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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 10-16 are pending in this application. Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 07/16/2026.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification includes terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: "each mesh of each said warp chain being formed as loop having a long leg that wraps under a second from adjacent loop and a short leg that wraps under an adjacent loop in said warp chain" in para. 0022, and "each mesh 5 of each warp chain 3 is formed as loop 6 having a long leg 7 that wraps under a second from adjacent loop and a short leg 8 that wraps under an adjacent loop in said warp chain 3" in para. 0044.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "wherein the tear strength is more than 2850 N". The original disclosure has set forth the tear strength being more than 2850 in a specific embodiment as described in para. 0044. This embodiment includes specific values of other parameters such as number of warp chains, mesh density, thread thickness, etc. The claim does not provide the other conditions, therefore is not in commensurate with the scope of the original disclosure, and constitutes new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "each mesh of each said warp chain being formed as loop having a long leg that wraps under a second from adjacent loop and a short leg that wraps under an adjacent loop in said warp chain", which renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear how a mesh/loop can have a long leg and a short leg. Per the Cambridge Dictionary, the term "loop" is defined as "a circular shape made by something long and narrow in which the two ends cross each other, leaving an open space within". In addition, in a warp chain, a long leg and a short leg do not form a closed circular shape, therefore do not form a loop. Second, it is unclear what is being referred to by "a second from adjacent loop". For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that a "mesh" is a loop defined within individual warp chains.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karatzis (US 2018/0340277 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Karatzis discloses a net (net 200 with greater space u between adjacent warp threads 210, fig. 4; para. 0035; claim 15) for balers (claim 15), comprising:
a plurality of longitudinally extending warp chains (formed by warp threads 210; see annotated fig. 4; para. 0035) formed by warp threads (warp threads 210; fig. 4; para. 0035), the warp chains being spaced apart from one another (by space u; fig. 4; para. 0035);
transverse weft threads (weft threads 220; fig 4; paras. 0034-0035) that interconnect adjacent ones of the warp chains (fig. 4; para. 0035),
wherein weft threads extend between adjacent ones of the warp chains (fig. 4; para. 0035) such that the weft threads alternately engage with the adjacent ones of the warp chains at different longitudinal positions to form a zigzag pattern (fig. 4; paras. 0022, 0035);
wherein a path of the weft thread defines a series of openings (see annotated fig. 4) between adjacent ones of the warp chains (see annotated fig. 4);
wherein the net has a width of 123 cm (para. 0036);
the net comprises fewer than 38 of the warp chains across the width (smaller than 34; paras. 0036, 0040).
PNG
media_image1.png
870
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 from US 2018/0340277 A1
Karatzis does not explicitly disclose wherein the net has a tear strength of more than 2300 N. However, Karatzis does disclose wherein the net is formed by polyolefins including a polyethylene component including, LLPDE, LPDE, and/or HDPE (para. 0019), and threads thicker than usual are used to achieve a lower or the same final weight of the produced net with a reduced number of warp threads as well as reducing a breakage risk (para. 0036). It is noted that Applicant, in the instant application, also uses polyolefins including polyethylene as at least a major component (paras. 0033, 0035). As structure and material determine the function of the net, Karatzis has disclosed the general conditions of the claimed invention. It is also noted that Applicant does not provide the test conditions for the tear strength of the net. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the net as disclosed by Karatzis, by varying the composition, sizes of the polyolefin threads and/or knit density, and/or a suitable thickness of the warp and/or weft threads, to obtain wherein the net has a tear strength of more than 2300 N under suitable test conditions, in order to provide a net with sufficient strength and a reduced number of warp threads (Karatzis; para. 0036), since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Karatzis discloses the net according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the net has less than 33 of the warp chains (smaller than 34 or smaller than 30; fig. 4; paras. 0036, 0040).
Regarding claim 4, Karatzis discloses the net according to claim 1. Karatzis does not explicitly disclose wherein the net has an elongation at break of more than 16% and less than 24%. However, as discussed for claim 1, Karatzis does disclose the general conditions of the claimed invention with respect to structure and material of the net. In addition, Karatzis also discloses that thicker threads than usual may be used in the net which further reduces a breakage risk (paras. 0036). Further, Applicant does not provide the test conditions for the elongation at break of the net. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the net as disclosed by Karatzis, by varying the composition and sizes of the polyolefin threads and/or knit density, to obtain the net with an elongation at break of more than 16% and less than 24% when tested by a suitable method, in order to provide a net with sufficient strength and a reduced number of warp threads (Karatzis; para. 0036), since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Karatzis discloses the net according to claim 1. Karatzis does not explicitly disclose wherein the net has a specific weight of more than 7 grams per running meter and less than 11 grams per running meter. However, as discussed for claim 1, Karatzis does disclose the general conditions of the claimed invention with respect to structure and material of the net. In addition, Karatzis also discloses that the net has a lower or the same final weight as conventional nets (para. 0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the net as disclosed by Karatzis, with wherein wherein the net has a specific weight of more than 7 grams per running meter and less than 11 grams per running meter, in order to provide a net with sufficient strength and a reduced final weight (Karatzis; para. 0036), since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Karatzis discloses the net according to claim 1. Karatzis does not explicitly disclose wherein the net has a tensile strength of more than 40 cN/tex according to DIN EN ISO 527-3. However, as discussed for claim 1, Karatzis does disclose the general conditions of the claimed invention with respect to structure and material of the net, which in combination determine the tensile strength of the net. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the net as disclosed by Karatzis, by the composition and sizes of the polyolefin threads and/or knit density, to obtain the net with a tensile strength of more than 40 cN/tex according to DIN EN ISO 527-3, in order to provide a net with high durability when being used to wrap bales in the fields, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Karatzis discloses the net according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein a thickness of the warp threads is more than 30 µm (the threads may have a thickness greater than 90 μm; para. 0036).
Regarding claim 16, Karatzis discloses the net according to claim 1. Karatzis does not explicitly disclose wherein the tear strength is more than 2850 N. However, as discussed for claim 1, Karatzis does disclose the general conditions of the claimed invention with respect to structure and material of the net. In addition, Karatzis also discloses threads thicker than usual being used in the net which further reduces a breakage risk (paras. 0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the net as disclosed by Karatzis, by varying the composition, sizes of the polyolefin threads and/or knit density, and/or a suitable thickness of the warp and/or weft threads, to obtain wherein the net has a tear strength of more than 2300 N under suitable test conditions, to obtain wherein the net has a tear strength of more than 2850 N, in order to provide a net with sufficient strength and a reduced number of warp threads (Karatzis; para. 0036), since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karatzis (US 2018/0340277 A1) in view of Rodrigues Pereira (US 2017/0283998 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Karatzis discloses the net according to claim 1, and further discloses said warp chains comprise meshes, and each mesh of each said warp chain being formed as loop having a long leg that wraps under a second from adjacent loop and a short leg that wraps under an adjacent loop in said warp chain (see annotated fig. 4).
Karatzis does not explicitly disclose wherein the warp chains each have more than 0.6 meshes/cm and less than 1.0 mesh/cm. However, Karatzis's invention is directed to reducing warp threads by using greater spacing between the warp threads; therefore, warp chain structures may be reasonably the same as those in the prior art. In addition, Rodrigues Pereira, in an analogous art, teaches a net for balers (fig. 1; paras. 0024, 0057) comprising warp chains (warp chains formed by warp threads 2; fig. 1; para. 0024) and transverse weft threads (weft threads 4; fig. 1; para. 0062), wherein the warp chains each have more than 0.6 meshes/cm and less than 1.0 mesh/cm (the number of knitted stitches 3 per cm being between 0.5 and 2.1 stitches per cm, each stitch comprising a mesh opening; fig. 1; paras. 0024, 0037, 0054). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the net as disclosed by Karatzis, with wherein the warp chains each have more than 0.6 meshes/cm and less than 1.0 mesh/cm as taught by Rodrigues Pereira, in order to obtain a net with a commonly-used stitch density of warp chains for balers.
Further, as discussed for claim 1, Karatzis does disclose the general conditions of the claimed invention with respect to structure and material of the net. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the net as disclosed by Karatzis, by varying the stitch density of the warp chains to obtain the net with the warp chains each having more than 0.6 meshes/cm and less than 1.0 mesh/cm, in order to provide a net with high durability with reduced materials as well as a commonly-used stitch density of warp chains, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, Karatzis discloses the net according to claim 7, and further discloses wherein adjacent ones of the warp chains are connected by the weft threads which extend in the zigzag pattern (fig. 4; paras. 0022, 0035).
Karatzis does not explicitly disclose wherein more than every 3rd one of the meshes and less than every 7th one of the meshes of each of said warp chains connected with the at least one weft thread. However, Fig. 4 of Karatzis shows every 3rd one of the meshes of each of said warp chains being connected with the at least one weft thread. In addition, Rodrigues Pereira teaches more than every 3rd one of the meshes and less than every 7th one of the meshes of each of said warp chains connected with the at least one weft thread (the weft thread 3 crosses the warp threads 2 every 4 or 6 knitted stitches of the warp threads 2; fig. 1; paras. 0051-0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the net as disclosed by Karatzis, with wherein more than every 3rd one of the meshes and less than every 7th one of the meshes of each of said warp chains connected with the at least one weft thread as taught by Rodrigues Pereira, in order to obtain a net with a commonly-used stitch density of warp chains for balers.
Further, as discussed for claim 1, Karatzis does disclose the general conditions of the claimed invention with respect to structure and material of the net. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the net as disclosed by Karatzis, by varying the stitch density of the warp chains, and obtaining the net with wherein more than every 3rd one of the meshes and less than every 7th one of the meshes of each of said warp chains connected with the at least one weft thread, in order to provide a net with high durability with reduced materials as well as a commonly-used stitch density of warp chains, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karatzis (US 2018/0340277 A1) in view of Freye (US 4,569,439 A).
Regarding claim 12, Karatzis discloses the net according to claim 1, except for wherein a thickness of the transverse weft threads is more than 5 µm and less than 50 µm. However, Freye, in an analogous art, teaches a net for balers (a raschel web net 1; fig. 3; col. 2, ll. 29-40) comprising warp threads (formed on a Raschel loom; col. 2, ll. 29-40), wherein a thickness of the threads is more than 5 µm and less than 50 µm (25 µm; col. 2, ll. 29-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the size of the transverse weft threads as disclosed by Karatzis, with wherein a thickness of the transverse weft threads is more than 5 µm and less than 50 µm as taught by Freye, in order to use transverse weft yarns with a suitable thickness for reducing weight of the final net product while maintaining sufficient durability.
In addition, as discussed for claim 1, Karatzis does disclose the general conditions of the claimed invention with respect to structure and material of the net. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable thickness of the transverse weft threads as claimed, in order to provide a net with high durability when reducing materials, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karatzis (US 2018/0340277 A1) in view of Kim (KR 101084750 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Karatzis discloses the net according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the warp threads comprise a polyethylene component (LLPDE, LPDE, and/or HDPE; para. 0019).
Karatzis does not explicitly disclose a proportion of the polyethylene component being more than 50% by weight and less than 85% by weight. However, Applicant does not set forth a criticality for the above range (a proportion of the polyethylene can be more than 50% or less than 85%; para. 0033). Further, Kim, in an analogous art, teaches a net for balers (see English translation; figs. 3a-b; pp. 8-9) comprising warp threads (pp. 8-9), the warp threads comprising comprise a polyethylene component, a proportion of the polyethylene component being more than 50% by weight and less than 85% by weight (HDPE 80±10 wt% and LLDPE 5±3 wt%; p. 13, para. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the polyolefin material, with wherein the warp threads comprise a polyethylene component, a proportion of the polyethylene component being more than 50% by weight and less than 85% by weight as taught by Kim, in order to use a suitable polyolefin material for the threads to provide a baling net with high strength while also being flexible enough for a worker to work easily as well as being capable of inducing generation of static electricity when cutting the binding net to facilitate subsequent processing (Kim; p. 13, para. 2).
Further, as discussed for claim 1, Karatzis does disclose the general conditions of the claimed invention with respect to structure and material of the net. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable range for the proportion of the polyethylene component in the warp threads as claimed, in order to provide a net with high durability with reduced materials, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Karatzis discloses the net according to claim 1, except for wherein the warp threads comprise a polypropylene component, a proportion of the polypropylene component being more than 10% by weight and less than 40% by weight. However, Karatzis does discloses wherein the warp threads comprise polyolefins (para. 0019). Further, Kim teaches wherein the warp threads comprise a polypropylene component, a proportion of the polypropylene component being more than 10% by weight and less than 40% by weight (polypropylene at 15±7 wt%; p. 13, para. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the polyolefin material, with wherein the threads comprises 10-40 wt% polypropylene as taught by Kim, in order to use a suitable polyolefin material for the threads to provide a baling net with high strength while also being flexible enough for a worker to work easily as well as being capable of inducing generation of static electricity when cutting the binding net to facilitate subsequent processing (Kim; p. 13, para. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Karatzis discloses the net according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the weft threads comprise a polyethylene component (LLPDE, LPDE, and/or HDPE; para. 0019).
Karatzis does not explicitly disclose a proportion of the polyethylene component being more than 80% by weight. However, Applicant does not set forth a criticality for the above range (a proportion of the polyethylene can be more than 50% or less than 85%; para. 0033). Further, Kim teaches wherein the weft threads comprise a polyethylene component, a proportion of the polyethylene component being more than 80% by weight (HDPE 80±10 wt% and LLDPE 5±3 wt%; p. 13, para. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the polyolefin material as disclosed by Karatzis, with wherein the proportion of the polyethylene component being more than 80% by weight as taught by Kim, in order to use a suitable polyolefin material for the threads to provide a baling net with high strength while also being flexible enough for a worker to work easily as well as being capable of inducing generation of static electricity when cutting the binding net to facilitate subsequent processing (Karatzis; p. 13, para. 2).
Further, as discussed for claim 1, Karatzis does disclose the general conditions of the claimed invention with respect to structure and material of the net. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable range for the proportion of the polyethylene component in the weft threads as claimed, in order to provide a net with high durability with reduced materials, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 07/16/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims based upon Rodrigues Pereira (US 2017/0283998 A1) as set forth in the last Office Action mailed 03/20/2026 because of the reasons listed below.
1) The declaration is drawn to an opinion with respect to the new amendment filed 07/16/2026 and the cited prior art reference Rodrigues Pereira in previous Office action dated 03/20/2026. The declaration does not to provide any factual evidence to support the opinion on what Rodrigues Pereira discloses; therefore, the declaration amounts to an opinion without support by actual proof. In addition, as Rodrigues Pereira is not used as the base reference for the new amendment filed 07/16/2026, most of the arguments in the declaration are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
2) The declaration also states that the subject matter of claims 1, 3 and 11 includes unexpected results to one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the declaration fails to show a nexus between the invention as claimed and the secondary considerations. The "nexus" designates a legally and factually sufficient connection between the claimed invention and the objective evidence of nonobviousness such the evidence should be considered in the determination of nonobviousness. See Demaco Corp. v. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir.), cert. Densied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988). Specifically, to show Unexpected Results, Applicant must provide a comparison of the claimed invention to the closest subject matter that exists in the prior art. See MPEP 716.02(e). The showing of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the invention as claimed. See MPEP 716.02(d). The results must be due to the claimed features, and not to unclaimed features. The unexpected property or result must actually be unexpected and of statistic and practical significance. The declaration fails to provide a comparison of the claimed invention to the closet subject matter that exists in the prior art as required by MPEP 716.02. Because Applicant simply listed various objective assertions without providing any supporting evidence (note: in the present instance, the declaration merely argues that cited prior art does not possess the claimed characteristics; the arguments, however, do not take the place of solid evidence) said objective assertions do not negate evidence of prior art and ordinary skill in that art. See MPEP § 716.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (571)272-4888. 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.
/AIYING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights