DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/19/2025 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Amended claim 8 recites the limitation “the ethylenically unsaturated groups are selected from (meth)acryl, alkene or alkyne or halide thereof”. The specification does not describe the ethylenically unsaturated groups are alkene (alkenyl is disclosed, page 17, lines 14-18 and 37-39 of the instant specification).
Claims 6, 16, 21, 22, and 24 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 “after heating to 200oC for 60 minutes” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Further, is the step of heating to 200oC the heating step of claim 1 or an additional heating step? The limitation appears directed to the heating step of claim 1 is heating to 200oC for 60 minutes (see pages 48-49 of the instant specification). It is suggested to insert - - heating the fluoropolymer film to a bonding temperature is heating to 200oC for 60 minutes and - - before “after heating to 200oC for 60 minutes” to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the fluoropolymer comprises particles of a second fluoropolymer”. The limitation is unclear and confusing as to is the “a second fluoropolymer” the second fluoropolymer of claim 1 or an additional second fluoropolymer? The “a second fluoropolymer” appears intended as the second fluoropolymer of claim 1. It is suggested to delete “a second fluoropolymer” and insert therein - - the second fluoropolymer - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “The method of claim 15”. Claim 15 has been cancelled. It is suggested to delete “claim 15” and insert therein - - claim 1 - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 16, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (WO 2021/091864).
Regarding claim 1, Gu discloses a method of bonding a substrate comprising: providing a fluoropolymer film (100 see Figure 1, 300 see Figure 3A, and 300 see Figure 3B) comprising (it being noted comprising is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps see MPEP 2111.03): i) a first fluoropolymer comprising at least 80 wt.% of polymerized perfluorinated monomers (Page 7, lines 5-10 and Page 8, lines 22-27 and wherein the polymerized perfluorinated monomers of the first fluoropolymer comprise tetrafluoroethene (TFE) and one or more unsaturated perfluorinated alkyl ethers); ii) a second fluoropolymer having a greater amount of polymerized tetrafluoroethylene than the first fluoropolymer (Page 29, lines 17-18 and Page 31, lines 31-32 and e.g. 100 wt% polymerized units of TFE); wherein the first fluoropolymer and/or second fluoropolymer, i.e. at least the first fluoropolymer, comprises halogen cure sites and are free of nitrile-containing cure sites (Page 9, line 36 and Page 12, lines 31-32); iii) one or more compounds comprising an electron donor group and one or more ethylenically unsaturated groups (Page 15, lines 30-31 and Page 17, lines 33-35); applying the fluoropolymer film to a copper substrate (Page 4, lines 34-35 and Page 42, lines 23-26); heating (e.g. in an oven) the fluoropolymer film to a bonding temperature between 170oC and 250oC for a period of 0.1 to 24 hours (Page 1, lines 16-18 and Page 39, lines 10-12 and 21-23 and Page 40, lines 37-38 and Table 24 see Lamination condition) and including 200oC for a substrate of copper foil; and wherein the method lacks exposing the fluoropolymer film to ultraviolet radiation (Page 1, lines 16-18 and Page 39, lines 21-23 and including heating in an oven). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method of bonding a substrate as taught by Gu comprising: providing a fluoropolymer film comprising: i) a first fluoropolymer comprising at least 80 wt.% of polymerized perfluorinated monomers; ii) a second fluoropolymer having a greater amount of polymerized tetrafluoroethylene than the first fluoropolymer; wherein the first fluoropolymer and/or second fluoropolymer, i.e. at least the first fluoropolymer, comprises halogen cure sites and are free of nitrile-containing cure sites; iii) one or more compounds comprising an electron donor group and one or more ethylenically unsaturated groups; applying the fluoropolymer film to a copper substrate; heating the fluoropolymer film to a bonding temperature of at least 150oC and including 200oC for 60 minutes; and wherein the method lacks exposing the fluoropolymer film to ultraviolet radiation (and additionally further comprising that set forth in claims 2, 4, 6-10, 16, and 21-26 see below) to predictably form an electronic telecommunications article or printed circuit board as expressly suggested by Gu (see page(s), line(s) as set forth above) it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Gu teaches the polymerized perfluorinated monomers of the first fluoropolymer comprise tetrafluoroethene (TFE) and one or more unsaturated perfluorinated alkyl ethers (Page 7, lines 5-10 and Page 8, lines 22-27).
Regarding claim 4, Gu teaches the substrate is copper so that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the substrate taught by Gu is solid copper as suggested by Gu and thus opaque such that the substrate has little or no transmission of ultraviolet radiation as is not only choosing one solution from the finite predictable solutions of opaque or not opaque but opaque (color of copper) would be the expected property by one of ordinary skill in the art of a solid copper substrate (consistent with as in the instant invention a substrate is opaque such that the substrate has little or no transmission of ultraviolet radiation is a metal or copper substrate).
Regarding claim 6, Gu does not appear to expressly measure the fluoropolymer layer to copper bond strength at a temperature of 120oC or 150oC after heating to 200oC for 60 minutes, and the Office is unequipped to perform such a measurement. Gu teaches the fluoropolymer layer has a bond strength to copper of more than 1 N/cm (Page 42, lines 23-26) wherein heating the fluoropolymer film to a bonding temperature as taught by Gu is prima facie obvious heating to 200oC for 60 minutes in view of that disclosed by Gu (including ranges therein) as set forth above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Gu results in after heating to 200oC for 60 minutes the fluoropolymer layer has a bond strength to copper of at least 1 N/cm at a temperature of 120oC or 150oC as is consistent with the bond strength disclosed by Gu and further wherein as the fluoropolymer layer taught by Gu is fully consistent and in agreement with that disclosed and claimed in the instant invention just as in the instant invention after heating to 200oC for 60 minutes the fluoropolymer layer has a bond strength to copper of at least 1 N/cm at 120oC or 150oC so would be the expected result in Gu (the limitation of claim 6 rejected in as much as it is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 7, Gu teaches the one or more compounds comprising an electron donor group selected from amine, etc. (Page 18, lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 8, Gu teaches the ethylenically unsaturated groups are selected from (meth)acryl, etc. (Page 15, lines 37-39).
Regarding claim 9, Gu teaches the substrate is a component of a telecommunications article or printed circuit boards (Page 1, lines 26-27 and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Gu teaches the fluoropolymer film is provided by providing a coating solution of i), ii) and iii) and a fluorinated solvent, applying the coating solution to the substrate or release liner, and removing the fluorinated solvent (Page 27, line 14 and Page 39, lines 10-12 and Page 63, lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 16, Gu teaches the fluoropolymer film comprises particles of the second fluoropolymer (Page 29, lines 17-18).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Gu teaches the second fluoropolymer having a melting temperature of for example at least 100oC (Page 30, lines 36-39) wherein 100oC is below the bonding temperature range including at least 170oC so that the limitation is met as the conditional limitation, i.e. “when”, is not applicable. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Gu further comprises heating the fluoropolymer film to a temperature (e.g. above 170 oC including 200oC) at or above the melting temperature of the second fluoropolymer when the second fluoropolymer has a melting temperature (e.g. above 170 oC) greater than the minimum bonding temperature (e.g. 170 oC) wherein heating the fluoropolymer film to a temperature about the melting temperature occurs after applying the fluoropolymer film to the substrate, e.g. during the heating the fluoropolymer film to a bonding temperature in the bonding temperature range including 170-200oC, as is the suggestion in Gu to heat the fluoropolymer film to a temperature above the melting temperature of the second fluoropolymer wherein in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Regarding claim 23, Gu teaches prior to heating and curing/crosslinking, the first fluoropolymer is soluble in 3-ethoxy perfluorinated 2-methyl hexane (Page 26, lines 18-19 and Page 29, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 24, Gu teaches wherein after heating, the first and second fluoropolymers are physically crosslinked (to form a cured/crosslinked film see abstract and Page 1, lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 25, Gu teaches the fluoropolymer film further comprises additives selected from silica, glass fibers, etc. (Page 33, line 18).
Regarding claim 26, Gu teaches the fluoropolymer film has i) a dielectric constant (Dk) of less than 2.75; ii) a dielectric loss of less than 0.01; or a combination thereof (Page 42, lines 9-15).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-10, 16, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hintzer et al. (WO 2019/239322) in view of Polastri et al. (WO 2014/001100).
Regarding claim 1, Hintzer discloses a method of bonding a substrate comprising: providing a fluoropolymer film comprising: i) a first fluoropolymer comprising at least 80 wt.% of polymerized perfluorinated monomers (Page 6, lines 1-3 and Page 7, lines 7-11 and wherein the polymerized perfluorinated monomers of the first fluoropolymer comprise tetrafluoroethene (TFE) and one or more unsaturated perfluorinated alkyl ethers); ii) a second fluoropolymer having a greater amount of polymerized tetrafluoroethylene than the first fluoropolymer (Page 4, lines 6-9 and 35-36 and e.g. 100 wt% polymerized units of TFE); wherein the first fluoropolymer and/or second fluoropolymer, i.e. at least the first fluoropolymer, comprises halogen cure sites and are free of nitrile-containing cure sites (Page 8, lines 20-25 and no requirement for nitrile-containing cure sites); iii) one or more compounds comprising an electron donor group and one or more ethylenically unsaturated groups (Page 12, lines 31-32 and Page 17, lines 6-8 and Page 21, lines 1, 11 and 14); applying the fluoropolymer film to a substrate; heating (e.g. in an oven) the fluoropolymer film to a bonding temperature of 150oC, 200oC, or 300oC (Page 25, lines 29-35 and Page 26, lines 1-2 and Page 30, lines 8-9 and Page 39, lines 4-5); and wherein the method lacks exposing the fluoropolymer film to ultraviolet radiation (Page 25, lines 29-35 and Page 30, lines 8-9 and including heating in an oven). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method of bonding a substrate as taught by Hintzer comprising: providing a fluoropolymer film comprising: i) a first fluoropolymer comprising at least 80 wt.% of polymerized perfluorinated monomers; ii) a second fluoropolymer having a greater amount of polymerized tetrafluoroethylene than the first fluoropolymer; wherein the first fluoropolymer and/or second fluoropolymer, i.e. at least the first fluoropolymer, comprises halogen cure sites and are free of nitrile-containing cure sites; iii) one or more compounds comprising an electron donor group and one or more ethylenically unsaturated groups; applying the fluoropolymer film to a substrate; heating the fluoropolymer film to a bonding temperature of at least 150oC; and wherein the method lacks exposing the fluoropolymer film to ultraviolet radiation (and additionally further comprising that set forth in claims 2, 4, 7-10, 16, and 21-26 see below) to predictably form an article as expressly suggested by Hintzer (see page(s), line(s) as set forth above) it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “copper substrate”, Hintzer teaches the substrate is a metal substrate such as stainless steel, aluminum, etc. (Page 26, lines 8-12) without expressly teaching copper wherein it is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art such metal substrates bonded with a fluoropolymer film comprise copper (including as alternative to stainless steel, aluminum, etc.) as evidenced by Polastri (Abstract and Paragraphs 0003 and 0113). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the metal substrate taught by Hintzer is a copper substrate as a simple substitution of one known metal for another to yield predictable results as evidenced by Polastri.
Regarding claim 2, Hintzer teaches the polymerized perfluorinated monomers of the first fluoropolymer comprise tetrafluoroethene (TFE) and one or more unsaturated perfluorinated alkyl ethers (Page 6, lines 1-3 and Page 7, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 4, Hintzer as modified by Polastri teaches the substrate is copper so that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the substrate taught by Hintzer as modified by Polastri is solid copper as suggested by Polastri and thus opaque such that the substrate has little or no transmission of ultraviolet radiation as is not only choosing one solution from the finite predictable solutions of opaque or not opaque but opaque (color of copper) would be the expected property by one of ordinary skill in the art of a solid copper substrate (consistent with as in the instant invention a substrate is opaque such that the substrate has little or no transmission of ultraviolet radiation is a metal or copper substrate).
Regarding claim 7, Hintzer teaches the one or more compounds comprising an electron donor group selected from amine, etc. (Page 12, lines 31-32 and Page 17, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 8, Hintzer teaches the ethylenically unsaturated groups are selected from alkyne, etc. (Page 21, line 1).
Regarding claim 9, Hintzer as modified by Polastri teaches the substrate is a copper substrate and considered capable of use as a component of a telecommunications article or printed circuit boards.
Regarding claim 10, Hintzer teaches the fluoropolymer film is provided by providing a coating solution of i), ii) and iii) and a fluorinated solvent, applying the coating solution to the substrate or release liner, and removing the fluorinated solvent (Page 21, lines 17-18 and Page 22, line 9 and Page 23, lines 33-36 and Page 25, lines 21-22).
Regarding claim 16, Hintzer teaches the fluoropolymer film comprises particles of the second fluoropolymer (Page 4, lines 6-9 and 35-36).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Hintzer teaches the second fluoropolymer having a melting temperature of for example at least 100oC (Page 4, lines 6-7) wherein 100oC is below the bonding temperature range including 150oC, 200oC, or 300oC so that the limitation is met as the conditional limitation, i.e. “when”, is not applicable. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Hintzer as modified by Polastri further comprises heating the fluoropolymer film to a temperature (e.g. above 150 oC and in the range of above 150 to 300oC) at or above the melting temperature of the second fluoropolymer when the second fluoropolymer has a melting temperature (e.g. above 150 oC) greater than the minimum bonding temperature (e.g. 150 oC) wherein heating the fluoropolymer film to a temperature about the melting temperature occurs after applying the fluoropolymer film to the substrate, e.g. during the heating the fluoropolymer film to a bonding temperature in the bonding temperature range including 150oC, 200oC, or 300oC, as is the suggestion in Hintzer to heat the fluoropolymer film to a temperature above the melting temperature of the second fluoropolymer wherein in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Regarding claim 23, Hintzer teaches prior to heating and curing/crosslinking, the first fluoropolymer is soluble in 3-ethoxy perfluorinated 2-methyl hexane (Page 21, lines 17-18 and Page 22, line 9 and Page 23, lines 33-36).
Regarding claim 24, Hintzer teaches wherein after heating, the first and second fluoropolymers are physically crosslinked (Page 12, lines 28-30).
Regarding claim 25, Hintzer teaches the fluoropolymer film further comprises additives of silica, glass fibers, etc. (Page 24, line 24).
Regarding claim 26, Hintzer does not expressly teach the dielectric constant or dielectric loss of the fluoropolymer film, and the Office is unequipped to test the fluoropolymer film for the values. Hintzer teaches the components of the fluoropolymer film includes additives known and used in the art including silica and glass fibers (Page 24, lines 23-24), i.e. low dielectric materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Hintzer as modified by Polastri results in the fluoropolymer film has i) a dielectric constant (Dk) of less than 2.75; ii) a dielectric loss of less than 0.01; or a combination thereof as is consistent with the known additives included in the film disclosed by Hintzer and further wherein as the fluoropolymer layer taught by Hintzer is fully consistent and in agreement with that disclosed and claimed in the instant invention (including comprising i), ii), and iii) and silica and/or glass fibers) just as in the instant invention the fluoropolymer film has i) a dielectric constant (Dk) of less than 2.75; ii) a dielectric loss of less than 0.01; or a combination thereof so would have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art for the fluoropolymer film taught by Hintzer.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 16, and 21-26 above, and further in view of Hirschberg et al. (EP 3284762). Additionally, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hintzer and Polastri as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 7-10, 16, and 21-26 above, and further in view of Hirschberg.
Gu, Hintzer, and Polastri are each described above in full detail.
Regarding claim 14, Neither Gu nor Hintzer expressly teach applying the fluoropolymer film by melt extruding the fluoropolymer film. Each of Gu and Hintzer is not limited to any particular application method suggesting typical equipment includes extruders (Page 38, lines 26-27 and Page 62, line 23 of Gu and Page 25, lines 2-3 of Hintzer). Conventional technique to process the fluoropolymer film (including as alternative to a coating solution in a solvent) is by melt extruding as evidenced by Hirschberg (Paragraphs 0059-0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the fluoropolymer film as taught by Gu and Hintzer as modified by Polastri is by melt extruding the fluoropolymer film as a simple substitution of one known application method for another to yield predictable results as evidenced by Hirschberg.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered.
In view of the amendments filed on 11/19/2025 the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) over Nguyen et al. (WO 2019/241186) set forth in the Office action mailed on 10/1/2025 are withdrawn. The claims as amended are fully addressed above.
Applicants argue, “As previously argued, although Table 24 appears to describe the method of claim 1, such examples utilize PFE-3 alone or blends of PFE-3 and PFA-2, described at p. 44-5 as follows:
PFE-3 Perfluoroelastomer latex or coagulated gum 3M Dyneon
comprising a copolymer of 65.8 mol% TFE, 33 mol
PMVE, 1.2 mol% of a nitrile vinylether
PFA 30 wt.% solids aqueous latex - 96 wt% TFE, 4 wt.% 3M Dyneon
PPVE, Tm is 308 °C, MFI (372°C/5kg) 7g/10min
Thus, these fluoropolymers comprise nitrile-containing cure sites and lack halogen cure sites. In contrast claim 1 requires a fluoropolymer that comprise halogen cure sites and lacks nitrile-containing cure sites. This amendment is supported by the application at p. 13, lines 32-33.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein Gu is not limited to examples such as comprising PFE-3 (and including see further examples PFE-1 and PFE-2) and expressly teaches at least the first fluoropolymer comprises halogen cure sites and are free of nitrile-containing cure sites (Page 9, line 36 and Page 12, lines 31-32).
Applicants further argue, “With reference to Table 16, Hintzer teaches the inclusion of THV as a second polymer to improve adhesion to stainless steel. However, such second fluoropolymer does not have a greater amount of polymerized tetrafluoroethylene than the first fluoropolymer. Also the fluoropolymer films were not heated to a bonding temperature of at least 150 °C, nor does this reference teach bonding copper as recite in Table 2.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein Hintzer is not limited to the examples in Table 16. Hintzer teaches a second fluoropolymer having a greater amount of polymerized tetrafluoroethylene (e.g. 100 wt.%) than the first fluoropolymer (e.g. comprising tetrafluoroethene (TFE) and one or more unsaturated perfluorinated alkyl ethers) (Page 4, lines 6-9 and 35-36 and Page 7, lines 7-14). Hintzer teaches heating (e.g. in an oven) the fluoropolymer film to a bonding temperature of 150oC, 200oC, or 300oC (Page 25, lines 29-35 and Page 26, lines 1-2 and Page 30, lines 8-9 and Page 39, lines 4-5). Hintzer teaches the substrate is a metal substrate (Page 26, lines 8-12) wherein Polastri is applied to teach the metal is copper as set forth above.
Applicants further argue, “The Applicant contends that it’s a surprising result that the claimed method can provide good adhesion to copper as recited in claim 6.”.
The limitation in claim 6 is interpreted as set forth in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above wherein in view of such an interpretation the previous rejections of claim 6 over Hintzer and Nguyen are withdrawn. Gu teaches the limitation of claim 6 as set forth above there being no evidence of unexpected results sufficient to overcome that taught by Gu (see MPEP 716.02(c)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746