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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment and/or arguments submitted on 06/26/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-12, 14-17, 19-22 are pending:
Claims 13, 18 are canceled
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to drawing objections have been fully considered.
Claim 9
Applicant asserts, page 13, that amended Fig5 supports the amended claim 9.
The office respectfully disagrees and notes that the amended Fig5 introduces new matter issues. See the corresponding section below for details.
Claim 13 objection withdrawn due to cancelation of the claim.
Claim 19 objection withdrawn due to amendment of specification and claim language.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered.
The majority of the claim objections of record are overcome by amendment. See corresponding section below for details on remaining objections.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 102 art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102 art rejections of record has been withdrawn.
Applicant asserts, page 14-15, that Blakenship fail to disclose the electrode 20 and the distributor 13 to independently engage with the torch body from old claim 18 in instant claim 1/14
The office agrees. Old claim 1/14 was very loose in the recited components due to the use of “consumable component” which has been amended to require particular structure in a different configuration from the rejection of record.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 103 art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 art rejections of record has been withdrawn.
Applicant asserts, page 15, that Blakenship fail to disclose the electrode 20 and the distributor 13 to independently engage with the torch body from old claim 18 in instant claim 10, and that the other art of record fails to correct the issue for Blakenship.
The office agrees. Old claim 10 was very loose in the recited components due to the use of “consumable component” which has been amended to require particular structure in a different configuration from the rejection of record.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 6 “the plurality of consumable components comprises a shield configured to attach to the torch body and surround the electrode, the distributor, and the nozzle”. Claim 1 requires each of the electrode, distributor, and nozzle to be inserted to the first/second/third surfaces respectively. Fig5 shows the distributor opening 420 which is monolithic to the nozzle 424, therefore not showing a distributor and nozzle inserted at different second/third surfaces. The structure of a monolithic distributor and nozzle of Fig5 is not compatible with the claimed mounting arrangement of Claim 1. Thus, the highly schematic Fig2 provides the drawing support to show the subject matter of Claim 1 with electrode 204, distributor 206, and nozzle 208. Claim 6 introduces a shield to surround the electrode, the distributor, and the nozzle, however this is not shown in the embodiment of Fig2, but rather only in the embodiment of Fig5.
Since the full claimed scope of Claim 6 is only shown in broken components in non-compatibles embodiments, the claimed subject matter is not shown in the drawings.
Claim 7 “the arc processing torch comprises a nozzle shell surrounding the nozzle to form a chamber between the nozzle and the nozzle shell, and the nozzle comprises a plurality of channels formed into an outer surface of the nozzle and configured to receive fluid flow from the chamber and direct fluid flow along the nozzle toward a distal surface of the nozzle”
Same rational as discussed in the context of Claim 6.
Claim 8, all limitations
Same rational as discussed in the context of Claim 6.
Claim 9, all limitations
Same rational as discussed in the context of Claim 6.
Claim 9 “the nozzle shell comprises … and a distal portion directly in contact with the nozzle;” (office added underlining for emphasis), Para75 is the closest support and states “Instead, for instance, the secondary channels 542 may face (e.g., extend along) a portion of the nozzle shield that is directly in contact with the nozzle 504, rather than alongside the chamber formed by an offset of the nozzle shield from the nozzle 504.”. Thus, in the context of Fig5, if embodiment merging is presumed to be supported then nozzle 424 would be in direct contact with the nozzle shield 436. However, this is not shown.
Claim 21 “The method of claim 10, comprising coupling a shield to the torch body to surround the electrode, the distributor, and the nozzle.”
Same rational as discussed in the context of Claim 6
Claim 22 “the arc processing torch comprises a shield (cap 60) configured to engage with the fourth interface surface”
Same rational as discussed in the context of Claim 6
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/26/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Channels 540/542 in Fig5 are disclosed to have new dimensions and arrangement compared to original Fig6C
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation - Language
Language and/or terms in the claims are interpreted as follows:
Claim 17
Limitation of “do not engage” is read is light of Para22-25, with Para25 in particular
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11
L4, amend “the torch body [[position]] positions” to improve clarity by more clearly indicating that the instant position is the resulting action of the two prior recited “positioning” in the instant paragraph
L7-8, amend “the torch body [[position]] positions” to improve clarity by more clearly indicating that the instant position is the resulting action of the two prior recited “positioning” in the instant paragraph
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-12, 14-16, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or alternatively (a)(2) as being anticipated by Krink (US 11,865,651 or the corresponding PGPub US 2023/0086150, citations below are directed towards the US Patent version for clarity).
Claim 1
Krink discloses:
“An arc processing torch (best seen Fig2, torch 10 – also see annotated Fig2 below), comprising:
a torch body (body 20, bracket 65, nozzle holder 55) having a first interface surface (upper annotated rectangle - only shown on left side to improve visual clarity) and a second interface surface (middle annotated rectangle - only shown on right side to improve visual clarity) to form a stepped profile defining a cavity (inner void region within body 20/65/55); and
a plurality of consumable components including:
an electrode (electrode 30, also Fig2a) configured to be positioned within the cavity to engage with the first interface surface (electrode 30 is within void of body 20/65/55 and engages at first interface surface); and
a distributor (gas conducting unit 80, also Fig2b) configured to be positioned within the cavity to engage with the second interface surface (gas conducting unit 80 is within void of body 20/65/55 and engages at second interface surface),
wherein the electrode and the distributor are configured to independently engage with the first interface surface and the second interface surface, respectively (each of the electrode 30 and gas conducting unit 80 engage with the first/second respective surfaces independently – instant limitation does not require a lack of contact, but rather that each component engages with their respective torch body interface surface independently).”
PNG
media_image1.png
690
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2
Krink discloses: “The arc processing torch of claim 1, wherein the torch body comprises an axial surface extending between the first interface surface and the second interface surface (Fig2, axial surface that extends axially between thread 34a region and lateral second surface), and the electrode (30) is configured to be positioned between opposite sides of the axial surface to engage with the first interface surface (Fig2, electrode 30 is radially located within the axial surface to engage with the first surface).”
Claim 3
Krink discloses: “The arc processing torch of claim 2, wherein the first interface surface (top annotated rectangle) and the axial surface cooperatively define a receptacle configured to receive the electrode (Fig2, electrode 30 rear end 34 received within the first surface and the axial surface), and engagement of the distributor (80) with the second interface surface (middle annotated rectangle) positions the distributor exteriorly of the receptacle (Fig2, unit 80 is entirely located outside the receptacle for electrode rear end 34).”
Claim 4
Krink discloses: “The arc processing torch of claim 2, wherein the axial surface (axial surface as mapped above) is a first axial surface (naming convention, axial surface is first axial surface), the torch body comprises a second axial surface extending distally from the second interface surface (second axial surface of nozzle holder 55 indicated by annotated oval), and the distributor is configured to be positioned between opposite sides of the second axial surface (unit 80 is radially positioned within opposite sides of second axial surface) to engage with the second interface surface (arrangement causes engagement of unit 80 with second interface surface).”
Claim 5
Krink discloses: “The arc processing torch of claim 4, wherein the electrode (30) is configured to extend at least partially between the second interface surface while positioned in engagement with the first interface surface (electrode 30 extends axially beyond second interface surface).”
Claim 6
Krink discloses: “The arc processing torch of claim 1, wherein: the torch body comprises a third interface surface (bottom annotated rectangle); the plurality of consumable components comprises a nozzle (nozzle 50) configured to be positioned within the cavity (nozzle 50 is within void of body 20/65/55) to engage with the third interface surface (nozzle 50 is within void of body 20/65/55 and engages at third interface surface); and the plurality of consumable components comprises a shield (nozzle cap 60) configured to attach to the torch body (C13L23-25; Fig2, threaded interface between cap 60 and body 20/65/55) and surround the electrode, the distributor, and the nozzle (Fig2, cap 60 axially and radially surrounds electrode 30, unit 80, and nozzle 50).”
Claim 10
Krink discloses:
“A method of assembling an arc processing torch (best seen Fig2, torch 10 – also see annotated Fig2 above), comprising:
inserting an electrode (electrode 30, also Fig2a) of the arc processing torch within a cavity (void of body 20/65/55) defined by a torch body of the arc processing torch (body 20, bracket 65, nozzle holder 55) to position the electrode (electrode 30 is within void of body 20/65/55 and engages at first interface surface) against a first surface of the torch body (upper annotated rectangle - only shown on left side to improve visual clarity);
inserting a distributor (gas conducting unit 80, also Fig2b) of the arc processing torch within the cavity to position the distributor (gas conducting unit 80 is within void of body 20/65/55 and engages at second interface surface) against a second surface of the torch body (middle annotated rectangle - only shown on right side to improve visual clarity); and
inserting a nozzle (nozzle 50) of the arc processing torch within the cavity (nozzle 50 is within void of body 20/65/55) to position the nozzle (nozzle 50 is within void of body 20/65/55 and engages at third interface surface) against a third surface of the torch body (bottom annotated rectangle).”
Claim 11
Krink discloses:
“The method of claim 10, wherein:
positioning the electrode (30) against the first surface of the torch body (top annotated rectangle) and positioning the distributor (80) against the second surface of the torch body (middle annotated rectangle) position the electrode to extend through an opening of the distributor (Fig2, electrode 30 is positioned within a radially central opening of gas conducting unit 80);
positioning the electrode (30) against the first surface of the torch body (top annotated rectangle) and positioning the nozzle (50) against the third surface of the torch body (bottom rectangle) position the electrode to extend through an opening of the nozzle (Fig2, electrode 30 is positioned within a radially central opening of nozzle 50);
or both (both mapped above).”
Claim 12
Krink discloses:
“The method of claim 10, wherein:
positioning the electrode (30) against the first surface of the torch body sealingly engages the electrode with the first surface of the torch body (Fig2, threaded interface at 34a, see flow arrows from 21/200 to region 32 back up to openings 22 passing over threaded interface at 34a);
positioning the distributor (80) against the second surface of the torch body sealingly engages the distributor with the second surface of the torch body (Fig2/2b, o-ring seals shown by solid black rectangles);
positioning the nozzle (50) with the third surface of the torch body sealingly engages the nozzle against the third surface of the torch body (Fig2, see flow arrows, third interface between nozzle 50 and nozzle holder 55 is sealingly engaged – airflows through openings 56 not through the third surface); or
any combination thereof (all mapped above).”
Claim 21
Krink discloses: “The method of claim 10, comprising coupling a shield (nozzle cap 60) to the torch body (C13L23-25; Fig2, threaded interface between cap 60 and body 20/65/55) to surround the electrode, the distributor, and the nozzle (Fig2, cap 60 axially and radially surrounds electrode 30, unit 80, and nozzle 50).”
Claim 14
Krink discloses:
“An arc processing torch (best seen Fig2, torch 10 – also see annotated Fig2 above), comprising:
a torch body (body 20, bracket 65, nozzle holder 55) that includes:
a first interface surface (upper annotated rectangle - only shown on left side to improve visual clarity);
an axial surface that extends distally from the first interface surface (Fig2, axial surface that extends axially between thread 34a region and lateral second surface); and
a second interface surface that extends laterally beyond the first interface surface (middle annotated rectangle, second surface extends laterally to a greater radial location than the first interface surface - only shown on right side to improve visual clarity);
an electrode (electrode 30, also Fig2a) configured to engage with the first interface surface (electrode 30 engages at first interface surface); and
a distributor (gas conducting unit 80, also Fig2b) configured to engage with the second interface surface (gas conducting unit 80 engages at second interface surface).”
Claim 15
Krink discloses: “The arc processing torch of claim 14, wherein the torch body comprises: an additional axial surface (second axial surface of nozzle holder 55 indicated by annotated oval) that extends distally from the second interface surface (second axial surface extends distally/axially away from second interface surface); and a third interface surface (bottom annotated rectangle) that extends laterally beyond the second interface surface (lateral extending surface of third interface surface extends radially beyond second interface surface).”
Claim 16
Krink discloses: “The arc processing torch of claim 15, comprising a nozzle (nozzle 50) configured to engage with the third interface surface (nozzle 50 engages at third interface surface).”
Claim 22
Krink discloses: “The arc processing torch of claim 15, wherein the torch body comprises: a further axial surface (third axial surface indicated by bottom annotated circle) that extends distally from the third interface surface (third axial surface extends axial/distal from third interface surface); and a fourth interface surface (bottom annotated square) that extends laterally beyond the third interface surface (lateral extending surface of fourth interface surface extends radially beyond third interface surface), wherein the arc processing torch comprises a shield (cap 60) configured to engage with the fourth interface surface (cap 60 engages at fourth interference surface).”
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krink in view of Cook (US 7,598,473).
Claim 7
Krink discloses: “The arc processing torch of claim 1, wherein the plurality of consumable components comprises a nozzle (nozzle 50), the arc processing torch comprises a nozzle shell (nozzle cap 60) surrounding the nozzle (Fig2, cap 60 axially and radially surrounds nozzle 50) to form a chamber between the nozzle and the nozzle shell (Fig2, chamber 63), and …”
Krink is silent to “the nozzle comprises a plurality of channels formed into an outer surface of the nozzle and configured to receive fluid flow from the chamber and direct fluid flow along the nozzle toward a distal surface of the nozzle.”
Cook teaches: “the nozzle (Fig3A/3B, nozzle 300) comprises a plurality of channels (fluid passages 305) formed into an outer surface of the nozzle (passages 305 in outer surface 350) and configured to receive fluid flow from the chamber and direct fluid flow along the nozzle toward a distal surface of the nozzle (functional limitation. Fluid flows from upstream side 320 to the nozzle exit portion 330).” Cook further teaches (C3L4-27) that the nozzle groove/passage arrangement provides the benefit of improved speed and depth of workpiece piercing, and thus improved efficiency and lifetime of other components in the torch as well. Cook explicitly indicates that the nozzle groove/passage is applicable to various torch types.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Krink to add the nozzle fluid passage grooves as taught by Cook, as such a modification would provide the benefit of improved speed and depth of workpiece piercing, and thus improved efficiency and lifetime of other components in the torch as well, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Krink with a working and known in the art nozzle grooves to improve the operation and efficiency of the nozzle and the overall arrangement as taught by Cook.
Claim 20
Krink discloses: “The arc processing torch of claim 14, comprising: a nozzle (nozzle 50); and a nozzle shell (nozzle cap 60) surrounding the nozzle (Fig2, cap 60 axially and radially surrounds nozzle 50) to form a chamber between the nozzle and the nozzle shell (chamber 63), wherein …”
Krink is silent to “the nozzle comprises a first groove and a second groove formed into an outer surface of the nozzle and configured to discharge fluid flow from the chamber, the second groove extends distally from the first groove, and the second groove extends deeper into the outer surface of the nozzle than the first groove extends into the outer surface of the nozzle.”
Cook teaches: “the nozzle (Fig3A/3B, nozzle 300) comprises a first groove (Fig3, passage 305 upstream portion of flat 335) and a second groove (Fig3, passage 305 downstream portion of without flat 335) formed into an outer surface of the nozzle and configured to discharge fluid flow from the chamber (Fig3, passage 305 downstream portion is towards the nozzle exit 330), the second groove extends distally from the first groove (Fig3, passage 305 downstream portion is distal from upstream portion), and the second groove extends deeper into the outer surface of the nozzle than the first groove extends into the outer surface of the nozzle (Fig3, passage 305 downstream portion extends radially deeper than upstream portion).” Cook further teaches (C3L4-27) that the nozzle groove/passage arrangement provides the benefit of improved speed and depth of workpiece piercing, and thus improved efficiency and lifetime of other components in the torch as well. Cook explicitly indicates that the nozzle groove/passage is applicable to various torch types.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Krink to add the nozzle fluid passage grooves as taught by Cook, as such a modification would provide the benefit of improved speed and depth of workpiece piercing, and thus improved efficiency and lifetime of other components in the torch as well, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Krink with a working and known in the art nozzle grooves to improve the operation and efficiency of the nozzle and the overall arrangement as taught by Cook.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krink in view of Wustner (US 3,571,556).
Claim 17
Krink discloses the arrangement of claim 14.
Krink is silent to “wherein the electrode and the distributor do not engage with one another.”
Wustner teaches “… wherein the electrode (Fig1, electrode 19) and the distributor (Fig1/4, coolant tubes 9/10) do not engage with one another (Fig1, arrangement shows electrode 19 and tubes 9/10 not directly engaging with each other, but rather that intermediary components are located between the two cited structures).”
MPEP 2144.04.V.C directs that it is an obvious modification to make components separable if it is “desirable for any reason”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to modify the arrangement of Krink to apply the teachings of Wustner that it is known in the art to apply intermediary components between the electrode and fluid distributing components, by modifying the electrode 30 region 39 to separate into a new sub-component between electrode 30 and gas unit 80, as such a modification would merely be making the existing electrode 30 separable into with a new sub-component to as taught by Wustner to be a known in the art arrangement, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Krink a working and known in the art separable intermediary sub-component between the electrode and gas unit as taught by Wustner.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krink in view of Sanders (US 4,791,268).
Claim 19
Krink discloses: “The arc processing torch of claim 14, comprising a nozzle (nozzle 50) and …”
Krink is silent to a bias spring.
Sanders discloses: “… a nozzle (nozzle 16) and a spring (spring 40) configured to bias the nozzle and the electrode toward one another (Fig1 arrangement as shown; C4L38-55), wherein the spring is composed of a beryllium alloy (C4L4-6).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to modify the arrangement of Krink to add a spring to bias the electrode towards the nozzle as taught by Sanders, as Sanders teaches that such an arrangement is a known in the art arrangement to generate a pilot arc for the operation of the torch using simple mechanical movement to break an electrical contact area in response to active gas flow as desired, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Krink a working and known in the art pilot arc generating arrangement based on simple internal working conditions as taught by Sanders.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8
The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the claim, and in particular “the second channel extends circumferentially beyond the first channel” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
The closest prior art of record is Krink in view of Cook as combined in the rejection of claim 7 above. One of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the modified arrangement of Krink by the teachings of Cook to have a greater circumferential dimension of the downstream portion of the channel as such a modification would be directly counter to the design of the grooves of Cook, as Cook teaches (C8L2-7) that the instant application of the flats 335 act as aerodynamic scoops to increase the fluid flow in the grooves 305 and that such an arrangement reduces back pressure.
Claim 9 would be allowable over art due to dependency.
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 JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights