DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 15 – 26 & 31) in the reply filed on March 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 – 14 & 27 – 30 are withdrawn from consideration.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 – 16, 18 – 19, 21, 26, & 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Landis et al. (US 2021/0237373 A1).
With regard to claim 15, Landis et al. teach a composite panel (i.e., “beam”) comprising first and second skins (110, 112, 410, 412, 810, 812) formed from fiber-reinforced plastic (i.e., “thermoformed member comprising a fiber material and a first thermoplastic material”) and an overmolded articles, such as stiffener structures (114, 416), raised pads (116), sidewalls (131, 132, 133, 833), and/or hinge members (170, 172) comprising fiber-reinforced thermoplastic features formed thereon (i.e., “an overmolded member comprising a second thermoplastic material”) (abstract, paragraphs [0059], [0065], Fig. 2C & Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
410
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s specification does not limit the definition of the term “beam.” Furthermore, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the term “beam” to be “1a: a long piece of heavy often squared timber suitable for use in construction” or “1e: one of the principal horizontal supporting members (as a of a building or ship).” Considering these definitions do not limit the dimensions of the term “beam,” one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the panel taught by Landis et al. to meet Applicant’s claim limitation of “a beam.”
With regard to claim 16, Landis et al. teach the skin members are composed of fibers. Those fibers may be composed of metallic fibers (paragraph [0037]). However, the use of metallic fibers is optional. There is no other teaching of metallic materials in the composite taught by Landis et al. Therefore, the thermoformed member is devoid of steel, aluminum, or a metallic material.
With regard to claim 18, as shown in Fig. 4 above, the stiffener (i.e., “overmolded member”) comprises a plurality of ribs (i.e., “one or more overmolding straps”) (416) to at least partially wrap the thermoformed member (410/412).
With regard to claim 19, Landis et al. teach the fiber material includes the fiber material includes a carbon, aramid, or lignin-based carbon fibers (i.e., “natural fiber”) (paragraph [0037]), wherein the thermoplastic material of the skins and the thermoplastic material of the overmolded article may be composed of a thermoplastic material, such as polyamide (i.e., nylon), other thermoplastic resins, and copolymers and modified resins thereof (i.e., “blend thereof”) (paragraphs [0039] – [0040]).
With regard to claim 21, Landis et al. teach a composite panel (i.e., “beam”) comprising first and second skins (110, 112, 410, 412, 810, 812) (“a formed member”) comprising a blank-shape (Fig. 8A) of fiber-reinforced plastic (i.e., “a fiber material infused with a thermoplastic that is formed into a first shape”) formed into a first shape (Fig. 8E) and an overmolded articles, such as stiffener structures (114, 416), raised pads (116), sidewalls (131, 132, 133, 833), and/or hinge members (170, 172) comprising injection molded fiber-reinforced thermoplastic features formed thereon (i.e., “bonded to the formed member”) (abstract, paragraphs [0044], [0059], [0065], Fig. 2C & Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
410
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s specification does not limit the definition of the term “beam.” Furthermore, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the term “beam” to be “1a: a long piece of heavy often squared timber suitable for use in construction” or “1e: one of the principal horizontal supporting members (as a of a building or ship).” Considering these definitions do not limit the dimensions of the term “beam,” one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the panel taught by Landis et al. to meet Applicant’s claim limitation of “a beam.”
With regard to claim 26, Landis et al. teach the injected molded material of the overmolded (injection molded) article is of a same material as the thermoplastic of the first skin or second skin (i.e., “formed member”) (paragraphs [0039] – [0040]), and wherein the injected molded material is directly bonded to the thermoplastic during an injection molding process (Figs. 5 & 7).
With regard to claim 31, Landis et al. teach a composite panel (i.e., “structural beam”) comprising first and second skins (110, 112, 410, 412, 810, 812) (“a thermoformed member”) comprising a fiber-reinforced plastic (i.e., “a fiber material infused with a thermoplastic that is formed into a first shape”) formed into a first shape (Fig. 8E) and an overmolded articles, such as stiffener structures (114, 416), raised pads (116), sidewalls (131, 132, 133, 833), and/or hinge members (170, 172) comprising injection molded fiber-reinforced thermoplastic features formed thereon (i.e., “bonded to the thermoformed member”) (abstract, paragraphs [0044], [0059], [0065], Fig. 2C & Fig. 4 below). The thermoplastic material of the skins and the thermoplastic material of the overmolded (injection molded) article may be composed of a thermoplastic material, such as polyamide (paragraphs [0039] – [0040]) (i.e., “the thermoplastic”).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
410
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s specification does not limit the definition of the term “beam.” Furthermore, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the term “beam” to be “1a: a long piece of heavy often squared timber suitable for use in construction” or “1e: one of the principal horizontal supporting members (as a of a building or ship).” Considering these definitions do not limit the dimensions of the term “beam,” one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the panel taught by Landis et al. to meet Applicant’s claim limitation of “a beam.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 20 & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis et al., as applied to claims 15 & 21 above.
With regard to claim 20, Landis et al. do not explicitly teach the skins (i.e., “thermoformed member”) has a U, C, or I cross sectional shape.
However, Landis et al. teach compressing (forming) first and second skins (i.e., “thermoformed member”) to a desired geometry (paragraph [0081]), such as at least one end of at least one skin has a curvature (Figs. 8A – 8E).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Landis et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form at least one skin (thermoformed member) to a desired shape, such as a panel comprising curves in the form of a C or U cross-sectional shape.
With regard to claim 23, Landis et al. do not explicitly teach the skins (i.e., “thermoformed member”) are formed into a U-shaped beam.
However, Landis et al. teach compressing (forming) first and second skins (i.e., “thermoformed member”) to a desired geometry (paragraph [0081]), such as at least one end of at least one skin has a curvature (Figs. 8A – 8E).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Landis et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form at least one skin (thermoformed member) to a desired shape, such as a panel comprising curves in the form of a U-shaped cross-sectional shape.
Claim(s) 15 – 18, 20 – 23, 25 – 26, & 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akira (JP 2005-225393 A).
With regard to claim 15, Akira teaches a cross car beam comprising a synthetic resin frame/skeletal/bone member 28 that is formed (i.e., “thermoformed member”) (paragraph [0026]) composed of nylon (i.e., “first thermoplastic”) and FRP (“fiber reinforced plastic”) (Fig. 4 & paragraph [0021]) and formed by injection-molding. Furthermore, the beam comprises a fibrous member 29/50 (“over molded member”) made of a carbon fiber in a net shape and a molten synthetic resin, such as nylon (i.e. “second thermoplastic”), wherein the fibrous member is molded around (i.e., “over molded”) the frame/bone member such that the fibrous member covers the outer periphery of the bone member in a mold. The synthetic resin member (“second thermoplastic”) of the fibrous member (“overmolded member”) is melted into the molten resin (“first thermoplastic”) of the frame member (“formed member”) for increasing the adhesive strength between the frame member and the fibrous member (paragraph [0015]).
PNG
media_image3.png
450
644
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
376
580
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Akira does not teach thermal energy involved in forming the frame/skeletal/bone member (i.e., “thermoformed”).
However, However, claim 31 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 21 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a beam cured (formed) member of similar composition. The reference suggests such a product.
Examiner refers applicant to MPEP § 2113 [R - 1] regarding product-by-process claims. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method or production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product or 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) (citation omitted)
Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218, USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
With regard to claim 16, Akira does not teach the presence of steel, aluminum or any metallic material in the frame/skeletal/bone member (i.e., “thermoformed member”).
With regard to claim 17, Akira et al. teach the fibrous member (i.e., “overmolded member”) is a knitting comprising a plurality of gaps (37) (“mounting holes/slots”) into which the protrusions of the frame member (28) can enter at the time of molding (paragraph [0023] & Figs. 4 – 5)
With regard to claim 18, Akira et al. teach the fibrous member (i.e., “overmolded member”) is cut to an appropriate size (i.e., “the overmolded member comprises one strap”) and bonded to the outer peripheral surface of the frame member 29 (“at least partially wrap the thermoformed member”) (paragraph [0035]).
With regard to claim 20, Akira teaches the skeletal member includes a halved member 31 having a substantially inverted U-shaped cross section and a halved member 32 having a substantially U-shaped cross section (paragraph [0022] & Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image5.png
422
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 21, Akira teaches a cross car beam comprising a synthetic resin frame/skeletal/bone member 28 comprising a synthetic resin of nylon and FRP (fiber reinforced plastic) (“fiber material infused with plastic”) (paragraph [0021]) that is formed (i.e., “formed member”) into upper and lower halved members each having a U-shape (i.e., “first shape”) (paragraph [0021] – [0022]).
Akira does not teach the formed member has a blank shape before it is formed into a first shape.
However, claim 21 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 21 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a beam structure having a first shape. The reference suggests such a product.
Furthermore, the beam comprises a fibrous member 29/50 (i.e., “over molded member”) comprising a carbon fiber in a net shape and synthetic resin injected into a mold (i.e. “injected molded material”) (Fig. 5), such that the fibrous member is bonded to the outer peripheral surface of the frame member 29 (“at least partially wrap the thermoformed member”) (paragraphs [0029] & [0035]).
PNG
media_image4.png
376
580
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 22, as discussed above for claim 21, Akira teaches the beam is a cross car (vehicle) beam.
With regard to claim 23, Akira teaches the skeletal member includes a halved member 31 having a substantially inverted U-shaped cross section and a halved member 32 having a substantially U-shaped cross section (paragraph [0022] & Fig. 8).
With regard to claim 25, Akira teaches an example of injected molded synthetic material (52) of the fibrous member (“over molded member”) is nylon (paragraph [0034]).
With regard to claim 26, as discussed above for claim 25, Akira teaches the injected molded material is nylon (paragraph [0034]). Akira teaches the resin of the frame/bone/skeletal structure is nylon (paragraph [0021]). Therefore, Akira suggests the same material as the thermoplastic of the frame/skeletal/fibrous member. The synthetic resin member (“injection molded material”) of the fibrous member (“overmolded member”) is melted into the molten resin (“thermoplastic”) of the frame member (“formed member”) for increasing the adhesive strength between the frame member and the fibrous member (paragraph [0015]).
With regard to claim 31, Akira teaches a cross car beam (i.e., “structural beam”) comprising a synthetic resin frame/skeletal/bone member 28 (i.e., “thermoformed member”) composed of nylon (i.e., “a thermoplastic material”) and FRP (“fiber reinforced plastic”) (i.e., “fiber material and a thermoplastic material”) (paragraph [0021] & Fig. 4). Furthermore, the beam comprises a fibrous member 29/50 (i.e., “an over molded member”) formed by injection molding and comprising a synthetic resin, such as nylon (i.e. “the thermoplastic”), wherein the fibrous member is molded around (i.e., “over molded”) the frame/bone member such that the fibrous member covers the outer periphery of the bone member in a mold. The fibrous member 29 is integrated with the frame member 28 (paragraph [0029]).
Akira does not teach thermal energy involved in forming the frame/skeletal/bone member (i.e., “thermoformed”).
However, However, claim 31 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 21 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a beam cured (formed) member of similar composition. The reference suggests such a product.
Claim(s) 19 & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira, as applied to claims 15 & 21 above, and further in view of Kropla (DE 10 2010 026 659 A1).
With regard to claims 19 & 24, Akira does not teach the type of fiber in the FRP of the frame/bone (“thermoformed”) member.
Kropla teaches a crossbeam (10) for a car, wherein a plastic component of the crossbeam is reinforced with fibers, such as carbon fibers, for providing the beam with high rigidity and strength, which benefits the entire rigidity of the motor vehicle (paragraph [0017]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kropla, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use carbon fibers as reinforcing fibers of choice of a fiber reinforced plastic (FRP), such as the FRP taught by Akira, for providing a plastic part of a cross beam with high rigidity and strength.
Claim(s) 15 – 16, 19, 21 – 22, & 24 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakeman et al. (US 2016/0090689 A1).
*Basilius, “A Complete Guide to Overmolding”
With regard to claim 15, Wakeman et al. teach a cross car beam (paragraph [0075]) comprising a composite structure formed by pre-heating above the melt temperature of a resin therein and forming into the shape of a final desired geometry (i.e., “thermoformed member”) (paragraph [0073]), wherein the composite structure comprises a fiber material and a polyamide (PA6, PA66) material (“a first thermoplastic material”) (paragraphs [0011] & [0018]). The composite structure is suited to be over-moulded with an over-moulding resin composition selected from polyamide compositions (“a second thermoplastic material”) (paragraphs [0008], [0029], & [0074]). Good adhesion between the composite structure and the over-molding resin (i.e., bonded to each other”) leads to structures exhibiting good resistance to deterioration and delamination (paragraphs [0008] & [0029]).
With regard to claim 16, Wakeman et al. do not teach the presence of steel, aluminum, or metallic material in said composite (i.e., “thermoformed member”).
With regard to claim 19, as discussed above for claim 15, Wakeman et al. teach the fiber material comprises carbon fibers and the thermoplastic material includes PA6/PA66 (nylon).
With regard to claim 21, Wakeman et al. teach a cross car beam (paragraph [0075]) comprising a composite structure (i.e., “formed member”) is thermopressed under step (i) (i.e., “blank shape”) with resin to form an impregnated with polyamide (thermoplastic) resin (paragraphs [0066] – [0072]) and formed into the shape of a final desired geometry (i.e. “first shape”) under step (ii) (paragraph [0073]), wherein the composite structure comprises a fiber material and a polyamide (PA6, PA66) material (“a first thermoplastic material”) (paragraphs [0011] & [0018]). The composite structure is suited to be over-moulded with an over-moulding resin composition selected from polyamide compositions (“injected molded material”) (paragraphs [0008], [0029], & [0074]). Good adhesion between the composite structure (i.e., “formed member”) and the over-molding resin (member) (i.e., bonded to each other”) leads to structures exhibiting good resistance to deterioration and delamination (paragraphs [0008] & [0029]).
As evidenced by *Basilius, over-moulding is an injection molding method. Therefore, the over-moulding resin taught by Wakeman et al. is inherently an “injected molded material.”
With regard to claim 22, as discussed above for claim 21, Wakeman et al. teach the beam is a cross car beam.
With regard to claims 24 – 25, as discussed above for claim 21, the fiber material includes carbon fiber and the thermoplastic material is polyamide, preferably PA6/PA66 (nylon).
Claim(s) 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakeman et al., as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kropla (DE 10 2010 026 659 A1).
With regard to claim 17, Wakeman et al. fail to teach the overmoulded member comprises one or more mounting holes, or one or more mounting slots.
Kropla teaches a crossbeam (10) for a car, wherein the crossbeam comprises a hybrid component with a metal basic component (12) and a plastic component (14) which encapsulates via overmoulding a metal part (12) wherein this encapsulation is carried out, for example, by an injection molding process. The plastic component (14) of the crossbeam (10) serves to stiffen the same as well as to the formation of functional parts in the form of holding (i.e. “mounting”) means, such as through holes (i.e., “mounting holes/slots”) (Fig. 1 & paragraph [0047]). For example, a screw may be screwed into the plastic over-molded part, if necessary, for attaching the cross beam (10) to another component (paragraph [0055]).
PNG
media_image6.png
282
478
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kropla, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form mounting through-holes into a plastic over-moulded component of a cross beam for an automobile for attaching the cross beam to another component within the vehicle.
With regard to claim 18, Wakeman et al. fail to teach the overmolded member comprises one or more overmolding straps to at least partially wrap the thermoformed member.
Kropla teaches a crossbeam (10) for a car, wherein the crossbeam comprises a hybrid component with a metal basic component (12) and a plastic component (14) which encapsulates via overmoulding a metal part (12) wherein this encapsulation is carried out, for example, by an injection molding process. The plastic component (14) of the crossbeam (10) serves to stiffen the crossbeam and comprises a plurality of straps, as shown in Fig. 1 below (paragraph [0047]).
PNG
media_image6.png
282
478
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kropla, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to stiffen the cross car beam taught by Wakeman et al. by forming the over-moulding resin member comprising a plurality of straps which encapsulate (wrap) around the thermoformed member.
Claim(s) 20 & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakeman et al., as applied to claims 15 & 21 above, and further in view of Ballesteros (US 2011/0025098 A1).
With regard to claims 20 & 23, Wakeman et al. teach the composite structure may be molded to form a desired shape. However, Wakeman et al. do not explicitly teach the desired shaped is a C, U, or I cross sectional shape.
Ballesteros teaches a cross member, preferably formed as a beam for a motor vehicle (paragraph [0027]), formed with an open section member, e.g., a C- or U-shaped channel section or an L-shaped angle section (paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Ballesteros et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the composite structure taught by Wakeman et al. comprising a C- or U-shaped channel according to an intended use as a cross member of a motor vehicle.
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakeman et al., as applied to claim 21 above.
With regard to claim 26, as discussed above for claim 21, Wakeman et al. teach overmolded resin (i.e., “the injected molded material”) is directly bonded to the composite structure comprising a semiaromatic polyamide (“the thermoplastic”) during the overmoulding (i.e., injection molding”) process.
Wakeman et al. teach the overmoulding (injected molded) resin material is composed of a polyamide composition (paragraph [0074]), but do not explicitly teach the overmoulding resin is the same semi-aromatic polyamide (thermoplastic) material as used in the composite structure (“formed member”).
However, Wakeman et al. teach the over-molding resin is preferably a composition, such as semi-aromatic polyamide, that is compatible with the surface resin of the composite structure for suppressing acoustic emission and micro-cracking (paragraph [0008]).
Therefore, based on the teaching of Wakeman et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use the same semi-aromatic polyamide material for the overmoulding resin as the matrix resin of the composite structure because the same polyamide material would be known to be compatible with itself, and thus suppress acoustic emission and micro-cracking.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakeman et al.
*Basilius, “A Complete Guide to Overmolding”
With regard to claim 31, Wakeman et al. teach a cross car beam (paragraph [0075]) comprising a composite structure (i.e., “thermoformed member”) is thermopressed and formed into the shape of a final desired geometry (i.e. “first shape”) under step (ii) (paragraphs [0066] - [0073]), wherein the composite structure comprises a fiber material and a polyamide (PA6, PA66) material (“a thermoplastic material”) (paragraphs [0011] & [0018]). The composite structure is suited to be over-moulded with an over-moulding resin composition (i.e., “over-moulding member”) selected from polyamide compositions (i.e., “injected molded material”) (paragraphs [0008], [0029], & [0074]).
As evidenced by Basilius, over-moulding is an injection molding method. Therefore, the over-moulding resin taught by Wakeman et al. is inherently an “injected molded material.”
Wakeman et al. teach the overmolded resin (i.e., “the injected molded material”) is directly bonded to the composite structure comprising a semi-aromatic polyamide (“the thermoplastic”) during the overmoulding (i.e., injection molding”) process (paragraphs [0008] & [0029]).
Wakeman et al. teach the overmoulding (injected molded) resin material is composed of a polyamide composition (paragraph [0074]), but do not explicitly teach the overmoulding resin is “the” same semi-aromatic polyamide (thermoplastic) material as used in the composite structure (“formed member”).
However, Wakeman et al. teach the over-molding resin is preferably a composition, such as semi-aromatic polyamide, that is compatible with the surface resin of the composite structure for suppressing acoustic emission and micro-cracking (paragraph [0008]).
Therefore, based on the teaching of Wakeman et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use the same semi-aromatic polyamide material for the overmoulding resin as the matrix resin of the composite structure because the same polyamide material would be known to be compatible with itself, and thus suppress acoustic emission and micro-cracking.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights