DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Claims 1-28 have been examined and rejected. This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on June 24, 2026, which has been entered in the above identified application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. The correction to claim 26 has been approved, and the rejections to claims 26-28 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-6, 9-16, 19-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (Pub. No. US 2010/0276099), in view of Ferm et al (U.S. Patent No. 7,431,800), and further in view of Stewart (U.S. Patent No. 7,459,060).
5-1. Regarding claims 1 and 13, Sasaki teaches the claim comprising: initiating a fiber distribution determination process, by disclosing starting a paper machine 1 that comprises a control portion 72 that receives fiber orientation data, generates an actual fiber orientation profile based on the fiber orientation data, and determines whether an ideal fiber orientation of paper has been reached by calculating a difference between the actual fiber orientation profile with an ideal fiber orientation profile [paragraphs 73-75, 92-93].
Sasaki teaches… determining a fiber distribution for the paper sheet from a plurality of measurements of one or more speed parameters for the papermaking machine and a plurality of measurements of one or more fiber distribution parameters for the paper sheet, the plurality of measurements being obtained by performing a sequence of incremental adjustments to at least one of the one or more speed parameters… and measuring the one or more fiber distribution parameters after each adjustment… to identify one or more speed parameter values at which a fiber distribution parameter of the paper sheet attains an optimum corresponding to the fiber distribution, by disclosing determining whether the fiber distribution has reached a target fiber distribution by generating fiber orientation data of a surface of a paper by measuring, generating an actual fiber orientation profile based on the fiber orientation data, calculating a difference between the actual fiber orientation profile and an ideal fiber orientation profile, and calculating a fiber orientation deviation profile [paragraphs 74, 92]. A determination is made whether or not a difference between the actual fiber orientation profile and the ideal fiber orientation profile is 0, and if the difference is not 0, calculating a change of operation amount that will make adjustments to the paper machine to converge the actual fiber orientation profile at the ideal fiber orientation profile [paragraph 75, 93]. The adjustments comprise controlling the speed of paper material from a headbox onto a wire part [paragraphs 81, 86]. A model and model parameters are provided to conduct a forecasting calculation of changes of the fiber orientation profile caused by the adjustments [paragraphs 94, 97, 100, 154]. This process is repeatedly conducted to adjust the paper machine so as to converge the fiber orientation deviation profile at 0 [paragraph 93, last four lines; paragraph 153].
Sasaki teaches wherein the plurality of measurements for the one or more speed parameters and the plurality of measurements for the one or more fiber distribution parameters are taken during operation of the papermaking machine, by disclosing measuring fiber orientation [paragraph 74], the speed of the material out of the headbox [paragraphs 97, 100], and a relative velocity calculated from both a velocity of the material on the wire surface and a moving speed of the wire [paragraph 102].
Sasaki teaches setting one or more speed parameters for the papermaking machine to produce the paper sheet based on the determined fiber distribution, by disclosing that the adjustments comprise controlling the speed of paper material from a headbox onto a wire part [paragraphs 81, 86]. Adjustments are repeatedly made so as to converge the fiber orientation deviation profile at 0 [paragraph 93, last four lines; paragraph 153].
As per claim 13, Sasaki teaches the control apparatus including at least one sensor arranged on the papermaking machine to measure one or more fiber distribution parameters of the paper sheet during operation of the papermaking machine, by disclosing a fiber orientation measuring device that generates fiber orientation data of a surface of the paper by measuring [paragraph 74]; at least one control element configured to adjust one or more speed parameters of the papermaking machine, by disclosing control portion 72 that controls operations of various components of the paper machine [paragraph 75]; and at least one computer processor in communication with the at least one sensor and the at least one control element, by disclosing that the control portion 72 has a CPU as a main element [paragraph 76].
Sasaki does not teach that the fiber distribution is a square point. That is, Sasaki does not expressly teach that the initiated determination process is a square point determination process, determining a square point for the paper sheet, that the optimum attained by the fiber distribution parameter of the paper sheet corresponds to the square point, and that the paper sheet is produced based on the determined square point. Ferm discloses that it was well known that when manufacturing paper, generally, a uniform distribution of fiber direction along the entire paper web is aimed at [column 1, lines 53-62]. This would lead to fewer rejections and complaints on the finished product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine, using the process of making incremental adjustments to a paper machine of Sasaki, a uniform distribution of fibers in all directions such that a produced paper sheet is based on such uniform distribution, since Ferm discloses that it was well known, generally, to obtain such uniform distribution. This would lead to fewer rejections and complaints on the finished product.
Sasaki-Ferm do not expressly teach that the square point determination process is initiated upon satisfaction of predefined stable papermaking conditions, that the sequence of incremental adjustments to at least one of the one or more speed parameters is performed under steady-state operating conditions of the papermaking machine, and that the measuring of the one or more fiber distribution parameters after each adjustment is done when steady-state conditions are reached. Stewart discloses that it was well known for a sheetmaking system to perform so-called “bump tests,” which refers to a procedure whereby an operating parameter on the sheetmaking system, such as a papermaking machine, is altered, and changes of certain dependent variables resulting therefrom are measured [column 3, lines 26-33]. Prior to initiating any bump test, the papermaking machine is first operated at predetermined baseline conditions, or in other words, operating conditions whereby the machine produces paper of acceptable quality corresponding to standard or optimized parameters for paper making [column 3, lines 33-39]. Given the expense involved in operating the machine, extreme conditions that may produce defective, non-useable paper are to be avoided [column 3, lines 39-41]. In a similar vein, when an operating parameter in the system is modified for the bump test, the change should not be so drastic as to damage the machine or produce defective paper [column 3, lines 40-43]. After the machine has reached steady state or stable operations, the certain operating parameters are measured and recorded [column 3, lines 43-45]. Thus, Stwart discloses that it was well known to initiate paper making operations and adjustments when conditions are stable, and to perform measurements of the bump test after the machine has reached a steady state. This would help save operational costs by preventing unintended operations due to the performance of actions in unstable conditions. Since the process used by Sasaki-Ferm to achieve a square point for a paper sheet resembles what is described by Stewart as performing “bump tests,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to initiate paper making operations and adjustments when conditions are stable, and to perform measurements of parameters after the paper machine has reached a steady state, as taught by Stewart. This would help save operational costs by preventing unintended operations due to the performance of actions in unstable conditions.
5-2. Regarding claim 2, Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart teach all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the one or more speed parameters are set at values corresponding to the determined square point for the paper sheet, by disclosing that the adjustments comprise controlling the speed of paper material from a headbox onto a wire part [Sasaki, paragraphs 81, 86]. Adjustments are repeatedly made so as to converge the fiber orientation deviation profile at 0 [Sasaki, paragraph 93, last four lines; paragraph 153] to obtain a desired uniform distribution [Ferm, column 1, lines 53-62].
5-3. Regarding claim 3, Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart teach all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the one or more speed parameters are set at values offset from the determined square point for the paper sheet, by disclosing that the adjustments comprise controlling the speed of paper material from a headbox onto a wire part [Sasaki, paragraphs 81, 86]. Adjustments are repeatedly made so as to converge the fiber orientation deviation profile at 0 [Sasaki, paragraph 93, last four lines; paragraph 153] to obtain a desired uniform distribution [Ferm, column 1, lines 53-62].
5-4. Regarding claims 4 and 14, Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein the one or more speed parameters include at least one of a jet speed, a wire speed, a jet-to-wire speed ratio, and a rush-to-drag speed difference of the papermaking machine, by disclosing that the adjustments comprise controlling the speed of paper material from a headbox onto a wire part [Sasaki, paragraphs 81, 86] and calculating a relative velocity from both a velocity of the material on the wire surface and a moving speed of the wire [Sasaki, paragraph 102].
5-5. Regarding claims 5 and 15, Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein the one or more fiber distribution parameters include at least one of a width of the paper sheet, a strength measurement of the paper sheet, and a fiber orientation ratio of the paper sheet, by disclosing measuring fiber orientation [Sasaki, paragraph 74].
5-6. Regarding claims 6 and 16, Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein determining the square point includes stepping the at least one of the one or more speed parameters of the papermaking machine depending on the one or more fiber distribution parameters of the paper sheet moving toward the square point or away from the square point, by disclosing that adjustments are repeatedly made so as to converge the fiber orientation deviation profile at 0 [Sasaki, paragraph 93, last four lines; paragraph 153] to obtain a desired uniform distribution [Ferm, column 1, lines 53-62].
5-7. Regarding claims 9 and 19, Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 respectively, further comprising determining a plurality of start conditions are satisfied before taking the plurality of measurements of the one or more speed parameters and the one or more fiber distribution parameters, by disclosing measuring operating parameters after the paper machine has reached steady state or stable operations [Stewart, column 3, lines 43-45].
5-8. Regarding claims 10 and 20, Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein determining the square point includes: monitoring start conditions to initiate probing of the papermaking machine, by disclosing that prior to initiating paper making operations, operating the paper machine at a predetermined baseline condition [column 3, lines 33-39]. Additionally, initial fiber orientation data of a surface of the paper is generated by measuring and outputting the fiber orientation data to a control portion that generates an actual fiber orientation profile based on the initial fiber orientation data for comparison with an ideal fiber orientation profile [Sasaki, paragraph 74].
Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart teach probing the papermaking machine by making a plurality of adjustments to at least one of the one or more speed parameters with the start conditions being met; obtaining the plurality of measurements of the one or more speed parameters and the plurality of measurements of the one or more fiber distribution parameters while probing the papermaking machine by making the plurality of adjustments to the at least one of the one or more speed parameters; and modeling a relationship between the plurality of measurements of the one or more speed parameters with the plurality of adjustments to the at least one of the one or more speed parameters and the plurality of measurements of the one or more fiber distribution parameters, by disclosing calculating a difference between the actual fiber orientation profile and an ideal fiber orientation profile, and calculating a fiber orientation deviation profile [Sasaki, paragraphs 74, 92]. A determination is made whether or not a difference between the actual fiber orientation profile and the ideal fiber orientation profile is 0, and if the difference is not 0, calculating a change of operation amount that will make adjustments to the paper machine to converge the actual fiber orientation profile at the ideal fiber orientation profile [Sasaki, paragraph 75, 93]. The adjustments comprise controlling the speed of paper material from a headbox onto a wire part [Sasaki, paragraphs 81, 86]. A model and model parameters are provided to conduct a forecasting calculation of changes of the fiber orientation profile caused by the adjustments [Sasaki, paragraphs 94, 97, 100, 154]. This process is repeatedly conducted to adjust the paper machine so as to converge the fiber orientation deviation profile at 0 [Sasaki, paragraph 93, last four lines; paragraph 153].
5-9. Regarding claims 11 and 21, Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart teach all the limitations of claims 10 and 20 respectively, wherein the start conditions include a set of AND conditions and a set of OR conditions, by disclosing that prior to initiating paper making operations, ensuring that certain conditions are met, such as the paper machine operating at a predetermined baseline condition [Stewart, column 3, lines 33-39]. The process of making adjustments to the paper machine is only initiated based on whether or not a difference between the actual fiber orientation profile and the ideal fiber orientation profile is 0 [Sasaki, paragraph 75, 93]. Examiner notes that a set may contain 0 elements.
5-10. Regarding claims 12 and 22, Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart teach all the limitations of claims 11 and 21 respectively, wherein probing the papermaking machine is started in response to the AND conditions and the OR conditions being satisfied, by disclosing measuring operating parameters only after certain conditions are met, the conditions being that the paper machine has reached a steady state or stable operations [Stewart, column 3, lines 43-45].
5-11. Regarding claims 23 and 26, Sasaki teaches the claim comprising: a) measuring one or more speed parameters and associated one or more fiber distribution parameters of the paper sheet with at least one sensor arranged on the papermaking machine during operation of the papermaking machine, by disclosing measuring fiber orientation using a fiber orientation measuring device 71 on the paper machine [paragraph 74; figure 2], the speed of the material out of the headbox [paragraphs 97, 100], and a relative velocity calculated from both a velocity of the material on the wire surface and a moving speed of the wire [paragraph 102].
Sasaki teaches b) stepping at least one of the one or more speed parameters of the papermaking machine by a defined increment in a first direction, by disclosing that when making adjustments to the paper machine to converge the actual fiber orientation profile at the ideal fiber orientation profile [Sasaki, paragraph 75, 93], using a model to define the amount of adjustment made to velocity components of a paper material at an exit of a slice lip [Sasaki, paragraphs 14, 94, 97, 100, 154].
Sasaki teaches c) measuring, after stepping the at least one of the one or more speed parameters in the first direction in step b),… the one or more speed parameters and associated one or more fiber distribution parameters of the paper sheet with the at least one sensor, by disclosing measuring fiber orientation using a fiber orientation measuring device 71 on the paper machine [Sasaki, paragraph 74; figure 2] and using the velocity components of the material at an exit of the slice lip to define a calculated value of a fiber orientation [Sasaki, paragraphs 100-102].
Sasaki teaches d) in response to the one or more fiber distribution parameters moving away from a fiber distribution in step b), stepping the at least one of the one or more speed parameters of the papermaking machine in a second direction opposite the first direction via at least one control actuator and measuring… the one or more speed parameters and the associated one or more fiber distribution parameters of the paper sheet with the at least one sensor; and e) in response to the one or more fiber distribution parameters approaching the fiber distribution in step b) or step d), repeatedly stepping the at least one of the one or more speed parameters of the papermaking machine and measuring the one or more speed parameters and associated one or more fiber distribution parameters of the paper sheet after each adjustment… until the one or more fiber distribution parameters move away from the fiber distribution, by disclosing determining whether the fiber distribution has reached a target fiber distribution by generating fiber orientation data of a surface of a paper by measuring, generating an actual fiber orientation profile based on the fiber orientation data, calculating a difference between the actual fiber orientation profile and an ideal fiber orientation profile, and calculating a fiber orientation deviation profile [paragraphs 74, 92]. A determination is made whether or not a difference between the actual fiber orientation profile and the ideal fiber orientation profile is 0, and if the difference is not 0, calculating a change of operation amount that will make adjustments to the paper machine to converge the actual fiber orientation profile at the ideal fiber orientation profile [paragraph 75, 93]. The adjustments comprise controlling the speed of paper material from a headbox onto a wire part [paragraphs 81, 86]. A model and model parameters are provided to conduct a forecasting calculation of changes of the fiber orientation profile caused by the adjustments [paragraphs 94, 97, 100, 154]. This process is repeatedly conducted to adjust the paper machine so as to converge the fiber orientation deviation profile at 0 [paragraph 93, last four lines; paragraph 153].
Sasaki does not teach that the fiber distribution is a square point. That is, Sasaki does not expressly teach determining a square point for the paper sheet, that the stepping in step b) is performed in response to the one or more fiber distribution parameters moving away from the square point, and that the repeated stepping in step e) is performed in response to the one or more fiber distribution parameters approaching the square point and until the one or more fiber distribution parameters move away from the square point. Ferm discloses that it was well known that when manufacturing paper, generally, a uniform distribution of fiber direction along the entire paper web is aimed at [column 1, lines 53-62]. This would lead to fewer rejections and complaints on the finished product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine, using the process of making incremental adjustments to a paper machine of Sasaki, a uniform distribution of fibers in all directions such that a produced paper sheet is based on such uniform distribution, since Ferm discloses that it was well known, generally, to obtain such uniform distribution. This would lead to fewer rejections and complaints on the finished product.
Sasaki-Ferm do not expressly teach that the measuring in step c) is performed after the papermaking machine reaches steady-state at an adjusted speed, that measuring in step d) is performed after steady-state conditions are reached, and that the measuring after each adjustment in step e) is performed when the steady-state conditions are achieved. Stewart discloses that it was well known for a sheetmaking system to perform so-called “bump tests,” which refers to a procedure whereby an operating parameter on the sheetmaking system, such as a papermaking machine, is altered, and changes of certain dependent variables resulting therefrom are measured [column 3, lines 26-33]. Prior to initiating any bump test, the papermaking machine is first operated at predetermined baseline conditions, or in other words, operating conditions whereby the machine produces paper of acceptable quality corresponding to standard or optimized parameters for paper making [column 3, lines 33-39]. Given the expense involved in operating the machine, extreme conditions that may produce defective, non-useable paper are to be avoided [column 3, lines 39-41]. In a similar vein, when an operating parameter in the system is modified for the bump test, the change should not be so drastic as to damage the machine or produce defective paper [column 3, lines 40-43]. After the machine has reached steady state or stable operations, the certain operating parameters are measured and recorded [column 3, lines 43-45]. Thus, Stwart discloses that it was well known to initiate paper making operations and adjustments when conditions are stable, and to perform measurements of the bump test after the machine has reached a steady state. This would help save operational costs by preventing unintended operations due to the performance of actions in unstable conditions. Since the process used by Sasaki-Ferm to achieve a square point for a paper sheet resembles what is described by Stewart as performing “bump tests,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to initiate paper making operations and adjustments when conditions are stable, and to perform measurements of parameters after the paper machine has reached a steady state, as taught by Stewart. This would help save operational costs by preventing unintended operations due to the performance of actions in unstable conditions.
6. Claims 7, 8, 17, 18, 24, 25, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (Pub. No. US 2010/0276099), in view of Ferm et al (U.S. Patent No. 7,431,800), in view of Stewart (U.S. Patent No. 7,459,060), and further in view of Rohrer (“Choosing between model candidates,” November 10, 2018).
6-1. Regarding claims 7 and 17, Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 respectively. Although Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart disclose using models to determine changes in the fiber orientation profile [Sasaki, paragraphs 94, 97], Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart do not expressly teach wherein determining the square point includes modelling a relationship between the plurality of measurements of the one or more speed parameters and the plurality of measurements of the one or more fiber distribution parameters with second order polynomial functions. Rohrer discloses that it was well known to use second order polynomial functions to identify an underlying pattern between variables. This would provide an ideal balance between capturing physical nonlinearities and maintaining computational simplicity for real-time industrial process control. Since Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart disclose using a model to calculate fiber orientation based on a relationship between a velocity of the paper material on the wire surface and moving speed of the wire [Sasaki, paragraph 102], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to model the relationships of Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart using second order polynomial functions where appropriate, since Rohrer discloses that such functions were well known to identify patterns in data. This would provide an ideal balance between capturing physical nonlinearities and maintaining computational simplicity for real-time industrial process control.
6-2. Regarding claims 8 and 18, Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 respectively. Although Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart disclose using models to determine changes in the fiber orientation profile [Sasaki, paragraphs 94, 97], Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart do not expressly teach wherein determining the square point includes modelling a relationship between the plurality of measurements of the one or more speed parameters and the plurality of measurements of the one or more fiber distribution parameters with fourth order polynomial functions. Rohrer discloses that it was well known to use fourth order polynomial functions to identify an underlying pattern between variables. This would allow a model to more accurately capture relationships between variables that have an asymmetric relationship. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to model the relationships of Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart using fourth order polynomial functions where appropriate, since Rohrer discloses that such functions were well known to identify patterns in data. This would allow a model to more accurately capture relationships between variables that have an asymmetric relationship.
6-3. Regarding claims 24 and 27, Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart teach all the limitations of claims 23 and 26 respectively. Although Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart disclose using models to determine changes in the fiber orientation profile [Sasaki, paragraphs 94, 97], Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart do not expressly teach the claim further comprising: f) determining the square point by modelling the measurements of the one or more speed parameters and the associated one or more fiber distribution parameters with one of second order polynomial or fourth order polynomial functions. Rohrer discloses that it was well known to use second and fourth order polynomial functions to identify an underlying pattern between variables. This would help maintain computational simplicity when modeling physical nonlinearities and asymmetric relationships between variables for real-time industrial process control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to model the relationships of Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart using second or fourth order polynomial functions, since Rohrer discloses that such functions were well known to identify patterns in data. This would help maintain computational simplicity when modeling physical nonlinearities and asymmetric relationships between variables for real-time industrial process control.
6-4. Regarding claims 25 and 28, Sasaki-Ferm-Stewart teach all the limitations of claims 24 and 27 respectively, further comprising: g) setting one or more speed parameters for the papermaking machine to produce the paper sheet based on the determined square point, by disclosing that the adjustments comprise controlling the speed of paper material from a headbox onto a wire part [Sasaki, paragraphs 81, 86]. Adjustments are repeatedly made so as to converge the fiber orientation deviation profile at 0 [Sasaki, paragraph 93, last four lines; paragraph 153] to obtain a desired uniform distribution [Ferm, column 1, lines 53-62].
Response to Arguments
7. The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 13, 23, 26, and 28.
Regarding independent claims 1, 13, 23, and 26, Applicant alleges that Chase (U.S. Patent No. 5,104,488) in view of Ferm et al (U.S. Patent No. 7,431,800) do not teach an automated, on-line "probing" or scanning procedure carried out by a physical control system integrated with the papermaking machine, where the system incrementally adjusts machine speed settings, waits for stable conditions, measures resulting fiber distribution parameters at each step, and uses the observed trend to identify when an optimum fiber distribution point ("square point") is reached or passed. Examiner has rejected claims 1, 13, 23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (Pub. No. US 2010/0276099), in view of Ferm et al (U.S. Patent No. 7,431,800), and further in view of Stewart (U.S. Patent No. 7,459,060). Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights