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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of legal phraseology Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
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”, “said” and “comprising” should be avoided.
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 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.
A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as "prior art" is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102. Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354, 66 USPQ2d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Where the admitted prior art anticipates the claim but does not qualify as prior art under any of the paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, the claim may be rejected as being anticipated by the admitted prior art without citing to 35 U.S.C. 102. See MPEP 2129.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 11-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA (Figure 4E of the Instant Disclosure) and in further view of Okamoto et al. (US PG Pub. 2004/0194942A1) hereinafter referred to as Okamoto.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, AAPA discloses a structure comprising:
- a substrate (7) made of a first material comprising recessed areas in a first face (being the top face as shown in figure 4E) of the substrate, and
- a plate (6) made of a second material covering the recessed areas of the substrate (shown in figure 4E), the plate being welded onto the substrate around the recessed areas by a weld obtained by laser welding (“welding the blades 6 to the substrate 7 by edge/edge laser welding in order to guarantee tightness”, ¶19) and by hot isostatic pressing diffusion (“welding the substrate 7 and the cap 8 by hot isostatic pressing diffusion“, ¶21),
the recessed areas delimited by the substrate (7) and the plate (6) forming cavities (shown in figure 4E). AAPA fails to disclose a solid plate and the surface of the solid plate covering at least all of the recessed areas.
Okamoto, also drawn to the fabrication of a cooling plate by welding, teaches a solid plate (2) and the surface of the solid plate covering (“the lid 2 covers all the channels that are more than one, and joining is performed by lap joint of the lid 2 and the body 1”, ¶87) at least all of the recessed areas (4, shown in figure 14).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a lid covering all of the channels situated within a body with an individual lid covering each respective channel situated within a body; further the prior art to Okamoto teaches a lid covering all of the channels situated within a body is known for forming a cooling plate. Further, Okamoto teaches a lid covering all of the channels situated within a body and an individual lid covering each respective channel situated within a body were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to AAPA with having a lid covering all of the channels situated within a body, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Okamoto there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of AAPA by having a lid covering all of the channels situated within a body in order to form the cooling channels.
In product-by-process claims, as in Claim 11, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 11, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “welded”, “weld”, and “vacuum transparency, by resistance welding or by laser welding and by hot isostatic pressing diffusion” are drawn to methods of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 12, AAPA further discloses a cowl (8) welded onto the solid (previously taught by Okamoto in the rejection of Claim 11) plate (“welding the substrate 7 and the cap 8 by hot isostatic pressing diffusion”, ¶21).
Regarding Claim 16, AAPA further discloses the structure is a heat exchanger (shown in figure 4E) comprising cavities arranged so as to make a fluid circulate (shown in figure 4E), the cavities forming channels for the circulation of a fluid (shown in figure 4E).
Regarding Claim 17, AAPA further discloses the fluid is a gas.
Regarding limitations “the fluid being a gas” recited in Claim 17, which is directed to a material within the claimed heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 18, AAPA further discloses the fluid is a liquid.
Regarding limitations “the fluid being a liquid” recited in Claim 18, which is directed to a material within the claimed heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA (Figure 4E of the Instant Disclosure) in view of Okamoto et al. (US PG Pub. 2004/0194942A1) as applied in Claims 11-12 and 16-18 above and in further view of Inagaki et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0046825A1) hereinafter referred to as Inagaki.
Regarding Claim 13, AAPA fails to disclose the first material and the second material are independently selected from among copper and its alloys, titanium and its alloys, aluminium and its alloys, steels and vanadium.
Inagaki, also drawn to a heat exchanger with multiple plates and fluid channels, teaches a first material and a second material are independently selected from among copper and its alloys, titanium and its alloys, aluminium and its alloys, steels (“As materials of the container 10, for example, copper, aluminum, stainless steel, titanium, copper alloy, aluminum alloy, titanium alloy, and the like can be given. They may be used alone, or two or more types of them may be used together”, ¶67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the device disclosed by Applicant in figure 4 with the first material and the second material being independently selected from among copper and its alloys, titanium and its alloys, aluminium and its alloys, steels, as taught by Inagaki, the motivation being that copper, aluminum, stainless steel and titanium are known materials that can withstand numerous thermal cycles without degradation or failure, while also possessing high moduli of elasticity, are readily available and provide high levels of corrosion resistance and heat transfer rates.
Regarding Claim 14, a modified AAPA further teaches the first material and the second material are identical (“They may be used alone”, ¶67).
Regarding Claim 15, a modified AAPA further teaches the first material and the second material are different (“or two or more types of them may be used together”, ¶67).
Regarding Claim 16, in addition to AAPA, Inagaki further teaches the structure is a heat exchanger (shown in figure 5) comprising cavities arranged so as to make a fluid circulate (shown in figure 5), the cavities forming channels for the circulation of a fluid (shown in figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the device disclosed by Applicant in figure 4 with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Inagaki, the motivation being to provide “excellent heat dissipation property, and allowing the flow property of the working fluid to be smoothed“, ¶2).
Regarding Claim 17, in addition to AAPA, Inagaki further teaches the fluid is a gas (“the gas flows to the recessed part smoothly so that the condensing property of the working fluid in a gas phase is improved”, ¶29).
Regarding limitations “the fluid being a gas” recited in Claim 17, which is directed to a material within the claimed heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 18, in addition to AAPA, Inagaki further teaches the fluid is a liquid (“a working fluid in a liquid phase can circulate more smoothly from the heat dissipation surface to the heat receiving surface of the container through the side face portion of the support part”, ¶32).
Regarding limitations “the fluid being a liquid” recited in Claim 18, which is directed to a material within the claimed heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Claims 11-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasumi et al. (Translation of JP4057455B2) and in further view of Rigal et al. (WO2006067349A1), hereinafter referred to as Yasumi and Rigal.
Regarding Claim 11, Yasumi discloses a structure comprising:
- a substrate (2-3 and 11) made of a first material (“the container is formed of a metal foil or the like that is thin enough to be bent” ¶36) comprising recessed areas (flow paths (5)) in a first face (shown in figure 3, being the top face of first spacer (3)) of the substrate, and
- a solid plate (10) made of a second material covering the recessed areas of the substrate (shown in figure 3), the solid plate being welded onto the substrate around the recessed areas by a weld (“the spacer provided with the flow path is formed by fixing the strip-shaped porous members to each other by pressure welding or spot welding”, ¶29),
the recessed areas delimited by the substrate (2-3 and 11) and the solid plate (10) forming cavities (shown in figure 3),
the surface of the solid plate (10) covering at least all of the recessed areas (shown in figure 3). Yasumi fails to disclose the solid plate being welded onto the substrate around the recessed areas by a weld obtained by vacuum transparency, by resistance welding or by laser welding and by hot isostatic pressing diffusion.
Rigal, also drawn to fabricating a cooling device with welding, teaches a plate (16) being welded onto a substrate (32) around a recessed areas (12) by a weld obtained by vacuum transparency, by resistance welding or by laser welding (“the blades are welded to the base plate, in particular by laser welding. By welding, the use of solder is eliminated. The maximum temperature at which the element can be used is therefore increased. Laser welding also allows accessibility to small parts. The welds do not penetrate all the walls since these welds are used only for the connection of the blades on the base plate”) and by hot isostatic pressing diffusion (“a cover (22) is welded by isostatic thermo-compression welding to the face (21) of the baseplate (10) with the grooves above the thin sheets (16)”, see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the device disclosed by Applicant in figure 4 with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Inagaki, the motivation being “The diffusion welding by CIC makes it possible to reconstruct monolithic structures from a large variety of elements such as sheets, plates, shells, bent tubes or not. In contrast to the other techniques mentioned above, it can be used to assemble large complex surfaces, without filler metal. This avoids the problems associated with the presence of materials with a low melting point (limitation of the temperature of use, low resistance of the brazed joints) and the presence of solder crossing the walls (risk of leakage). The junctions obtained by diffusion welding are known to be particularly resistant” and “the blades are welded to the base plate, in particular by laser welding. By welding, the use of solder is eliminated. The maximum temperature at which the element can be used is therefore increased. Laser welding also allows accessibility to small parts. The welds do not penetrate all the walls since these welds are used only for the connection of the blades on the base plate”.
In product-by-process claims, as in Claim 11, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 11, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “welded”, “weld”, and “vacuum transparency, by resistance welding or by laser welding and by hot isostatic pressing diffusion” are drawn to methods of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 12, a modified Yasumi further teaches a cowl (1) welded onto the solid plate (10, shown in figure 3).
Regarding Claim 13, a modified Yasumi further teaches the first material and the second material (“a copper foil having a thickness of 30 μm to 50 μm as a foil forming a container”) are independently selected from among copper and its alloys.
Regarding Claim 16, Yasumi further discloses the structure is a heat exchanger (“the sealing port was sealed to produce a heat pipe. As a result, good heat transfer performance was obtained”) comprising cavities (5) arranged so as to make a fluid circulate (shown in figure 3), the cavities forming channels for the circulation of a fluid (shown in figure 3, wherein the working fluid circulates due to capillary pumping).
Regarding Claim 17, Yasumi further discloses the fluid is a gas (“the working fluid vapor condenses to release latent heat and returns to the liquid phase”).
Regarding limitations “the fluid being a gas” recited in Claim 17, which is directed to a material within the claimed heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 18, Yasumi further discloses the fluid is a liquid (“the working fluid vapor condenses to release latent heat and returns to the liquid phase”).
Regarding limitations “the fluid being a liquid” recited in Claim 18, which is directed to a material within the claimed heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasumi et al. (Translation of JP4057455B2) and in further view of Rigal et al. (WO2006067349A1) as applied in Claims 11-13 and 16-18 above and in further view of Inagaki et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0046825A1) hereinafter referred to as Inagaki.
Regarding Claim 13, in addition to Yasumi, Inagaki, also drawn to a heat exchanger with multiple plates and fluid channels, teaches a first material and a second material are independently selected from among copper and its alloys, titanium and its alloys, aluminium and its alloys, steels (“As materials of the container 10, for example, copper, aluminum, stainless steel, titanium, copper alloy, aluminum alloy, titanium alloy, and the like can be given. They may be used alone, or two or more types of them may be used together”, ¶67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Yasumi with the first material and the second material being independently selected from among copper and its alloys, titanium and its alloys, aluminium and its alloys, steels, as taught by Inagaki, the motivation being that copper, aluminum, stainless steel and titanium are known materials that can withstand numerous thermal cycles without degradation or failure, while also possessing high moduli of elasticity, are readily available and provide high levels of corrosion resistance and heat transfer rates.
Regarding Claim 14, a modified Yasumi further teaches the first material and the second material are identical (“They may be used alone”, ¶67 of Inagaki).
Regarding Claim 15, a modified Yasumi further teaches the first material and the second material are different (“or two or more types of them may be used together”, ¶67).
Regarding Claim 16, in addition to Yasumi, Inagaki further teaches the structure is a heat exchanger (shown in figure 5) comprising cavities arranged so as to make a fluid circulate (shown in figure 5), the cavities forming channels for the circulation of a fluid (shown in figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Yasumi with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Inagaki, the motivation being to provide “excellent heat dissipation property, and allowing the flow property of the working fluid to be smoothed“, ¶2).
Regarding Claim 17, in addition to Yasumi, Inagaki further teaches the fluid is a gas (“the gas flows to the recessed part smoothly so that the condensing property of the working fluid in a gas phase is improved”, ¶29).
Regarding limitations “the fluid being a gas” recited in Claim 17, which is directed to a material within the claimed heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 18, in addition to Yasumi, Inagaki further teaches the fluid is a liquid (“a working fluid in a liquid phase can circulate more smoothly from the heat dissipation surface to the heat receiving surface of the container through the side face portion of the support part”, ¶32).
Regarding limitations “the fluid being a liquid” recited in Claim 18, which is directed to a material within the claimed heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 have been considered but 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.
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 PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights