DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-2 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN2022106122238, filed on 05/31/2022.
Claim objections
Claim 1 recited the equation below
PNG
media_image1.png
80
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is not clear what tgθ represents. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, Examiner consider tanθ instead of tgθ.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 determines the branch angle according to
PNG
media_image2.png
58
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the claimed radius relationship permits radius values for which, such that no real value of θ exists. For example, if we consider the value of r=1.1 and r1=1 to satisfy the radius relationship above but it will result cosθ= 1. 366. By definition, the range of the cosine function for all real numbers is strictly bounded between -1 and 1. Because 1.36602 > 1, there exists no real solution for the angle θ. Also, for the variable α if it is more than greater than 2, the specification fails to enable how step 3 calculate those branch angle since the value of cosθ will be greater than 1. Thus, the specification fails to enable any person skilled in art to make and use the invention across its fully claimed scope without undue experimentation due to mathematical inoperability under standard operating parameters. The specification does not adequately explain how a branch angle is determined under such conditions. Accordingly, the disclosure does not enable the claimed branch-angle determination throughout its scope.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and does not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and thus rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-2 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 1 recites the equation for determining branch angle as:
PNG
media_image3.png
100
495
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 does not clearly define the respective extents of the length parameters I and l. The claim defines l as the “length of horizontal direction of flow channel before branching,” while subsequently defining I as the “length of the flow channel before branching,” and further requires I=l-H/tanθ. It is unclear what different portions or endpoints of the flow channel are represented by I and l, such that the metes and bounds of the claimed calculation cannot be determined with reasonable clarity. Also, the drawing doesn’t cure the ambiguity because figs 1-5 do not provide a geometric diagram defining all these geometric parameters (I, l, H, LZ),. For examination purposes, Examiner consider the total length of the flow channel in horizonal direction as l here.
Claim 1 determines the branch angle according to
PNG
media_image2.png
58
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In step 2, the claim recites two branches, whereas in step 4, the variable α denotes an unspecified number of branches, creating an irreconcilable contradiction in the claimed scope.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and does not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and thus rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concepts) without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 1-2 are directed to process or method, which falls into the one of the statutory category.
(Step 2A) (Prong 1) Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? (Judicially recognized exceptions)?
Claim 1 recites
Step 1: determine the energy required to transfer liquid through a bionic flow channel;
according to the relationship between bionic flow channel flow rate q and channel diameter d, determine the energy required to transfer liquid in the channel according to the law of conservation of energy:
PNG
media_image4.png
64
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where: E represents the total energy consumed by the flow channel; Ef represents the energy required to maintain liquid flow in the flow channel; Em represents the energy required to maintain metabolism; q represents flow rate in bionic flow channel; l represents length of horizontal direction of flow channel before branching; μ represents hydraulic viscosity coefficient; m represents metabolic constant; d represents diameter of bionic flow channel;
(The above limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited features contain mathematical calculation/equations that are “within the realm of abstract ideas”. So, it falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(2)(I)(C)))
Step 2: determine the radius of the bionic flow channel;
with energy conservation, when the flow channel branches, the relationship between the radius of the flow channel before branching and the radiuses of two branches of the flow channel after branching is calculated as follows:
r 3 =r 1 3 +r 2 3;
where: r represents the radius of the flow channel before branching; r1 represents the radius of the first flow channel after branching; r2 represents the radius of the second flow channel after branching;
(The above limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited features contain mathematical calculation/equations that are “within the realm of abstract ideas”. So, it falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(2)(I)(C)))
Step 3: determine the branch angle of the bionic flow channel;
the branch angle of the bionic flow channel is the angle between the center line of the flow channel before branching and the center line of any branch of the flow channel after branching, satisfying the calculation relationship between the length of the flow channel before branching I and the length of the first flow channel after branching I1, which is shown as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
80
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where: H represents the vertical distance between the center point of the flow channel after branching and the center point of the flow channel before branching; θ represents the angle between the center line of the flow channel before branching and the center line of the flow channel of any branch after branching; I represents the length of the flow channel before branching; I1 represents the length of the first flow channel after branching;
the calculation relationship between total energy consumption E of the flow channel and angle θ between the center line of the flow channel before branching and the center line of any branch of the flow channel after branching is shown as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
78
712
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where: k represents the constant of the flow channel before branching; k1 represents the constant of first flow channel after branching; Lz represents total length of the flow channel in horizontal direction before and after branching; α represents number of channel branches;
when energy consumption is minimized, the calculation relationship of the branch angle of the flow channel can be obtained as follows:
PNG
media_image6.png
74
440
media_image6.png
Greyscale
according to the above formula, the value of angle after branching of the flow channel can be finally obtained;
(The above limitation step 3 under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited features contain mathematical calculation/equations that are “within the realm of abstract ideas” such as calculating branch angle and relationship between total energy consumption E of the flow channel and branching angle. So, it falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(2)(I)(C)))
Step 4: determine the structure of the bionic flow channel;
determine the structure of the bionic flow channel according to the radius of the bionic flow channel and the branch angle of the bionic flow channel determined in Step 2 and Step 3.
(The above limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited features contain mathematical calculation/equations that are “within the realm of abstract ideas” such as using mathematical results of step 2 and 3. So, it falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation considered mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(2)(I)(C))
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites the additional elements of “complete the manufacture of the hydraulic drive device….and process the hydraulic drive device according to the structure of the bionic flow channel” are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or merely instructs the practitioner, at a high level generality, to apply the mathematically determined flow channel geometry in processing the hydraulic drive deice, without reciting a particular manner of processing that meaningfully limits the mathematical concept. (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Alternatively, the additional elements of “complete the manufacture of the hydraulic drive device….and process the hydraulic drive device according to the structure of the bionic flow channel also consider as insignificant post solution activity. (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) Thus, a bionic flow channel design method for additive manufacturing cylinder block is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites the additional elements of “complete the manufacture of the hydraulic drive device….and process the hydraulic drive device according to the structure of the bionic flow channel” are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or merely instructs the practitioner, at a high level generality, to apply the mathematically determined flow channel geometry in processing the hydraulic drive deice, without reciting a particular manner of processing that meaningfully limits the mathematical concept. (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) Alternatively, the additional elements of “complete the manufacture of the hydraulic drive device….and process the hydraulic drive device according to the structure of the bionic flow channel also consider as insignificant post solution activity of insignificant application, analogous to i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. as recited in MPEP § 2106.05(g); Thus, a bionic flow channel design method for additive manufacturing cylinder block is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further recites wherein acquisition method of the bionic flow channel flow rate in the Step 1 is shown as follows: according to the principle of minimum energy consumption and the energy consumption relationship required to transfer liquid in step 1, the following calculation relationship is obtained:
PNG
media_image7.png
72
374
media_image7.png
Greyscale
the hydraulic viscosity coefficient μ and metabolic constant m have been determined, so the calculation formula for flow rate in the flow channel and channel diameter can be simplified as follows:
q=kd3.
The above limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited features contain mathematical calculation/equations that are “within the realm of abstract ideas”. So, it falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. (See MPEP 2106.04(2)(I)(C)) The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concepts) without significantly more.
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.
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.
7. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson et al. "Generalizing Murray's law: An optimization principle for fluidic networks of arbitrary shape and scale." Journal of Applied Physics 118.17 (2015) in view of Jiang et al. (“Mathematical models”, 5th edition, Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2018. ISBN 978-7-04-049222-4) and further in view of Yao et al. ("Pressure Loss and Multi-Objective Optimization of Three-Way Spatial Flow Channel Based on Additive Manufacturing." Fluid Power Systems Technology. Vol. 85239. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2021.)
Regarding claim 1
Stephenson teaches a bionic flow channel design method cylindrical channel optimized to require the minimum work to drive and maintain the fluid. However, application of this principle to the biomimetic design of micro/nano fabricated networks requires optimization of channels with arbitrary cross-sectional shape (not just circular) and smaller than is valid for Murray's original assumptions. We present a generalized law for symmetric branching that (a) is valid for any cross-sectional shape, providing that the shape is constant through the network. See introduction I-These developments indicate that some version of Murray's law could be applied as a biomimetic design principle for microfluidic and nanofluidic networks, such as lab-on-a-chip devices for microreactors or tissue engineering, or micro/nanoscale heat exchangers for high performance fuel cells or the cooling of electronic devices)
Step 1: determine the energy required to transfer liquid through a bionic flow channel;
according to the relationship between bionic flow channel flow rate q and channel diameter d, determine the energy required to transfer liquid in the channel according to the law of conservation of energy:
PNG
media_image4.png
64
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where: E represents the total energy consumed by the flow channel; Ef represents the energy required to maintain liquid flow in the flow channel; Em represents the energy required to maintain metabolism; q represents flow rate in bionic flow channel; l represents length of horizontal direction of flow channel before branching; μ represents hydraulic viscosity coefficient; m represents metabolic constant; d represents diameter of bionic flow channel; (see section introduction I)
PNG
media_image8.png
734
760
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: For step 1, Wf represents the energy required to maintain liquid flow in the flow channel see equation 1. Wm represents the energy required to maintain metabolism see equation 2. The relationship is shown in equation 3. All the variables are shown where diameter =2*radius.
Step 2: determine the radius of the bionic flow channel;
with energy conservation, when the flow channel branches, the relationship between the radius of the flow channel before branching and the radiuses of two branches of the flow channel after branching is calculated as follows:
r 3 =r 1 3 +r 2 3;
where: r represents the radius of the flow channel before branching; r1 represents the radius of the first flow channel after branching; r2 represents the radius of the second flow channel after branching; (see section introduction and equation 3)
By applying the conservation of mass at a branching point, we retrieve the ubiquitous principle known as Murray's law:
PNG
media_image9.png
56
766
media_image9.png
Greyscale
where the subscripts p and di denote the parent and the ith daughter (of N), respectively.
Examiner note: rp represents radius of the flow channel before branching and rd1 and rd2 represent the first flow channel and second flow channel after branching respectfully.
Stephenson does not teach Step 3: determine the branch angle of the bionic flow channel; Step 4: determine the structure of the bionic flow channel and complete the manufacture of the hydraulic drive device.
In the related field of invention, Jiang teaches determine the structure of the bionic flow channel according to the radius of the bionic flow channel and the branch angle of the bionic flow channel determined in Step 2 and Step 3, and process the hydraulic drive device according to the structure of the bionic flow channel.
Step 3: determine the branch angle of the bionic flow channel;
the branch angle of the bionic flow channel is the angle between the center line of the flow channel before branching and the center line of any branch of the flow channel after branching, satisfying the calculation relationship between the length of the flow channel before branching I and the length of the first flow channel after branching I1, which is shown as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
80
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where: H represents the vertical distance between the center point of the flow channel after branching and the center point of the flow channel before branching; θ represents the angle between the center line of the flow channel before branching and the center line of the flow channel of any branch after branching; I represents the length of the flow channel before branching; I1 represents the length of the first flow channel after branching;
the calculation relationship between total energy consumption E of the flow channel and angle θ between the center line of the flow channel before branching and the center line of any branch of the flow channel after branching is shown as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
78
712
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where: k represents the constant of the flow channel before branching; k1 represents the constant of first flow channel after branching; Lz represents total length of the flow channel in horizontal direction before and after branching; α represents number of channel branches;
when energy consumption is minimized, the calculation relationship of the branch angle of the flow channel can be obtained as follows:
PNG
media_image6.png
74
440
media_image6.png
Greyscale
according to the above formula, the value of angle after branching of the flow channel can be finally obtained; (see section 3.6)
PNG
media_image10.png
908
624
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
550
582
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: For step 3, determine the branch angle look equation 5. For the calculation relationship between total energy consumption E of the flow channel and angle see equation 6. Minimization equations shown in equations 9 and 10. All the variable are shown in figure and defined.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of biomimetic design of micro/nano fabricated network with a symmetric branching as disclosed by Stephenson to include determine the branch angle of the bionic flow channel as taught by Jiang in the system of Stephenson in order to achieve a minimum energy consumption in fluid transport that is related to the geometry of the branching vascular system and seeks an optimized branching geometry. (see section 3.6, Jiang)
The combination does not teach Stephenson and Jiang does not teach determining the structure of the bionic flow channel and completing the manufacture of the hydraulic drive device.
In the related field of invention, Yao teaches a bionic flow channel design method for additive manufacturing cylinder block comprises Step 4: determine the structure of the bionic flow channel and complete the manufacture of the hydraulic drive device; determine the structure of the bionic flow channel according to the radius of the bionic flow channel and the branch angle of the bionic flow channel determined in Step 2 and Step 3, and process the hydraulic drive device according to the structure of the bionic flow channel. (see abstract-Three-way spatial fluid channel (TSFC) is commonly used in spatial fluid channels of the high hydraulic integrated system. Besides, the optimized TSFC structure model is manufactured by additive manufacturing, and the experiment is carried out to measure TSFC pressure loss. See section 2.1.2-In this section, the relationship between pressure loss and structural parameters is analyzed first by response surface methodology (RSM). The structural parameters, bending rate R0/D, fluid channel diameter D , and branching angle are taken as variable factors. SEE introduction- The hydraulic manifold block is one of the important components of hydraulic integrated systems, which contains a variety of complicated spatial fluid channels. Therefore, the spatial fluid channels processed by additive manufacturing technology can replace hydraulic manifold blocks to effectively reduce energy consumption. At present, Selective Laser Melting (SLM) is commonly used for additive manufacturing of flow channels.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of biomimetic design of micro/nano fabricated network with a symmetric branching as disclosed by Stephenson to include determine the structure of the bionic flow channel and complete the manufacture of the hydraulic drive device as taught by Yao in the system of Stephenson and Jiang for the design and optimization of the spatial flow channel in highly integrated hydraulic systems.. The optimized mathematic model for the three-way spatial fluid channel (TSFC) structural parameters is built by the multi-objective optimization design method to achieve low pressure loss, short axis path length, and lightweight. (see abstract, Yao)
8. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson et al. "Generalizing Murray's law: An optimization principle for fluidic networks of arbitrary shape and scale." Journal of Applied Physics 118.17 (2015) in view of Jiang et al. (“Mathematical models”, 5th edition, Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2018. ISBN 978-7-04-049222-4) and further in view of Yao et al. ("Pressure Loss and Multi-Objective Optimization of Three-Way Spatial Flow Channel Based on Additive Manufacturing." Fluid Power Systems Technology. Vol. 85239. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2021.) and further in view of Murray et al. (“THE PHYSIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE OF MINIMUMI WORK. I. THE VASCULAR SYSTEM AND THFE COST OF BLOOD VOLUME." Journal of General Physiology 14.4 (1931): 445.)
Regarding claim 2
The combination of Stephenson, Jiang and Yao teaches the bionic flow channel design for additive manufacturing cylinder block of claim 1. The combination of Stephenson, Jiang and Yao does not teach the elements of claim 2 provided by the calculation relationship.
In the related field of invention, Murray teaches wherein acquisition method of the bionic flow channel flow rate in the Step 1 is shown as follows: according to the principle of minimum energy consumption and the energy consumption relationship required to transfer liquid in step 1, the following calculation relationship is obtained: (see equation 6 Murray)
PNG
media_image7.png
72
374
media_image7.png
Greyscale
the hydraulic viscosity coefficient μ and metabolic constant m have been determined, so the calculation formula for flow rate in the flow channel and channel diameter can be simplified as follows:
q=kd3. (See equation 7-Murray)
PNG
media_image12.png
786
536
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of biomimetic design of micro/nano fabricated network with a symmetric branching as disclosed by Stephenson to include the elements of claim 2 as taught by Murray in the system of Stephenson, Jiang and Yao in the application of the principle of minimum work required for the flow of blood in the aorta in which the principle of minimum work is used to solve the problems concerning the operation of physiological systems.(see page 207,209, Murray)
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pryor et al. US20100234678A1
Discussing a method of fabricating a scaffold comprising a fluidic network. The method includes the steps of: (a) generating an initial vascular layer for enclosing the chamber and providing fluid to the cells, the initial vascular layer having a network of channels for fluid; (b) translating the initial vascular layer into a model for fluid dynamics analysis; (c) analyzing the initial vascular layer based on desired parameters selected from the group consisting of a characteristic of a specific fluid, an input pressure, an output pressure, an overall flow rate and combinations thereof to determine sheer stress and velocity within the network of channels; (d) measuring the sheer stress and the velocity and comparing the obtained values to predetermined values; (e) determining if either of the shear stress or the velocity are greater than or less than the predetermined values, and (f) optionally modifying the initial vascular layer and repeating steps (b)-(e).
9. All claims 1-2 are rejected.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to 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, RENEE CHAVEZ can be reached at 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights