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 .
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Humele et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0116222 A1, cited in IDS submitted September 3, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Humele discloses a back roller (Abstract of Humele, roller), comprising: a roller body, having an axis and a roll surface disposed around the axis (FIG. 2 of Humele, cylindrical jacket #10); and a wear-resistant layer, covering the roll surface ([0027] of Humele, outer surface of cylindrical jacket hard chromed), wherein Vickers hardness of the wear-resistant layer is denoted as H, and 800 HV ≤ H ≤ 1400 HV ([0035] of Humele, outer surface of cylindrical jacket has a hardness of 900 to 1200 HV).
Regarding claim 4, Humele discloses that the wear-resistant layer is formed as a tungsten carbide plating or a chromium plating ([0027] of Humele, outer surface of cylindrical jacket hard chromed; claim only requires one of the recited coatings).
Regarding claim 5, Humele discloses that the roller body comprises a first part and two second parts (FIG. 4 of Humele, cylindrical jacket #10 and upper and lower lid parts #11 #12), the first part has the axis and the roll surface (FIG. 4 of Humele, cylindrical jacket #10 has axis and roller surface), and the two second parts are respectively connected to two opposite ends of the first part along a direction of the axis (FIG. 4 of Humele, upper and lower lid parts #11 #12 connected to opposite ends of cylindrical jacket #10).
Regarding claim 17, Humele discloses a coating machine, comprising the back roller according to claim 1 (Abstract of Humele, labeling apparatus including roller).
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humele.
Regarding claim 2, Humele does not specifically disclose that the Vickers hardness H further meets the following condition: 1200 HV ≤ H ≤ 1400 HV. Humele, however, discloses that the outer surface of the cylindrical jacket has a hardness of 900 to 1200 HV ([0035] of Humele). Humele therefore clearly teaches a hardness range (i.e., 900-1200 HV) that overlaps with that recited in claim 2 (i.e., 1200-1400 HV) which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 3, Humele does not specifically disclose that the thickness of the wear-resistant layer is denoted as h, and h > 0.1 mm. Humele, however, discloses that the thickness of the hard chromium layer is 60 to 150 microns (0.06-0.15 mm) ([0047] of Humele). Humele therefore clearly teaches a coating thickness range (i.e., 0.06-0.15 mm) that overlaps with that recited in claim 3 (i.e., > 0.1 mm) which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claims 1-4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 111617926 A, cited in IDS submitted August 18, 2023, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 1, Bao discloses a roller (Abstract of Bao, coating roller), comprising: a roller body, having an axis and a roll surface disposed around the axis (Abstract of Bao, roller includes a roller body having a surface; roller body would necessarily have an axis with the roll surface disposed around the axis); and a wear-resistant layer, covering the roll surface (Abstract of Bao, roller body has a tungsten carbide surface).
Bao does not specifically disclose that the Vickers hardness of the wear-resistant layer is denoted as H, and 800 HV ≤ H ≤ 1400 HV. Bao, however, discloses that the Vickers hardness of the tungsten carbide roller surface is 1300 to 1500 HV ([0021] of Bao). Bao therefore clearly teaches a Vickers hardness range (i.e., 1300-1500 HV) that overlaps with that recited in claim 1 (i.e., 800-1400 HV) which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Bao also does not specifically disclose that the roller is a “back roller”. As set forth in the MPEP, however, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (MPEP 2111.02). The roller of Bao, however, is a roller with a hardened surface and is therefore capable of being used as a backing or back roller.
Regarding claim 2, Bao does not specifically disclose that the Vickers hardness H further meets the following condition: 1200 HV ≤ H ≤ 1400 HV. Bao, however, discloses that the Vickers hardness of the tungsten carbide roller surface is 1300 to 1500 HV ([0021] of Bao). Bao therefore clearly teaches a Vickers hardness range (i.e., 1300-1500 HV) that overlaps with that recited in claim 2 (i.e., 1200-1400 HV) which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 3, Bao discloses that the thickness of the wear-resistant layer is denoted as h, and h > 0.1 mm ([0018] of Bao, thickness of coating on the surface of the roller is 200-300 µm or 0.2-0.3 mm).
Regarding claim 4, Bao discloses that the wear-resistant layer is formed as a tungsten carbide plating or a chromium plating (Abstract of Bao, roller body has a tungsten carbide surface).
Regarding claim 17, Bao discloses a coating machine, comprising the back roller according to claim 1 ([0013] of Bao, coating roller used in apparatus for preparing laminates).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zhou et al. (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 212269010 U, cited in IDS submitted August 18, 2023, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 5, Bao does not disclose that the roller body comprises a first part and two second parts, the first part has the axis and the roll surface, and the two second parts are respectively connected to two opposite ends of the first part along a direction of the axis. Zhou, however, discloses a roller comprising a roller body #1 and bearings #3 connected to (i.e., in contact with) opposite ends of the body along the axial direction (FIG. 1 of Bao). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a roller body having a structure as taught by Zhou as the roller body in the roller of Bao since Zhou establishes that rollers having such a structure were known. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou discloses that the roller body further comprises a connector (FIG. 1 of Zhou, shaft #2), a through-hole is provided in the first part along the direction of the axis (FIG. 1 of Zhou, roller body #1 has a through opening along the axis), the connector is located in the through-hole (FIG. 1 of Zhou, shaft #2 passes through opening in body #1), and the two second parts are connected to two ends of the connector along the direction of the axis (FIG. 1 of Zhou, bearings #3 connected to opposite ends of shaft #2).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou discloses that the two second parts are respectively embedded in two opposite ends of the through-hole (FIG. 1 of Zhou, bearings #3 embedded in through opening of roller body #1), an inner wall of the through-hole is provided with a first limiting portion (FIG. 1 of Zhou, through opening of body #1 is recessed at each end limiting axial movement of bearings #3 in an axial direction), a second limiting portion is provided on a side of one second part facing the connector (FIG. 1 of Zhou, bearing retaining ring #4 which limits axial movement of bearing #3), and the first limiting portion and the second limiting portion fit together for position limiting along the direction of the axis (FIG. 1 of Zhou, retaining rings #4, bearings #3 and recessed portion of body #1 prevent axial movement of shaft).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humele in view of Chen (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 110499488 A, cited in IDS submitted August 18, 2023, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 8, Humele discloses a method for preparing the back roller according to claim 1 (FIG. 4 of Humele, cylindrical jacket; see analysis of claim 1 above), comprising: providing a roller blank, wherein the roller blank has an axis and a roll surface disposed around the axis (FIG. 4 of Humele, cylindrical jacket which includes an outer roll surface disposed around an axis of rotation); performing surface treatment on the roll surface to form a wear-resistant layer on the roll surface ([0029] of Humele, outer side of cylindrical jacket can be plasma-nitrided to form a hardened surface); and after the heat treatment, processing the roller blank according to a specified size to obtain the back roller ([0048] of Humele, cylindrical tube ground to desired wall thickness after hardening).
Humele does not specifically disclose performing heat treatment on the surface-treated roller blank. Chen, however, discloses a roller production process wherein the surface of the roller is nitrided and the surface nitrided roller is then subjected to cryogenic treatment (Abstract of Chen). According to Chen, cryogenic treatment extends the service life of the nitrided roller ([0028] of Chen). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to subject the nitride roller of Humele to cryogenic treatment. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to extends the service life of the nitrided roller as taught by Chen ([0028] of Chen).
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humele in view of Chen as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Cai (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 109694995 A, machine language translation provided and cited below) and Diekman (“Cold and Cryogenic Treatment of Steel”, ASM Handbook, Vol. 4A, Steel Heat Treating Fundamentals and Processes, August 2013).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses that performing the heat treatment on the surface-treated roller blank comprises: performing cryogenic treatment on the surface-treated roller blank ([0010] of Chen); and after the cryogenic treatment, performing tempering treatment on the roller blank ([0010] of Chen, roller is tempered after cryogenic treatment) but does not disclose to leave the roller blank at any temperature between -196 ºC and -180 ºC for at least 20 h to 28 h, wherein the roller blank is made of chromium-containing alloy steel. Cai discloses a roller made from chromium containing steel which is subjected to cryogenic treatment at a temperature of -195 to -190 °C (Abstract, [0056] of Cai). While Cai does not specifically disclose cryogenic holding time of 20 to 28 hours, Diekman discloses cryogenic hold periods of 4 to 48 hours at -193 °C for steel (pg. 2, right column, last full ¶ of Diekman). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a Cr containing steel for the roller in the modified process and a cryogenic hold time of 4 to 48 hours at 193 °C since Cai establishes that Cr containing steels were known to be used for ollers and subjected to cryogenic treatment. It would also have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cryogfen hold time of 4 to 48 hours since Diekman establishes that such cryogenic hold times were known for cold treating steel. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Diekman clearly teaches a cryogenic holding time range (i.e., 4-48 hours) that overlaps with that recited in claim 9 (i.e., 20-28 hours) which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 10, Diekman discloses that performing the cryogenic treatment on the surface-treated roller blank comprises: consecutively reducing a temperature of an ambient environment of the roller blank at least twice in a step-wise manner within a first preset period of time, so that the temperature of the ambient environment of the roller blank falls to any temperature value between -196 ºC and -180 ºC (pg. 2, right column, last full ¶ of Diekman, slow cool down from ambient to -193 °C necessarily includes reducing temperature over a preset period of time); keeping the temperature of the ambient environment unchanged, so that the roller blank stands for 20 h to 28 h (pg. 2, right column, last full ¶ of Diekman, temperature held at -193 C 4 to 48 hours which renders obvious the claimed cryogenic holding times); and after the standing, consecutively increasing the temperature of the ambient environment of the roller blank at least twice in a step-wise manner within a second preset period of time, so that temperature of the ambient environment of the roller blank rises to any temperature value between 10 ºC and 30 ºC (pg. 2, right column, last full ¶ of Diekman, temperature material brought back to ambient temperature after hold time; raising temperature from -193 to ambient would necessarily include increasing the temperature multiple times over a period of time).
Regarding claim 11, neither Cai nor Diekman disclose that during each step-wise temperature reduction, within a first specified period of time, the temperature is reduced by a first temperature value at a preset cooling rate, and then kept unchanged, wherein the first preset period of time comprises several first specified periods of time. Chen, however, discloses dividing the temperature change during cryogenic treatment into stages wherein the temperature is maintained for a period of time between stages ([0016] of Chen). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the temperature in stages in the modified method since Chen establishes that it was known to do so during cryogenic treatment of rollers. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Chen does not specifically disclose that the first specified period of time is a time value ranging from 4 h to 6 h, and the first temperature value is a temperature value ranging from 10ºC to 40ºC. Diekman, however, discloses that the temperature ramp down rate and hold time are variable that affect temperature gradients and stresses in the material (pg. 2, right column, last full ¶ of Diekman). Diekman therefore establishes that the temperature ramp down rate and hold times are variables which achieve a recognized result (i.e., reducing stress in the material). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the temperature intervals and hold times in the modified method, including providing temperatures and hold times as recited in claim 12. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Regarding claim 13, neither Cai nor Diekman disclose that, during each step-wise temperature rise, within a second specified period of time, the temperature is first increased by a second temperature value at a preset heating rate, and then kept unchanged, wherein the second preset period of time comprises several second specified periods of time. Chen, however, discloses dividing the temperature change during cryogenic treatment into stages wherein the temperature is maintained for a period of time between stages ([0016] of Chen). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the temperature in stages in the modified method since Chen establishes that it was known to do so during cryogenic treatment of rollers. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Chen does not specifically disclose that the second specified period of time is a time value ranging from 4 h to 6 h, and the second temperature value is a temperature value ranging from 40 ºC to 90 ºC. Diekman, however, discloses that the temperature ramp down rate and hold time are variable that affect temperature gradients and stresses in the material (pg. 2, right column, last full ¶ of Diekman). Diekman therefore establishes that the temperature ramp down rate and hold times are variables which achieve a recognized result (i.e., reducing stress in the material). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the temperature intervals and hold times in the modified method, including providing temperatures and hold times as recited in claim 12. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao in view of Zhu et al. (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 109825790 A, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 8, Bao discloses a method for preparing the back roller according to claim 1 (Abstract of Bao, preparation method for coating roller; see analysis of claim 1 above), comprising: providing a roller blank, wherein the roller blank has an axis and a roll surface disposed around the axis (Abstract of Bao, coating roller has a roller body having a surface; surface of roller body would necessarily have an axis with the roller surface disposed therearound); performing surface treatment on the roll surface to form a wear-resistant layer on the roll surface (Abstract of Bao, tungsten carbide sprayed on roller surface); performing heat treatment on the surface-treated roller blank ([0085] of Bao, coated roll sealed and dried by heating).
Bao does not disclose, after the heat treatment, processing the roller blank according to a specified size to obtain the back roller. Zhu, however, discloses a method of spraying a roller with a tungsten carbide layer (Abstract of Zhu) wherein the coated roller is sealed ([0049] of Zhu) and then ground and polished to a desired size and surface roughness ([0050] of Zhu). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to grind and polish the coated and sealed roller of Bao. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a roller having a desired size and surface roughness as taught by Zhu ([0050] of Zhu).
Regarding claim 15, Bao discloses that the step of performing surface treatment on the roll surface comprises: spraying a tungsten carbide coating on the roll surface to form the wear-resistant layer (Abstract of Bao, tungsten carbide sprayed on roller surface).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao in view of Zhu as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Liu et al. (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 212025520 U, machine language translation provided and cited below) and Lan et al. (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 103305664 A, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 16, Bao does not specifically disclose that providing the roller blank comprises: respectively mounting two second parts at two opposite ends of a first part in a hot-fitting manner, and welding joints between the two second parts and the first part to form an intermediate part with the roll surface; performing thermal refining on the intermediate part; and after the thermal refining, performing intermediate frequency quenching on the roll surface to obtain the roller blank. Liu, however, discloses a method of making a roller wherein two roller shaft heads are assembled at opposite ends of a roller body by a thermal interference fit method followed by a welding process (FIG. 1, Abstract, [0035] of Liu). Lan discloses a method of making a roller wherein the roller is made by thermal refining and intermediate frequency quenching (Abstract of Lan). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the roller blank in the modified method using the method of Liu and perform thermal refining and quenching on the roller blank as taught by Lan since Liu and Lan establish that it was known to do so at the time the invention was made. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746