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 .
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-18 are currently pending. Claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-18 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 7 of the remarks, filed February 20, 2026, with respect to the objections of Claims 1, 8, and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The objections of Claims 1, 8, and 16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 7-8 of the remarks, filed with respect to the rejections of Claims 1, 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 16, Applicant argues the art of record does not expressly teach the amended limitation of “wherein the axially-most distant portion of the balancing flange from the plurality of rotor blades is more axially distant from the plurality of rotor blade than the axially-most distant portion of the seal interface from the plurality of rotor blades”. The Office respectfully disagrees, since the arguments do not appear to be commensurate with the scope of the claims. Applicant has provided an annotated figure showing what Applicant believes to be the axially-most distant portion of the seal interface. Referring to claims, the seal interface is between the rotor and a static structure of the gas turbine engine. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this includes interpretations different than the illustrated figure provided by Applicant, as this only requires the interface to be any interface between the two. See for instance, the annotated figure below where the interface is interpreted to be only the portions where the two touch, i.e. where the two interface with one another.
PNG
media_image1.png
559
928
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is also applicable to the prior art, in which the combination would meet such an interpretation because of the nature of the projections narrowing towards an edge that contacts the static portion. See for example, the annotated version of Figure 6 of Wesling et al. (US 2019/0085712 A1) provided below pointing at the axially-most distant portions of the interface (portion of 243 first to contact 220) and flange (247). The teeth (243) narrow to a point in a direction closer to the rotor (to the right) that is away from the axially-most distant portion of the flange (247). As such, the amendment is believed to be still met by the art of record.
PNG
media_image2.png
508
928
media_image2.png
Greyscale
No further arguments have been provided with respect to the remaining claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 16, Line 18 of Claim 1, Lines 25-26 of Claim 8, Lines 26-27 of Claim 16 recite “the plurality of rotor blade”. This is believed to be a typographical error of the phrase “the plurality of rotor blades”, since all other recitation uses the plural form of blades to describe the plurality.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, 15, and 17-18 are subsequently objected to for their dependencies upon a previously objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz et al. (US 2016/0230579 A1), hereinafter Schwartz, in view of Wesling et al. (US 2019/0085712 A1), hereinafter Wesling, O’Connor (US 4,879,792 A), hereinafter O’Connor, and Green (US 2019/0085709 A1), hereinafter Green.
Regarding Claim 1, Figure 2 of Schwartz teaches a rotor (structure of 204, 208) of a gas turbine engine, comprising: a rotor hub (204) rotatable about a rotor central axis (see 120 in Figure 1); a plurality of rotor blades (unlabeled blade 196 projecting from top of 204 in Figure 2) extending radially outwardly from the rotor hub (204); and a rotor flange (214) extending axially from the rotor hub (204), the rotor flange (214) at least partially defining: a seal assembly including a seal element (pointy knife seals extending from 214) of the rotor flange (214) configured to define a seal interface between the rotor and a static structure (210) of the gas turbine engine [0024, 0026-0028].
Schwartz does not expressly teach a rotor balancing structure configured to rotationally balance the rotor; wherein the rotor balancing structure comprises a balancing flange extending radially inwardly from an axially distal end of the rotor flange; wherein the axially-most distant portion of the balancing flange from the plurality of rotor blades is more axially distant from the plurality of rotor blade than the axially-most distant portion of the seal interface from the plurality of rotor blades as claimed. However, a balancing flange would have been obvious in view of Wesling.
Figure 6 of Wesling teaches a rotor with a rotor balancing structure (230, 247) configured to rotationally balance the rotor; wherein the rotor balancing structure comprises a balancing flange (247) extending radially inwardly from an axially distal end (left end in Figure 6) of the rotor flange (230); wherein the axially-most distant portion (leftmost portion in Figure 6) of the balancing flange (247) from the plurality of rotor blades (unlabeled 119 to right of 118) is more axially distant from the plurality of rotor blade (unlabeled 119 to right of 118) than the axially-most distant portion (left most portion in Figure 6) of the seal interface (between 220 and 243) from the plurality of rotor blades (unlabeled 119 to right of 118). The balancing flange (247) of the balancing structure defines a weight promoting deflection of the rotor flange (230) [0057]. As a result, the radial distance between the rotor and stator portions (230, 220) is reduced, thereby reducing leakage between the sealing portion [0069]. Note the flange (247) is arranged at the axial end of rotor flange (230). The closest distance between points the teeth of (243) and the stator at (220) define an interface, which is closer to the rotor blade (right end) compared to the furthest most portion of flange (247).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor taught by Schwartz with a rotor balancing structure configured to rotationally balance the rotor; wherein the rotor balancing structure comprises a balancing flange extending radially inwardly from an axially distal end of the rotor flange; wherein the axially-most distant portion of the balancing flange from the plurality of rotor blades is more axially distant from the plurality of rotor blade than the axially-most distant portion of the seal interface from the plurality of rotor blades as suggested by Wesling, to provide the benefit of reducing leakage.
Schwartz and Wesling do not expressly teach one or more counterweights secured to the balancing flange by one or more fasteners extending through the counterweight and through the balancing flange as claimed. However, such counterweights would have been obvious in view of O’Connor and Green.
Figures 1-2 of O’Connor teach a rotor with a balancing flange (16). The flange (16) has one or more counterweights (18) secured to the balancing flange (16) by one or more fasteners (20) extending through the counterweight (18) and through the balancing flange (16) (Col. 2, Lines 25-29). Adding counterweights (18) of particular weights at particular locations helps balance the rotor. Unbalance leads to vibration and damage (Abstract, Col. 1, Lines 10-18). While not specifically shown at the end of a seal, the concept is demonstrated by Green. Figure 4 of Green demonstrates placing a counterweight (54) at an axial distal end of a rotating seal portion (56) of a turbine. Like O’Connor, the counterweight (54) assists in mitigating unbalance as noted by the reduction of vibrations [0072-0073]. Thus, Green evidences that placing the counterweight at the axially distal end of the rotor flange, as required by the claim due to the positioning of the balancing flange, to apply the teachings of O’Connor would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the rotor taught by Schwartz-Wesling with one or more counterweights secured to the balancing flange by one or more fasteners extending through the counterweight and through the balancing flange as suggested by O’Connor-Green, to provide the benefit of further balancing the flange.
For purposes of expediting prosecution, if it is interpreted that the flange of Wesling is not considered a balancing flange, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor taught by Schwartz in view of Wesling to comprise a flange extending radially inwardly from an axially distal end of the rotor flange, wherein the axially-most distant portion of the flange from the plurality of rotor blades is more axially distant from the plurality of rotor blade than the axially-most distant portion of the seal interface from the plurality of rotor blades for the same reasons set forth above. Afterwards, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the rotor taught by Schwartz-Wesling in view of O’Connor-Green to comprise a rotor balancing structure configured to rotationally balance the rotor; one or more counterweights secured to the flange by one or more fasteners extending through the counterweight and through the flange for the same reasons set forth above. The inclusion of counterweights for balancing would create the rotor balancing structure (O’Connor, Abstract, Col. 1, Lines 10-18). Meanwhile, since the flange of the combination would now also function as a point of securement for the counterweights (see weights (18) of O’Connor fixed to a flange (16)), the flange of the combination would be considered as part of the balancing structure, functioning as the balancing flange because it would be a flange with balancing counterweights.
Regarding Claim 2, Schwartz, Wesling, O’Connor, and Green teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 2 of Schwartz teaches wherein the seal assembly comprises a labyrinth seal including: a seal base disposed at the rotor flange; and a plurality of seal fins configured to extend from the seal base toward the static structure (210) to define the seal interface between the plurality of seal fins and the static structure (210) [0026-0028]. See also annotated Figure 2’ below. The interface is the region where the fins are closest to the static structure.
PNG
media_image3.png
768
933
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Schwartz, Wesling, O’Connor, and Green teach the rotor as set forth in Claim 2.
Figure 2 of Schwartz teaches wherein the plurality of seal fins extend radially outwardly from the rotor flange (214). See also annotated Figure 2’ above.
Regarding Claim 8, Figure 2 of Schwartz teaches a turbine of a gas turbine engine (see paragraphs [0001, 0005], as well as Figure 1, (190)), comprising; a turbine static structure (210); and a turbine rotor (structure of 204, 208) disposed at and rotatable about a turbine central axis (see 120 in Figure 1), the turbine rotor including: a turbine rotor hub (204) located at the turbine central axis; a plurality of rotor blades (unlabeled blade 196 projecting from top of 204 in Figure 2) extending radially outwardly from the turbine rotor hub (204); and a turbine rotor flange (214) extending axially from the turbine rotor hub (204), the turbine rotor flange (214) at least partially defining: a seal assembly including a seal element (pointy knife seals extending from 214) of the rotor flange (214) configured to define a seal interface between the turbine rotor and the turbine static structure (210) [0024, 0026-0028].
Schwartz does not expressly teach a rotor balancing structure configured to rotationally balance the turbine rotor; wherein the rotor balancing structure comprises a balancing flange extending radially inwardly from an axially distal end of the rotor flange; wherein the axially-most distant portion of the balancing flange from the plurality of rotor blades is more axially distant from the plurality of rotor blade than the axially-most distant portion of the seal interface from the plurality of rotor blades as claimed. However, a balancing flange would have been obvious in view of Wesling.
Figure 6 of Wesling teaches a turbine rotor with a rotor balancing structure (230, 247) configured to rotationally balance the rotor; wherein the rotor balancing structure comprises a balancing flange (247) extending radially inwardly from an axially distal end (left end in Figure 6) of the rotor flange (230); wherein the axially-most distant portion (leftmost portion in Figure 6) of the balancing flange (247) from the plurality of rotor blades (unlabeled 119 to right of 118) is more axially distant from the plurality of rotor blade (unlabeled 119 to right of 118) than the axially-most distant portion (left most portion in Figure 6) of the seal interface (between 220 and 243) from the plurality of rotor blades (unlabeled 119 to right of 118). The balancing flange (247) of the balancing structure defines a weight promoting deflection of the rotor flange (230) [0057]. As a result, the radial distance between the rotor and stator portions (230, 220) is reduced, thereby reducing leakage between the sealing portion [0069]. Note the flange (247) is arranged at the axial end of rotor flange (230). The closest distance between points the teeth of (243) and the stator at (220) define an interface, which is closer to the rotor blade (right end) compared to the furthest most portion of flange (247).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbine taught by Schwartz with a rotor balancing structure configured to rotationally balance the turbine rotor; wherein the rotor balancing structure comprises a balancing flange extending radially inwardly from an axially distal end of the rotor flange; wherein the axially-most distant portion of the balancing flange from the plurality of rotor blades is more axially distant from the plurality of rotor blade than the axially-most distant portion of the seal interface from the plurality of rotor blades as suggested by Wesling, to provide the benefit of reducing leakage.
Schwartz and Wesling do not expressly teach one or more counterweights secured to the balancing flange by one or more fasteners extending through the counterweight and through the balancing flange as claimed. However, such counterweights would have been obvious in view of O’Connor and Green.
Figures 1-2 of O’Connor teach a rotor with a balancing flange (16). The flange (16) has one or more counterweights (18) secured to the balancing flange (16) by one or more fasteners (20) extending through the counterweight (18) and through the balancing flange (16) (Col. 2, Lines 25-29). Adding counterweights (18) of particular weights at particular locations helps balance the rotor. Unbalance leads to vibration and damage (Abstract, Col. 1, Lines 10-18). While not specifically shown at the end of a seal, the concept is demonstrated by Green. Figure 4 of Green demonstrates placing a counterweight (54) at an axial distal end of a rotating seal portion (56) of a turbine. Like O’Connor, the counterweight (54) assists in mitigating unbalance as noted by the reduction of vibrations [0072-0073]. Thus, Green evidences that placing the counterweight at the axially distal end of the rotor flange, as required by the claim due to the positioning of the balancing flange, to apply the teachings of O’Connor would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the turbine taught by Schwartz-Wesling with one or more counterweights secured to the balancing flange by one or more fasteners extending through the counterweight and through the balancing flange as suggested by O’Connor-Green, to provide the benefit of further balancing the flange.
For purposes of expediting prosecution, if it is interpreted that the flange of Wesling is not considered a balancing flange, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbine taught by Schwartz in view of Wesling to comprise a flange extending radially inwardly from an axially distal end of the rotor flange, wherein the axially-most distant portion of the flange from the plurality of rotor blades is more axially distant from the plurality of rotor blade than the axially-most distant portion of the seal interface from the plurality of rotor blades for the same reasons set forth above. Afterwards, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the turbine taught by Schwartz-Wesling in view of O’Connor-Green to comprise a rotor balancing structure configured to rotationally balance the turbine rotor; one or more counterweights secured to the flange by one or more fasteners extending through the counterweight and through the flange for the same reasons set forth above. The inclusion of counterweights for balancing would create the rotor balancing structure (O’Connor, Abstract, Col. 1, Lines 10-18). Meanwhile, since the flange of the combination would now also function as a point of securement for the counterweights (see weights (18) of O’Connor fixed to a flange (16)), the flange of the combination would be considered as part of the balancing structure, functioning as the balancing flange because it would be a flange with balancing counterweights.
Regarding Claim 9, Schwartz, Wesling, O’Connor, and Green teach the turbine as set forth in Claim 8.
Figure 2 of Schwartz teaches wherein the seal assembly comprises a labyrinth seal including: a seal base disposed at the turbine rotor flange; and a plurality of seal fins configured to extend from the seal base toward the static structure (210) to define the seal interface between the plurality of seal fins and the turbine static structure (210) [0026-0028]. See also annotated Figure 2’ above. The interface is the region where the fins are closest to the static structure.
Regarding Claim 10, Schwartz, Wesling, O’Connor, and Green teach the turbine as set forth in Claim 9.
Figure 2 of Schwartz teaches wherein the plurality of seal fins extend radially outwardly from the turbine rotor flange (214). See also annotated Figure 2’ above.
Regarding Claim 15, Schwartz, Wesling, O’Connor, and Green teach the turbine as set forth in Claim 8.
Figure 2 of Schwartz teaches wherein the turbine static structure (210) is a turbine frame. Either (210) itself is interpreted as a frame, or (210) is part of a frame through its attachment. See Figure 1 with static structure (198) shown schematically with the outer casing (hatched portion connected to 198).
Regarding Claim 16, Figures 1-2 of Schwartz teaches a gas turbine engine (100), comprising: a combustor (180) configured to combust a mixture of air and fuel; and a turbine assembly (190) including: a turbine rotor (192 or 196 in Figure 1, 204+208 in Figure 2) driven to rotate about an engine central axis (120) by a flow of combustion gases from the combustor (180), the turbine rotor including: a turbine rotor hub (204) located at the engine central axis; a plurality of rotor blades (unlabeled blade 196 projecting from top of 204 in Figure 2) extending radially outwardly from the turbine rotor hub (204); and a turbine rotor flange (214) extending axially from the turbine rotor hub (204), the turbine rotor flange (214) at least partially defining: a seal assembly including a seal element (pointy knife seals extending from 214) of the rotor flange (214) configured to define a seal interface between the turbine rotor and a turbine static structure (210) [0001, 0005, 0024, 0026-0028].
Schwartz does not expressly teach a rotor balancing structure configured to rotationally balance the turbine rotor; wherein the rotor balancing structure comprises a balancing flange extending radially inwardly from an axially distal end of the rotor flange; wherein the axially-most distant portion of the balancing flange from the plurality of rotor blades is more axially distant from the plurality of rotor blade than the axially-most distant portion of the seal interface from the plurality of rotor blades as claimed. However, a balancing flange would have been obvious in view of Wesling.
Figure 6 of Wesling teaches a turbine rotor with a rotor balancing structure (230, 247) configured to rotationally balance the turbine rotor; wherein the rotor balancing structure comprises a balancing flange (247) extending radially inwardly from an axially distal end (left end in Figure 6) of the rotor flange (230); wherein the axially-most distant portion (leftmost portion in Figure 6) of the balancing flange (247) from the plurality of rotor blades (unlabeled 119 to right of 118) is more axially distant from the plurality of rotor blade (unlabeled 119 to right of 118) than the axially-most distant portion (left most portion in Figure 6) of the seal interface (between 220 and 243) from the plurality of rotor blades (unlabeled 119 to right of 118). The balancing flange (247) of the balancing structure defines a weight promoting deflection of the rotor flange (230) [0057]. As a result, the radial distance between the rotor and stator portions (230, 220) is reduced, thereby reducing leakage between the sealing portion [0069]. Note the flange (247) is arranged at the axial end of rotor flange (230). The closest distance between points the teeth of (243) and the stator at (220) define an interface, which is closer to the rotor blade (right end) compared to the furthest most portion of flange (247).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas turbine engine taught by Schwartz with a rotor balancing structure configured to rotationally balance the turbine rotor; wherein the rotor balancing structure comprises a balancing flange extending radially inwardly from an axially distal end of the rotor flange; wherein the axially-most distant portion of the balancing flange from the plurality of rotor blades is more axially distant from the plurality of rotor blade than the axially-most distant portion of the seal interface from the plurality of rotor blades as suggested by Wesling, to provide the benefit of reducing leakage.
Schwartz and Wesling do not expressly teach one or more counterweights secured to the balancing flange by one or more fasteners extending through the counterweight and through the balancing flange as claimed. However, such counterweights would have been obvious in view of O’Connor and Green.
Figures 1-2 of O’Connor teach a rotor with a balancing flange (16). The flange (16) has one or more counterweights (18) secured to the balancing flange (16) by one or more fasteners (20) extending through the counterweight (18) and through the balancing flange (16) (Col. 2, Lines 25-29). Adding counterweights (18) of particular weights at particular locations helps balance the rotor. Unbalance leads to vibration and damage (Abstract, Col. 1, Lines 10-18). While not specifically shown at the end of a seal, the concept is demonstrated by Green. Figure 4 of Green demonstrates placing a counterweight (54) at an axial distal end of a rotating seal portion (56) of a turbine. Like O’Connor, the counterweight (54) assists in mitigating unbalance as noted by the reduction of vibrations [0072-0073]. Thus, Green evidences that placing the counterweight at the axially distal end of the rotor flange, as required by the claim due to the positioning of the balancing flange, to apply the teachings of O’Connor would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the gas turbine engine taught by Schwartz-Wesling with one or more counterweights secured to the balancing flange by one or more fasteners extending through the counterweight and through the balancing flange as suggested by O’Connor-Green, to provide the benefit of further balancing the flange.
For purposes of expediting prosecution, if it is interpreted that the flange of Wesling is not considered a balancing flange, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas turbine engine taught by Schwartz in view of Wesling to comprise a flange extending radially inwardly from an axially distal end of the rotor flange, wherein the axially-most distant portion of the flange from the plurality of rotor blades is more axially distant from the plurality of rotor blade than the axially-most distant portion of the seal interface from the plurality of rotor blades for the same reasons set forth above. Afterwards, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the gas turbine engine taught by Schwartz-Wesling in view of O’Connor-Green to comprise a rotor balancing structure configured to rotationally balance the turbine rotor; one or more counterweights secured to the flange by one or more fasteners extending through the counterweight and through the flange for the same reasons set forth above. The inclusion of counterweights for balancing would create the rotor balancing structure (O’Connor, Abstract, Col. 1, Lines 10-18). Meanwhile, since the flange of the combination would now also function as a point of securement for the counterweights (see weights (18) of O’Connor fixed to a flange (16)), the flange of the combination would be considered as part of the balancing structure, functioning as the balancing flange because it would be a flange with balancing counterweights.
Regarding Claim 17, Schwartz, Wesling, O’Connor, and Green teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 16.
Figure 2 of Schwartz teaches wherein the seal assembly comprises a labyrinth seal including: a seal base disposed at the turbine rotor flange; and a plurality of seal fins configured to extend from the seal base toward the static structure (210) to define the seal interface between the plurality of seal fins and the turbine static structure (210) [0026-0028]. See also annotated Figure 2’ above. The interface is the region where the fins are closest to the static structure.
Regarding Claim 18, Schwartz, Wesling, O’Connor, and Green teach the gas turbine engine as set forth in Claim 17.
Figure 2 of Schwartz teaches wherein the plurality of seal fins extend radially outwardly from the turbine rotor flange (214). See also annotated Figure 2’ above.
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 ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745