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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 5, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 5 2026, are acknowledged. Claim 1 and Claim 8 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. No new matter has been added.
Claims 8-10 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, Group II, drawn to a method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely elected without traverse in the reply filed June 12, 2025.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are pending, and Claims 1 and 3-7 are currently considered in this office action.
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.
Claim 6, and dependent Claim 7, 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 6 recites the limitation "the hot-rolled steel plate" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim compares the hardness of the steel tube to the hardness of a steel plate. The properties of the steel plate are unknown, including the hardness. It is therefore unclear what hardness values are required to meet the claimed limitation, and the hardness values are compared to an unknown material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (previously cited, KR 20190077794 A, US 20210054485 A1 used for English Equivalent).
Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 5, Bae discloses a hot-rolled steel plate (Abstract; para. [0001]) comprising:
Element
Claim 1 (wt%)
Bae (wt%), Abstract
Mn
10-20
13-26
C
0.6-2.0
0.35-0.65
Cr
0-5.0
1-6
Al
>0 to 0.5
0-4
Si
>0 to 1.0
0.01-0.4
P
0-0.1
0-0.05
S
0-0.02
0-0.02
Fe
Bal. + impurities
Bal. + impurities
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Bae discloses wherein the hot-rolled steel plate has a microstructure with 97area% or more austenite (Abstract, 97% or more austenite), and
(Claim 5) wherein the steel plate has a thickness of 4-20 mm (para. [0109], 8mm).
Bae is silent towards film-shaped precipitates formed along austenite grain boundaries with a thickness of 0.1-2.0um.
However, Bae discloses the claimed composition, the claimed amount of austenite, and further discloses a hot-rolling method which is substantially similar to that of the instant invention (see details below).
Process step
Instant invention
Para.
Bae
Para.
Reheating
1000-1250C
[0080]
1000-1250C
[0076]
Hot rolling finish temp.
≥ 800C
[0084]
950-1050C, 850-1000C
[0081]
Cooling rate
≥ 5C/s
[0088]
≥ 5C/s
[0084]
Cooling temp.
≤ 500C
[0088]
250-600C
[0084]
Hot rolled sheet thickness
4-20mm
[0085]
8mm
[0109]
Coiling start temp.
≤ 500C
[0088]
250 C*
[0084]
Average coiling temp.
≤ 300C
[0088]
250 C*
[0084]
*Bae teaches that cooling and coiling at too large of a temperature coarsens carbides and lowers toughness (para. [0084]). It would be obvious to cool to and coil at the minimum temperature of 250C (and therefore a starting coiling temperature and average coiling temperature below 300C), in order to maximize the toughness and to minimize carbide size (see also abstract wherein Bae desires smaller carbide sizes).
Because Bae teaches a substantially identical method and discloses the claimed composition, amount of austenite phase and plate thickness, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the steel of Bae to comprise the claimed film-shaped precipitates formed along austenite grain boundaries with a thickness of 0.1-2.0um.
Bae further discloses wherein the hot-rolled steel plate may be subjected to piping and wherein the hot-rolled steel plate undergoes work hardening from piping (Abstract; para. [0001]; para. [0004]).
Bae fails to disclose wherein the hardness increases by 1.1 by the work hardening after piping; however, the limitation regarding piping is an intended use limitation. The claims are directed to a hot-rolled steel plate, and the limitations regarding the composition and structure of the hot-rolled steel plate has been met (see above). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the hot-rolled steel plate of Bae, which meets the claimed structure and is produced by the same hot-rolling method, behave the same as claimed and therefore comprise the same hardness when subjected to the claimed piping process.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 3, Bae discloses an elongation of 30% or more (para. [0015], 50% or greater), but is silent towards the tensile strength. However, Bae discloses a substantially identical method and discloses the claimed composition, amount of austenite and the plate thickness, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the steel to comprise the claimed microstructure (see Claim 1 above) and therefore the claimed tensile strength of 800MPa or greater.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 4, Bae is silent towards the claimed hardness; however, Bae discloses a substantially identical method and discloses the claimed composition, amount of austenite and the plate thickness, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the steel to comprise the claimed microstructure (see Claim 1 above) and therefore the claimed hardness of 220 HV or morel.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 6 and Claim 7, Bae discloses a steel pipe (Abstract; para. [0001], pipe reads on the claimed term tube; para. [0004]) comprising:
Element
Claim 6 (wt%)
Bae (wt%), Abstract
Mn
10-20
13-26
C
0.6-2.0
0.35-0.65
Cr
0-5.0
1-6
Al
0-0.5
0-4
Si
0-1.0
0.01-0.4
P
0-0.1
0-0.05
S
0-0.02
0-0.02
Fe
Bal. + impurities
Bal. + impurities
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Bae discloses wherein the microstructure comprises 97area% or more austenite, which reads on austenite as a main phase (Abstract, 97% or more austenite).
Bae is silent towards film-shaped precipitates formed along austenite grain boundaries with a thickness of 0.1-2.0um.
Additionally, while Bae discloses work hardening from the piping process, Bae is silent towards the hardness (see Claim 6 and Claim 7) of the steel tube.
However, Bae discloses the claimed composition, the claimed amount of austenite, and further discloses a processing method which is substantially similar to that of the instant invention (see details below).
Process step
Instant invention
Para.
Bae
Para.
Reheating
1000-1250C
[0080]
1000-1250C
[0076]
Hot rolling finish temp.
≥ 800C
[0084]
950-1050C, 850-1000C
[0081]
Cooling rate
≥ 5C/s
[0088]
≥ 5C/s
[0084]
Cooling temp.
≤ 500C
[0088]
250-600C
[0084]
Hot rolled sheet thickness
4-20mm
[0085]
8mm
[0109]
Coiling start temp.
≤ 500C
[0088]
250 C*
[0084]
Average coiling temp.
≤ 300C
[0088]
250 C*
[0084]
Piping
ERW
[0098]
ERW
[0028]
*Bae teaches that cooling and coiling at too large of a temperature coarsens carbides and lowers toughness (para. [0084]). It would be obvious to cool to and coil at the minimum temperature of 250C (and therefore a starting coiling temperature and average coiling temperature below 300C), in order to maximize the toughness and to minimize carbide size (see also abstract wherein Bae desires smaller carbide sizes).
Because Bae teaches a substantially identical method and discloses the claimed composition and amount of austenite phase, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the steel tube of Bae to comprise the claimed film-shaped precipitates formed along austenite grain boundaries with a thickness of 0.1-2.0um and the claimed (Claim 6) hardness 1.1 times greater than a steel plate (the steel plate is interpreted to be a steel plate which is used in the process to form the steel tube; see 112b rejection above) and (Claim 7) 250 HV or more. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Additionally, the limitation regarding the hot-rolled steel plate hardness is a product-by-process limitation, as the hot-rolled steel plate is a feature of the process and the claims are directed to the product of a steel tube (the steel plate is interpreted to be a steel plate which is used in the process to form the steel tube; see 112b rejection above). [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product (steel tube) itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.
The claims are directed to a steel tube, and the limitations regarding the composition and structure of the steel tube have been met (see above). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the steel tube of Bae, which meets the claimed structure and is produced by the same hot-rolling and piping methods, comprise the same hardness as the instant invention.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (previously cited, KR 20210079228 A, English Machine Translation provided) in view of Han (KR 2020390 B1, English Machine translation provided) and Cugy (cited by Applicant in IDS filed May 7, 2025, US 20080035248 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 3 and Claim 4, Lee discloses a hot-rolled steel plate (para. [0015], steel sheet reads on the term plate) comprising:
10-25% Mn, 0.2-1.8% C, optionally 2% or more Cr, a balance of Fe and unavoidable impurities (Abstract; para. [0023]; Lee is silent towards P and S, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate these elements to be absent and therefore 0%, which reads on the claimed values 10-20% Mn, 0.6-2.0%C, 0-5% Cr, 0-0.1% P, 0-0.02% S, a remainder of Fe and other unavoidable impurities),
Lee is silent towards Al and Si.
Han teaches including 0.01-2% Al in order to improve ductility and delayed fracture resistance of the steel, and as a deoxidizer, while balancing for strength, castability and surface quality during hot rolling due to oxide formation (para. [0040]-[0043]).
Han further teaches 0.001-0.8% Si in order to improve yield strength and tensile strength by solid solution strengthening, and as a deoxidizer, while balancing for Si oxide surface formation which impacts pickling properties and weldability (para. [0063]-0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included 0.01-2% Al and 0.001-0.8% Si, which overlap the claimed ranges of >0 to 0.5% Al and >0 to 1% Si, as taught by Han, for the invention disclosed by Lee. One would be motivated to include Al, and within the lower limits of the taught range, in order to improve ductility and delayed fracture resistance of the steel, and as a deoxidizer, while maximizing for strength, castability and surface quality during hot rolling. One would be motivated to include Si in order to improve yield strength and tensile strength by solid solution strengthening, and as a deoxidizer, while balancing for Si oxide surface formation which impacts pickling properties and weldability.
Lee further discloses wherein the hot-rolled steel plate has a microstructure with austenite as a main phase (para. [0015], austenite as a main structure), and 0.1-2um film-shaped precipitates formed along austenite grain boundaries (Abstract).
Lee does not expressly disclose the claimed (Claim 1) area% of austenite, the claimed (Claim 3) tensile strength and elongation or the claimed (Claim 4) Vicker’s hardness; however, Lee and Han disclose the claimed composition and Lee, Han and Cugy disclose a substantially similar method to the instant invention (see details below).
Lee discloses slab reheating, hot rolling and cooling, but is silent towards the hot rolled sheet thickness and towards coiling.
Cugy teaches that hot-rolled steel sheets are 1-10mm in order to be used for parts intended for wheels and vehicles (para. [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the hot-rolled sheet of Lee to a 1-10mm thickness, as taught by Cugy, in order to produce a hot-rolled sheet capable of being used for vehicle parts (such a disc brake), as desired by Lee (see teaching by Cugy above; see para. Abstract of Lee). Additionally, a change in thickness of the hot-rolled steel plate is considered a change of size and generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Han teaches coiling at room temperature (15-35C) in order to prevent coarse carbide formation, and for preparing the steel for subsequent pickling and/or temper rolling (para. [0113]-[0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coiled the steel at room temperature, as taught by Han, for the invention disclosed by Lee, in order to coil the steel while preventing coarse carbide formation and to prepare the steel for pickling and temper rolling processes. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that coiling and pickling are conventional and well-known processing steps for utilizing and storing hot-rolled steel plates.
Therefore Lee, Cugy and Han disclose the instant method:
Process step
Instant invention
Para.
Lee
Para.
Reheating
1000-1250C
[0080]
1100-1250C
[0026]
Hot rolling finish temp.
≥ 800C
[0084]
800-1000C
[0027]
Cooling rate
≥ 5C/s
[0088]
≥ 10C/s
[0028]
Cooling temp.
≤ 500C
[0088]
≤ 500C, room temp.
[0028]
Cugy
Hot rolled sheet thickness
4-20mm
[0085]
1-10mm
[0003]
Han
Coiling start temp.
≤ 500C
[0088]
15-35C
[0113]
Average coiling temp.
≤ 300C
[0088]
15-35C
[0113]
Because Lee and Han disclose the claimed composition, and Lee, Cugy and Han disclose the instant method, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the steel of Lee, Han and Cugy to comprise the claimed (Claim 1) 97area%or more of austenite, the claimed (Claim 3) tensile strength and elongation and the claimed (Claim 4) Vicker’s hardness. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Lee fails to disclose wherein the hardness increases by 1.1 by work hardening after piping; however, the limitation regarding piping is an intended use limitation. The claims are directed to a hot-rolled steel plate, and the limitations regarding the composition and structure of the hot-rolled steel plate have been met (see above, including teachings by Bae). The hot-rolled steel plate of Lee, Han and Cugy meets the claimed structure and therefore the claimed limitations have been met.
Regarding Claim 5, Cugy discloses wherein the hot-rolled sheet is 1-10mm (para. [0003], see Claim 1 above). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 5, 2026, with respect to Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 over Kang (and Cugy – Claim 5), and Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Lee in view of Bae (and Cugy – Claim 5), have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims further limiting the composition. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Lee in view of Cugy and Han, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments directed to Kang are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 5, 2026, with respect to Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 over Bae, have been fully considered but are respectfully not found persuasive.
Regarding Bae:
Applicant argues that Claim 8 (currently withdrawn) now requires the upper limit of coiling to be 220C, which is outside the claimed range of Bae of 250-600C.
Applicant argues that Bae desires the suppression of carbides along austenite grain boundaries, as described in para. [0110], and that the instant invention is therefore contrary to Bae.
These arguments are respectfully not found persuasive.
The instant invention describes an average temperature of 300C or less for forming the claimed precipitates (para. [0092]), and Applicant has not provided criticality to the 220C or less coiling temperature range for acquiring the claimed features.
Paragraph [0110] does not appear to discuss carbide suppression; however, it appears that Applicant might be referring to para. [0051], which concerns the range of Cr and the precipitation of Cr carbides. The claims do not currently recite the type of precipitate, and do not recite the precipitate as a carbide and/or as a Cr carbide. Therefore, the argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim. Additionally, the Cr range and the C range, and the method of Bae and composition are the same as the instant invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate Bae to comprise the same microstructure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kolekar (Different Heat Treatment parameters investigation on microstructure, mechanical and wear properties of Hadfield Steel): teaches wherein hardness for Hadfield steels casted and heat treated within the temperature range 1000-1200 followed by quenching comprises a hardness from 262-283HV (Fig. 25 and Fig. 74, HT-2).
El-Bitar (“Improvement of Austenitic Hadfield Mn-Steel Properties by Thermomechanical Processing”): teaches wherein a network of carbides exist at grain boundaries in the as cast structure, and that hot-rolling significantly reduces the amount of carbides and increases wear resistance (Pg. 365, Col. 2, para. 1; Fig. 1 and Fig. 12; Conclusions).
Kuyucak (previously cited, “Heat-treatment Processing of Austenitic Manganese Steels”): discloses a plurality of thin carbide precipitates (0.2um or less) formed along austenite grain boundaries, which do not embrittle the steel and are coherent with the austenite, leading to nearly optimum toughness (Pg. 2, para. 1-2; Pg. 3, para. 3-4; Pg. 4, para. 2; Fig. 1(c)-(e), wherein multiple thin carbides are formed along the grain boundary; Fig. 2a). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that multiple thin carbides read on the claimed term film-shaped because they carbides are thin like a film and formed along a grain boundary like a film.
Khan (previously cited, “Microstructural Changes in Hadfield Steel”): teaches wherein the inclusion of fine grain boundary carbides, such as from temperature treatment, increases hardness, including increases from about 9 HRC to at least 25HRC or more, such as 31HRC (Pg. 320, Col. 1, Para. 1 and Conclusions; Abstract; Fig. 8; 9 HRC, 25 HRC and 31 HRC equates to about 192HV, 266HV and 310HV, respectively).
Bae (previously cited and applied above, KR 20190077794 A, US 20210054485 A1 used for English Equivalent, further teachings): teaches 97% or more austenite and 3% or less carbides in order to provide a microstructure which has excellent low-temperature toughness while avoiding cracking during forming (para. [0066]-[0068]; pipe making is a forming method).
Han (applied above, further teachings, KR 2020390 B1, English Machine translation provided): teaches a hot-rolled steel plate for automobile manufacture comprising a microstructure of 90% or more austenite (para. [0001]; para. [0081]; see Table 3, inventive examples comprise up to 98% austenite), and comprising:
Element
Claim 1 (wt%)
Han (wt%)
citation
Mn
10-20
10-26
[0036]
C
0.6-2.0
0.1-1.0
[0032]
Cr
0-5.0
0.001-6.0
[0044]
Al
>0 to 0.5
0.01-2.0
[0040]
Si
>0 to 1.0
0.001-0.8
[0063]
P
0-0.1
silent (0%)
S
0-0.02
silent (0%)
Fe
Bal. + impurities
Bal. + impurities
[0011]
Kim (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed January 31, 2024, US 20090074605 A1): discloses a hot-rolled steel plate comprising 0.2-1.5% C, 10-25% Mn, 0.01-3% Al, 0-0.03% P, 0-0.03% S, 0.02-2.5% Si and a balance of Fe and unavoidable impurities, a microstructure of single-phase austenite, and a TS of ≥ 800MPa and an elongation of ≥30% (Abstract; para. [0007]-[0008]; para. [0049], 40% or more; para. [0004], 30% or more elongation and tensile strength greater than 800MPa; Fig. 2(a) 0% reduction comprising a tensile strength of about 900-1000Mpa an elongation of about 55%).
Kim further discloses a process including reheating to 1050-1300C, hot rolling with a finish temperature of 850-1000C, and winding (coiling) at 700C or below and preferably at a low temperature (para. [0040]-[0041]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
