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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4–8, 10-11, 13–14, 16–18, and 20 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.
Claims 1, 11 and 17:
Claims 1, 11, and 17 each recite, repairing the first stator vane "via an automated directed energy deposition process corresponding to the automated removal process." The term "corresponding to," as used in this context, is susceptible to at least two irreconcilable interpretations that result in materially different claim scopes, and the specification does not resolve the ambiguity with reasonable certainty as required by Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014).
Interpretation A (broad): Any directed energy deposition process that successfully fills the scallop created by the automated removal process necessarily conforms to, and therefore "corresponds to," that removal process, because the deposited material occupies the void defined by the removal. Under this reading, the limitation is inherent in any successful repair and adds no meaningful restriction to the claim. Every automated DED repair following an automated removal would satisfy the limitation regardless of how the DED process parameters are determined.
Interpretation B (narrow): The DED repair process is specifically pre-configured or standardized in advance based on the parameters and geometry of the automated removal process, such that the DED program is derived from the same standardized specification that defines the removal geometry. Under this reading, a DED repair system that determines its parameters by measuring the actual scallop geometry after removal, an adaptive or sensor-driven approach, would not satisfy the limitation, because the DED process in that scenario responds to the result of the removal rather than being pre-configured to correspond to the removal process itself.
The specification does not resolve this ambiguity. Paragraph [0038] states that "the DED process may be standardized to match the defect removal process.” This is permissive language describing one optional embodiment rather than a definitional statement applicable to all uses of "corresponding to" in the claims. Elsewhere, the specification describes the repair in broader terms, characterizing it simply as filling the scallop and building the stator vane back to near-original specifications without reference to pre-configuration or standardization derived from the removal process. See at least paragraphs [0037], [0043]. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading the full specification cannot determine with reasonable certainty whether the claimed "corresponding to" relationship requires the pre-configured, standardized matching described in paragraph [0038] or is satisfied by the broader fill-the-scallop descriptions found elsewhere in the disclosure.
Because the claim language is susceptible to two materially different interpretations and the specification does not clearly resolve which interpretation governs, claims 1, 11, and 17 fail to provide adequate notice to inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. Therefore, the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Suggested Resolution: Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the phrase "corresponding to the automated removal process" to more precisely express the intended relationship between the two processes. For example, Applicant may replace "corresponding to" with language that tracks the specification's description at paragraph [0038], such as "an automated directed energy deposition process standardized to match the automated removal process."
Compact Prosecution
The Office requires examiners to practice compact prosecution and should the examiner determine that an amended claim term or phrase renders the claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or indefinite under 35 U.S.C 112(b), the examiner should make a rejection based on the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as well as a rejection(s) in view of prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 that renders the prior art applicable on the examiner’s interpretation of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 4-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andalam et al. (US 2022/0268170 A1) in view of Maritano et al. (US 11,325,211 B2), Graham (US 2019/038/3161 A1) and Finn et al. (US 2018/0002039 A1) and Burke (US 6,508,000).
Claim 1:
Andalam discloses a method (abstract), comprising:
receiving a stator stage (84) including a plurality of stator vanes disposed between an outer diameter and an inner diameter (figs. 5-6, [0075] and [0089]); and,
performing an analysis of the stator stage (84) for defects using thermal examinations (fig. 6, [0042] [0079] and [0099]).
Andalam fails to disclose determining based on the analysis that there is a first defect on an edge of a first stator vane of the plurality of stator vanes. Instead, Andalam discloses an inspection tool for navigating to an area of interest within a stator stage (fig. 6, [0079]). In addition, Andalam discloses an area of interest may be analyzed with a sensor to detect wear, damage, debris or lack thereof (fig. 6, para [0099]).
Maritano discloses a method for restoring a vane platform (abstract), comprising
performing an analysis of a stator stage for defects (col 5, lines 4-9); and, determining based on the analysis that there is a first defect on an edge of a first stator vane of the plurality of stator vanes (col. 1, lines 40-43 and col. 5, lines 4-9);
responsive to determining that there is the first defect on the edge, removing a portion of the first stator vane including the first defect to form a first scallop on the edge of the first stator vane (fig 3., col. 5, lines 8-15);
repairing via a directed energy deposition process (additive manufacturing technology) corresponding to the removal process, the first stator vane including filling the first scallop to fill the first stator vane to its original size and shape creating a repaired portion (fig. 7, col. 2, lines 41-45 and col. 5, lines 43-50); and
performing a blending process on the stator stage including the first stator vane and the repaired portion to smooth the plurality of stator vanes (col. 3, lines 23-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Andalam by restoring an edge of a stator vane of a plurality of stator vanes of a stator stage as taught by Maritano in order to repair the stator stage and place the stator stage back into service and avoid all the defects that can compromise the integrity of the stator stage during engine operation (Maritano, col. 2, lines 28-33). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because both prior art references are drawn to methods of servicing a portion of a gas turbine stator stage.
Andalam in view of Maritano fails to disclose removing a standardized scallop from a portion of the first stator vane. Instead, Andalam in view of Maritano discloses removing a zone of a portion of the first stator vane (Maritano, col. 2, lines 41-45).
Burke discloses a method of repairing gas turbine engine components (abstract), further comprising removing a standardized scallop from a portion of vane (fig. 1, col. 1, lines 18-19; col. 3, lines 13-16 and col. 12, lines 18-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Andalam in view of Maritano by removing a standardized scallop from the vane as taught by Burke in order to enable simple matching of the standardized scallop with pre-fabricated repair inserts (Burke, col. 12, lines 18-20. see also col 2. line 67). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Andalam in view of Maritano and Burke fails to disclose the analysis identifies defects below the surface of the stator stage. Instead, Andalam in view of Maritano and Burke renders obvious analysis that identifies defects on a surface of the stator stage.
Graham discloses a method for inspecting a turbine engine component ([0001]), comprising analyzing (determining) the presence of defects within the component ([0004]) wherein the analysis identifies defects below (near or deep within) the surface of the stator stage ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Andalam in view of Maritano and Burke by determining the presence of defects on or below the surface of the components as taught by Graham in order to provide a tool and method for inspecting a component of a gas turbine engine capable of determining the presences of defects within a component (Graham, [0004]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Andalam in view of Maritano, Burke and Graham fails to disclose using a heat map.
Finn discloses a method of detecting damage to a component (abstract) further comprising using a heat map to identify locations of the component with a higher probability of having a defect relative to other locations of the component ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Andalam in view of Maritano, Burke and Graham by displaying a heat map of the probability of damage as taught by Finn in order to provide an indication that the component may be rejected based on the damage (Finn, [0020]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Andalam in view of Maritano, Burke, Graham and Finn renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention with the exception of automating the process. However, MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(III). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to automate the process of Andalam in view of Maritano, Burke, Graham and Finn without modification of the affirmative method steps of the process. Thus, Andalam in view of Maritano, Burke, Graham and Finn renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 1.
Claim 4:
Andalam in view of Maritano, Burke, Graham and Finn renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the edge is a leading edge of the first stator vane (Maritano, col. 2, lines 46-52 and col. 5, lines 1-7).
Claim 5:
Andalam in view of Maritano, Burke, Graham and Finn renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the edge is a trailing edge of the first stator vane (Maritano, col. 2, lines 46-52 and col. 5, lines 1-7).
Claim 6:
Andalam in view of Maritano, Burke, Graham and Finn renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the standardized scallop closely conforms to a theoretical model plus tolerances (Burke, fig. 1, col. 1, lines 18-19; col. 3, lines 13-16 and col. 12, lines 18-20). Burke expressly teaches “insert casting geometry and cutting processes for blade tips can be standardized.” Standardizing a cutting process means defining the cutting geometry in advance according to a predetermined specification, which under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) is the “theoretical model”, and then executing that cut within the precision achievable by the cutting equipment employed which under BRI is “plus tolerances.” A standardized cut, by definition, produces a scallop whose geometry substantially matches the predetermined standard within the tolerances of the cutting process. There is no meaningful distinction under BRI between a scallop produced by a “standardized cutting process” and a scallop that “closely conforms to a theoretical model plus tolerances.”
Claim 7:
Andalam in view of Maritano, Burke, Graham and Finn renders obvious the method of claim 6, wherein the repaired portion has a standardized size and shape corresponding to a standardized size and shape the standardized scallop (Burke, fig. 1, col. 1, lines 18-19; col. 3, lines 13-16 and col. 12, lines 18-20).
Claim 8:
Andalam in view of Maritano, Burke, Graham and Finn renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the repairing includes using an additive manufacturing process to rebuild the edge of the first stator vane (Maritano, fig. 7, col. 2, lines 44-45 and col. 5, lines 43-44).
Claim 10:
Andalam in view of Maritano, Burke, Graham and Finn renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the blending process further includes shaping a leading edge and a trailing edge of the plurality of stator vanes (Maritano, col. 3, lines 23-24).
Maritano discloses defects may occur along the leading edge and/or the trailing edge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to execute the blending process including shaping a leading edge and a trailing edge of the plurality of stator vanes should defects occur along a leading edges and a trailing edge of the plurality of stator vanes as required of claim 10.
Claims 11, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maritano et al. (US 11,325,211 B2), Graham (US 2019/0383161 A1), Burke (US 6,508,000) and Hellemann et al. (US 6,568,077 B1).
Claim 11:
Maritano discloses a method for restoring a vane platform (abstract), comprising
performing an analysis of a stator stage for defects (col 5, lines 1-9); and,
determining based on the analysis that there is a first defect on an edge of a first stator vane of the plurality of stator vanes of the stator stage (col. 1, lines 40-43 and col. 5, lines 4-12);
responsive to determining that there is the first defect on the edge, removing a portion of the edge of the first stator vane that including the first defect to form a first scallop (fig. 3, col. 2, lines 41-43 and col. 5, lines 8-15);
responsive to the removing the portion of the edge of the first stator vane, repairing via a directed energy deposition process corresponding to the removal process the portion of the edge of the first stator vane including filling the first scallop to rebuild the edge of the first stator vane to form a repaired portion (fig. 7, col. 2, lines 44-45 and col 5, lines 43-50); and
responsive to the repairing the edge of the first stator vane, performing a blending process performed on the stator stage to smooth and shape the plurality of stator vanes, including the first stator vane, wherein the blending process uses a material removal process (machining) (col. 3, lines 23-24).
Maritano fails to disclose removing a standardized scallop from a portion of the first stator vane. Instead, Maritano discloses removing a zone of a portion of the first stator vane (Maritano, col. 2, lines 41-45).
Burke discloses a method of repairing gas turbine engine components (abstract), further comprising removing a standardized scallop from a portion of vane (fig. 1, col. 1, lines 18-19; col. 3, lines 13-16 and col. 12, lines 18-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Maritano by removing a standardized scallop from the vane as taught by Burke in order to enable simple matching of the standardized scallop with pre-fabricated repair inserts (Burke, col. 12, lines 18-20. see also col 2. line 67). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Maritano in view of Burke fails to disclose the analysis is conducted using at least one of x-ray, blue light scanner or microwave. Instead, Maritano in view of Burke suggests analysis of the leading and trailing platforms which are prone to deterioration in the form of corrosion or cracks due to thermomechanical fatigue (col. 5, lines 1-15). In addition, Maritano in view of Burke fails to disclose the material removal process includes at least one of milling or computer numerical control (CNC) machining. Instead, Maritano discloses a material removal process comprising electro discharging machining technology (col. 3, lines 12-15).
Graham discloses a method for inspecting a turbine engine component ([0001]), wherein the component is from a turbine engine comprising alternating stages of LP turbine rotor blades and LP turbine stator vanes (figs. 1-6, [0050]); and analyzing the component using x-ray technology (figs. 1-6, [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Maritano in view of Burke by determining the presence of defects on or below the surface of the components as taught by Graham in order to provide a tool and method for inspecting a component of a gas turbine engine capable of determining the presence of defects deep within a component (Graham, [0004]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Maritano in view of Burke and Graham fails to disclose initiating, by a controller an automated removal process and an automated repair process; Instead, Maritano in view of Burke and Graham is silent on the use of automation.
Hellemann discloses a method of repairing a blisk (abstract); further comprising initiating, by a controller, an automated removal of a portion of the blisk including a first defect (18) to form a first scallop (28) on the edge of the blisk (figs. 1-2, col. 4, lines 8-16);
responsive to the automatic removal of the portion of the edge of the blisk, initiating, by a controller an automated repair of the edge of the blisk using an additive manufacturing process including filling the first scallop to rebuild the edge of the blisk to form a repaired portion (figs. 1-2, col. 4, lines 18-24); and,
responsive to the repairing the edge of the blisk, performing a blending process on the blisk to smooth and shape the blisk wherein the material removal process includes at least one of milling or computer numerical control (CNC) machining (figs. 1-2, col. 4, lines 25-27 and col. 7, lines ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of restoring a vane platform of Maritano in view of Burke and Graham by automatically removing a portion of the Maritano/Burke/Graham stator vane as taught by Hellemann in order to provide the ability to automate and precisely machine the repair scallops, repair weld the scallops and machine the weld repairs to the desired original airfoil configurations and limit the resulting heat affected zone interface with the original airfoil (Hellemann, col. 9, lines 57-67). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 13:
Maritano in view of Burke, Graham and Hellemann renders obvious the method of repairing the stator stage for use with the turbine engine of claim 11, wherein the edge is a leading edge of the first stator vane (Maritano, col. 2, lines 46-52).
Claim 14:
Maritano in view of Burke, Graham and Hellemann renders obvious the method of repairing the stator stage for use with the turbine engine of claim 11, wherein the edge is a trailing edge of the first stator vane (Maritano, col. 2, lines 46-52).
Claim 16:
Maritano in view of Burke, Graham and Hellemann renders obvious the method of repairing the stator stage for use with the turbine engine of claim 11, wherein the first scallop has a predefined standardized size and shape and the repaired portion has the predefined standardized size and shape (Burke, fig. 1, col. 1, lines 18-19; col. 3, lines 13-16 and col. 12, lines 18-20).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 2019/0383161 A1) in view of Maritano et al. (US 11,325,211 B2) and Burke (US 6,508,000)
Claim 17:
Graham discloses a method for inspecting a component of an engine ([0001]), comprising;
performing an analysis of a stator stage (stage of stator vanes (62)) for defects using at least x-ray examinations (figs. 2-6, [0066]);
determining, by a controller (100), based on the analysis, that there is a first defect (142A) on a first edge of a first stator vane (62) of a plurality of stator vanes of the stator stage (figs. 2-6, [0063] – see also [0055] which explains the component of the turbomachine may be any suitable component including a stator vane);
determining, by the controller (100), based on the analysis that there is a second defect (142B) on a second edge of the first stator vane (62) of the plurality of stator vanes (figs. 2-6, [0063] – see also [0055] which explains the component of the turbomachine may be any suitable component including a stator vane);
Graham fails to disclose repairing the first stator vane. Instead, Graham is directed to inspection of gas turbine components (figs. 1-7, [0001]).
Maritano discloses a method of repairing a stator stage for use with a turbine engine (abstract, col. 1, lines 40-45), comprising:
responsive to determining that there is a first defect on the first edge and a second defect on the second edge, removing a first portion of the first edge including the first defect to form a first scallop (fig. 3, col. 2, lines 41-43 and col. 5, lines 8-15);
repairing the first stator vane including filling the first scallop using an additive manufacturing process (col. 2, lines 44-45 and col. 3, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Graham by restoring the defects identified by the Graham analysis as taught by Maritano in order to repair the stator stage and place the stator stage back into service and avoid all the defects that can compromise the integrity of the stator stage during engine operation (Maritano, col. 2, lines 28-33).
Graham in view of Maritano fails to disclose removing a standardized scallop from a portion of the first stator vane. Instead, Graham in view of Maritano discloses removing a zone of a portion of the first stator vane (Maritano, col. 2, lines 41-45).
Burke discloses a method of repairing gas turbine engine components (abstract), further comprising removing a standardized scallop from a portion of vane (fig. 1, col. 1, lines 18-19; col. 3, lines 13-16 and col. 12, lines 18-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Graham in view of Maritano by removing a standardized scallop from the vane as taught by Burke in order to enable simple matching of the standardized scallop with pre-fabricated repair inserts (Burke, col. 12, lines 18-20. see also col 2. line 67). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The second defects and scallops as claimed are mere duplication of the first defects and scallops; and, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because Graham discloses a method of identifying a plurality of defects; Maritano is drawn to repairing defects using laser metal deposition technology; and Burke discloses removing a standardized scallop from a portion of a vane.
Graham in view of Maritano and Burke renders obvious removing a first portion of the first edge including the first defect to form a first scallop (Graham teaches finding a plurality of defects and Maritano teaches removing the defects to form a scallop) (Graham, figs. 2-6, [0055] and [0063] and Maritano, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 41-43 and col. 5, lines 8-15);
removing a second portion of the second edge including the second defect to form a second scallop (Graham teaches finding a plurality of defects and Maritano teaches removing the defects to form a scallop) (Graham, figs. 2-6, [0055] and [0063] and Maritano, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 41-43 and col. 5, lines 8-15); and,
responsive to the removing the first portion of the first edge and the second portion of the second edge, repairing the first stator vane including filling the first scallop and the second scallop using an additive manufacturing process (Maritano, fig. 7, col. 2, lines 44-45 and col. 3, lines 1-3 and col. 5, lines 43-50).
Graham in view of Maritano and Burke renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention with the exception of automating the process. However, MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(III). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to automate the process of Graham in view of Maritano and Burke without modification of the affirmative method steps of the process. Thus, Graham in view of Maritano and Burke renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 17.
Claim 18:
Graham in view of Maritano and Burke renders obvious the method of repairing the stator stage for use with the turbine engine of claim 17, wherein the first edge is a leading edge and the second edge is a trailing edge (Maritano, col. 2, lines 46-52 and col. 5, lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that airfoil defects may occur along both the leading edge and trailing edge as required of claim 18.
Claim 20:
Graham in view of Maritano and Burke renders obvious the method of repairing the stator stage for use with the turbine engine of claim 17; wherein the first scallop and the second scallop have the same size and shape (Burke, fig. 1, col. 1, lines 18-19; col. 3, lines 13-16 and col. 12, lines 18-20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 27 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Burke (US 6,508,000).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nishimizu et al. (US 20140184215 A1) discloses a defect map for displaying component defect positions. Roberts et al. (US 2023/0315948 A1) discloses systems and methods for generating blend repair models. Huttner et al. (US 2020/0346310 A1) discloses a repair tool and method for turbomachinery repair.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights