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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because “the electrically powered centrifugal compressor” (line 10) should be “the first electrically powered centrifugal compressor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 9-10, 12-13 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. “said/the electrically powered centrifugal compressor” is indefinite because two different electrically powered centrifugal compressors have been defined. It is unclear which one is being referred to. Examiner suggests naming one a “first electrically powered centrifugal compressor” and the other a “second electrically powered centrifugal compressor”.
Furthermore in claim 12, “through second cooling air supply line” is indefinite because it is unclear if it refers to the previously defined second cooling air supply line.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5174105 (Hines) in view of US 2019/0353103 (Roberge) and US 10794290 (Snape).
Regarding claim 1, 8, Hines teaches a gas turbine engine with an electrically boosted cooling air system (Fig 3, col 3 ll. 21-45) comprising: a high pressure compressor (24); at least one cooling air supply line coupling the high pressure compressor with at least one of a high pressure turbine (38) and a low pressure turbine (42); wherein said at least one cooling air supply line includes a first cooling air supply line fluidly coupled between the high pressure compressor and the high pressure turbine (first cooling air supply line 86); wherein said at least one cooling air supply line includes a second cooling air supply line fluidly coupled between the high pressure compressor and the low pressure turbine (second supply line 88; col 6 l. 25-col 7 l. 17, col 12 ll. 11-24).
Hines fails to teach an electrically powered centrifugal compressor fluidly coupled with the at least one cooling air supply line, wherein the electrically powered centrifugal compressor is configured to provide at least one of a pressure increase and a flow rate increase for cooling air supplied from the high pressure compressor; wherein the electrically powered centrifugal compressor is fluidly coupled with the first cooling air supply line and another electrically powered centrifugal compressor is fluidly coupled with the second cooling air supply line. However, Roberge teaches that an electrically powered centrifugal compressor fluidly coupled with the at least one cooling air supply line may be used to increase pressure for cooling air supplied from the high pressure compressor (Fig 1, para 38-42; electric powered compressor 72). Snape further teaches a pump raising the pressure of a compressor bleed gas, the pump being an electrically powered centrifugal compressor (Fig 3; col 5 l. 63-col 6 l. 11, col 9 ll. 22-25; electric motor driving centrifugal compressor 105). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide an electrically powered centrifugal compressor fluidly coupled with the at least one cooling air supply line, wherein the electrically powered centrifugal compressor is configured to provide at least one of a pressure increase and a flow rate increase for cooling air supplied from the high pressure compressor; wherein the electrically powered centrifugal compressor is fluidly coupled with the first cooling air supply line and another electrically powered centrifugal compressor is fluidly coupled with the second cooling air supply line in order to increase the pressure of air in the first cooling air supply line and the second cooling air supply line, as taught by Roberge and Snape. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, an electrically powered centrifugal compressor fluidly coupled with the at least one cooling air supply line, wherein the electrically powered centrifugal compressor is configured to provide at least one of a pressure increase and a flow rate increase for cooling air supplied from the high pressure compressor; wherein the electrically powered centrifugal compressor is fluidly coupled with the first cooling air supply line and another electrically powered centrifugal compressor is fluidly coupled with the second cooling air supply line, yields predictable results (increasing pressure of cooling air to the HPT and the LPT).
Regarding claims 6-7, 9, 13, Hines in view of Roberge and Snape teaches wherein at least one of said electrically powered centrifugal compressor and the another electrically powered centrifugal compressor is configured to provide additional cooling air pressure and cooling air flow rate responsive to a predetermined gas turbine engine demand for cooling air (as discussed above, the electrically powered compressor raises the pressure, and therefore the cooling air flow to deliver a certain amount of air to the turbine; the claim does not define what the “predetermined” demand is, or how it is determined; the amount that is delivered in Hines in view of Roberge and Snape is construed as meeting the “predetermined” demand because the compressor delivers a desired amount to the turbine), wherein said predetermined gas turbine engine demand for cooling air is selected from the group consisting of a power demand above a cruise operation condition; an off-normal engine operation condition, a certification testing engine operation condition; and a gap in cooling air source pressure (a “gap in cooling air source pressure” can be construed as the difference between the pressure at the source – where compressor bleed is extracted from compressor – and the pressure downstream of the boost compressor), wherein at least one of the first cooling air supply line and the second cooling air supply line are fluidly coupled with a bleed air source having a pressure below a predetermined value; wherein at least one of said electrically powered centrifugal compressor and the another electrically powered centrifugal compressor is configured to increase the pressure of the cooling air to the predetermined value (as discussed above, the electrically powered compressor raises the pressure, and therefore the cooling air flow to deliver a certain amount of air to the turbine; the claim does not define what the “predetermined” demand is, or how it is determined; the bleed air source is below a “predetermined value” – e.g. some value less than the output of the electrically powered compressor; the value that is delivered in Hines in view of Roberge and Snape is construed as meeting the “predetermined” value because the electrically powered compressor increases the pressure to a desired/predetermined value), wherein at least one of said electrically powered centrifugal compressor and the another electrically powered centrifugal compressor is configured to operate during a hot shutdown engine condition to provide ventilation to the gas turbine engine (“a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim" see MPEP 2114 [R-1]; in this case, the claim does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from Hines in view of Roberge and Snape because the combination teaches the claimed apparatus – e.g. the cooling air supply lines, the electrically powered centrifugal compressor, etc. The limitations “compressor is configured to” do not differentiate the claimed apparatus because the combination’s compressor provides ventilation to the gas turbine engine). Further, it has been held that “a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim" (see MPEP 2114 [R-1]). In this case, the conditions of operation of the system (e.g. a power demand above a cruise operation condition; an off-normal engine operation condition, a certification testing engine operation condition; and a gap in cooling air source pressure; a hot shutdown engine condition; or the values of the “predetermined” pressure or demand) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus. Hines in view of Roberge and Snape teaches the claimed apparatus – e.g. compressors, cooling air supply lines, etc.
Regarding claim 14, Hines teaches a process for electrically boosting a gas turbine cooling air system (Fig 3, col 3 ll. 21-45) comprising: fluidly coupling at least one cooling air supply line between a high pressure compressor (24) and at least one of a high pressure turbine (38) and a low pressure turbine (42); wherein said at least one cooling air supply line includes a first cooling air supply line fluidly coupled between the high pressure compressor and the high pressure turbine (first supply line 86); wherein said at least one cooling air supply line includes a second cooling air supply line fluidly coupled between the high pressure compressor and the low pressure turbine (second supply line 88; col 6 l. 25-col 7 l. 17, col 12 ll. 11-24).
Hines fails to teach fluidly coupling a first electrically powered centrifugal compressor with the at least one cooling air supply line; providing at least one of a pressure increase and a flow rate increase with the electrically powered centrifugal compressor for cooling air supplied from the high pressure compressor; fluidly coupling the first electrically powered centrifugal compressor with the first cooling air supply line and fluidly coupling a second electrically powered centrifugal compressor with the second cooling air supply line. However, Roberge teaches that an electrically powered centrifugal compressor fluidly coupled with the at least one cooling air supply line may be used to increase pressure for cooling air supplied from the high pressure compressor (Fig 1, para 38-42; electric powered compressor 72). Snape further teaches a pump raising the pressure of a compressor bleed gas, the pump being an electrically powered centrifugal compressor (Fig 3; col 5 l. 63-col 6 l. 11, col 9 ll. 22-25; electric motor driving centrifugal compressor 105). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to fluidly couple a first electrically powered centrifugal compressor with the at least one cooling air supply line; provide at least one of a pressure increase and a flow rate increase with the first electrically powered centrifugal compressor for cooling air supplied from the high pressure compressor; fluidly couple the first electrically powered centrifugal compressor with the first cooling air supply line and fluidly couple a second electrically powered centrifugal compressor with the second cooling air supply line in order to increase the pressure of air in the first cooling air supply line and the second cooling air supply line, as taught by Roberge and Snape. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, fluidly coupling a first electrically powered centrifugal compressor with the at least one cooling air supply line; providing at least one of a pressure increase and a flow rate increase with the first electrically powered centrifugal compressor for cooling air supplied from the high pressure compressor; fluidly coupling the first electrically powered centrifugal compressor with the first cooling air supply line and fluidly coupling a second electrically powered centrifugal compressor with the second cooling air supply line, yields predictable results (increasing pressure of cooling air to the HPT and the LPT).
Regarding claims 15-17, Hines in view of Roberge and Snape teaches providing additional cooling air pressure and cooling air flow rate with the first electrically powered centrifugal compressor and the second electrically powered centrifugal compressor responsive to a predetermined gas turbine engine demand for cooling air (Roberge para 38-45; “auxiliary compressor 72 should be driven to provide cooled airflow at pressure compatible with current operating conditions in the turbine section 28”; demand is the required pressure for cooling the turbine components; where the required turbine cooling pressure – e.g. “predetermined gas turbine engine demand for cooling air” – is higher than the bleed source pressure, the electric compressor is operated to increase the pressure, thereby meeting the demand), wherein said predetermined gas turbine engine demand for cooling air is selected from the group consisting of a power demand above a cruise operation condition; an off-normal engine operation condition, a certification testing engine operation condition; and a gap in cooling air source pressure (a “gap in cooling air source pressure” can be construed as the difference between the pressure at the source – where compressor bleed is extracted from compressor – and the pressure downstream of the boost compressor), fluidly coupling the at least one cooling air supply line with a bleed air source having a pressure below a predetermined value; and increasing the pressure of the cooling air to the predetermined value employing at least one of said first electrically powered centrifugal compressor and the second electrically powered centrifugal compressor (Roberge para 38-45; where the required turbine cooling pressure – e.g. “predetermined value” – is higher than the bleed source pressure, the electric compressor is operated to increase the pressure, thereby meeting the predetermined value). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide additional cooling air pressure and cooling air flow rate with the first electrically powered centrifugal compressor and the second electrically powered centrifugal compressor responsive to a predetermined gas turbine engine demand for cooling air, fluidly couple the at least one cooling air supply line with a bleed air source having a pressure below a predetermined value; wherein said predetermined gas turbine engine demand for cooling air is selected from the group consisting of a power demand above a cruise operation condition; an off-normal engine operation condition, a certification testing engine operation condition; and a gap in cooling air source pressure, and increasing the pressure of the cooling air to the predetermined value employing at least one of said first electrically powered centrifugal compressor and the second and the second electrically powered centrifugal compressor, in order to meet the turbine cooling air demand, as taught by Roberge.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5174105 (Hines) in view of US 2019/0353103 (Roberge) and US 10794290 (Snape) and further in view of US 2021/0372623 (Kulkarni).
Regarding claim 4-5, Hines in view of Roberge and Snape as discussed thus far fails to teach said first cooling air supply line is fluidly coupled with at least one of the high pressure compressor sixth stage, seventh stage, eighth stage, ninth stage and tenth stage, or wherein said second cooling air supply line is fluidly coupled with at least one of the high pressure compressor second stage, third stage and fourth stage. However, Hines teaches that different stages may be used for compressor air extraction (col 9 ll. 55-64) and Kulkarni teaches that bleed air may be extracted at different stages of the compressor in order to provide a desired temperature and pressure (para 29, 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make said first cooling air supply line is fluidly coupled with at least one of the high pressure compressor sixth stage, seventh stage, eighth stage, ninth stage and tenth stage, or said second cooling air supply line is fluidly coupled with at least one of the high pressure compressor second stage, third stage and fourth stage in order to provide a desired temperature and pressure, as taught by Kulkarni. It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 IIA. In this case, Hines teaches air being extracted at different stages and Kulkarni teaches that the stage of extraction is a results-effective variable, affecting the temperature and pressure of the bleed air. Discovering the optimum or workable locations/stages involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5174105 (Hines) in view of US 2019/0353103 (Roberge) and US 10794290 (Snape), and further in view of US 2022/0275757 (Rambo).
Regarding claim 7, 16, Hines in view of Roberge and Snape teaches the claim limitations as discussed above. Rambo is further cited for teaching that demand for cooling air may increase during a power demand above a cruise operation, or an off-normal engine operation condition, or a gap in cooling air source pressure (para 72; “high-power operating mode” is construed as a power demand above a cruise operation, or an off-normal engine operation condition, or a gap in cooling air source pressure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make said predetermined gas turbine engine demand for cooling air is selected from the group consisting of a power demand above a cruise operation condition; an off-normal engine operation condition, a certification testing engine operation condition; and a gap in cooling air source pressure in order to provide sufficient cooling during those conditions, as taught by Rambo. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making said predetermined gas turbine engine demand for cooling air is selected from the group consisting of a power demand above a cruise operation condition; an off-normal engine operation condition, a certification testing engine operation condition; and a gap in cooling air source pressure yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, 18, Hines in view of Roberge and Snape fails to teach wherein at least one of the electrically powered centrifugal compressor and the another electrically powered centrifugal compressor is configured to adjust cooling air supply pressure and flow rate requirements responsive to changes in turbine sink pressures, said turbine sink pressures being responsive to variable shaft horsepower extractions due to spool and engine load sharing, or adjusting a cooling air supply pressure and a flow rate requirement employing at least one of said first electrically powered centrifugal compressor and the second electrically powered centrifugal compressor responsive to changes in turbine sink pressures, said turbine sink pressures being responsive to variable shaft horsepower extractions due to spool and engine load sharing. However, it has been held that “a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim" (see MPEP 2114 [R-1]). In the case of claim 10, the claim does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from Hines in view of Roberge and Snape because the combination teaches the claimed apparatus – e.g. the cooling air supply lines, the electrically powered centrifugal compressor, etc. The limitations “compressor is configured to” do not differentiate the claimed apparatus because the Hines in view of Roberge and Snape compressor also increases pressure and flow rate. Furthermore, Rambo teaches that cooling air may be increased during certain engine operations (para 72; “high-power operating mode”, which implicitly has a different “turbine sink pressure” than a low power operating condition, due to different engine flow rates and engine and spool loads). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust a cooling air supply pressure and a flow rate requirement employing at least one of said first electrically powered centrifugal compressor and the second/another electrically powered centrifugal compressor responsive to changes in turbine sink pressures, said turbine sink pressures being responsive to variable shaft horsepower extractions due to spool and engine load sharing, in order to provide a desired amount of cooling during different (e.g. high power) engine operations, as taught by Rambo.
Claim(s) 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5174105 (Hines) in view of US 2019/0353103 (Roberge) and US 10794290 (Snape), and further in view of US 2018/0009536 (Christopherson).
Regarding claim 12, 19, Hines in view of Roberge and Snape fails to teach said electrically powered centrifugal compressor is configured to be rotated by the cooling air flowing through the first cooling air supply line and the another electrically powered centrifugal compressor is fluidly coupled for rotation by the cooling air flowing through the second cooling air supply line to generate electrical power or generating electrical power employing said electrically powered centrifugal compressor configured to be rotated by the cooling air flowing through the cooling air supply line. However, Christopherson teaches a compressor for bleed air driven by a motor, wherein the motor may also act as a generator (Fig 2, compressor 102, motor 160 may extract power from shaft 106 to generate electrical power; para 36, 40, compressor 102 may act like a turbine). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make said electrically powered centrifugal compressor is configured to be rotated by the cooling air flowing through the first cooling air supply line and the another electrically powered centrifugal compressor is fluidly coupled for rotation by the cooling air flowing through the second cooling air supply line to generate electrical power or generating electrical power employing said first electrically powered centrifugal compressor configured to be rotated by the cooling air flowing through the first cooling air supply line in order to generate electrical power, as taught by Christopherson.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5174105 (Hines) in view of US 2019/0353103 (Roberge) and US 10794290 (Snape), and further in view of US 2021/0355868 (Yerram) and EP 3486498 (Gomez).
Regarding claim 13, Hines in view of Roberge and Snape fails to teach at least one of the electrically powered centrifugal compressor and the another electrically powered centrifugal compressor is configured to operate during a hot shutdown engine condition to provide ventilation to the gas turbine engine or providing ventilation to the gas turbine engine; and operating the electrically powered centrifugal compressor during a hot shutdown engine condition. However, Yerram teaches that a compressor bleed may be operated at maximum flow during an emergency shutdown, and the flow may also be ventilated (para 47), and Gomez teaches that ventilation from a compressor may be provided during shutdown (para 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make at least one of the electrically powered centrifugal compressor and the another electrically powered centrifugal compressor is configured to operate during a hot shutdown engine condition to provide ventilation to the gas turbine engine or providing ventilation to the gas turbine engine; and operating the electrically powered centrifugal compressor during a hot shutdown engine condition in order to allow stable operation of the engine and reduce possibility of stalling or surging, as taught by Yerram and Gomez.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5174105 (Hines) in view of US 2019/0353103 (Roberge), US 10794290 (Snape), US 2018/0009536 (Christopherson), and further in view of US 2021/0355868 (Yerram) and EP 3486498 (Gomez).
Regarding claim 20, Hines in view of Roberge, Snape, and Christopherson fails to teach providing ventilation to the gas turbine engine; and operating at least one of the first electrically powered centrifugal compressor and the second electrically powered centrifugal compressor during a hot shutdown engine condition. However, Yerram teaches that a compressor bleed may be operated at maximum flow during an emergency shutdown, and the flow may also be ventilated (para 47), and Gomez teaches that ventilation from a compressor may be provided during shutdown (para 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide ventilation to the gas turbine engine; and operate at least one of the first electrically powered centrifugal compressor and the second electrically powered centrifugal compressor during a hot shutdown engine condition in order to allow stable operation of the engine and reduce possibility of stalling or surging, as taught by Yerram and Gomez.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that in Roberge “there is only a single auxiliary compressor 72 driven by an electric motor” and “[t]here is no other teaching or suggestion to multiply or duplicate the auxiliary compressor 72 with electric motor 82”, Examiner respectfully asserts that adding a compressor and a motor to each of the cooling air supply lines of Hines would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to increase the pressure of air in the first cooling air supply line and the second cooling air supply line. Furthermore, the combination would have yielded predictable results: increased pressure to each of the high pressure turbine and low pressure turbine.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “Snape is limited to only a single pump 105 that is electric motor driven” and “[t]here is no motivation or suggestion found in Snape to duplicate the pump 105 to include two individual electric motor driven pumps 105”, Examiner respectfully asserts that adding a compressor and a motor to each of the cooling air supply lines of Hines would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to increase the pressure of air in the first cooling air supply line and the second cooling air supply line. Furthermore, the combination would have yielded predictable results: increased pressure to each of the high pressure turbine and low pressure turbine.
Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “there is absolutely no motivation or suggestion found in the teaching of [sic] to have multiple electric motor driven compressors each being coupled two different and separate cooling conduits between the HPC/HPT and the HPC/LPT”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a compressor and a motor to each of the cooling air supply lines of Hines would increase the pressure of air in the first cooling air supply line and the second cooling air supply line and would have yielded predictable results: increased pressure to each of the high pressure turbine and low pressure turbine.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “the combination … discourages the use of multiple electric motor driven compressors” and that “a person of ordinary skill in the art is led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nowhere does Roberge teach or suggest that additional cooling supply lines may not have additional motor driven compressors. The teaching of one electric motor driven compressor does not exclude or discourage the use of another electric motor driven compressor. A teaching of one compressor is not divergent from the addition of a second compressor. Here again, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5063. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4 pm, 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, Phutthiwat (Pat) Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/ANDREW H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights