Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 28, 2026.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “first portion being additively manufactured “ and “second portion being additively manufactured “ is awkward. A suggested revision is as follows: “ wherein said first portion has been manufactured from an additive manufacturing process …. wherein said first portion has been manufactured from an additive manufacturing process”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the phrase : “their respective original positions”. Clarification with proper antecedent basis is requested.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the phrases : “pulled from its original position” and “returns to its original position”. Clarification with proper antecedent basis is requested.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “retaining portion”, ” handling portion”, and receiving “member” in claim 1, “locking member” in claims 7-8 .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15, 21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180333824 A1 to Strzyzewski et al Assignee: General Electric (hereinafter General Electric) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180347370 A1 to Lacy et al Assignee: General Electric (hereinafter Lacy).
Regarding claim 1, General Electric discloses: a masking system (figure 1) for masking a component (10) for a media blasting process, the masking system comprising: a first portion (100, 102, 104) , the first potion having a retaining portion (116, 130) , a handling portion (134) , and a receiving member (124), the retaining portion (116, 130) having a seating area (126), the receiving member (124) configured to operably receive a fluid dispensing device (106, figure 5, through port 110, figure 8) ; and a second portion (200, 202, 204) , the second portion having a second retaining portion including a second seating area (226), the second portion configured to be secured (paragraph [0025]) to the first portion such that the component (10) is seated within the seating area (126) and the second seating area (226) and at least a portion of the component (10) is masked by the first portion (100, 102, 104) and the second portion(200, 202, 204). (See General Electric, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, 5, 8; paragraphs 3, 25, 30-31, 35, 42.)
Regarding claim 1, General Electric does not explicitly teach the first and second portion being additively manufactured.
Lacy is directed to cover for a turbine blade or airfoil or vane. (See Lacy, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 13, 31-33, and Figs. 3-5.)
Lacy teaches a cover is additively manufactured. (See Lacy, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 7, 28, 41 and Figs. 3-5.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first and second portion being additively manufactured, because Lacy teaches additive manufacturing would enable the shape to be produced with reduced waste and reduced machining. (See Lacy, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 7, 28, 41 and Figs. 3-5.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (apparatus for masking a component for a media blasting process). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). General Electric in view of Lacy would be capable of performing the intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 3, General Electric teaches the workpiece can only the
retained in one component orientation (see projections 116). (See General Electric, paragraphs 30-31 and Fig. 5.)
Regarding claim 4, General Electric teaches the retaining portion (116, 130) includes an outer section (130) having a channel (16). (See General Electric, paragraphs 6, 30-31 and Figs. 2, 5.)
Regarding claim 5, General Electric teaches the second retaining portion includes a second outer section having a second channel (230). (See General Electric, Fig. 1-2; paragraph 30.)
Regarding claim 6, General Electric teaches wherein when the first portion (100, 102, 104) is secured to the second portion ( 200, 202, 204) , the channel and the second channel are coplanar (plane shown in Fig. 2) . (See General Electric, Fig. 1; paragraph 30.)
Regarding claim 7, General Electric teaches wherein one of the first portion and the second portion includes a locking member (120). (See General Electric, Fig. 1 paragraph 25.)
Regarding claim 8, General Electric teaches the locking member (120) is configured to be received within a recess of the other of the one of the first portion and the second portion ( 200, 202, 204) that includes a locking member. (See General Electric, Fig. 1 paragraph 25.)
Regarding claim 9, General Electric teaches the first portion includes a ridge (126, 116, 128) and the second portion includes an indentation (236) that corresponds to the ridge. (See General Electric, Figs. 1-2.)
Regarding claim 10, General Electric teaches the component is a blade of a gas turbine. (See General Electric, paragraphs 2, 22.)
Regarding claim 11, General Electric teaches the media blasting process is a grit blasting process (abrasive blasting, sand blasting). (See General Electric, paragraph 2.)
Regarding claim 12, General Electric teaches the receiving member (124) is situated within the handling portion (134). (See General Electric, Figs. 2-5.)
Regarding claim 13, General Electric discloses a masking system (100) for masking a blade for a media blasting process, the masking system comprising: a first portion (100, 102, 104) and a second portion (200, 202, 204) securable to the first portion, the first portion (100, 102, 104) and the second portion (200, 202, 204) configured to collectively retain the blade such that only target surfaces of the blade are exposed; wherein, the masking system (100) is configured to operably receive a fluid dispensing device (106, figure 5, through port 110, figure 8) for dispensing a fluid during the media blasting process. (See General Electric, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, 5, 8; paragraphs 3, 25, 30-31, 35, 42.)
Regarding claim 13, General Electric does not explicitly teach the first and second portion being additively manufactured.
Lacy is directed to cover for a turbine blade or airfoil or vane. (See Lacy, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 13, 31-33, and Figs. 3-5.)
Lacy teaches a cover is additively manufactured. (See Lacy, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 7, 28, 41 and Figs. 3-5.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first and second portion being additively manufactured, because Lacy teaches additive manufacturing would enable the shape to be produced with reduced waste and reduced machining. (See Lacy, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 7, 28, 41 and Figs. 3-5.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (apparatus for masking a bladefor a media blasting process). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). General Electric in view of Lacy would be capable of performing the intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 15, General Electric teaches the first portion is configured to be coupled to the second portion without use of any tools. (See General Electric, paragraphs 23, 25, and 45 and Figs. 1-2.)
Regarding claim 21, General Electric teaches the first portion (100, 102, 104) includes at least one locking member (120) disposed outboard the retaining portion (116, 130); and the second portion (200, 202, 204) includes at least one recessed portion (220) configured to matingly accept the at least one locking member (120). (See General Electric, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, 5, 8; paragraphs 3, 25, 30-31, 35, 42.)
General Electric does not explicitly teach the first portion includes at least one elastic locking member disposed outboard the retaining portion; and the second portion includes at least one recessed portion configured to matingly accept the at least one elastic locking member.
General Electric teaches the locking member may be an elastomeric strap. (See General Electric, paragraph 25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first portion includes at least one elastic locking member disposed outboard the retaining portion; and the second portion includes at least one recessed portion configured to matingly accept the at least one elastic locking member, because General Electric teaches this an art recognized equivalent locking member. (See General Electric, paragraph 25.)
Regarding claim 23, General Electric teaches at least one locking member includes a first locking member and a second locking member that are disposed on opposing sides of the retaining portion; and the at least one recessed portion includes a first recessed portion and a second recessed portion configured to mate respectively with the first locking member and the second locking member. (See General Electric, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, 5, 8; paragraphs 3, 25, 30-31, 35, 42.)
General Electric does not explicitly teach at least one elastic locking member includes a first elastic locking member and a second elastic locking member that are disposed on opposing sides of the retaining portion; and the at least one recessed portion includes a first recessed portion and a second recessed portion configured to mate respectively with the first elastic locking member and the second elastic locking member.
General Electric teaches the locking member may be an elastomeric strap. (See General Electric, paragraph 25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one locking member includes a first locking member and a second locking member that are disposed on opposing sides of the retaining portion; and the at least one recessed portion includes a first recessed portion and a second recessed portion configured to mate respectively with the first locking member and the second locking member, General Electric teaches this an art recognized equivalent locking member. (See General Electric, paragraph 25.)
Regarding claim 24, General Electric teaches the first locking member and the second locking member are configured to be pulled in opposite directions from their respective original positions such that the first locking member and the second locking member respectively mate with the first recessed portion and the second recessed portion as the first locking member and the second locking member travel back towards their respective original positions. (See General Electric, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, 5, 8; paragraphs 3, 25, 30-31, 35, 42.)
General Electric does not explicitly teach the first elastic locking member and the second elastic locking member are configured to be pulled in opposite directions from their respective original positions such that the first elastic locking member and the second elastic locking member respectively mate with the first recessed portion and the second recessed portion as the first elastic locking member and the second elastic locking member travel back towards their respective original positions.
General Electric teaches the locking member may be an elastomeric strap. (See General Electric, paragraph 25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first elastic locking member and the second elastic locking member are configured to be pulled in opposite directions from their respective original positions such that the first elastic locking member and the second elastic locking member respectively mate with the first recessed portion and the second recessed portion as the first elastic locking member and the second elastic locking member travel back towards their respective original positions, General Electric teaches this an art recognized equivalent locking member. (See General Electric, paragraph 25.)
Regarding claim 25, General Electric teaches the first portion includes a locking member and the second portion includes a recessed area, the locking member configured to be pulled from its original position away from the first portion such that the locking member mates with the recessed area as the locking member returns to its original position. (See General Electric, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, 5, 8; paragraphs 3, 25, 30-31, 35, 42.)
General Electric does not explicitly teach the first portion includes an elastic locking member and the second portion includes a recessed area, the elastic locking member configured to be pulled from its original position away from the first portion such that the elastic locking member mates with the recessed area as the elastic locking member returns to its original position.
General Electric teaches the locking member may be an elastomeric strap. (See General Electric, paragraph 25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first portion includes an elastic locking member and the second portion includes a recessed area, the elastic locking member configured to be pulled from its original position away from the first portion such that the elastic locking member mates with the recessed area as the elastic locking member returns to its original position, General Electric teaches this an art recognized equivalent locking member. (See General Electric, paragraph 25.)
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180333824 A1 to Strzyzewski et al Assignee: General Electric (hereinafter General Electric) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180347370 A1 to Lacy et al Assignee: General Electric (hereinafter Lacy) as applied to claim 13 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210324194 A1 to Thiria et al (hereinafter Thiria).
Regarding claims 2 and14, General Electric does not explicitly teach the first portion and the second portion are each additively manufactured with an elastomeric material.
Thiria is directed to additive manufacturing. (See Thiria, Abstract.)
Thiria teaches the first portion and the second portion are each additively manufactured with an elastomeric material. (See Thiria, Abstract, paragraphs 2-3, 9, 18, 28, 30, 84, 93, 196, 229, 234-235, and 243.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first and second portion being additively manufactured, because Thiria teaches use of these material additive manufacturing would enable additive manufacturing to be used efficiently and produce parts with improved mechanical properties. (See Thiria, Abstract, paragraphs 2-3, 9, 18, 28, 30, 84, 93, 196, 229, 234-235, and 243.)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180333824 A1 to Strzyzewski et al Assignee: General Electric (hereinafter General Electric) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180347370 A1 to Lacy et al Assignee: General Electric (hereinafter Lacy) as applied to claim 21 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220184656 A1 to Lamar Turner (hereinafter Turner).
Regarding claim 22, General Electric teaches at least one locking member includes each of a vertical member (portion of 120 extending from 104 to 220) and a horizontal member (portion of locking member extending across 220 in Fig. 1) . (See General Electric, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, 5, 8; paragraphs 3, 25, 30-31, 35, 42.)
General Electric does not explicitly teach at least one elastic locking member includes each of a vertical member, a horizontal member .
General Electric teaches the locking member may be an elastomeric strap. (See General Electric, paragraph 25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first portion includes at least one elastic locking member disposed outboard the retaining portion; and the second portion includes at least one recessed portion configured to matingly accept the at least one elastic locking member, because General Electric teaches this an art recognized equivalent locking member. (See General Electric, paragraph 25.)
Further regarding claim 22, General Electric does not explicitly teach a spherical member, the spherical member disposed between the vertical member and the horizontal member.
Turner is directed to a shielding apparatus.
Turner teaches a spherical member (44), the spherical member (44) disposed between the vertical member (55) and the horizontal member (21, 22). (See Turner, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 38, 42-43, 48-49.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one elastic locking member includes each of a vertical member, a horizontal member, and a spherical member, the spherical member disposed between the vertical member and the horizontal member; because Turner teaches this structure provides reversible positioning helpful for masking operations. (See Turner, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 38, 42-43, 48-49.)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/529,944 (hereinafter App ‘944) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180333824 A1 to Strzyzewski et al Assignee: General Electric (hereinafter General Electric) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180347370 A1 to Lacy et al Assignee: General Electric (hereinafter Lacy).
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced copending application and would be covered by any patent granted on that copending application since the referenced copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Regarding claim 13, App ‘944 discloses a masking system for masking a blade (for selectively masking a component), the masking system comprising: a first portion (first shell) and a second portion ( second shell) securable to the first portion (first shell is retained with the second shell in claim 7) ,
App ‘944 does not explicitly teach a manufactured masking system for masking a blade for a media blasting process, the first portion and the second portion configured to collectively retain the blade such that only target surfaces of the blade are exposed; wherein, the masking system is configured to operably receive a fluid dispensing device for dispensing a fluid during the media blasting process.
General Electric teaches a manufactured masking system for masking a blade for a media blasting process, the first portion (100, 102, 104) and the second portion (200, 202, 204) configured to collectively retain the blade such that only target surfaces of the blade are exposed; wherein, the masking system (100) is configured to operably receive a fluid dispensing device (106, figure 5, through port 110, figure 8) for dispensing a fluid during the media blasting process. (See General Electric, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, 5, 8; paragraphs 3, 6, 25, 30-31, 35, 37, 39, 42, and 45.)
It would have been to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a manufactured masking system for masking a blade for a media blasting process, the first portion and the second portion configured to collectively retain the blade such that only target surfaces of the blade are exposed; wherein, the masking system is configured to operably receive a fluid dispensing device for dispensing a fluid during the media blasting process, because General Electric teaches this would prevent abrasive media from entering the holes and/or cavity. (See General Electric, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, 5, 8; paragraphs 3, 6, 25, 30-31, 35, 37, 39, 42, and 45.)
Regarding claim 13, App ‘944 does not explicitly teach the first and second portion being additively manufactured.
Lacy is directed to cover for a turbine blade or airfoil or vane. (See Lacy, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 13, 31-33, and Figs. 3-5.)
Lacy teaches a cover is additively manufactured. (See Lacy, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 7, 28, 41 and Figs. 3-5.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first and second portion being additively manufactured, because Lacy teaches additive manufacturing would enable the shape to be produced with reduced waste and reduced machining. (See Lacy, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 7, 28, 41 and Figs. 3-5.)
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant would be prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application in the other copending application. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights