Detailed Office Action
Applicant’s amendments and arguments dated 3/6/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 26-27, 32, and 35 are amended. Claims 3, 17-18, 20-25, 28-31, and 34 are cancelled. Claims 8-11, 14-16, and 19 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-2, 4-16, 19, 26-27, 32-33, and 35-36 remain pending.
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 .
Election/Restriction
One of the amendments to claim 26 recites that the repair patch is a thermoset resin. As indicated by the restriction of 8/21/2025, the Applicant was required to elect an invention to a generic repair patch and further to elect a single species from Species A (repair patch being thermoplastic) and Species B (repair patch being thermoset). In the restriction response of 10/21/2025, the Applicant elected Species A or the repair patch being thermoplastic and those claims that recite a thermoset for the repair patch were withdrawn. As such, and by election by originally presented claims {see MPEP 818.02 (a) and MPEP 821.03} claim 26 and/or the limitation of the repair patch being a thermoset is considered withdrawn. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has examined claim 26 in its generic form of a repair patch and has withdrawn the limitation of “thermoset” from this claim since the Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally elected thermoplastic repair patch.
Response to Amendments an Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claims objections previously set forth in the non-final office action of 1/23/2026. These objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment describing the repair area as an inconsistency and its associated arguments are acknowledged. Since this is a new amendment, its rejection is detailed below in the 35 USC 103 section.
Applicant’s arguments that the primary refence of BAHRAMSHAHI teaches that thermoplastic is non-reactive and thus cannot be impregnated into the heating element is found not to persuasive (see argument of 3/26/2026, pages 9-10).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. BAHRAMSHAHI uses the term non-reactive as being chemically inert and not participating in a chemical reaction with the heater (emphasis added by the Examiner). Physical interaction and impregnation is not prohibited. Indeed, BAHRAMSHAHI explicitly teaches that the thermoplastic material of the heating patch migrates through the heating element and eventually solidifies inside the perforations of the heater and thus compatible with the elements of the heater {[0033]}.
Applicant’s arguments that the primary refence of BAHRAMSHAHI does not teach the limitation of “placing a repair patch over the heating element after adhering the heating element to the repair area” and nowhere in BAHRAMSHAHI the term “adhere” appears, have been fully considered and found not to be persuasive (see argument of 3/26/2026, page 10).
In the argument above, the Applicant neglects to take into account the modifications that the Examiner has incorporated in the BAHRAMSHAHI. The Examiner acknowledges that BAHRAMSHAHI uses heating elements that are bare and not impregnated with a thermoplastic in advance. However, the Examiner established that impregnating this heater with a thermoplastic material beforehand is obvious and within the skill of an artisan (see non-final office action of 1/23/2026, page 5).
Furthermore, BAHRAMSHAHI’s method was modified to perform the placement of the heater and the repair patch over the repair area in two distinct sequential steps of 1- placing the impregnated heater on the repair patch and heating it first, followed by 2- placing the repair patch over the heated impregnated heater and completing the repair process (see non-final office action of 1/23/2026, pages 5-6). In this modified scheme, the impregnated thermoplastic of heater melts and adhere to the repair area first followed by placing the repair patch over this melted area that reads on the above limitations.
The Examiner’s statement that the heater is impregnated by a layer of repair patch does not indicate that the whole repair patch is impregnated into the heater. Rather, the Examiner argued that, prior to the repair process, only a layer of the repair patch, which is a thermoplastic material, can be impregnated into the heater and thus obtain a standalone impregnated heater. The process of BAHRAMSHAHI still uses an impregnated heater plus the repair patch.
Applicant arguments that the evidentiary document of ARIKAWA teaches away from thermoplastic impregnation and adhering, have been fully considered and found not to be persuasive (see argument of 3/26/2026, page 11).
First, the Examiner notes that ARIKAWA was an evidentiary document and not a prior art rejection. Second, this evidentiary document indicates that preparing standalone heating device that comprises of a heating element impregnated with a resin is known in the art. The Examiner did not rely on the type of the resin used by ARIKAWA (a thermoset resin). Furthermore, the Examiner provided another evidentiary document (DAVIS) that shows a thermoplastic resin impregnated heating element (see non-final office action of 1/23/2026, page 5).
Applicant’s argument that splitting of the one step into two is in error, has been fully considered and found not to be persuasive (see argument of 11/26/2026, page 11).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant statement that the two steps perform different functionality. The thermoplastic part of the impregnated of the heating element and the thermoplastic material of the repair patch both melt and adhere together over the repair area and eventually meld with the composite part. This is the same functionality.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 6 is not persuasive (see argument of 11/26/2026, page 6).
The Examiner submits that placing a weight over the repair area reads on the limitations of applying a pressure. Regarding the numerical values of the pressure, the Examiner detailed a result-effective rationale and showed that it is within the skill of an artisan to determine the numerical values of required pressure through routine experimentation (see non-final office action of 1/23/2026, pages 6-7). The Applicant has not presented a rebuttal regarding this rationale.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 26 is similar to those addressed above and is not repeated here.
Claim objections
Claims 26 is objected to: in line 6, replace “of” with “;”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAHRAMSHAHI (US-2023/0211567, of record), hereinafter BAHRAMSHAHI, as evidenced by ARIKAWA (US-2018/0354604, of record), hereinafter ARIKAWA, and/or DAVIS (US-2023/0399113), hereinafter DAVIS. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, BAHRAMSHAHI discloses A method of repairing a thermoplastic composite part {[abstract], [0028] note composite} comprising:
placing a heating element onto a portion of a surface of the thermoplastic composite part over an inconsistency in the thermoplastic composite part of the thermoplastic composite part {[abstract], [0028] note damage or defect or crack or wear or excessive porosity or erosion reads on the term inconsistency, [FIG. 3] note heating element 28 that is larger than inconsistency 22 is placed onto the surface of composite 20};
adhering the thermoplastic material and the heating element to the portion of the surface of the thermoplastic composite part over the inconsistency in the thermoplastic composite part of the thermoplastic composite part by generating heat in the heating element from current applied to the heating element {[abstract] note heating as the result of electrical resistance or applying current and bonding or adhering, note the thermoplastic material comes from a repair patch as shown below};
placing a repair patch over the heating element and the portion of the surface of the thermoplastic composite part over the inconsistency in the thermoplastic composite part of the thermoplastic composite part {[abstract], [FIG. 3] note repair patch 26};
and subsequently, adhering the repair patch onto the heating element above the portion of the surface of the thermoplastic composite part over the inconsistency in the thermoplastic composite part by applying a current to the heating element and heating the repair patch to a patch processing temperature {[abstract] note second melting temperature is the patch processing, note current discussed above, note after solidification, the parts bond or adhere to each other}.
BAHRAMSHAHI, however, is silent on the limitation that “the heating element impregnated with a thermoplastic material” and thus “the thermoplastic of the heating element” (underline emphasis added by the Examiner). BAHRAMSHAHI, however, discloses that the repair patch includes plurality of layers {[0017]} and that the heating element has aperture and perforation that thermoplastic material can migrate into the heating element and impregnate it {[0033]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated and impregnated the heater of BAHRAMSHAHI with one of the layers of the repair patch, before placing it over the inconsistency, since it has been held that making in one piece an article that has formerly been in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art {see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B)}.
One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain a better consolidation of the thermoplastic material or the repair patch with the heater. The Examiner also notes that as evidenced by ARIKAWA {[abstract], [FIG. 1] heating element 23 impregned by the repair patch 21} and DAVIS {[abstract]}, impregnation of a heating element by a thermoplastic resin is known and feasible.
Modified BAHRAMSHAHI, however, is explicitly silent that the impregnated heating element is heated before the repair patch is put in place so that the thermoplastic material of the heating element is adhered to the portion of the surface with the inconsistency first (the limitation “subsequently” in line 9 denotes this order).
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have splitted the heating process of the heating element from one step to two separate steps of heating, one by placing/heating the heating element firs before putting the repair patch on the heating element, and the other one after the repair patch is put on the heating element. Note that it has been held that in general, the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain a better bonding.
Regarding claim 4, BAHRAMSHAHI discloses wherein; the heating element comprises carbon fibers; and the repair patch comprises a thermoplastic repair patch {[0036],[abstract]}.
Regarding claim 5, BAHRAMSHAHI discloses wherein the patch processing temperature is approximately 290 °C – 340 °C {[0032]}.
The Examiner notes that BAHRAMSHAHI disclose a temperature of 280 °C that is close to the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the claimed range and the prior art range do not overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same [or similar] properties. Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329, citing Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d at 783, MPEP 2131.03 (III)
The Examiner also notes the processing temperature is dependent on the melting temperature of the repair patch and the impregnated thermoplastic of the heater that in some case may require a higher temperature in the claimed range. Moreover, the instant specification in [0068] teaches that the acceptable range is 280 °C – 340 °C, indicating that 280 °C is indeed close to 290 °C.
Regarding claim 6, BAHRAMSHAHI discloses applying, responsive to a temperature of the thermoplastic composite part, a current to the heating element {[0005] note controller and controlling the current to the temperature of the patch or second temperature, [0032] note second temperature lower than first temperature or the temperature of thermoplastic composite part, thus controller is responsive and takes into account not exceeding the first temperature}.
Regarding the remainder limitation of claim 6 “applying pressure of approximately 15 psi - 45 psi to the repair patch while heating the repair patch to join the repair patch to the thermoplastic composite part”, BAHRAMSHAHI is explicitly silent on the required mount of pressure. However, BAHRAMSHAHI discloses that the weighted object that applies pressure comprises of a plurality of rings and that the weight of the weighted object may be chosen to produce sufficient localized force to ensure intimate contact between the surfaces {[0038]}. As such, BAHRAMSHAHI recognizes the weight and amount of pressure as a result-effective variable determining proper contact.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case the weight or pressure on optimum contact) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(B)}. At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the weight or pressure which is a result-effective variable through routine experimentation to have determined the pressure that is necessary to achieve an optimized contact which in certain circumstances will lead to the levels that are claimed.
Regarding claim 7 limitation of “removing the pressure from the repair patch after allowing the repair patch to cool to 150 °C”, BAHRAMSHAHI teaches that after sufficient cooling, the weighted object or pressure is removed {[0038]}.
However, BAHRAMSHAHI is silent on the actual temperature. BAHRAMSHAHI, however, discloses that determining the thermoplastic of the repair patch depends on the melting temperature of the composite or the first melting temperature and is selected based on being lower than the first melting temperature {[0031]}. Also, it is known that sufficient cooling requires determination of when the thermoplastic of the repair patch has reached a sufficiently solid state. Therefore, BAHRAMSHAHI recognizes the sufficient cooling temperature as a result-effect variable that depends on the type of the repair patch thermoplastic and determination of sufficient solid-state.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case the temperature of sufficient cooling) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(B)}. At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the cooling process through routine experimentation to have determined appropriate cooling temperature for removal of pressure that in certain circumstance will lead to the claimed value.
Regarding claim 12, BAHRAMSHAHI discloses trimming ends of the heating element extending from the thermoplastic composite part {[0038] note removal of exposed heating element that corresponds to trimming ends of the heating element that extend from the part}.
Regarding claim 13, BAHRAMSHAHI discloses treating the portion of the surface of thermoplastic composite part over the inconsistency in the thermoplastic composite part prior to applying the heating element, wherein treating comprises cleaning and sanding the portion of the surface of thermoplastic composite part over the inconsistency in the thermoplastic composite part {[0030] note smoothing is sanding}.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAHRAMSHAHI as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of IWANAGA (US-2025/0089131), hereinafter IWANAGA.
Regarding claim 2, modified BAHRAMSHAHI discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. BAHRAMSHAHI further discloses the heating element comprising a carbon material; applying compression to the repair patch while heating the repair patch to the patch processing temperature to join the repair patch to the thermoplastic composite part {[0036] note heating element can be carbon fiber, [0011] note application of force or pressure or compression}.
Modified BAHRAMSHAHI, however, is silent on the thickness of the heating element that is made of carbon material.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to heating device for laminated layers, IWANAGA discloses comprising a thickness of 0.005 inches to 0.02 inches {[0029] note that the range of 0.005 to 0.02 inches is equal to 0.127 to 0.508 mm, note the teaching a thickness of 0.3 mm or less}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of IWANAGA in the method of modified BAHRAMSHAHI and have chosen the claimed thickness for the heating element made of carbon.
As disclosed by IWANAGA, the advantage of this thin film heater is to minimize the heat capacity of the heater itself {[0004]}.
The Examiner notes that IWANAGA discloses a ranges of 0.3 mm or less that partially overlaps the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range partially the broad prior art range {see MPEP 2144.05 (I)}.
Claims 26-27, 32-33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAHRAMSHAHI, in view of HOSHI (US-2017/0120547), hereinafter HOSHI, and IWANAGA, as evidenced by ARIKAWA (US-2018/0354604, of record), hereinafter ARIKAWA, DAVIS (US-2023/0399113), hereinafter DAVIS, and Tg (glass transition temperature), hereinafter Tg. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 26, BAHRAMSHAHI discloses A method of repairing a thermoplastic composite part, the method comprising: adhering a low melt thermoplastic material and a heating element comprising a carbon material to a portion of a surface of the thermoplastic composite part over an inconsistency in the thermoplastic composite; the thermoplastic composite part comprising a melting temperature greater than the low melt thermoplastic material; and adhering the heating element to a repair patch {note the restriction section above and that the repair patch is interpreted as a generic repair patch, [abstract] note heating as the result of electrical resistance or applying current and bonding or adhering, note second melting temperature is below first melting temperature, thus a low melt thermoplastic material with lower melting temperature that the composite, [0028] note composite, note damage or defect or crack or wear or excessive porosity or erosion reads on the term inconsistency, [FIG. 3] note heating element 28 is placed onto the repair are or defect region 22, note repair patch 26, note heating element 28 that is larger than inconsistency 22 is placed onto the surface of composite 20, [0036] note heating element is made of carbon fibers}.
BAHRAMSHAHI, however, is silent on the limitation “a low melt thermoplastic material of a heating element”, that indicates the heating element is impregnated or coated or contains a low melt thermoplastic material. BAHRAMSHAHI, however, discloses that the repair patch includes plurality of layers {[0017]} and that the heating element has aperture and perforation that thermoplastic material can migrate into the heating element and impregnate it {[0033]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated and impregnated the heater of BAHRAMSHAHI with one of the layers of the repair patch, before placing it on the repair zone, since it has been held that making in one piece an article that has formerly been in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art {see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B)}.
One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain a better consolidation of the thermoplastic material or the repair patch with the heater. The Examiner also notes that as evidenced by ARIKAWA {[abstract], [FIG. 1] heating element 23 impregned by the repair patch 21} and DAVIS {[abstract]}, impregnation of a heating element by a thermoplastic resin is known and feasible.
Modified BAHRAMSHAHI, however, is silent on the glass transition temperature of the thermoplastic material being between 180 °C - 200 °C.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to repairing structures, HOSHI discloses that repair patch can be a polycarbonate {[0119]} that as evidenced by Tg has a glass transition temperature range of 160 °C - 200 °C {note high heat polycarbonate in the table on page 10}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the repair patch of BAHRAMSHAHI with the polycarbonate repair patch of HOSHI, since it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results {see MPEP 2143 (I)(B)}. Predictable results are obtained since both patches are used for repairs in the same field of endeavor.
The Examiner notes that Tg discloses a ranges of 160 °C - 200 °C that encompasses the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within the broad prior art range {see MPEP 2144.05 (I)}.
Modified BAHRAMSHAHI, however, is silent on the thickness of the heating element that is made of carbon material.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to heating device for laminated layers, IWANAGA discloses comprising a thickness of 0.005 inches to 0.02 inches {[0029] note that the range of 0.005 to 0.02 inches is equal to 0.127 to 0.508 mm, note the teaching a thickness of 0.3 mm or less}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of IWANAGA in the method of modified BAHRAMSHAHI and have chosen the claimed thickness for the heating element made of carbon.
As disclosed by IWANAGA, the advantage of this thin film heater is to minimize the heat capacity of the heater itself {[0004]}.
The Examiner notes that IWANAGA discloses a ranges of 0.3 mm or less that partially overlaps the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range partially the broad prior art range {see MPEP 2144.05 (I)}.
Regarding claim 27, BAHRAMSHAHI discloses applying compression to the repair patch while heating the repair patch to a patch processing temperature to join the repair patch to the thermoplastic composite part {[0011] note application of force or pressure or compression}.
Regarding the remainder limitation of claim 26 “of 6-90 psi”, modified BAHRAMSHAHI, however, is explicitly silent on the numerical value of the required mount of pressure. However, BAHRAMSHAHI discloses that the weighted object that applies pressure comprises of a plurality of rings and that the weight of the weighted object may be chosen to produce sufficient localized force to ensure intimate contact between the surfaces {[0038]}. As such, BAHRAMSHAHI recognizes the weight and amount of pressure as a result-effective variable determining proper contact.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case the weight or pressure on optimum contact) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(B)}. At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the weight or pressure which is a result-effective variable through routine experimentation to have determined the pressure that is necessary to achieve an optimized contact which in certain circumstances will lead to the levels that are claimed.
Regarding claims 32-33, BAHRAMSHAHI disclose wherein adhering the low melt thermoplastic material to the portion of the surface of the thermoplastic composite part over the inconsistency in the thermoplastic composite part of the thermoplastic composite part comprises heating the heating element by applying, responsive to a temperature of the thermoplastic composite part, a current to the heating element (claim 32), wherein adhering the low melt thermoplastic material to the repair patch comprises heating the heating element by applying a current to the heating element (claim 33) {[abstract] note heating as the result of electrical resistance or applying current and bonding or adhering, [0005] note controller and controlling the current to the temperature of the patch or second temperature, [0032] note second temperature lower than first temperature or the temperature of thermoplastic composite part, thus controller is responsive and takes into account not exceeding the first temperature}.
Regarding claim 36, BAHRAMSHAHI discloses trimming ends of the heating element extending from the thermoplastic composite part {[0038] note removal of exposed heating element that corresponds to trimming ends of the heating element that extend from the part}.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of BAHRAMSHAHI, HOSHI, and IWANAGA, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of LAM (US-2016/0017183), hereinafter LAM.
Regarding claim 35, combination of BAHRAMSHAHI, HOSHI, and IWANAGA discloses all the limitation of claim 26 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on the heating element comprising a mixture of thermoplastics or the limitation “further comprising the heating element comprising a mixture of thermoplastic material”.
In the same filed of the endeavor that is related to repair patch, LAM discloses that repair patch can comprises of a number of thermoplastics or a combination thereof (emphasis added by the Examiner) {[0047]}.
Since as disclosed above, modified MAHRAMSHAHI impregnates the heating element with a layer of the repair patch, at the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a mixture of thermoplastic to have impregnated the heating element. As disclosed by LAM, and to obtain a sutiable thermoplastic repair patch, it is known to use a combination or mixture of thermoplastics {[0047]}.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights