DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 7/3/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 11 and 12 are cancelled. Claims 1-10, 13 and 14 are elected and pending. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that prior art does not teach the limitation of the amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 7/3/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of GONZALEZ (US 20210138696 A1).
Examiner notes the current claim 1 has been amended to incorporate previously allowable limitations from now cancelled claim 12.
OWENS teaches a method and apparatus to rapidly dry and compact wet fiber (pulp) mats with molds [abstract]. This teaches the limitation of “A pulp-molding mould assembly with a heating device”. OWENS teaches the process begins with the production of a pulp slurry with wood fiber [col 2 line 34]. OWENS teaches the slurry is placed into a mold insert to create a preform that is later dried in the same apparatus [col 2 line 37]. This creates a three-dimensional fiberboard [col 1 line 12]. This teaches the limitation of “which is deployed within a pulp-molding production line to integrally form a plurality of paper-made articles each having three-dimensional contour dimensions”. OWENS teaches the mould is made from a mold pair, mold insert (element 2) and heated top mold (element 8) [col 6 line 45]. The mold has a top side bottom and three dimensional shape [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “comprising: two paired moulds, operating on die-matching mutually to integrally form the three-dimensional contour dimensions of the respective paper-made article wherein at least one of the paired moulds has a longitudinal axis line, a top side located perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis line, a back side located oppositely to the top side, and a three-dimensional contour molding structure, which is formed on the top side along the longitudinal axis line, having a forming surface configured on correspondingly shaping a formed circumferential surface of the respective paper-made article”. OWENS teaches the top mold has a heating device (element 8) [col 6 line ] with channels (element 10) that have electric heating elements [col 6 line 61 and Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “and the heating device, disposed inside the at least one mould, to heat the at least one mould, thereby indirectly heating the respective paper-made article through the at least one mould, and the heating device comprising a number of heating tubes, and a power source interface configured to electrically connect the heating tubes with an external power source; and wherein a main accommodating chamber is formed by way of hollowing inside the at least one mould, between from the forming surface of the three-dimensional contour molding structure to the back side, in a way to define a main inner space and a main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface facing the main inner space”. OWENS teaches the use of multiple layered channels that are annular shaped around the shape of the structure [Fig 5]. This teaches the limitation of “and the heating tubes are layer-by-layer arranged in an evenly and annularly heating distribution to constitute a multilayer-stacked structure with an annular shape in conformity with a scale of a three-dimensional contour shape of the entire main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface, and the multilayer-stacked structure is detachably assembled within the main inner space of the main accommodating chamber, to make the heating tubes heating and conducting heat against the three-dimensional contour shape of the entire main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface”.
Regarding the amended claim limitations from canceled claim 12, OWENS does not teach the use of multiple localized temperature sensors to control the localized temperature. GONZALEZ, like OWENS, teaches the use of pulp molding assembly with male (element 606) and female mold (element 604) [Fig 6] components that have temperature sensors [0040]. GONZALEZ also teaches that the temperature sensors are disposed in different locations on the molds [0040]. GONZALEZ also teaches the sensor through electrical signaling communicate to a control system (element 128) [0040] that regulates the power output that controls the individual temperature at specific locations [0041]. This teaches the limitation of “the heating device further comprises at least one temperature sensing member and a temperature regulation-and-control module, the at least one temperature sensing member is capable of being selectively disposed within the at least one mould, to detect a local temperature from a local area of the at least one mould, which the at least one temperature sensing member is located adjacent to, and then to send a temperature-sensing signal indicative of the local temperature to the temperature regulation-and-control module, whereby the temperature regulation-and-control module, in accordance with the temperature-sensing signal, regulates and controls a power intensity output from the external power source, thereby further regulating and controlling, through the power source interface, a heating temperature of the respective heating tube located adjacent to the at least one temperature sensing member, and the heating device further comprises a plurality of temperature controlling circuits each operating, independently of the other temperature controlling circuits, in a manner of independently regulating and controlling the heating temperature of corresponding one of the heating tubes”. GONZALEZ teaches the configuration allows for greater precision and control. This allows the use of more slurry in specific mold areas resulting in a denser area and other product specific advantages [0064]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the controlling system of GONZALEZ into the assembly of OWENS to produce a robust and flexible system. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the advantageous greater control and precision of the controller as taught by GONZALEZ.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OWENS (US 5641449 A) in view of GONZALEZ (US 20210138696 A1).
For claim 1, OWENS teaches a method and apparatus to rapidly dry and compact wet fiber (pulp) mats with molds [abstract]. This teaches the limitation of “A pulp-molding mould assembly with a heating device”. OWENS teaches the process begins with the production of a pulp slurry with wood fiber [col 2 line 34]. OWENS teaches the slurry is placed into a mold insert to create a preform that is later dried in the same apparatus [col 2 line 37]. This creates a three-dimensional fiberboard [col 1 line 12]. This teaches the limitation of “which is deployed within a pulp-molding production line to integrally form a plurality of paper-made articles each having three-dimensional contour dimensions”. OWENS teaches the mould is made from a mold pair, mold insert (element 2) and heated top mold (element 8) [col 6 line 45]. The mold has a top side bottom and three dimensional shape [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “comprising: two paired moulds, operating on die-matching mutually to integrally form the three-dimensional contour dimensions of the respective paper-made article wherein at least one of the paired moulds has a longitudinal axis line, a top side located perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis line, a back side located oppositely to the top side, and a three-dimensional contour molding structure, which is formed on the top side along the longitudinal axis line, having a forming surface configured on correspondingly shaping a formed circumferential surface of the respective paper-made article”. OWENS teaches the top mold has a heating device (element 8) [col 6 line ] with channels (element 10) that have electric heating elements [col 6 line 61 and Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “and the heating device, disposed inside the at least one mould, to heat the at least one mould, thereby indirectly heating the respective paper-made article through the at least one mould, and the heating device comprising a number of heating tubes, and a power source interface configured to electrically connect the heating tubes with an external power source; and wherein a main accommodating chamber is formed by way of hollowing inside the at least one mould, between from the forming surface of the three-dimensional contour molding structure to the back side, in a way to define a main inner space and a main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface facing the main inner space”. OWENS teaches the use of multiple layered channels that are annular shaped around the shape of the structure [Fig 5]. This teaches the limitation of “and the heating tubes are layer-by-layer arranged in an evenly and annularly heating distribution to constitute a multilayer-stacked structure with an annular shape in conformity with a scale of a three-dimensional contour shape of the entire main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface, and the multilayer-stacked structure is detachably assembled within the main inner space of the main accommodating chamber, to make the heating tubes heating and conducting heat against the three-dimensional contour shape of the entire main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface”.
Regarding the amended claim limitations from canceled claim 12, OWENS does not teach the use of multiple localized temperature sensors to control the localized temperature. GONZALEZ, like OWENS, teaches the use of pulp molding assembly with male (element 606) and female mold (element 604) [Fig 6] components that have temperature sensors [0040]. GONZALEZ also teaches that the temperature sensors are disposed in different locations on the molds [0040]. GONZALEZ also teaches the sensor through electrical signaling communicate to a control system (element 128) [0040] that regulates the power output that controls the individual temperature at specific locations [0041]. This teaches the limitation of “the heating device further comprises at least one temperature sensing member and a temperature regulation-and-control module, the at least one temperature sensing member is capable of being selectively disposed within the at least one mould, to detect a local temperature from a local area of the at least one mould, which the at least one temperature sensing member is located adjacent to, and then to send a temperature-sensing signal indicative of the local temperature to the temperature regulation-and-control module, whereby the temperature regulation-and-control module, in accordance with the temperature-sensing signal, regulates and controls a power intensity output from the external power source, thereby further regulating and controlling, through the power source interface, a heating temperature of the respective heating tube located adjacent to the at least one temperature sensing member, and the heating device further comprises a plurality of temperature controlling circuits each operating, independently of the other temperature controlling circuits, in a manner of independently regulating and controlling the heating temperature of corresponding one of the heating tubes”. GONZALEZ teaches the configuration allows for greater precision and control. This allows the use of more slurry in specific mold areas resulting in a denser area and other product specific advantages [0064]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the controlling system of GONZALEZ into the assembly of OWENS to produce a robust and flexible system. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the advantageous greater control and precision of the controller as taught by GONZALEZ.
For claim 9, OWENS and GONZALEZ teach the pulp-molding mould assembly with the heating device according to claim 1, as above. OWENS teaches the shape of the inner surface of the molding device is geometric cylindrical, concave (cup shape) and convex (inner portion of cups) in parts [Fig 4]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface is formed to be one of a conical inner circumferential surface, a cambered inner circumferential surface, a cuboidal inner circumferential surface, a cubical inner circumferential surface, a cylindrical inner circumferential surface, a concave inner circumferential surface, a convex inner circumferential surface, and other geometric-shape inner circumferential surface”.
For claim 13, OWENS and GONZALEZ teach the pulp-molding mould assembly with the heating device according to claim 1, as above. OWENS teaches the use of a hollow male mold insert that allows for a protrusion and a hollowed depth in the molded article [col 5 line 18]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one mould is a male mould, and the three-dimensional contour molding structure is a protrudent structure, which is outwardly protruded from the top side along the longitudinal axis line, having an outer forming surface thereon for shaping an inner formed circumferential surface of the respectively paper-made article, wherein the main accommodating chamber is formed, between from the outer forming surface of the protrudent structure to the back side, by way of hollowing inside the male mould”.
For claim 14, OWENS and GONZALEZ teach the pulp-molding mould assembly with the heating device according to claim 1, as above. OWENS teaches a reciprocal top mold that when pressed together with the mold insert (male mold) forms the molded article [col 6 line 45]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one mould is a female mould, and the three-dimensional contour molding structure is a cavity structure, which is inwardly caved from the top side along the longitudinal axis line, having an inner forming surface thereon for shaping an outer formed circumferential surface of the respective paper-made article, wherein the main accommodating chamber is formed, between from the inner forming surface of the cavity structure to the back side, by way of hollowing inside the female mould”.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OWENS (US 5641449 A) and GONZALEZ (US 20210138696 A1) in view of ANDERSSEN (US 20220403604 A1) .
For claim 2, OWENS and GONZALEZ teach the pulp-molding mould assembly with the heating device according to claim 1, as above. OWENS teaches the multipart mold has side walls (element 11) around the forming surface [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface is further divided into a number of narrowed sidewalls facing away from the forming surface of the three-dimensional contour molding structure, and a number of widened sidewalls formed between the forming surface and the back side”. OWENS teaches the use of multiple layered channels that are annular shaped and stacked around the shape of the structure [Fig 5]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein a partial of the heating tubes of the multilayer-stacked structure are layer-by-layer arranged in an evenly and annularly heating distribution around the narrowed sidewalls”. OWENS does not teach the distance from the channels to the forming surface. ANDERSSON teaches a similar pulp molding apparatus [abstract] that uses heating elements embedded into the molding components [0124]. ANDERSSON also teaches the heating elements are embedded at about 0.75 to 0.25 of the mold wall thickness (distance from heating element to outer tool wall as seen in Fig 4-6) [0127]. The mold wall thickness ranges from 0.2 to 20 mm [0038]. This makes the heating elements from about 0.05 mm to about 15 mm from the forming surface (equivalent to about 0.005 cm to about 1.5 cm). This range abuts the instant claim range of “and all are kept in an interval distance of 2-5 cm from the forming surface”. See 2144.05 (I). ANDERSSON teaches the molding tool has efficient pickup and molding for the product [0015]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the heating placement of ANDERSSON into the mold article of OWENS to improve the molding heating capacity. One would be motivated to combine the arts based on the improved molding and pickup.
In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OWENS (US 5641449 A) and GONZALEZ (US 20210138696 A1) in view of NONOMURA (US 7306834 B2) .
For claim 3, OWENS and GONZALEZ teach the pulp-molding mould assembly with the heating device according to claim 1, as above. OWENS does not teach the stratification of the heating elements. NONOMURA teaches a similar apparatus that molds pulp into a fiber article [abstract]. The apparatus has a heating elements that are embedded into the molding component [Fig 6(b)]. The molded article is a cylindrical container [Fig 12(b)]. The heating elements (element 1261) are arranged in a stacked/layered order that contours to the shape of the molded article (element 1250) while heating the air (element 1260) [Fig 6(b)]. This meets the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein along the longitudinal axis line, the entire main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface is delimited layer by layer into multilayered annular grooves located at different layer levels, and the heating tubes are disposed respectively inside the multilayered annular grooves of the main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface, to make the heating tubes of the multilayer-stacked structure layer-by-layer surrounding and abutting against the three-dimensional contour shape of the entire main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface, to be in a manner that the heating tubes heat an air, inside the main inner space of the main accommodating chamber, toward a direction which the heating tubes are exposed to the main inner space of the main accommodating chamber, as well as evenly heating and conducting heat against the three-dimensional contour shape of the entire main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface, toward another direction which the heating tubes directly contact against the three-dimensional contour shape of the entire main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface”. NONOMURA teaches the invention produces containers with excellent shape retention [col 21 line 47]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the heating placement of NONOMURA into the mold article of OWENS to improve the molding heating capacity. One would be motivated to combine the arts based on the improved shape retention.
For claim 4, OWENS, GONZALEZ and NONOMURA teach the pulp-molding mould assembly with the heating device according to claim 3, as above. OWENS teaches heated lips (element 11) and covers (element 12) to conserve heat within the molding apparatus [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one mould further has a covering plate which is detachably retained on the back side to air-tightly cover up the main accommodating chamber, and the at least one mould is further air-communicated with a vacuumizing device to create a vacuum environment inside the main inner space of the main accommodating chamber, to be in a manner that when the heating tubes heat the air toward the direction to the main inner space of the main accommodating chamber, a vacuum heat-insulation occurs inside the main accommodating chamber, which is air-tightly covered up by the covering plate, to yield a thermal preservation effect inside the main accommodating chamber”.
For claim 6, OWENS and GONZALEZ teach the pulp-molding mould assembly with the heating device according to claim 1, as above. OWENS teaches a conductive body (element 7A) within the mold that holds the heating elements (element 10) and conform to the shape of the mold [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one mould further comprises a heat-conducting middle body disposed inside the main inner space of the main accommodating chamber and having a secondary three-dimensional outer circumferential surface, in conformity to the scale of the three-dimensional contour shape of the entire main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface”. The conductive body also contacts the molded article (element 2) [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “under a manner of directly contacting with the main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface, and a back portion of the heat-conducting middle body is inwardly hollowed to form a secondary accommodating chamber which defines a secondary inner space and a secondary three-dimensional inner circumferential surface facing the secondary inner space but facing away from the secondary three-dimensional outer circumferential surface”.
OWENS teaches the mold internals are delimitated in the vertical axis (top to bottom) with grooves to accommodate the molded article [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein along the longitudinal axis line, the entire secondary three-dimensional outer circumferential surface is delimited layer by layer into multilayered annular grooves located at different layer levels, and the heating tubes are respectively disposed inside the multilayered annular grooves of the secondary three-dimensional outer circumferential surface”.
OWENS does not teach the stratification of the heating elements. NONOMURA teaches a similar apparatus that molds pulp into a fiber article [abstract]. The apparatus has a heating elements that are embedded into the molding component [Fig 6(b)]. The molded article is a cylindrical container [Fig 12(b)]. The heating elements (element 1261) are arranged in a stacked/layered order that contours to the shape of the molded article (element 1250) while heating the air (element 1260) [Fig 6(b)]. This meets the limitation of the instant claim of “ to make the heating tubes of the multilayer-stacked structure layer-by-layer surrounding and abutting against a three-dimensional contour shape of the entire secondary three-dimensional outer circumferential surface, to be in a manner that the heating tubes all evenly heat the air toward a direction to the secondary inner space of the secondary accommodating chamber, as well as evenly heating and conducting heat, toward another direction to directly contact against the three-dimensional contour shape of the entire secondary three-dimensional outer circumferential surface, to make indirectly and evenly thermal diffusion onto the main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface”. NONOMURA teaches the invention produces containers with excellent shape retention [col 21 line 47]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the heating placement of NONOMURA into the mold article of OWENS to improve the molding heating capacity. One would be motivated to combine the arts based on the improved shape retention.
For claim 7, OWENS, GONZALEZ, and NONOMURA teaches the pulp-molding mould assembly with the heating device according to claim 6, as above. NONOMURA teaches the cavity can support vacuum formation as well where the cavity is heated then molded by vacuum in the same cavity [col 24 lines 42-55]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one mould is further air-communicated with a vacuumizing device to create a vacuum environment inside both the main inner space of the main accommodating chamber and the secondary inner space of the secondary accommodating chamber, and the at least one mould further has a covering plate to be in a manner that when the heating tubes evenly heat the air toward the direction to the secondary inner space of the secondary accommodating chamber, a vacuum heat-insulation occurs inside both the main accommodating chamber and the secondary accommodating chamber, which are air-tightly covered up by the covering plate, to yield a thermal preservation effect inside both the main accommodating chamber and the secondary accommodating chamber”.
For claim 8, OWENS, GONZALEZ, and NONOMURA teaches the pulp-molding mould assembly with the heating device according to claim 6, as above. NONOMURA teaches the main body is removable [col 38 line 6]. The main body is separate from the heating elements (elements 1261) [Fig 6b]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the heating tubes are capable of being moved into/out from the main inner space of the main accommodating chamber, to be directly assembled detachably between both of the multilayered annular grooves of the secondary three-dimensional outer circumferential surface and the main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface, for evenly heating”.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OWENS (US 5641449 A), GONZALEZ (US 20210138696 A1), and NONOMURA (US 7306834 B2) in view of ANDERSSEN (US 20220403604 A1).
For claim 5, OWENS, GONZALEZ and NONOMURA teach the pulp-molding mould assembly with the heating device according to claim 3, as above. OWENS does not teach a configuration with exposed channels or heating elements. ANDERSSON teaches a similar pulp molding apparatus [abstract] that uses heating elements embedded into the molding components [0124]. ANDERSSON also teaches configurations where the heating elements are exposed [Fig 4 and 5]. This meets the limitation of “wherein the heating tubes are capable of being moved into/out from the main inner space of the main accommodating chamber, to be directly assembled detachably inside the multilayered annular grooves of the main three-dimensional inner circumferential surface, and to expose the heating tubes, toward the main inner space of the main accommodating chamber, in a manner of evenly heating the air”. ANDERSSON teaches the molding tool has efficient pickup and molding for the product [0015]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the heating placement of ANDERSSON into the mold article of OWENS to improve the molding heating capacity. One would be motivated to combine the arts based on the improved molding and pickup.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OWENS (US 5641449 A) and GONZALEZ (US 20210138696 A1) in view of NILSSON (US 20120319335 A1).
For claim 10, OWENS and GONZALEZ teach the pulp-molding mould assembly with the heating device according to claim 1, as above. OWENS does not teach the heating tubes protruding in a different direction than one another. NILSSON teaches a similar pulp molding device with an embedded heating device for drying [abstract]. NILSSON also teaches the heating device has heating pipes distributed throughout one of the molds with some piping in different direction than the others (element 40) [Fig 6]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein at least one of the heating tubes is extended in an outermost annular perimeter different from an outermost annular perimeter in which another one of the heating tubes is extended”. NILSSON teaches the heating element arrangement allows for good heat transfer to the moulding surface [0047]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the heat sensor arrangement of NILSSON into the device of OWENS to modify the device of OWENS. One would be motivated based on the improved heat transfer of the configuration as taught by NILSSON.
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 STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights