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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mitchell (International Patent Publication No. WO 2024/058814 A1, cited in IDS submitted April 19, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Mitchell discloses a system (Abstract of Mitchell, applicator for semi-fluid materials; [0036] of Mitchell, applicator is described as a system; applicator includes various components and is therefore a “system”), comprising: an applicator tool positionable within a valve seat bore of a cylinder head for an internal combustion engine (Abstract of Mitchell, applicator positionable within a valve seat bore of an engine), the applicator tool comprising: a sealing portion extending radially outwardly from a base body of the applicator tool for sealing abutment with the valve seat bore (Abstract of Mitchell, applicator includes a body portion and a sealing portion extending radially outwardly from the body portion), a wiper portion extending radially outwardly from the base body and narrower in diameter than the sealing portion (Abstract of Mitchell, applicator includes a wiper portion extending radially outwardly from the body portion and narrower in diameter than the sealing portion), and a circumferential groove between the sealing portion and the wiper portion and recessed relative to the wiper portion (Abstract of Mitchell, applicator includes a circumferential groove between the sealing and wiper portions and recessed relative to the wiper portion), wherein the circumferential groove has a groove base which is circumferentially continuous (FIG. 1 of Mitchell, circumferential groove has a base which is circumferentially continuous).
Regarding claim 2, Mitchell discloses the system comprising: a further sealing portion extending axially away from the wiper portion having a reduced-diameter end portion opposite the wiper portion for sealing cooperation with a reduced-diameter wall portion of the valve seat bore (FIGS. 2-3, [0025] of Mitchell, reduced diameter end portion #128 seals against second ledge #124 of bore #112), a further wiper portion extending radially outwardly from the base body and narrower in diameter than the further sealing portion (FIG. 2 of Mitchell, second wiper #130), and a further circumferential groove between the further sealing portion and the further wiper portion, wherein the further circumferential groove has a groove base which is circumferentially continuous (FIG. 2 of Mitchell, second circumferential groove #132).
Regarding claim 3, Mitchell discloses that a seat comprising an end face extends radially inwardly from the wiper portion or the further wiper portion for sealing cooperation with the valve seat bore or serves as stop (FIG. 2, [0026] of Mitchell, applicator includes a second seat #134 including an end face extending radially inward from the second wiper portion #130).
Regarding claim 4, Mitchell discloses that a first sealant-receiving cavity extends circumferentially about the circumferential groove and is defined between the sealing portion, the wiping portion, and a wall of the valve seat bore when the applicator tool is positioned within the valve seat bore (FIG. 3, [0030] of Mitchell, first sealant-receiving cavity #146).
Regarding claim 5, Mitchell discloses that a second sealant-receiving cavity extends circumferentially about the further circumferential groove and is defined between the further sealing portion, the further wiping portion, and the wall of the valve seat bore when the applicator tool is positioned within the valve seat bore (FIG. 3, [0031] of Mitchell, second sealant-receiving cavity #148).
Regarding claim 6, Mitchell discloses at least one handle portion extends from the sealing portion to a side facing away from the circumferential groove (FIG. 2, [0022] of Mitchell, handle portion #108).
Regarding claim 7, Mitchell discloses that the applicator tool is rotationally symmetric about a base axis (FIG. 1 of Mitchell).
Regarding claim 8, Mitchell discloses that a guiding opening is provided entering the applicator tool at a seat, along a base axis (FIG. 3 of Mitchell, base portion #106 includes an opening; [0026] of Mitchell, base portion #106 and opening extend from the second seat #134).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of AMFG (“Jigs and Fixtures: 6 Ways to Improve Production Efficiency with 3D Printing”, 13 May 2021).
Regarding claim 9, Mitchell discloses that the applicator tool is formed in one piece ([0022] of Mitchell, applicator is a unitary article) but does not specifically disclose the applicator tool comprising a plastic material. Mitchell, however, discloses that the applicator may be formed by additive manufacturing ([0022] of Mitchell). AMFG discloses 3D printed fixtures and jigs made from plastics (pg. 5, 1st-2nd full ¶¶ of AMFG, plastics such as PEKK and ULTEM). According to AMFG, use of such materials creates strong and lightweight tooling parts with enhanced mechanical properties (pg. 5, 2nd full ¶ of AMFG). AMFG also discloses the use of 3D printed tooling for the automotive sector (pg. 7 of AMFG). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the applicator tool from a plastic material. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a strong and lightweight applicator with enhanced mechanical properties as taught by AMFG (pg. 5, 2nd full ¶ of AMFG).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Media Defense (“Chapter 3, Construction of an Internal Combustion Engine”, June 2014, https://media.defense.gov/2014/Jun/20/2002655896/-1/-1/1/140620-N-ZZ182-6545.pdf ).
Regarding claim 10, Mitchell does not specifically disclose the system comprising the cylinder head having the valve seat bore, a valve seat ring, or a combination thereof. Moreover, Mitchell discloses the system comprising the applicator and a valve seat bore (FIG. 3 of Mitchell, applicator within a valve seat bore) but does not specifically disclose that the valve seat bore is formed in a cylinder head. Media Defense, however, discloses forming the valve seat bores of internal combustion engines in a cylinder head (pp. 3-7 to 3-8 of Media Defense, valve guides machined through cylinder head). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the applicator of Mitchell with valve seat bores formed in cylinder heads since Media Defense establishes that it was known to form the valve seat bores of internal combustion engines in a cylinder head (pp. 3-7 to 3-8 of Media Defense). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Mitchell and Media Defense suggest the system comprising the internal combustion engine having the cylinder head with the valve seat ring sealed in the valve seat bore (pp. 3-7 to 3-8 of Media Defense, valve guides machined through cylinder head of internal combustion engine; FIG. 3 of Mitchell, applicator within a valve seat bore).
Regarding claim 12, Mitchell discloses a method for applying a sealant to the valve seat bore of an internal combustion engine ([0001] of Mitchell, application of sealant to inner surfaces of valve seat bore) using the applicator tool according to claim 1 (see analysis of claim 1 above), comprising: placing, in a first step, a sealant into the circumferential groove and/or into a further circumferential groove of the applicator tool ([0029] of Mitchell, sealant flows into first and second circumferential grooves #118 #132), inserting, in a second step, the applicator tool with the sealant into the valve seat bore of the cylinder head until the sealant cooperates with a wall of the valve seat bore, such that a seat of the applicator tool is contacting a corresponding cross section reduction of the valve seat bore ([0029] of Mitchell, applicator #100 inserted into bore #112; FIG. 3, [0030] of Mitchell, first seat #120 of applicator #100 is in sealing cooperation with first ledge #122 of bore), wherein the sealant is applied to the wall of the valve seat bore ([0029] of Mitchell, further sealant discharged after applicator inserted into bore), and removing, in a third step, the applicator tool from the valve seat bore ([0034] of Mitchell, applicator withdrawn from bore after sealant applied top wall portion), wherein, by the wiper portion and/or a further wiper portion, an unnecessary amount of sealant is removed ([0034] of Mitchell, first and second wiper portions #116 #130 remove excess sealant as applicator is withdrawn from bore).
Mitchell does not specifically disclose that the valve seat bore is the valve seat bore of a cylinder head of the internal combustion engine. Moreover, Mitchell discloses the system comprising the applicator and a valve seat bore (FIG. 3 of Mitchell, applicator within a valve seat bore) but does not specifically disclose that the valve seat bore is formed in a cylinder head. Media Defense, however, discloses forming the valve seat bores of internal combustion engines in a cylinder head (pp. 3-7 to 3-8 of Media Defense, valve guides machined through cylinder head). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the applicator of Mitchell with valve seat bores formed in cylinder heads since Media Defense establishes that it was known to form the valve seat bores of internal combustion engines in a cylinder head (pp. 3-7 to 3-8 of Media Defense). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Baur et al. (German Patent Publication No. DE 10 2014 017 756 A1, machine language translation provided and cited below) and Knowles, II et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0360453 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Mitchell discloses a method for inserting a valve seat ring into the cylinder head of the internal combustion engine ([0006] of Mitchell, valve seat installed in valve seat bore), comprising: applying the sealant to the valve seat bore according to claim 12 (see analysis of claim 12 above), and inserting, in a fourth step, the valve seat ring into the valve seat bore ([0006] oof Mitchell, valve seat installed after sealant applied to bore).
Mitchell does not specifically disclose that a cavity between the valve seat ring and the valve seat bore is sealed by the sealant. Baur, however, discloses a valve seat ring connected to a cylinder head wherein a wall region #32 of the valve seat ring #30 delimits a cooling channel #40 (FIG. 1, [0012] of Baur). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cavity between the valve seat bore and the valve seat ring that is sealed by the sealant. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a cooling channel for the valve seat ring as taught by Baur (FIG. 1 of Baur).
Mitchell also does not specifically disclose connecting the valve seat ring to the cylinder head via the valve seat bore by hardening of the sealant. Knowles, however, discloses an adhesive retaining compound for valve guide inserts which is applied as a liquid and which cures to form a seal between metals ([0052] of Knowles). According to Knowles, the adhesive retaining compound positively locks and seals the interfacing materials together ([0052] of Knowles). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adhesive retaining compound of Knowles as the sealant in the modified method. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to positively lock and seal the valve seat ring to the cylinder head as taught by Knowles ([0052] of Knowles).
Claims 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Baur.
Regarding claim 15, Mitchell discloses a system (FIG. 3 of Mitchell, applicator #100 and valve bore), comprising: a valve seat configured to mount within a valve seat bore in an internal combustion engine ([0002]-[0003] of Mitchell, valve seat positioned within valve bore of internal combustion engine); and an applicator tool configured to apply a sealant on the valve seat bore (FIG. 2 of Mitchell, applicator #100), wherein the applicator tool comprises: a first annular sealing portion (FIG. 2 of Mitchell, sealing portion #110); a first annular wiper portion (FIG. 2 of Mitchell, first wiper portion #116); and a first annular groove axially between the first annular sealing portion and the first annular wiper portion (FIG. 2 of Mitchell, first circumferential groove #118), wherein the first annular groove is configured to hold and apply the sealant on the valve seat bore ([0029] of Mitchell, sealant flows into first circumferential groove #118 and is deposited onto walls of bore adjacent groove #118).
Mitchell does not specifically disclose that the valve seat bore is the valve seat bore of a cylinder head of the internal combustion engine. Moreover, Mitchell discloses the system comprising the applicator and a valve seat bore (FIG. 3 of Mitchell, applicator within a valve seat bore) but does not specifically disclose that the valve seat bore is formed in a cylinder head. Mitchell also does not specifically disclose that the valve seat is a ring. Baur, however, discloses forming the valve seat bores of internal combustion engines in a cylinder head and using valve seats in the form of rings (FIG. 2, [0006] of Baur). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the applicator of Mitchell with valve seat bores formed in cylinder heads and to use valve seats in the form of rings since Baur establishes that it was known to form the valve seat bores of internal combustion engines in a cylinder head and to form the valve seats of internal combustion engines as rings (FIG. 2, [0006] of Baur). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 17, Mitchell discloses that the applicator tool comprises: a second annular sealing portion (FIGS. 2-3, [0025] of Mitchell, reduced diameter end portion #128 seals against second ledge #124 of bore #112); a second annular wiper portion (FIG. 2 of Mitchell, second wiper #130); and a second annular groove axially between the second annular sealing portion and the second annular wiper portion (FIG. 2 of Mitchell, second circumferential groove #13), wherein the second annular groove is configured to hold and apply the sealant on the valve seat bore ([0029] of Mitchell, sealant flows into second circumferential groove and deposited onto walls of bore adjacent groove).
Regarding claim 18, Mitchell discloses the system comprising a plurality of valve seat rings for the cylinder head ([0006] of Mitchell, engine includes multiple valve seats; [0033] of Mitchell, applicator moved between bores), wherein the applicator tool is configured to apply the sealant on each of a plurality of valve seat bores of the cylinder head ([0033] of Mitchell, applicator moved between bores).
Regarding claim 19, Baur suggests the system comprising the cylinder head ([0006] of Baur, valve seat bores formed in cylinder heads).
Regarding claim 20, Mitchell discloses the system comprising the internal combustion engine ([0002] of Mitchell, applicator used to install valve seats in an internal combustion engine).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 10 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/111,766 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons set forth below.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the reference application discloses an applicator comprising a sealing portion extending radially outward from a base body (body portion and sealing portion), a wiper portion and a circumferential groove. The claims of the reference application do not specifically disclose that the circumferential groove has a groove base which is circumferentially continuous. Moreover, while the groove would necessarily have a base, the claims of the reference application do not define the groove base as being continuous or discontinuous and therefore would necessarily encompass either continuous or discontinuous circumferential groove bases. As set forth in the MPEP, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a rationale supporting a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143). Combinations of the applicator and the valve seats and/or engine components recited in the claims of the reference application would be a “system”.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of the reference application recites limitations corresponding to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of the reference application recites limitations corresponding to claim 3. Moreover, claim 1 of the reference application recites that the applicator comprises a seat extending radially inward from the wiper portion for sealing cooperation with a reduced diameter portion of the valve seal bore. Since the seal forms a seal with the bore, the seat necessarily includes an end face.
Regarding claim 4, claim 3 of the reference application recites limitations corresponding to claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, claim 4 of the reference application recites limitations corresponding to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, claim 7 of the reference application recites limitations corresponding to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, since the applicator of the claims of the reference application is positionable withing a valve seat bore (i.e., a rotationally symmetric opening), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the applicator to be rotationally symmetric about a base axis.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, combinations of the applicator and the valve seats and/or engine components recited in the claims of the reference application would be obviou.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/111,766 in view of AMFG.
Regarding claim 9, the claims of the reference application do not specifically disclose that the applicator tool is formed in one piece comprising a plastic material. Claim 17 of the reference application, however, discloses that the applicator is formed by additive manufacturing and AMFG provides motivation to form fixtures and jigs for the automotive industry using 3D printed plastic tooling (pp. 5 and 7 of AMFG; see rejection of claim 9 above).
Claims 15 and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/111,766 in view of Baur.
Regarding claim 15, claim 1 of the reference application recite limitations corresponding to the applicator tool limitations of claim 15. Combinations of the applicator and the valve seat recited in the claims of the reference application would be obvious and would form a “system” as recited in claim 15. While the claims of the reference application do not recite that the valve seat is a ring, use of valve seat rings would be obvious in view of Baur (see rejection of claim 15 above).
Regarding claim 17, claim 2 of the reference application recites limitations corresponding to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Baur discloses the system comprising a plurality of valve seat rings for the cylinder head ([0006] of Baur, engine includes multiple valve seats) and the applicator tool of the claims of the reference application would necessarily be configured to apply the sealant on each of a plurality of valve seat bores of the cylinder head ([0033] of Mitchell, applicator moved between bores).
Regarding claim 19, Baur suggests the system comprising the cylinder head ([0006] of Baur, valve seat bores formed in cylinder heads).
Regarding claim 20, Baur suggests the system comprising the internal combustion engine ([0006] of Baur, valve seats of an internal combustion engine).
The above rejections are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the closest prior art is to Mitchell. Neither Mitchell, however, nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest a method as recited in claim 14 wherein the applicator tool is guided by a guiding opening of the applicator tool and a corresponding guiding pin at least during the first and third step or a system as recited in claim 16 comprising a guide pin configured to couple to the cylinder head, wherein the applicator tool comprises a guide opening configured to couple with the guide pin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights