorno and to have utilized the rebar/reinforcing element of Bongiorno as the rebar/reinforcing element in the device of Mayer, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of utilizing an art recognized suitable reinforcing element that also does not need substantial manual effort and that reduces time and effort required to fabricate (e.g. Bongiorno, col. 2, lines 4-20)
In combination, when using the rebar of Bongiorno in the device of Mayer, the sub-parts are capable of being sandwiched between two upper and lower adjacent cement-based slurry layers, the insertion member on one side of each of the sub-parts is configured to be inserted in an upper cement-based slurry layer, and the insertion member on an opposite end of each of the sub-parts is configured to be inserted in a lower cement-based slurry layer. As such, each and every limitation of the claim is taught and suggested by the combination.
As to claims 11 and 12, Mayer teaches the device can include a gantry system (paragraph [0026]) and that the printing system/printhead (6) and the rebar distribution system are moved together (paragraph [0047]). As one having ordinary skill in the art would understand, such a gantry system, as described in context, reads upon, by fairly teaching and suggesting, a lifting base frame; wherein the concrete printing system and the rebar distributing system are both arranged on the lifting base frame to be movable along the length direction of the lifting base frame; and the lifting base frame is able to move vertically to drive the concrete printing system and the rebar distributing system to move synchronously with each other.
Such a system implicitly, if not intrinsically, includes a control system; wherein the control system is signal-connected to both the concrete printing system and the rebar distributing system, and is configured to control synchronous movement of the concrete printing system and the rebar distributing system along the lifting base frame (paragraphs [0026]-[0032] and [0047]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 2021/0370546) in view of Bongiorno (US 10,041,252), as applied to claims 5, 11 and 12 above, and further in view of Cooper et al. (US 2022/0034108) and Rzadkowski et al. (US 2022/0055249).
As to claim 6, the combination teaches the device set forth above. Mayer does not teach the rebar distributing system comprises a storage box and a conveying structure, the storage box is provided with a rebar outlet, and the rebar is coiled in the storage box; and the conveying structure is located outside the storage box and is arranged to directly face the rebar outlet, one end of the rebar extends out of the rebar outlet and is driven by the conveying structure to be transported to a target position. However, Cooper et al. teach an analogous device wherein the rebar distributing system comprises a storage box and a conveying structure, the storage box is provided with a rebar outlet, and the rebar is coiled in the storage box (Figure 4 (130) (140) (30) (142)) and Rzadowski et al. further teach an analogous device wherein the conveying device is located downstream of the coiled material such that it is arranged directly to face the rebar and that drives the rebar to a targeted position (Figure 1 (2) (3) and (4)).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mayer with Cooper et al. and Rzadkowski et al. and to have utilized a rebar distributing system comprising a storage box and a conveying structure, the storage box is provided with a rebar outlet, and the rebar is coiled in the storage box; and the conveying structure is located outside the storage box and is arranged to directly face the rebar outlet, one end of the rebar extends out of the rebar outlet and is driven by the conveying structure to be transported to a target position, as suggested by Cooper et al. and Rzadowski et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references of effectively storing, mounting, and feeding the rebar/reinforcing material in an art recognized suitable and effective manner. In the combination, the rollers of Rzadowski et al. are placed downstream of the storage unity of Cooper et al. to effectively feed the reinforcing material in the manner suggested by the combination of references.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 2021/0370546) in view of Bongiorno (US 10,041,252), as applied to claims 5, 11 and 12 above, and further in view of Corsinivis et al. (CN 105599104).
As to claim 10, the combination teaches the device set forth above. Mayer does not teach the concrete printing system comprises a mixer, a hopper, a screw extruder and a print head; an outlet of the mixer is connected to an inlet of the hopper and is configured to provide concrete to the hopper; the screw extruder is arranged in the hopper and is configured to extrude the concrete out of the hopper; and the print head is arranged at an outlet of the hopper so that the concrete extruded from the hopper has a preset 3D structure. However, Corsinivis et al. teach an analogous device wherein the concrete printing system comprises a mixer, a hopper, a screw extruder and a print head; an outlet of the mixer is connected to an inlet of the hopper and is configured to provide concrete to the hopper; the screw extruder is arranged in the hopper and is configured to extrude the concrete out of the hopper; and the print head is arranged at an outlet of the hopper so that the concrete extruded from the hopper has a preset 3D structure (Figure 1 (3) (3B) (30) (4) (4B) (40) (5); Abstract).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mayer and Corsinivis et al. and to have utilized a concrete printing system having a mixer, hopper, screw extruder and printhead as claimed in the device of Mayer, as suggested by Corsinivis et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively printing a concrete material while keeping the particular properties and specific needs of dealing with concrete in view while increasing production efficiency and improving quality.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 2021/0370546) in view of Bongiorno (US 10,041,252), as applied to claims 5, 11 and 12 above, and further in view of either one of Holzberger (US 2015/0040496) or Abbas et al. (US 10,982,443).
As to claim 18, the combination teaches the device set forth above. Mayer does not teach an elastic member arranged between each sub-part and the insertion members so that the insertion members are telescopically arranged on both sides of each sub-part. However, each of Holzberger (paragraphs [0013]-[0016]) and Abbas et al. (col. 5, lines 28-42) teach analogous reinforcing elements wherein an elastic member to facilitate insertion.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized elastic elements arranged as claimed in the device of Mayer, as suggested by either one of Holzberger or Abbas et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references of facilitating insertion and usage of the reinforcement element. In utilizing the suggested elastic elements of either Holzberger or Abbas et al. as part of the reinforcing elements suggested by the combination of Mayer and Bongiorno to facilitate usage and insertion, the reinforcing elements in the combination are understood to be arranged between each sub-part and the insertion members so that the insertion members are telescopically arranged on both sides of each sub-part.
Claims 5, 11, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 2021/0370546) in view of Wang et al. (CN 111335550) and Wakiyama et al. (US 2019/0177976).
Regarding claim 5, Mayer teaches a device for 3D-printing a concrete interlayer structure (paragraphs [0002], [0009] and [0026]; Figures 1, 2 and 13 (1) (2) (3)) characterized by comprising rebar/rods/chains/cables/reinforcing elements (Abstract; paragraphs [0028]-[0032], [0047]; Figures 1, 2 and 13 (4) (5) (10a) (10)); wherein the device further comprises a concrete printing system configured to print cement-based slurry layers stacked from bottom to top on a building base (Figures 1, 2 and 13 (6); paragraphs [0026]-[0032] and [0047]; whatever the structure is built upon is a building base; further, lower layers also form a building base for additional layers); a rebar/rod/chain/cable/reinforcing element distributing system configured to lay the rebar on the printed cement-based slurry layers (Figures 1, 2 and 13, in particular (10), but also (4) (5) and (10a); wherein the rebar/rods/chains/cable/reinforcing elements are capable of being sandwiched between two upper and lower adjacent cement-based slurry layers (paragraphs [0026]-[0032] and [0047]; Figures 1, 2 and 13, in particular (10), but also (4) (5) and (10a)).
Mayer does not explicitly teach the rebar at least comprises a body in the form of a chain structure, comprising a plurality of sub-parts mutually spliced, the body being adapted for being sandwiched between two adjacent upper and lower cement-based slurry layers; a rotatable joint arranged between two adjacent sub-parts in such a way that the two adjacent sub-parts are rotatably connected to each other; insertion members, wherein both sides of each of the sub-parts are provided with the insertion members extending away from the center of each of the sub-parts, the insertion member on one side of each of the sub-parts is adapted for being inserted in an upper cement-based slurry layer, and the insertion member on an opposite side of each of the sub-parts is adapted for being inserted in a lower cement-based slurry layer, such that the sub-parts are capable of being sandwiched between two upper and lower adjacent cement-based slurry layers, the insertion member on one side of each of the sub-parts is configured to be inserted in an upper cement-based slurry layer, and the insertion member on an opposite end of each of the sub-parts is configured to be inserted in a lower cement-based slurry layer.
However, Wang et al. teach and disclose analogous concrete reinforcing bars/rebar comprising a body in the form of a chain structure, comprising a plurality of sub-parts mutually spliced, the body being adapted for being sandwiched between two adjacent upper and lower cement-based slurry layers; a rotatable joint arranged between two adjacent sub-parts in such a way that the two adjacent sub-parts are rotatably connected to each other (paragraphs [0009]-[0019], [0030]-[0040], claims 1-9 Figures 1-4) and Wakiyama et al. teach insertion members, wherein both sides of each of the sub-parts are provided with the insertion members extending away from the center of each of the sub-parts, the insertion member on one side of each of the sub-parts is adapted for being inserted in an upper cement-based slurry layer, and the insertion member on an opposite side of each of the sub-parts is adapted for being inserted in a lower cement-based slurry layer (Abstract; Figures 1A and 1B (1) (1ba); Figures 3A, 4; paragraphs [0006]-[0009] and [0024]-[0026]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mayer with Wang et al. and Wakiyama et al. and to have utilized the rebar/reinforcing element suggested by Wang et al. and Wakiyama et al., as the rebar/reinforcing element in the device of Mayer, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of utilizing reinforcing bar that is capable of being rotated and that simultaneously provides sufficient strength/proof stress. In the combination, the basic reinforcing element of Wang et al. is employed (Figures 1-4) with the additional strengthening feature of the additional/larger threading of Wakiyama et al. outside of the rotatable joint region.
In combination, when using the rebar of suggested by the secondary references in the device of Mayer, the sub-parts are capable of being sandwiched between two upper and lower adjacent cement-based slurry layers, the insertion member on one side of each of the sub-parts is configured to be inserted in an upper cement-based slurry layer, and the insertion member on an opposite end of each of the sub-parts is configured to be inserted in a lower cement-based slurry layer. As such, each and every limitation of the claim is taught and suggested by the combination.
As to claims 11 and 12, Mayer teaches the device can include a gantry system (paragraph [0026]) and that the printing system/printhead (6) and the rebar distribution system are moved together (paragraph [0047]). As one having ordinary skill in the art would understand, such a gantry system, as described in context, reads upon, by fairly teaching and suggesting, a lifting base frame; wherein the concrete printing system and the rebar distributing system are both arranged on the lifting base frame to be movable along the length direction of the lifting base frame; and the lifting base frame is able to move vertically to drive the concrete printing system and the rebar distributing system to move synchronously with each other.
Such a system implicitly, if not intrinsically, includes a control system; wherein the control system is signal-connected to both the concrete printing system and the rebar distributing system, and is configured to control synchronous movement of the concrete printing system and the rebar distributing system along the lifting base frame (paragraphs [0026]-[0032] and [0047]).
As to claim 16, in the combination with Wang et al. and Wakiyama et al. the rotatable joint comprises a connection block, a first rotatable shaft and a second rotatable shaft; the first rotatable shaft and the second rotatable shaft are both arranged on the connection block, and the first rotatable shaft and the second rotatable shaft are perpendicular to each other; and one of the two adjacent sub-parts is rotatably connected to the first rotatable shaft, and the other one of the two adjacent sub-parts is rotatably connected to the second rotatable shaft (Figures 1-4 of Wang et al.). The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claim 17, in the combination with Wang et al. and Wakiyama et al. the rotatable joint comprises a first convex part and a first groove; the first convex part is located on one end of each sub-part, the first groove is located on an opposite end of each sub-part, and the two adjacent sub-parts are connected to each other through the first groove and the first convex part (Figures 1-4 (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) of Wang et al.) The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 2021/0370546) in view of Wang et al. (CN 111335550) and Wakiyama et al. (US 2019/0177976), as applied to claims 5, 11, 12, 16 and 17 above, and further in view of Cooper et al. (US 2022/0034108) and Rzadkowski et al. (US 2022/0055249).
As to claim 6, the combination teaches the device set forth above. Mayer does not teach the rebar distributing system comprises a storage box and a conveying structure, the storage box is provided with a rebar outlet, and the rebar is coiled in the storage box; and the conveying structure is located outside the storage box and is arranged to directly face the rebar outlet, one end of the rebar extends out of the rebar outlet and is driven by the conveying structure to be transported to a target position. However, Cooper et al. teach an analogous device wherein the rebar distributing system comprises a storage box and a conveying structure, the storage box is provided with a rebar outlet, and the rebar is coiled in the storage box (Figure 4 (130) (140) (30) (142)) and Rzadowski et al. further teach an analogous device wherein the conveying device is located downstream of the coiled material such that it is arranged directly to face the rebar and that drives the rebar to a targeted position (Figure 1 (2) (3) and (4)).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mayer with Cooper et al. and Rzadkowski et al. and to have utilized a rebar distributing system comprising a storage box and a conveying structure, the storage box is provided with a rebar outlet, and the rebar is coiled in the storage box; and the conveying structure is located outside the storage box and is arranged to directly face the rebar outlet, one end of the rebar extends out of the rebar outlet and is driven by the conveying structure to be transported to a target position, as suggested by Cooper et al. and Rzadowski et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references of effectively storing, mounting, and feeding the rebar/reinforcing material in an art recognized suitable and effective manner. In the combination, the rollers of Rzadowski et al. are placed downstream of the storage unity of Cooper et al. to effectively feed the reinforcing material in the manner suggested by the combination of references.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 2021/0370546) in view of Wang et al. (CN 111335550) and Wakiyama et al. (US 2019/0177976), as applied to claims 5, 11, 12, 16 and 17 above, and further in view of Corsinivis et al. (CN 105599104).
As to claim 10, the combination teaches the device set forth above. Mayer does not teach the concrete printing system comprises a mixer, a hopper, a screw extruder and a print head; an outlet of the mixer is connected to an inlet of the hopper and is configured to provide concrete to the hopper; the screw extruder is arranged in the hopper and is configured to extrude the concrete out of the hopper; and the print head is arranged at an outlet of the hopper so that the concrete extruded from the hopper has a preset 3D structure. However, Corsinivis et al. teach an analogous device wherein the concrete printing system comprises a mixer, a hopper, a screw extruder and a print head; an outlet of the mixer is connected to an inlet of the hopper and is configured to provide concrete to the hopper; the screw extruder is arranged in the hopper and is configured to extrude the concrete out of the hopper; and the print head is arranged at an outlet of the hopper so that the concrete extruded from the hopper has a preset 3D structure (Figure 1 (3) (3B) (30) (4) (4B) (40) (5); Abstract).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mayer and Corsinivis et al. and to have utilized a concrete printing system having a mixer, hopper, screw extruder and printhead as claimed in the device of Mayer, as suggested by Corsinivis et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively printing a concrete material while keeping the particular properties and specific needs of dealing with concrete in view while increasing production efficiency and improving quality.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 2021/0370546) in view of Wang et al. (CN 111335550) and Wakiyama et al. (US 2019/0177976), as applied to claims 5, 11, 12, 16 and 17 above, and further in view of either one of Holzberger (US 2015/0040496) or Abbas et al. (US 10,982,443).
As to claim 18, the combination teaches the device set forth above. Mayer does not teach an elastic member arranged between each sub-part and the insertion members so that the insertion members are telescopically arranged on both sides of each sub-part. However, each of Holzberger (paragraphs [0013]-[0016]) and Abbas et al. (col. 5, lines 28-42) teach analogous reinforcing elements wherein an elastic member to facilitate insertion.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized elastic elements arranged as claimed in the device of Mayer, as suggested by either one of Holzberger or Abbas et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references of facilitating insertion and usage of the reinforcement element. In utilizing the suggested elastic elements of either Holzberger or Abbas et al. as part of the reinforcing elements suggested by the combination of Mayer and Bongiorno to facilitate usage and insertion, the reinforcing elements in the combination are understood to be arranged between each sub-part and the insertion members so that the insertion members are telescopically arranged on both sides of each sub-part
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, by changing “the elastic element” to - - an elastic element - -.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In combination with the limitations of claims 5 and 6, the prior art of record does not fairly teach the rebar distribution system further comprises a guide tube as claimed such that when the rebar is located in the guide tube, an elastic element between the insertion members and each sub-part is in a compression state in combination with a tube wall of the guide tube being provided with an opening and a working part of the conveying structure is at least partially located in the guide tube through the opening to be in contact with the rebar and the working part is configured to drive the rebar forward along a conveying direction in the guide tube (e.g. see Figures 3, 4, 11 and 12 of the instant application) in combination with the other features instantly claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art references disclose analogous devices for 3D printing reinforced concrete structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742