DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 04/20/2026 canceling Claim 2 and amending Claims 1, 3, and 4. Claims 1 and 3 - 6 are examined.
Drawings
The 04/20/2026 amended claim set has overcome the Drawing Objections in the 02/17/2026 Office Action. Therefore, said Drawing Objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended Claim 1, ll. 16 – 17 recited “a controller configured to variably, simultaneously control the X-axis motor and the Y-axis motor the rotation rate of the motor;”. Applicant’s 04/20/2026 reply failed to identify the paragraph or paragraphs of the original written description that sufficiently described the cited amendment. A text search of the original Specification failed to find the word “simultaneous” or the word “simultaneously”. The word “simultaneous” or the word “simultaneously” were not recited in the original claim set. Therefore, amended Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 3 – 6 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4, ll. 5 – 6 recites “controller is configured to control the laser scanner to emit the laser beam in advance compared to the predetermined manner” is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention because the scope of “in advance” is unclear. Specification Paras. [0010] and [0037] basically repeat the claim limitation without any further details. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “predetermined manner” is any set manner. So it is unclear if “in advance” refers to time or location? For example, if the “predetermined manner” has the laser scanner turn on the laser oscillator (source of the laser beam) at a set time, then does “in advance” mean that the laser oscillator is turned on five seconds (or any fixed time interval) before the set time of the “predetermined manner”? Alternatively, if the “predetermined manner” has the laser scanner turn on the laser oscillator (source of the laser beam) only when the indexing table has rotated one of the secondary battery cells (workpieces) to a set position like 360°, then does “in advance” mean that the laser oscillator is turned on when the secondary battery cell (workpiece) is at the 350° or 355° position (the index table rotates clockwise) which is “in advance” of the 360° position? Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention because the scope of “in advance” is unclear.
Applicant’s 04/20/2026 reply argues on Pg. 5, middle paragraph that “This disclosure clarifies that when the laser beam is emitted "in advance compared to predetermined manner," the predetermined manner is advanced in speed to account for the index table being accelerated because, absent advancing the predetermined manner, the weld location would lag behind the location due to the accelerated index table”. This argument is not persuasive because it was a well-known scientific fact that the speed of light was a constant (approximately 186,000 miles per second). Laser beams were highly concentrated, narrow stream of coherent light (plurality of photons collimated into a beam) produced by a laser device. Therefore, every laser beam travelled at the speed of light in a vacuum which was a well-known universal constant. Consequently, Applicant’s argument that the laser beam was advanced in speed is refuted by the well-known universal constant speed of light. In other words, it would have been impossible for Applicant’s invention to have the laser beam advanced in speed, i.e., travel faster than the speed of light, because the speed of light in a vacuum which was a well-known universal constant. The 112(b) rejection is maintained.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru (Japanese Patent JP5519426B2) in view of Ko Myoung Jin et al. (KR20170082233A) in view of Damiano et al. (5,493,194).
Regarding Claim 1, Nomaru teaches, in Figs. 1 - 4, the invention as claimed, including an apparatus (1 – Fig. 1) [The following in the intended use of the apparatus.] for manufacturing a workpiece, the apparatus comprising: an index table (20) comprising a table (shown in Figs. 1, 3, and 4), and a motor (21 - Para. [0015]) configured to rotate the table (20); a laser scanner (26, 27, 274) configured to irradiate a laser beam onto an outer surface of a workpiece (W – Figs. 1 and 3), the laser scanner (26, 27, 274) comprising an X-axis mirror (272, 274) configured to reflect the irradiated laser beam, a Y-axis mirror (273, 274) configured to reflect the laser beam reflected by the X-axis mirror (272, 274); and a controller (277 – Fig. 2) configured to variably control the mirrors (272, 273, 274) according to the rotation rate (includes a rotation rate of zero) of the motor (21 – Fig. 1); and an encoder (211 - Para. [0033]), configured to measure a rotation rate of the motor (21) and to input the measured rotation rate to the controller (277). Nomaru teaches, in Machine Translation Para. [0015], “The rotation support unit 21 rotates the holding table 20 under the control of a rotation support unit control means 212 (described later).” Nomaru further teaches, in Para. [0015], “The laser irradiation unit 26 houses a laser processing means 27, which is an optical system Fig. 1(b) is composed of an oscillator 271 that emits a laser beam, a plurality of mirrors 272 to 274 that reflect the laser beam emitted from the oscillator 271, an operating unit 275 that drives the mirror 274 so that it can swing back and forth, and a condenser 276 that focuses the laser beam reflected by the mirror 274 onto a workpiece W on the holding table 20.” Nomaru teaches, in Paras. [0025] and [0026], “Specifically, the operation control unit 277 controls the operation unit 275 based on the rotation angle information of the rotation support unit 21 obtained from the encoder 211 so that the focal point of the laser beam reflected from the mirror 274 is positioned at a desired position on the workpiece W.” Nomaru teaches, in Para. [0033], “…the operation control unit 277 controls the operating unit 275 based on rotation angle information of the rotation support 21 obtained from the encoder 211.”
Nomaru is silent on the workpiece being a secondary battery cell comprising an electrode assembly, a can accommodating the electrode assembly, and an electrode tab between the electrode assembly and the can to electrically connect the electrode assembly to the can, said laser scanner configured to irradiate said laser beam onto an outer surface of the can to weld the electrode tab to the can, an X-axis motor configured to rotate the X-axis mirror, a Y-axis motor configured to rotate the Y-axis mirror.
Ko Myoung Jin teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, a similar apparatus (Figs. 1 and 2) for manufacturing a secondary battery cell (Fig. 1) comprising an electrode assembly (30), a can (20) accommodating the electrode assembly (30, when assembled), and an electrode tab (22) between the electrode assembly (30) and the can (20) to electrically connect the electrode assembly (30) to the can (20), a laser scanner (10 – Fig. 1 and 100, 130 – Fig. 2) configured to irradiate a laser beam onto an outer surface of the electrode assembly (30) to weld the electrode tab (22) to the electrode assembly (30). Ko Myoung Jin further teaches, in Fig. 2 and Machine Translation Pg. 7 of 8, top half, a similar laser scanner (100, 130) having a laser oscillator (110), an X-axis mirror (141) configured to reflect a laser emitted from the laser oscillator (110), an X-axis motor (143) configured to rotate the X-axis mirror (141), a Y-axis mirror (142) configured to reflect the laser reflected by the X-axis mirror (141), a Y-axis motor (144) configured to rotate the Y-axis mirror (142).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nomaru with the workpiece being a secondary battery cell comprising an electrode assembly, a can accommodating the electrode assembly, and an electrode tab between the electrode assembly and the can to electrically connect the electrode assembly to the can, said laser scanner configured to irradiate said laser beam onto an outer surface of the electrode assembly to weld the electrode tab to the electrode assembly, i.e., can, an X-axis motor configured to rotate the X-axis mirror, and a Y-axis motor configured to rotate the Y-axis mirror, taught by Ko Myoung Jin, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the apparatus comprising: an index table configured to receive a workpiece; a laser scanner configured to irradiate a laser beam onto an outer surface of the workpiece; and a controller configured to variably control the laser beam according to the rotation rate of the motor, the workpiece being a secondary battery cell comprising an electrode assembly, a can accommodating the electrode assembly, and an electrode tab between the electrode assembly and the can to electrically connect the electrode assembly to the can, said laser scanner configured to irradiate a laser beam onto an outer surface of the electrode assembly to weld the electrode tab to the electrode assembly, i.e., can, an X-axis motor configured to rotate the X-axis mirror, and a Y-axis motor configured to rotate the Y-axis mirror, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the X-axis motor and the Y-axis motor, taught by Ko Myoung Jin, for the non-disclosed motors of Nomaru, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the X-axis motor would have rotated the X-axis mirror to sweep the laser beam along the X-axis and the Y-axis motor would have rotated the Y-axis mirror to sweep the laser beam along the Y-axis to facilitate forming complex weld paths like curved or circular weld paths along the outer surface of the can. Additionally, substituting the secondary battery cell, taught by Ko Myoung Jin, for the generic workpiece of Nomaru, would have yield predictable results, i.e., the controller would have variably controlled the X-axis motor and the Y-axis motor according to the rotation rate (includes a rotation rate of zero) of the motor (that rotated the table) to facilitate irradiating the laser beam onto an outer surface of the can to weld the electrode tab to the can. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin, as discussed above, is silent on a jig along a circumference of the table and configured to fix the can. Ko Myoung Jin, further teaches, in Machine Translation Pg. 5 of 8, top third, “In addition, one battery cell may correspond to one jig and may be emitted once at a site for welding.”
Deberg teaches, in Fig. 1 and Col. 2, ll. 1 - 15, a similar rotating index table (10) having a plurality of jigs (20 – eight shown in Fig. 1) along a circumference of the table (10) wherein each jig (20) was configured to fix a workpiece (W).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin, with the rotating index table having a plurality of jigs along a circumference of the table and configured to fix a workpiece, taught by Deberg, because all the claimed elements, i.e., an apparatus comprising: an index table configured to receive a workpiece; a jig configured to fix a secondary battery cell (workpiece), and rotating index table having a plurality of jigs along a circumference of the table wherein each jig was configured to fix a workpiece, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the rotating index table having a plurality of jigs along a circumference of the table, taught by Deberg, for the index table of Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the rotating index table having a plurality of jigs along a circumference of the table would have facilitated fixing a secondary battery cell can in each one of the jigs for high production welding operations. In other words, the rotating index table would have facilitated sequentially positioning secondary battery cell cans under the laser scanner one after another for welding each electrode tab to a respective outer surface of the can. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin and Deberg, teach an apparatus for manufacturing a secondary battery cell, i.e., base device, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin and Deberg, as discussed above, is silent on said controller configured to variably, simultaneously control the X-axis motor and the Y-axis motor according to the rotation rate (includes a rotation rate of zero) of the motor (that rotated the table, so rotation around a Z-axis).
Damiano teaches, in Figs. 1 – 12 and Col. 1, ll. 15 – 30, that multi-axis motor controls were used in industrial automation and manufacturing systems such as multi-axis machine tools which required coordinated and simultaneous control of multiple motors where the multi-axis motor control system included a main control unit coupled to an axis module unit for each motor of the system. Damiano further teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 1 – 25, the multi-axis motor control system had a main motor control unit (12), a combination data and power bus (20), and at least a first motor control axis module (14, i.e., for X-axis motor), a second motor control axis module (16, i.e., for Y-axis motor), and a third motor control axis module (18, i.e., for Z-axis motor) where each one of the motor control axis modules had terminal blocks (22) connected to encoders or other types of positional and velocity signal producing sensors which sent position signals from the respective motor control axis modules to the main motor control unit (12) via data and power bus (20). Damiano further teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 25 – 40, that the main motor control unit (12) received motor position and velocity, i.e., rate of rotation, information produced by the each one of the three motor control axis modules (14, 16, and 18) to generate electric current commands which generated the power and current required to simultaneously operate each one of the three motors at a desired speed and torque.
Thus, improving a particular device (apparatus for manufacturing a secondary battery cell), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Damiano, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the apparatus for manufacturing a secondary battery cell of Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin and Deberg, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that configuring the controller of Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin and Deberg, to variably, simultaneously control the X-axis motor and the Y-axis motor according to the rotation rate of the motor (that rotated the table around Z-axis) would have facilitated reducing the time required for the manufacturing process since all three motors (X-axis motor, Y-axis motor, and Z-axis motor) would have been variably controlled at the same time, i.e., simultaneously, as opposed to sequential operation where the X-axis motor, Y-axis motor, and Z-axis motor would have been controlled at different time periods. For example, sequential operation could have the X-axis motor controlled from T0 to T1 time period, the Y-axis motor controlled from T1 to T2 time period, and Z-axis motor controlled from T2 to T3 time period whereas simultaneous multi-axis control would have controlled all three motors (X-axis motor, Y-axis motor, and Z-axis motor) from T0 to T1 time period thereby reducing the time required for the manufacturing process by eliminating the T1 to T2 time period and the T2 to T3 time period. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 3, Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin, Deberg, and Damiano, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above and Nomaru further teaches, in Para. [0029], wherein, when the rotation rate of the motor (21) is constant, the controller (277) is configured to drive the laser scanner (26, 27, 274) in a predetermined manner (any normal speed manner), and wherein, when the rotation rate of the motor (21) increases or decreases, the controller (277) is configured to drive at least one of the X-axis motor and the Y-axis motor slower than in the predetermined manner. Nomaru further teaches, in Para. [0029], “…the smaller the rotation angle per unit time of the rotation support member 21 obtained from the encoder 211, the slower the rotation speed of the holding table 20 and the slower the driving speed of the mirror 274 by the operating unit 275.” As shown in Fig. 2 the encoder (211) sent data (solid arrow line) to controller (277) which sent commands (solid arrow line) to motor (275) to slow the driving speed of the mirror (274).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin, Deberg, and Damiano, would have had the controller is configured to drive at least one of the X-axis motor and the Y-axis motor slower than in the predetermined manner because Nomaru teaches, in Para. [0026], “…the operation control unit 277 controls the operation unit 275 based on the rotation angle information of the rotation support unit 21 obtained from the encoder 211 so that the focal point of the laser beam reflected from the mirror 274 is positioned at a desired position on the workpiece W.”
Re Claim 4, [Refer to the 112(b) rejection above.] Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin, Deberg, and Damiano, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above and Nomaru further teaches, in Para. [0029], wherein, when the rotation rate of the motor (21) is constant, the controller (277) is configured to drive the laser scanner (26, 27, 274) in a predetermined manner (any normal speed manner).
Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin, Deberg, and Damiano, as discussed above, is silent on wherein, when the rotation rate of the motor increases or decreases, the controller is configured to control the laser scanner to emit the laser beam in advance compared to the predetermined manner.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin, Deberg, and Damiano, to have the controller configured to control the laser scanner to emit the laser beam in advance (switch laser beam ON 1 to 5 seconds before the normal start time) compared to the predetermined manner (normal start time) when the rotation rate of the motor increases or decreases, because Applicant has not disclosed that “when the rotation rate of the motor increases or decreases, the controller is configured to control the laser scanner to emit the laser beam in advance compared to the predetermined manner” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, as discussed in the 112(b) rejection above, Specification Paras. [0010] and [0037] basically repeat the claim limitation without any further details. Therefore, the broadest reasonable meaning of “emit the laser in advance” is unclear. In the interest of compact prosecution “emit the laser in advance” is interpreted as switching the laser beam ON from 1 to 5 seconds before the normal time. Obviously, the laser oscillator (source of the laser beam) would have been switched OFF when a secondary battery cell can and an electrode tab were not being welded to avoid wasting electricity and to extend the operating life of the laser oscillator. For example, after welding a first electrode tab to a first secondary battery cell can, it would have been obvious to have switched OFF the laser oscillator (source of the laser beam) while the index table rotates the previously welded first electrode tab to a first secondary battery cell can out of the weld zone and rotates into the weld zone a second electrode tab and a second secondary battery cell can. When the second electrode tab and a second secondary battery cell can are in the weld zone the laser oscillator (source of the laser beam) would have been switched “ON” to weld the second electrode tab to the second secondary battery cell can. After the weld was completed the laser oscillator (source of the laser beam) would have been switched OFF, the index table would have rotated the (now welded assembly) second electrode tab welded to the secondary battery cell can out of the weld zone and rotated third electrode tab and a third secondary battery cell can into the weld zone, and the welding cycle followed by index table rotation would have been repeated until the production run was completed. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the combination of Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin, Deberg, and Damiano, because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to switch the laser oscillator (source of the laser beam) ON 1 to 5 seconds before the predetermined manner (normal start time) when the rotation rate of the motor was increased (from the normal rotation rate) to reduce the weld cycle time. In other words, increasing the rotation rate of the index table motor would have reduced the time it took to rotate the previously welded first electrode tab and first secondary battery cell can out of the weld zone and reduced the time it took to rotate an un-welded second electrode tab and second secondary battery cell can into the weld zone.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin, Deberg, and Damiano, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 4.
Re Claim 5, Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin, Deberg, and Damiano, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above and Nomaru further teaches, in Para. [0013], wherein the laser scanner (26, 27, 274) is configured to form a welding pattern in a linear shape, a curved shape, or a combination of the linear shape [301 – Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)] and the curved shape [rounded corners of the triangle and 302 – circles shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)]. Nomaru teaches, in Para. [0013], “According to the present invention, a laser processing apparatus capable of performing curved machining on a workpiece at high speed and with high precision can be provided.”
Re Claim 6, Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin, Deberg, and Damiano, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above and Nomaru further teaches, in Para. [0033], wherein the laser scanner (26, 27, 274) is configured to form a welding pattern (30) while the index table (20) rotates. Nomaru teaches, in Para. [0033], “Next, the holding table 20 is rotated while the focal point 40 is scanned in one axis direction, and laser processing is performed along the outer periphery 301 of the planned processing line 30 on the workpiece W. At this time, in the laser processing apparatus 1, the rotation support control means 212 controls the rotation speed of the rotation support 21, and the holding table 20 is rotated via the rotation support 21”.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument on Pg. 5, middle paragraph regarding the 112(b) rejection of Claim 4 is addressed on Pg. 5 above.
Applicant’s arguments on Pg. 6, last paragraph continuing on to Pg. 7, argues against references Nomaru individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed above, the claims were rejected a being obvious in view of the combination of Nomaru, i.v., Ko Myoung Jin, Deberg, and Damiano.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights