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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of JP 2021-074101 filed April 26, 2021 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of WO 2022/230317, the WIPO publication of PCT/JP2022/006619 filed February 18, 2022.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claims filed July 15, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
July 15, 2026
Pending
1-15
Withdrawn
6-10, 15
Under Examination
1-5, 11-14
Response to Remarks field July 15, 2025
Abstract Objection
Applicant's arguments filed July 15, 2026 with respect to the Abstract Objection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues withdrawal of the objection in view of abstract amendments (p. 9 para. 3).
The amended abstract is more than 150 words. Therefore, the abstract objection is maintained.
Yasunaga (JP H01-220216 machine translation)
Applicant's arguments filed July 15, 2026 with respect to Yasunaga have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Yasunaga is non-analogous art (p. 9 para. 9) because the claimed invention is a soft magnetic iron alloy plate for use in iron cores and rotating electric machines (p. 10 para. 1), but Yasunaga is a magnetic recording medium that is made of a thin iron nitride hard magnetic material that possesses opposite properties (p. 10 paras. 2-3, p. 11 para. 3).
Yasunaga does not recite that the magnetic recording medium is made of a hard magnetic material.
Yasunaga discloses a magnetic layer having nitrogen more particularly preferably of 5-15 at% (Abstract, p. 3 para. 1), which overlaps with the claimed composition of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate. MPEP 2144.05(I). Therefore, it is within the scope of Yasunaga for the magnetic layer to have the claimed soft magnetic iron alloy composition.
Yasunaga also discloses a thin-film magnetic layer of iron nitride such as Fe4N (p. 2 para. 2). As evidenced by Sandia (R&D 100 Winner 2022: Iron Nitride Soft Magnetics. DOE Office of Electricity Energy Storage Program. Developer: Sandie National Laboratories. https://www.sandia/gov/ess/2023/02/15/rd-100-winner-2022-iron-nitride-soft-magnetics.), iron nitride, Fe4N, is a soft magnetic material.
Therefore, it is within the scope of Yasunaga for the magnetic layer to be a soft magnetic iron alloy.
The applicant argues Yasunaga is not reasonably pertinent to the problem applicant was solving of minimizing iron loss while maximizing Bs in a soft magnetic plate because Yasunaga engineers a hard magnetic thin film that retains recoded magnetic states with sufficient coercivity and anisotropy (para. spanning pp. 10-11).
Yasunaga is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even it addresses a different problem) of a magnetic iron alloy plate (layer) (Yasunaga p. 1) with an overlapping composition (Yasunaga Abstract, p. 3 para. 1) and nitrogen concentration in a thickness direction (Yasunaga p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3, p. 3 para. 2, Figure 2). Therefore, Yasunaga is proper for use in an obviousness rejection. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
The applicant argues the bell-shaped distribution of Yasunaga does not have a plateau or flat upper region and the perception of such is an artifact of the resolution and scale of the graph (p. 12 para. 2), where the variation range of nitrogen concentration being within 1 at% in the high nitrogen concentration results in a high-nitrogen region that is nearly uniform, which is not disclosed as being controlled by Yasunaga (p. 13 para. 2).
The claims do not recite an upper region that has a plateau or is flat. Pending claim 1 lines 9-11 recite “a high nitrogen concentration region where a maximum nitrogen is higher than nitrogen concentration of the main surface and less than 11 at.%, and a variation range of nitrogen concentration is within 1 at.%”.
Yasunaga discloses a peak maximized amount of nitrogen atoms (Figures 3, 5, 6), which includes a region with a variation range of nitrogen concentration that is within 1 at.%. The pending claims do not limit the thickness of the high nitrogen concentration region.
The applicant argues in the claimed three-region structure the high-nitrogen plateau region generates the alpha’ and alpha’’ iron nitride phases for elevated Bs and the transition regions on the sides serve as magnetically coupled gradient zones that prevent excessive Pi, such that it is a functionally engineering three-layer-like structure (p. 12 para. 3).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., in the claimed three-region structure the high-nitrogen plateau region generates the alpha’ and alpha’’ iron nitride phases for elevates Bs and the transition regions serve as magnetically couple gradient zones that prevent excessive Pi) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues Yasunaga does not specify surface nitrogen concentration values or minimum interior nitrogen concentration values in the manner required by the claim (p. 13 para. 3).
Yasunaga discloses an overall nitrogen content of more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at% (Yasunaga Abstract, p. 3 para. 1) and a distribution pattern in which the ratio of nitrogen atoms to iron atoms in the thickness direction is maximized near the center of the thickness direction (Yasunaga p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3, p. 3 para. 2, Figure 3), which read on the claimed outer nitrogen concentration transition region, high nitrogen concentration region, and inner nitrogen concentration transition region.
For the above cited reasons, the rejection over Yasunaga is maintained.
Wang (US 2015/0380135)
Applicant's arguments filed July 15, 2026 with respect to Wang have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Wang describes nitrogen distribution varies with deposition conditions, but does not disclose a sub-region of thickness direction characterized by a variation range of nitrogen concentration within 1 at% (p. 14 para. 5) and Wang does not specify the nitrogen concentration at the surface of its films of the minimum nitrogen concentration in an inner transition region as required by claim 1 (p. 15 para. 3).
Wang discloses example nitrogen depth profiles ([0041], [0288], Fig. 34), which include and read on the claimed outer nitrogen concentration transition region, high nitrogen concentration region, and inner nitrogen concentration transition. Within the high nitrogen concentration region, the nitrogen depth profiles are characterized by a variation range of nitrogen concentration within 1 at%. The pending claims do not limit the thickness of the high nitrogen concentration region.
The applicant argues controlling the nitrogen concentration variation within an interior sub-region to within 1 at% reflects careful manufacturing control to achieve the claimed iron nitride phase distribution (para. spanning pp. 14-15).
The pending claims do not limit the thickness of the high nitrogen concentration region. The pending claims also recite three nitrogen concentration regions, but are silent to the argued iron nitride phase distribution.
For the above cited reasons, the rejection over Wang is maintained.
Abstract Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
It is more than 150 words.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasunaga (JP H01-220216 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yasunaga discloses a soft magnetic iron alloy plate (layer) (p. 1) comprising:
chemical composition containing 2 at.% or more and 10 at.% or less of nitrogen (more particularly 5-15 at%), 0 at.% or more and 30 at.% or less of cobalt (0 at%), 0 at.% or more and 1.2 at.% or less of vanadium (0%), and a remaining portion including iron and an impurity (Abstract, p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 1).
With respect to a nitrogen concentration in a thickness direction, Yasunaga discloses a nitrogen content over the entire part of more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at% with the nitrogen atoms exhibiting a bell-shaped distribution pattern where the ratio of nitrogen atoms to iron atoms in the thickness direction is maximized near the center in the thickness direction (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3, p. 3 para. 2, Figure 3).
The maximum amount of nitrogen atoms is not more than the overall nitrogen content of more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at%. This reads on and overlaps with a high nitrogen concentration region where maximum nitrogen concentration is higher than nitrogen concentration of the main surface and less than 11 at.%. Further, around the maximized amount of nitrogen atoms peak, which includes a flat upper region (Figures 3, 5, 6), a variation range of nitrogen concentration is within 1 at.%.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, the nitrogen atoms away from the center in the thickness direction have a lower nitrogen content than the maximum of more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at%. This reads on and overlaps with an outer nitrogen concentration transition region where nitrogen concentration on a main surface is 1 at.% or more and 4 at.% or less and nitrogen concentration increases toward an inner side from the main surface and an inner nitrogen concentration transition region where nitrogen concentration decreases toward an inner side from the high nitrogen concentration region and minimum nitrogen concentration is lower than N concentration in the high nitrogen concentration region and is 1 at.% or more.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Yasunaga discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1 as cited above, wherein maximum nitrogen concentration in the high nitrogen concentration region is 6 at.% or more and 10 at.% or less, and minimum nitrogen concentration in the inner nitrogen concentration transition region is 1 at.% or more and 4 at.% or less (nitrogen content over the entire part of more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at% with the nitrogen atoms exhibiting a bell-shaped distribution pattern where the ratio of nitrogen atoms to iron atoms in the thickness direction is maximized near the center in the thickness direction) (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3, p. 3 para. 2, Figure 3). The maximum amount of nitrogen atoms is not more than the overall nitrogen content of more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at% and the nitrogen atoms away from the center in the thickness direction have a lower nitrogen content than the maximum more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at%.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Yasunaga discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1 as cited above,
wherein when x is a numerical value of concentration (unit: at.%) of cobalt, a numerical value y (unit: T) of saturation magnetic flux density of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate satisfies an empirical formula (1) “y ≥ 1.02 * (0.01 * x * 2.14)” (for 0 at% Co, y is more than 0; decreasing saturation magnetic flux density, Bm, is undesirable, such that it is within the scope of Yasunaga to be more than 0) (p. 3 paras. 1-2), and
when a numerical value of an iron loss (unit: W/kg) is z, an iron loss under a condition of magnetic flux density of 1.0 T and 400 Hz satisfies an empirical formula (2) “z < 150 * y – 295” (increased coercivity, which is related to iron loss, increases durability) (p. 3 para. 2).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Yasunaga discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 2 as cited above,
wherein when x is a numerical value of concentration (unit: at.%) of cobalt, a numerical value y (unit: T) of saturation magnetic flux density of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate satisfies an empirical formula (1) “y ≥ 1.02 * (0.01 * x * 2.14)” (for 0 at% Co, y is more than 0; decreasing saturation magnetic flux density, Bm, is undesirable, such that it is within the scope of Yasunaga to be more than 0) (p. 3 paras. 1-2), and
when a numerical value of an iron loss (unit: W/kg) is z, an iron loss under a condition of magnetic flux density of 1.0 T and 400 Hz satisfies an empirical formula (2) “z < 150 * y – 295” (increased coercivity, which is related to iron loss, increases durability) (p. 3 para. 2).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasunaga (JP H01-220216 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nose (JP 2020-111806 machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Yasunaga discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1 as cited above.
Yasunaga discloses a nitrogen content over the entire part of more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at% with the nitrogen atoms exhibiting a bell-shaped distribution pattern where the ratio of nitrogen atoms to iron atoms in the thickness direction is maximized near the center in the thickness direction (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3, p. 3 para. 2, Figure 3).
Yasunaga is silent to an average nitrogen concentration gradient of the outer nitrogen concentration transition region and of the inner nitrogen concentration transition region.
Nose discloses a large change in the distribution of nitrogen content in the thickness direction will change the strength distribution ([0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the metal layer of Yasunaga to control the change in the distribution of nitrogen content in the thickness direction to control the strength distribution in the thickness direction, preventing stress concentration during deformation and poor workability (Nose [0061]).
With respect to an average nitrogen concentration gradient of the outer nitrogen concentration transition region is 0.1 at.%/um or more and 0.6 at.%/um or less, and an average nitrogen concentration gradient of the inner nitrogen concentration transition region is 0.1 at.%/um or more and 0.3 at.%/um or less, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 13, Yasunaga in view of Nose discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 3 as cited above,
wherein when x is a numerical value of concentration (unit: at.%) of cobalt, a numerical value y (unit: T) of saturation magnetic flux density of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate satisfies an empirical formula (1) “y ≥ 1.02 * (0.01 * x * 2.14)” (for 0 at% Co, y is more than 0; decreasing saturation magnetic flux density, Bm, is undesirable, such that it is within the scope of Yasunaga to be more than 0) (p. 3 paras. 1-2), and
when a numerical value of an iron loss (unit: W/kg) is z, an iron loss under a condition of magnetic flux density of 1.0 T and 400 Hz satisfies an empirical formula (2) “z < 150 * y – 295” (increased coercivity, which is related to iron loss, increases durability) (p. 3 para. 2).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasunaga (JP H01-220216 machine translation) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nose (JP 2020-111806 machine translation).
Regarding claim 11, Yasunaga discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 2 as cited above.
Yasunaga discloses a nitrogen content over the entire part of more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at% with the nitrogen atoms exhibiting a bell-shaped distribution pattern where the ratio of nitrogen atoms to iron atoms in the thickness direction is maximized near the center in the thickness direction (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3, p. 3 para. 2, Figure 3).
Yasunaga is silent to an average nitrogen concentration gradient of the outer nitrogen concentration transition region and of the inner nitrogen concentration transition region.
Nose discloses a large change in the distribution of nitrogen content in the thickness direction will change the strength distribution ([0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the metal layer of Yasunaga to control the change in the distribution of nitrogen content in the thickness direction to control the strength distribution in the thickness direction, preventing stress concentration during deformation and poor workability (Nose [0061]).
With respect to an average nitrogen concentration gradient of the outer nitrogen concentration transition region is 0.1 at.%/um or more and 0.6 at.%/um or less, and an average nitrogen concentration gradient of the inner nitrogen concentration transition region is 0.1 at.%/um or more and 0.3 at.%/um or less, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Yasunaga in view of Nose discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 11 as cited above,
wherein when x is a numerical value of concentration (unit: at.%) of cobalt, a numerical value y (unit: T) of saturation magnetic flux density of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate satisfies an empirical formula (1) “y ≥ 1.02 * (0.01 * x * 2.14)” (for 0 at% Co, y is more than 0; decreasing saturation magnetic flux density, Bm, is undesirable, such that it is within the scope of Yasunaga to be more than 0) (p. 3 paras. 1-2), and
when a numerical value of an iron loss (unit: W/kg) is z, an iron loss under a condition of magnetic flux density of 1.0 T and 400 Hz satisfies an empirical formula (2) “z < 150 * y – 295” (increased coercivity, which is related to iron loss, increases durability) (p. 3 para. 2).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2015/0380135).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a soft magnetic iron alloy plate ([0005], [0049], [0055]) comprising:
chemical composition containing 2 at.% or more and 10 at.% or less of nitrogen (about 3 at%), 0 at.% or more and 30 at.% or less of cobalt (0 at%), 0 at.% or more and 1.2 at.% or less of vanadium (0 at%), and a remaining portion including iron and an impurity (Fe16N2, about 3 at% N) ([0003], [0049]-[0050]); and
in a thickness direction of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate ([0041], [0288], Fig. 34),
an outer nitrogen concentration transition region where nitrogen concentration on a main surface is 1 at.% or more and 4 at.% or less and nitrogen concentration increases toward an inner side from the main surface ([0041], [0288], Fig. 34);
a high nitrogen concentration region where maximum nitrogen concentration is higher than nitrogen concentration of the main surface and less than 11 at.%, and a variation range of nitrogen concentration is within 1 at.% ([0041], [0288], Fig. 34); and
an inner nitrogen concentration transition region where nitrogen concentration decreases toward an inner side from the high nitrogen concentration region and minimum nitrogen concentration is lower than N concentration in the high nitrogen concentration region and is 1 at.% or more ([0041], [0288], Fig. 34).
PNG
media_image2.png
651
878
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1 as cited above, wherein
maximum nitrogen concentration in the high nitrogen concentration region is 6 at.% or more and 10 at.% or less ([0041], [0288], Fig. 34), and
minimum nitrogen concentration in the inner nitrogen concentration transition region is 1 at.% or more and 4 at.% or less ([0041], [0288], Fig. 34).
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1 as cited above,
wherein when x is a numerical value of concentration (unit: at.%) of cobalt, a numerical value y (unit: T) of saturation magnetic flux density of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate satisfies an empirical formula (1) “y ≥ 1.02 * (0.01 * x * 2.14)” (for 0 at% Co, y is more than 0; pre-annealing has saturation magnetization of 2.0 T) ([0267]-[0268], Figs. 21A-21B).
A numerical value of an iron loss (unit: W/kg) is z, an iron loss under a condition of magnetic flux density of 1.0 T and 400 Hz satisfying an empirical formula (2) “z < 150 * y – 295” has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed soft magnetic iron alloy plate. Wang renders obvious the claimed soft magnetic iron alloy plate ([0005], [0041], [0049]-[0050], [0055], [0288], Fig. 34), such that the claimed relationship of formula (2) naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1, wherein the soft magnetic iron alloy plate has a thickness of 0.03 mm or more and 0.3 mm or less (between about 500 nm and about 1 mm) ([0062]-[0063]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Wang discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 2 as cited above,
wherein when x is a numerical value of concentration (unit: at.%) of cobalt, a numerical value y (unit: T) of saturation magnetic flux density of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate satisfies an empirical formula (1) “y ≥ 1.02 * (0.01 * x * 2.14)” (for 0 at% Co, y is more than 0; pre-annealing has saturation magnetization of 2.0 T) ([0267]-[0268], Figs. 21A-21B).
A numerical value of an iron loss (unit: W/kg) is z, an iron loss under a condition of magnetic flux density of 1.0 T and 400 Hz satisfying an empirical formula (2) “z < 150 * y – 295” has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed soft magnetic iron alloy plate. Wang renders obvious the claimed soft magnetic iron alloy plate ([0005], [0041], [0049]-[0050], [0055], [0288], Fig. 34), such that the claimed relationship of formula (2) naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Related Art
Sakakima (US 4,904,543)
Sakakima discloses a soft magnetic material (1:8-13, 2:10-12) with nitrogen compositionally modulated along the thickness (2:13-18, 30-34, 6:66-68, Fig. 1a) with an average composition of 1 to 20 at% N (2:38-56).
Johnson (US 2016/0203898)
Johnson discloses a magnetic component with a first region and a second region that have different nitrogen contents of less than 0.1 wt% and about 0.1 to about 0.4 wt%, respectively ([0008]-[0009]) and a third region with less than 0.1 wt% nitrogen ([0042]), where the magnetic component may have any number of first, second, and third regions ([0046]).
Takanabe (JP H06-69032 machine translation)
Takanabe discloses a magnetic thin film ([0001]) heat-treated to diffuse nitrogen into the film ([0050]-[0052], Figure 6).
Nakanishi (US 5,117,321)
Nakanishi discloses a soft magnetic thin film FeaBbNc with up to 22 at% N (2:53-63, 9:18-22) including Auger depth profile diagrams showing the N content that increases from the surface, plateaus, then decreases as it approaches the substrate (9:4-8, 12:15 to 13:9, Figs. 23A, 23B, 23C, 24a, 24b, 24c).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights