DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant previously elected without traverse Invention I (Claims 1-18 and 26-28), Heat Pipe Species C (Figures 5A-5C), and Heat Pipe Connection Species S5-S7 in the reply filed on 11/07/2025.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 3/12/2026 are as follows:
Claims 34-36 are newly added;
Claims 2, 10, and 27 are cancelled by the applicant;
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-26, and 28-36 are pending;
Claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 18-25 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 26, and 28-36 are being examined.
Specification
The amended abstract was received on 3/12/2026. The amended abstract is not accepted because it did not address the previous objection. Specifically, the abstract still recites “promoting effective heat transfer and robust bonding” which is the purported merits of the invention. Accordingly, the abstract remains objected to.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits (i.e. “promoting effective heat transfer and robust bonding”) of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Currently, no claim limitation invokes 112(f).
“Wicking structure” of claim 1 does not invoke 112(f) since wicking structure is an art recognized term for generating capillary forces for moving liquid in a heat pipe and thus the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.
“Heat producing component” of claim 1 does not invoke 112(f) since heat producing component is an art recognized term for electrical or computer devices that generate heat on heat pipes and thus the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.
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, 5-7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 28, 29, and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US2006/0151153A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 1. Chen teaches a heat pipe (20) comprising (Figure 1; Paragraphs 21, 24-27):
a structure having a sealed outer shell (22,21) comprising a copper composite that comprises copper nanoparticles, micron-sized copper particles, and a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) modifier (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 24-27. Chen teaches a copper alloy, wherein the alloy is considered a coefficient of thermal expansion modifier. Further, the copper is comprised of copper particles of all sizes); and
a working fluid movable within an internal space (26) defined within the sealed outer shell, the internal space comprising a wicking structure (23) interposed between the sealed outer shell (22) and a hollow core (26), or a flow channel defined upon a surface of the sealed outer shell (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 27-28);
wherein the copper composite is formed through consolidation of copper nanoparticles with micron-size copper particles and the CTE modifier (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28; Chen teaches a copper alloy, wherein the alloy is considered a coefficient of thermal expansion modifier. Further, the copper is comprised of copper particles of all sizes).
Chen teaches the structure comprises copper nanoparticles, micron-sized copper particles, and a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) modifier (as outlined above) but fails to specifically teach the copper composite comprises about 30% to about 98% copper nanoparticles by weight, about 0.1 to about 15% micron-scale particles by weight, and about 1 to 20% by weight of CTE modifier.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the copper composite comprise about 30% to about 98% copper nanoparticles by weight, about 0.1 to about 15% micron-scale particles by weight, and about 1 to 20% by weight of CTE modifier, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the copper composite comprise about 30% to about 98% copper nanoparticles by weight, about 0.1 to about 15% micron-scale particles by weight, and about 1 to 20% by weight of CTE modifier, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the copper composite comprise about 30% to about 98% copper nanoparticles by weight, about 0.1 to about 15% micron-scale particles by weight, and about 1 to 20% by weight of CTE modifier, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re Claim 9. Chen teaches a printed circuit board (PCB) (Figure 1) comprising:
a heat-producing component (30) located upon or at least partially recessed within an electrically insulating substrate (11) (Figure 1; Paragraphs 21, 24-27); and
at least one heat pipe (20) in thermal communication with the heat-producing component, the at least one heat pipe comprising (Figures 1-2):
a structure having a sealed outer shell (22, 21) comprising a copper composite that comprises copper nanoparticles, micron-sized copper particles, and a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) modifier (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 24-27. Chen teaches a copper alloy, wherein the alloy is considered a coefficient of thermal expansion modifier. Further, the copper is comprised of copper particles of all sizes); and
a working fluid movable within an internal space (26) defined within the sealed outer shell, the internal space comprising wicking structure (23) interposed between the sealed outer shell (22) and a hollow core (26), or a flow channel defined upon a surface of the sealed outer shell (Figures 2-3; Paragraphs 27-28, 31);
wherein the copper composite is formed through consolidation of copper nanoparticles with micron-size copper particles and the CTE modifier (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28; Chen teaches a copper alloy, wherein the alloy is considered a coefficient of thermal expansion modifier. Further, the copper is comprised of copper particles of all sizes).
Chen teaches the structure comprises copper nanoparticles, micron-sized copper particles, and a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) modifier (as outlined above) but fails to specifically teach the copper composite comprises about 30% to about 98% copper nanoparticles by weight, about 0.1 to about 15% micron-scale particles by weight, and about 1 to 20% by weight of CTE modifier.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the copper composite comprise about 30% to about 98% copper nanoparticles by weight, about 0.1 to about 15% micron-scale particles by weight, and about 1 to 20% by weight of CTE modifier, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the copper composite comprise about 30% to about 98% copper nanoparticles by weight, about 0.1 to about 15% micron-scale particles by weight, and about 1 to 20% by weight of CTE modifier, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the copper composite comprise about 30% to about 98% copper nanoparticles by weight, about 0.1 to about 15% micron-scale particles by weight, and about 1 to 20% by weight of CTE modifier, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re Claim 5 & 13. Chen teaches a complementary part contacts the sealed outer shell and seals an upper surface of the flow channel (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28. The heat pipe is a sealed structure, thus a complementary part seals the heat pipe. Additionally, Figure 1 illustrates the heat pipe 20 inset into the substrate 11, thereby forming a complementary part that seals the outer shell of the heat pipe).
Re Claim 6 & 14. Chen teaches the copper is formed of nano sized particles (Paragraph 25) but fails to specifically teach the copper composite has a uniform nanoporosity of about 2% to about 30%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the copper composite to have a uniform nanoporosity of about 2% to about 30%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the copper composite with a uniform nanoporosity of about 2% to about 30%, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A).
Re Claim 7 & 17. Chen teaches the CTE modifier comprises carbon fibers, tungsten particles, molybdenum particles, diamond particles, boron nitride, aluminum nitride, carbon nanotubes, graphene, or any combination thereof (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28, wherein paragraph 25 teaches the CTE is carbon nanotubes, which is interpreted as a carbon fiber).
Re Claim 16. Chen teaches the at least one heat pipe is bonded to a top surface of the heat-producing component, one or more heat pipes are bonded to a side surface of the heat-producing component, the at least one heat pipe is bonded to a bottom surface of the heat-producing component and the at least one heat pipe extends through the electrically insulating substrate, or any combination thereof (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28; Figure 1 illustrates the at least one heat pipe extends through the electrically insulating substrate).
Re Claim 28. Chen teaches the copper is formed of nano sized particles (Paragraph 25) but fails to specifically teach at least a portion of the copper nanoparticles are in a range of from about 1 to about 10 nm in size and the remaining copper nanoparticles are in a range of 25 to about 50 nm in size. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have at least a portion of the copper nanoparticles are in a range of from about 1 to about 10 nm in size and the remaining copper nanoparticles are in a range of 25 to about 50 nm in size, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have at least a portion of the copper nanoparticles are in a range of from about 1 to about 10 nm in size and the remaining copper nanoparticles are in a range of 25 to about 50 nm in size, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A).
Re Claim 29. Chen teaches the flow channel is defined upon the surface of the sealed outer shell and is a closed loop that extends between a hot end and a cold end of the heat pipe (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28).
Re Claim 31. Chen teaches the complementary part is formed from a copper composite that comprises copper nanoparticles, micron-sized copper particles, and a CTE modifier (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28; Chen teaches an integral heat pipe assembly, and thus all components are formed of the same material).
Re Claim 32. Chen teaches the complementary part has a CTE that at least substantially matches the CTE of the sealed outer shell (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28; Chen teaches an integral heat pipe assembly, and thus all components are formed of the same material).
Re Claim 33. Chen teaches the sealed outer shell and the complementary part are sealed with a metallurgical bond, wherein the metallurgical bond is formed from at least partial fusion of a copper nanoparticle paste composition disposed between the sealed outer shell and the complementary part (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28; Chen teaches an integral heat pipe assembly, and thus all components are formed of the same material).
Re Claims 34 & 35. Chen as modified teaches the copper composite has a CTE value of about 3 ppm/°C to about 11 ppm/°C (Chen Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28. Since the material composition of Chen is the same as recited in the claims, the material composition of Chen would therefore have the same CTE value of about 3 ppm/°C to about 11 ppm/°C). In the event it is determined that Chen fails to teach the specific CTE value, it would have nevertheless been obvious to select a desired CTE value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine an optimal CTE value of about 3 ppm/°C to about 11 ppm/°C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to set a CTE value of about 3 ppm/°C to about 11 ppm/°C, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A).
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US2006/0151153A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Nakako (US2023/0356294A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 26 & 36. Chen teaches copper nanoparticles (Paragraph 25) but fails to specifically teach the copper nanoparticles have a surfactant coating containing one or more surfactants on their surface.
However, Nakako teaches it is known to add surfactants to copper paste to improve wetting of the paste (Paragraph 64).
Therefore, in view of Nakako's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add surfactant coating to the copper nanoparticles of Chen in order to improve the wetting of the composition. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add surfactant coating to the copper nanoparticles of Chen since it is known that surfactant can be used to reduce the surface tension of paste, which is beneficial to the stable existence of particles in copper paste. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add surfactants to the copper, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US2006/0151153A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Roper (US9835383B1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 30. Chen teaches a valve connected to the flow channel (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28).
However, Roper teaches a filling port (40) of a heat pipe (100) comprises a valve (Figure 1; Column 10 lines 19-36). Roper teaches the benefit of the valve is to temporary seal the filling port so that the amount of working fluid can be adjusted after testing.
Therefore, in view of Roper's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a valve to Chen in order to temporary seal the filling port so that the amount of working fluid can be adjusted after testing, thereby achieving optimal working conditions for the heat pipe.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the reply that “Chen fails to describe or suggest a copper composite formed through consolidation that includes a CTE modifier”. The claims are directed towards an apparatus and not a method of manufacturing. Therefore, the presence of process limitations (i.e. methods of forming through consolidation on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues on page 11 of the reply that “Applicant respectfully submits that Chen only describes a heat pipe that is made of different layers that have different CTE values, rather than a copper composite that includes a CTE modifier”. A composite is an object that is made up of various parts or elements. To this extent, a plurality of layers that have different CTE values would read on a composite. Chen teaches a copper alloy, wherein the alloy is considered a coefficient of thermal expansion modifier. Further, the copper is comprised of copper particles of all sizes. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues on page 11 of the reply that “That is, Chen recites at least two distinct layers, a protective layer and a shell. The protective layer is made of a conductive material such as carbon nanotubes. This entire protective layer increases the thermal transfer area, and there is no teaching or suggestion that the carbon nanotubes can modify the CTE value of the copper composite (see [0024]-[0027] of Chen). In contrast, the shell of Chen is a separate and distinct layer that is copper or a copper alloy”. The copper alloy of Chen is sufficient to read on the recited copper composite. The copper comprises numerous copper particles and the alloy component of the copper alloy will modify the CTE value of the copper material. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the reply that “Chen does not describe or suggest adding a CTE modifier to the copper composite”. Again, as recited above, the copper alloy of Chen is sufficient to read on the recited copper composite. The copper comprises numerous copper particles and the alloy component of the copper alloy will modify the CTE value of the copper material.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the reply that “copper composites formed through consolidation have different properties than copper alloys. For example, the copper composite of the present invention has a unique consolidation temperature, a variable nanoporosity, size of grains, number of grain boundaries, and the CTE value”. Applicants’ arguments lack factual evidence to support their argument and therefore amount to arguments of counsel. MPEP 2145 states that “arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the copper composite of the present invention has a unique consolidation temperature, a variable nanoporosity, size of grains, number of grain boundaries, and the CTE value”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Finally, the claims are directed towards an apparatus and not a method of manufacturing. Therefore, the presence of process limitations (i.e. methods of forming through consolidation on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. Thus, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 11-12 of the reply that “Applicant respectfully submits that the properties of copper composites in accordance with the claimed invention are very different from the properties of copper alloys and one skilled in the art would not rely on teachings directed to metal alloys to describe the unique features and characteristics of copper composites with nanoparticles and a CTE modifier. The skilled artisan would thus only believe that the heat pipe may be made of a material (whether copper or a copper alloy) that already exhibits a sufficiently low CTE value, not that the CTE can be later modified”. Applicants’ arguments lack factual evidence to support their argument and therefore amount to arguments of counsel. MPEP 2145 states that “arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence”. Additionally, the claims are directed towards an apparatus and not a method of manufacturing. Therefore, the presence of process limitations (i.e. methods of forming through consolidation on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. Thus, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
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 TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights