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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 07/10/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objection(s), Applicant argues that the proposed change would result in fragment.
Examiner respectfully submits that claim 1 already has a fragment with or without the proposed change. The recitation “method comprising: using at least one processor: operating ...” is a fragment and lacks readability. Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2114 IV and 2161.01, processors need to be programmed/configured with the functions. For at least the reasons set forth above, the objection is maintained and a better language is proposed herein in the objection and art rejection.
With respect to the drawing objection(s), Applicant argues that the showing of the objected elements in the drawings is not necessary for a complete understanding of the invention.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because the basis of the objection is that every feature of the invention specified in the claims must be shown. Even when conventional/well-known features are not essential for a proper understanding of the claimed invention, the conventional/well-known features need to be shown in the form of at least a symbol or representation. See 37 C.F.R. 1.83. Thus, the drawing objections are maintained.
Applicant argues that Figs. 2A-2D should not be labeled as prior art because the application does not contain an admission that identifies Figs. 2A-2D as the work of another and as prior art.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because that is not the basis of the objection. First, the basis of the objections is that Figures. 2A-2D should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g) and [0012, 0027-0032] of Applicant’s published application. The corresponding description of Figs. 2A-2D (e.g. [0012] and [0027-0032] of Applicant’s published application) explicitly describes the shown apparatus and steps as being “conventional” which is an explicit admission that the shown apparatus and steps are old (i.e., conventional). If applicant disagrees, then Applicant needs to provide an explanation for the term “conventional”. Furthermore, Examiner maintains that the corresponding description of these figures ([0012] and [0027-0032] of Applicant’s published application) describe the shown apparatus and steps as being “conventional” which is an implicit admission that the shown apparatus and steps are well-known/conventional in the art and prior to Applicant’s claimed invention. In the absence of an explanation in Applicant’s description, Examiner needs to treat the conventional/known subject matter as the work of another. Thus, Examiners interpretation of the description of these figures is in accordance with MPEP § 2129, and the objections are maintained.
With respect to the claim interpretation(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant argues that “a powder deposition device to arrange a first layer of powder over a build platform of the additive fabrication device” should not be interpretated under 112f because it does not recite the term means and it would be understood by person of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because:
Applicant did not clearly identify on the record the alleged “structure” or “name for the structure” recited/implied by the limitation (See 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) & 2181);
Applicant’s allegation is inaccurate because some of the powder deposition devices in the art such as a hopper are incapable of arranging a first layer of powder over a build platform without addition specific structure such as a roller or blade.
the limitation meets the 3-prong analysis set forth in MPEP 2181 I; While the limitations do not use the word “means”, they use the generic placeholder “device”. Furthermore, the accompanying language (“powder deposition” and “to arrange a first layer of powder over a build platform of the additive fabrication device” which attempts to modify the generic term “device” merely recite/describe the functions of the device and do not connote sufficiently definite structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2181 I);
Applicant does not want to invoke 112(f), yet applicant wants the examiner to determine/import the scope/meaning of the claimed limitation from the specification into the claims; and
Applicant has not presented sufficiently shown that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions. Thus, the interpretation is maintained.
With respect to AAPP, Applicant argues that Applicant’s statement may be treated as admitted prior only when it identifies the work of another as prior art. According to Applicant, the rejection does not establish that the cited portions of Applicant’s own disclosure are the work of another or otherwise available prior art.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. In the absence of an explanation in Applicant’s description and argument, Examiner needs to treat conventional/well-known subject matter as the work of another as set forth in MPEP § 2129. The corresponding description of figures 2A-2D ([0012] and [0027-0032] of Applicant’s published application) explicitly describe the shown apparatus and steps as being “conventional” which is an implicit admission that the shown apparatus and steps are old and well-known/conventional in the art and prior to Applicant’s claimed invention. If Applicant still disagrees, Applicant needs to explain the meaning of the term “conventional” in his description. Examiners maintains the interpretation of Figures 2A-2D and corresponding description in Applicant’s disclosure as implicit AAPP. Finally, Applicant’s arguments are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on AAPP.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, Applicant’s arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “using at least one processor: operating a powder deposition device to arrange” should be changed to --providing at least one processor configured to operate a powder deposition device, a laser device, and a build platform of the additive fabrication device; controlling the operation of the powder deposition device to arrange--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed “adjustable springs to control a pressure exerted by the powder deposition device”, “a high-resolution camera”, and “one or more sensors configured to monitor powder behavior during a recoating process”, “optical encoders”, “infrared sensors”, and/or “position detection cameras” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Figures. 2A-2D should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g) and [0012, 0027-0032] of Applicant’s published application.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“powder deposition device to arrange a first layer” in claim 1 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in [0022] and [0035] of Applicant’s published application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ederer (US 20160318251) in view of Maeda (US 20150283761 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Ederer discloses a method of operating an additive fabrication device to fabricate a three-dimensional object (P0001, 0038-0041, 0081, Abstract, Fig. 5), the method comprising:
providing at least one processor configured to control operation of a powder deposition device (101), a build platform (102), and a print means (100) of the additive fabrication device (providing at least one control unit not shown configured to control the operation of the additive fabrication device which includes a coater means 101, a build platform 102, and a printing means 100 as known in the art: P0026, 0023, 0029-0030, 0081, Fig. 5; a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the at least control unit reads on the claimed at least one processor);
controlling the operation of the powder deposition device (101) to arrange a first layer of powder over the build platform of the additive fabrication device (P0064-0071, 0081, 0100-0107, annotated Fig. 5a);
controlling the operation of the printing means to scan the printing means to consolidate portions of the first layer of powder along a path of the printing means, wherein the path of the printing means corresponds to a cross-section of an object being fabricated (P0064-0071, 0081, 0089, 0100-0107, annotated Fig. 5a);
prior to completing the scanning of the printing means on the first layer of powder, controlling the operation of the powder deposition device (101) to deposit powder on top of at least part of the first layer of powder, wherein the powder deposited on top of at least part of the first layer of powder is a portion of a second layer of powder (P0034, 0064-0071, 0100-0107, annotated Fig. 5a-b); and
subsequent to completely depositing the second layer of powder, controlling the operation of the build platform to lower the build platform to position the second layer of powder for scanning of the printing means to consolidate portions of the second layer of powder (P0034, 0064-0071, 0098, 0100-0107, annotated Fig. 5b-c; furthermore, P0098, 0100, and Figs. 5b-c clearly show/describe the sequence of operations).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ederer differs from the claimed invention in that Ederer uses a print head as the printing means in the embodiment of Fig. 5 (P0030, 0107).
However, Ederer discloses that a laser beam is an obvious and envisioned variant of the printing means for the benefit(s) of obtaining a selective laser sintering method (P0020, 0030).
In the same field of endeavor, methods of operating additive fabrication devices, Maeda discloses a method of operating an additive fabrication device to fabricate a three-dimensional object (P0001-0002, Figs. 1), the method comprising:
using at least one processor (using control part 5 configured for processing data and controlling the additive fabrication device based on processing data: P0002, 0017-0022, Figs. 1-2; thus, 5 reads on the claimed at least one processor) configured to:
control operation a powder deposition device (3) to arrange a first layer of powder over a build platform (23) of the additive fabrication device (P0002, 0019, 0021, Figs. 1-2);
control operation a laser means to scan a laser beam (L) to consolidate portions of the first layer of powder along a path of the laser beam, wherein the laser beam's path corresponds to a cross-section (F) of an object being fabricated (P0020, 0022, Figs. 1-2), and
control operation of build platform (23) to lower the build platform (P0020-0021, Figs. 1-2) for the benefit(s) of for the benefit(s) of obtaining an automated/improved selective laser sintering method (P0017-0023).
Since Ederer discloses that a laser beam is an obvious and envisioned variant of the printing means (P0020, 0030), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Ederer in view of Maeda by using at least one laser device scanning a laser beam as the printing means and at one processor as the at least control unit for yielding the predictable result(s)/benefit(s) of obtaining an automated and improved selective laser sintering method as suggested by Maeda. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding claim 4, Since Ederer further discloses/shows to consolidate portions of the second layer of powder after completing depositing the second layer of powder on the build platform (P0098, 0100, annotated Fig. 5; Figs. 5b-c clearly show the sequence of operations) while Maeda further discloses the technique of scanning the laser beam to consolidate portions of a layer of powder in response to the powder deposition device completing depositing the layer of powder on the build platform is known in the art for the benefit(s) of executing formation of the powder layer and scanning of the powder layer at different times (P0004), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the method of Ederer in view of Maeda by scanning the laser beam to consolidate portions of the second layer of powder in response to the powder deposition device completing depositing the layer second layer of powder on the build platform for yielding the predictable result(s)/benefit(s) of executing formation of the second powder layer and scanning of the second powder layer at different/subsequent times. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C and 2144.04 IV C.
Regarding claim 5, as modified above, Ederer further discloses/shows further discloses prior to completing the scanning of the laser beam on the second layer of powder, operating the powder deposition device to deposit powder over at least part of the second layer of powder (P0034, 0064-0071, 0100-0107; Fig. 5c shows the sequence of operations).
Regarding claim 6, Maeda further discloses/shows prior to moving the powder deposition device, determining, by the at least one processor (5), that moving the powder deposition device over the first layer of powder would not interfere with the scanning of the laser beam on the first layer of powder (P0021-0025, Figs. 2-4).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ederer in view of Maeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Safai (US 20210356404 – of record) and/or Colosimo (US 20220016709 – of record).
Regarding claim 7, Ederer fails to explicitly disclose that in response to completing the scanning of the laser beam on the first layer of powder, determining, by the at least one processor, whether or not the first layer comprises any defects based on image data generated by a high-resolution camera.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of operating additive fabrication devices, Safai discloses the technique of including a processor (140) configured for determining whether or not the first/latest manufactured layer comprises any defects based on image data generated by a high-resolution camera (130) for the benefit(s) of eliminating defects in the manufactured/printed layer during the additive fabrication and/or enhancing printing quality (P0033-0036, 0039-0043).
In the same field of endeavor, methods of operating additive fabrication devices, Colosimo discloses the technique of determining whether or not the first/latest printed layer comprises any defects based on image data generated by a high-resolution camera after completing the scanning of the laser beam on the first/latest layer of powder (P0049, 0063, 0071-0079, 0091, Fig. 4) for the benefit(s) of detecting/eliminating defects in the printed layer during the additive fabrication and/or enhancing printing quality (P0001, 0098).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Ederer in view Safai and/or Colosimo by configuring the at least one processor to determine whether or not the first layer comprises any defects based on image data generated by a high-resolution camera in response to completing the scanning of the laser beam on the first layer of powder for yielding the predictable results of for the benefit(s) of detecting/eliminating defects in the printed layer during the additive fabrication and/or enhancing printing quality as suggested by Safai and/or Colosimo. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ederer in view of Maeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 206652972U with English machine translation – of record) and/or Schmidbauer (US 20200114424 - of record).
Regarding claim 8, Ederer fails to disclose wherein the powder deposition device includes adjustable springs to control a pressure exerted by the powder deposition device against the first layer of powder.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of operating additive fabrication devices, Wang discloses the technique of including in a powder deposition device adjustable springs (springs 4: Fig. 1) to control a pressure exerted by the powder deposition device against the layer of powder for the benefit(s) of enhancing powder deposition (abstract, pages 1-3 of translation).
In the same field of endeavor, methods of operating additive fabrication devices, Schmidbauer discloses the technique of including in the powder deposition device adjustable springs (9) to control a pressure exerted by the powder deposition device against the layer of powder (P0012-0013, 0023-0024, 0044-0046, Fig. 2) for the benefit(s) of enhancing powder deposition (P0005, 0048).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Ederer in view Wang and/or Schmidbauer by incorporating in the powder deposition device adjustable springs to control a pressure exerted by the powder deposition device against the layer of powder for the benefit(s) of improving powder deposition as suggested by Wang and/or Schmidbauer. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ederer in view of Maeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shi (US 20200238613 – of record).
Regarding claim 9, Ederer fails to disclose wherein the powder deposition device includes one or more sensors configured to monitor powder behavior during a recoating process.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of operating additive fabrication devices, Shi discloses the technique of including on the powder deposition device (200) one or more sensors (252) configured to monitor powder behavior during a recoating process for the benefit of improving powder deposition control and accuracy (P0053-0056, Fig. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Ederer in view Shi by including/incorporating in the powder deposition device one or more sensors configured to monitor powder behavior during a recoating process for the benefit(s) of improving powder deposition control and accuracy as suggested by Shi. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ederer in view of Maeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Herzog (US 20180215103).
Regarding claims 15-16, Ederer further teaches/suggests to control a speed of the powder deposition device (P0044, 0069, 0101) and to avoid interference between the printing means and the powder deposition device by staggering/coordinating their operation and/or position (P0027, 0038, 0081, 0108, Fig. 5), but not based on sensor data.
However, Maeda further discloses/shows the technique of configuring the processor (5) to control a path of the laser beam (L) based on sensor data generated by at least one sensor (32) to prevent interference between the laser beam and the powder deposition device and to ensure that the laser beam trails the powder deposition device (P0021-0025, Figs. 2-4).
In the same field of endeavor, methods of operating additive fabrication devices, Herzog discloses the technique of configuring a processor (control unit not shown) to control a path of the laser beam (5) based on sensor data generated by at least one camera (11: P0040, 0054-0055) to prevent interference between the laser beam and the powder deposition device (P0060, 0063, Fig. 2) for the benefit(s) of ensuring that the laser beam trails the powder deposition device and improving efficiency (P0058, 0063, Fig. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Ederer in view Maeda and Herzog by further configuring the at least one processor to control a speed of the powder deposition device and/or the path of the laser beam based on sensor data generated by at least one position detection camera to prevent interference between the laser beam and the powder deposition device for the benefit(s) of ensuring that the laser beam trails the powder deposition device to prevent interference between the laser beam and the powder deposition and improving efficiency as suggested by Maeda and Herzog. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
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.
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure.
Torrealba (US 20240286355 – of record) discloses a relevant method (Claims 22-28).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights