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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the the outer heating layer is electrically connected to the inner heating layer and wherein the inner conductive layer, the inner resistive layer, the inner insulating layer, the outer resistive layer, the outer conductive layer and the outer insulating layer are sequentially arranged from inside to outside, and the whole heating element is a concentric spiral structure must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a side electrode connecting part as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 7, 8, and 9 of prior U.S. Patent No. US 12604370 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
US 12604370 B2
Instant Application
7. The high-voltage ceramic electric heating element according to claim 1,
wherein the ceramic electric heating element has four layers,
which include, from an inside to an outside of the body,
an inner insulation enhancement layer,
an inner insulating layer,
an outer resistance layer,
and an electrically conductive layer,
wherein the inner insulation enhancement layer,
the inner insulating layer,
and the outer resistance layer cover an entirety of the body,
the electrically conductive layer covers a trailing portion of the outer resistance layer,
and a trailing end of the electrically conductive layer includes positive and negative electrode positions.
1. (Currently Amended) An all-ceramic heating element, characterized by:
comprising:
an outer heating layer,
an inner insulating layer,
and an inner heating layer,
wherein the inner heating layer,
the inner insulating layer and the outer heating layer are sequentially arranged from inside to outside,
the outer heating layer is electrically connected to the inner heating layer,
and the outer heating layer and the inner heating layer are made of ceramic materials with different material weight ratios.
9. (Previously Presented) The high-voltage ceramic electric heating element according to claim 7, wherein the outer electrically conductive layer comprises a ceramic material prepared with the following materials in parts by weight: silicon nitride : aluminum oxide : yttrium oxide lanthanum oxide : molybdenum disilicide = (200 to 800) : (20 to 90) : (20 to 90) : (10 to 80) (700 to 3000).
4. (Currently Amended) The all-ceramic heating element according to claim 3, characterized in that: wherein the weight ratio of ceramic materials of the outer conductive layer is: silicon nitride : aluminium oxide : yttrium oxide : molybdenum disilicide = (500-700) : (40-80) : (50- 3 /6 90) : (700-3000).
8. (Previously Presented) The high-voltage ceramic electric heating element according to claim 7, wherein each of the inner insulating layer and the inner insulation enhancement layer comprises a ceramic material prepared with the following materials in parts by weight: silicon nitride : aluminum oxide : yttrium oxide : lanthanum oxide : molybdenum disilicide = (200 to 800) : (20 to 90) : (20 to 90) : (10 to 80) : (10 to 800).
6. (Currently Amended) The all-ceramic heating element according to claim 5, characterized in that:wherein the weight ratio of ceramic materials of the inner insulating layer is: silicon nitride : aluminium oxide : yttrium oxide : lanthanum oxide : molybdenum disilicide = (500- 700) : (40-80) : (50-90) : (0-30) : (10-800)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-12 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2 the recitation of “and the ratios thereof for the outer resistive layer and the inner resistive layer are different” lacks written description as Applicant has not provided a description in the original disclosure which particularly points out any specific species examples of the ratios being different and rather discloses broad ranges and said they were different which was not given criticality.
because the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of having different material ratios for the outer and inner resistive layers and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find evidence applicant had possession of the invention.
Claims 3-12 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN2393295Y Lei in view of CN 200941685 Y hereinafter “Lei ‘685”.
Regarding claim 1,
Lei teaches, except where struck through,
An all-ceramic heating element (full ceramic electrothermal body, page 1 par. 5), characterized by:
comprising:
an outer heating layer (outer resistance layer 1),
an inner insulating layer (insulating barrier 2),
and an inner heating layer (inner sandwich layer 4),
wherein the inner heating layer,
the inner insulating layer and the outer heating layer are sequentially arranged from inside to outside (see fig. 1),
the outer heating layer is electrically connected to the inner heating layer (connected via through hole 6 and conductive layer 3 page 2 par. 6),
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lei does not teach: the outer heating layer and the inner heating layer are made of ceramic materials with different material weight ratios.
Lei ‘685 discloses a “ceramic electric heating body” (page 2 par. 3) with an outer heating layer (agency resistance layer 9), an inner insulating layer (insulating layer 10), and an inner heating layer (conductive layer 11),
and further teaches the outer heating layer and the inner heating layer are made of ceramic materials with different material weight ratios (page 2 par. 5 teaches materials of different weight ratios).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the full ceramic electrothermal body of Lei with the weight ratios of Lei ‘685 for the purpose of creating a ceramic heater for a motor (Lei ‘685 page 2 par. 7).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN2393295Y Lei in view of CN 200941685 Y hereinafter “Lei ‘685” in view of KR 20180096414.
Regarding claim 2,
Lei as modified teaches, The all-ceramic heating element according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
Lei further teaches
characterized in that:
wherein the outer heating layer comprises an outer resistive layer (as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1),
and the inner heating layer comprises an inner resistive layer (as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, further, page 2 par. 3 teaches inner conductive layer being a resistance layer);
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lei does not teach:
the weight ratio of ceramic materials of the outer resistive layer and the inner resistive layer is:
silicon nitride : silicon carbide : aluminum oxide : yttrium oxide : lanthanum oxide : molybdenum disilicide = (500-700) : (100-300) : (40-80) : (50-90) : (0-30) : (500-800),
and the ratios thereof for the outer resistive layer and the inner resistive layer are different.
Lei ‘685 teaches, except where struck through,
the weight ratio of ceramic materials of the outer resistive layer and the inner resistive layer is:
silicon nitride : silicon carbide : aluminum oxide : yttrium oxide : (page 2 par. 5),
Lei ‘685 discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose expressly the and the ratios thereof for the outer resistive layer and the inner resistive layer are different. Lei ‘685 page 2 par. 5 teaches material ranges for the outer resistance layer, inner conductive layer, outer resistance layer, insulating layer, and conductive layer. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Lei ‘685 with the material ratios of the outer and inner resistive layers being different, because Applicant has not disclosed that the material ratios of the inner and outer restive layers being different provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with ratios as taught by Lei ‘685, because it provides for the outer resistance layer, inner conductive layer, outer resistance layer, insulating layer, and conductive layers to be of different ratios and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Lei in view of Lei ‘685.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Lei in view of Lei ‘685 to obtain the invention as specified in the claim(s)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the full ceramic electrothermal body of Lei with the weight ratios of Lei ‘685 for the purpose of creating a ceramic heater for a motor (Lei ‘685 page 2 par. 7).
Lei ‘685 does not expressly disclose the use of lanthanum oxide nor in the weight ratio of (0-30).
Jeong is directed to a heater [Title] and teaches the use of lanthanum oxide (page 5 par. 4 to 10 and page 6 par. 1 to par. 6) in the weight ratio of (0-30) (page 6 par. 6 teaches a range of 30-60% weight of Lanthanum oxide which is within the range disclosed in the instant application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the of lanthanum oxide in the weight ratio of (0-30) of Jeong full ceramic electrothermal body of Lei as modified for the purpose of that use of lanthanum oxide can “prevent[] the peeling phenomenon” [page 5].
Regarding claim 3,
Lei as modified teaches, The all-ceramic heating element according to claim 2 (as discussed above).
Lei further teaches,
wherein the outer heating layer further comprises an outer conductive layer (outer resistance layer 1 per fig. 1 has outer conductive layer 5 page 2 par. 6),
and the inner heating layer further comprises an inner conductive layer (fig. 1 inner conductive layer 3).
Regarding claim 4,
Lei as modified teaches, The all-ceramic heating element according to claim 3 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lei does not teach: wherein the weight ratio of ceramic materials of the outer conductive layer is: silicon nitride : aluminum oxide : yttrium oxide : molybdenum disilicide = (500-700) : (40-80) : (50-90) : (700-3000).
Lei ‘685 teaches wherein the weight ratio of ceramic materials of the outer conductive layer is: silicon nitride : aluminium oxide : yttrium oxide : molybdenum disilicide = (500-700) : (40-80) : (50-90) : (700-3000) (page 2 par. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the full ceramic electrothermal body of Lei with the weight ratios of Lei ‘685 for the purpose of creating a ceramic heater for a motor (Lei ‘685 page 2 par. 7).
Regarding claim 5,
Lei as modified teaches, The all-ceramic heating element according to claim 4 (as discussed above),
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lei does not teach: wherein the weight ratio of ceramic materials of the outer conductive layer is: silicon nitride : aluminium oxide : yttrium oxide : lanthanum oxide: molybdenum disilicide = (500-700) : (40-80) : (50-90) : (0-30): (700-3000).
Lei ‘685 teaches, except where struck through, wherein the weight ratio of ceramic materials of the outer conductive layer is: silicon nitride : aluminium oxide : yttrium oxide : (page 2 par. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the full ceramic electrothermal body of Lei with the weight ratios of Lei ‘685 for the purpose of creating a ceramic heater for a motor (Lei ‘685 page 2 par. 7).
Lei ‘685 does not expressly disclose the use of lanthanum oxide nor in the weight ratio of (0-30).
Jeong is directed to a heater [Title] and teaches the use of lanthanum oxide (page 5 par. 4 to 10 and page 6 par. 1 to par. 6) in the weight ratio of (0-30) (page 6 par. 6 teaches a range of 30-60% weight of Lanthanum oxide which is within the range disclosed in the instant application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the of lanthanum oxide in the weight ratio of (0-30) of Jeong full ceramic electrothermal body of Lei as modified for the purpose of that use of lanthanum oxide can “prevent[] the peeling phenomenon” [page 5].
Regarding claim 6,
Lei as modified teaches, The all-ceramic heating element according to claim 5 ( as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lei does not teach:
wherein the weight ratio of ceramic materials of the inner insulating layer is:
silicon nitride : aluminium oxide : yttrium oxide : lanthanum oxide : molybdenum disilicide = (500- 700) : (40-80) : (50-90) : (0-30) : (10-800).
Lei ‘685 teaches, except where struck through,
wherein the weight ratio of ceramic materials of the inner insulating layer is:
silicon nitride : aluminium oxide : yttrium oxide : (page 2 par. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the full ceramic electrothermal body of Lei with the weight ratios of Lei ‘685 for the purpose of creating a ceramic heater for a motor (Lei ‘685 page 2 par. 7).
Lei ‘685 does not expressly disclose the use of lanthanum oxide nor in the weight ratio of (0-30).
Jeong is directed to a heater [Title] and teaches the use of lanthanum oxide (page 5 par. 4 to 10 and page 6 par. 1 to par. 6) in the weight ratio of (0-30) (page 6 par. 6 teaches a range of 30-60% weight of Lanthanum oxide which is within the range disclosed in the instant application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the of lanthanum oxide in the weight ratio of (0-30) of Jeong full ceramic electrothermal body of Lei as modified for the purpose of that use of lanthanum oxide can “prevent[] the peeling phenomenon” [page 5].
Regarding claim 7,
Lei as modified teaches, The all-ceramic heating element according to claim 6 (as discussed above).
Lei teaches, wherein the inner conductive layer is provided with a central electrode welding part (electrode jack 7 page 2 par. 6),
and the outer conductive layer is provided with a side electrode connecting part (see annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
220
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8,
Lei as modified teaches, The all-ceramic heating element according to claim 7 (as discussed above).
Lei as modified does not expressly disclose further comprising an outer insulating layer,
wherein the outer insulating layer is wrapped on the outer conductive layer.
However, the claimed outer insulating layer is merely a duplication of the inner insulating layer. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an outer insulating layer, and wherein the outer insulating layer, since “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that an additional insulation layer would provide additional insulation. Accordingly, the inclusion of an inner insulation enhancement layer would not produce a new or unexpected result.
Regarding claim 9,
Lei as modified teaches, The all-ceramic heating element according to claim 8 (as discussed above) and further teaches wherein the inner conductive layer, the inner resistive layer, the inner insulating layer, the outer resistive layer, the outer conductive layer and the outer insulating layer are sequentially arranged from inside to outside.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lei as modified does not teach: characterized in that, and the whole heating element is a concentric spiral structure.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the whole heating element is a concentric spiral structure. The shape of the heating element in Lei ‘295 may well be in a concentric spiral shape, but this is not expressly disclosed. However, this is a known shape, applied to a known device, to achieve predictable results. Additionally, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B.
Regarding claim 10,
Lei as modified teaches, The all-ceramic heating element according to claim 8 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lei does not teach: wherein the weight ratio of ceramic materials…is: silicon nitride : aluminium oxide : yttrium oxide : molybdenum disilicide = (500-700) : (40- 80) : (50-90) : (10-800).
Lei ‘685 teaches an all-ceramic heating element (as discussed above) with material composition comprising silicon nitride : aluminium oxide : yttrium oxide: molybdenum disilicide = (500- 700) : (40-80) : (50-90) : (10-800) (page 2 par. 5).
It would have been a prima fascia case of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the material composition disclosed by Lei ‘685 of an insulation layer comprising a ceramic material prepared with the following materials in parts by weight: silicon nitride : aluminum oxide : yttrium oxide : molybdenum disilicide for an outer insulating layer. The use of silicon nitride, aluminum oxide, yttrium oxide, and molybdenum disilicide in a ceramic heating element is the use of known materials, applied to a known ceramic heating element, to achieve predictable results of creating a heating element capable of withstanding and generating a high temperature.
Regarding claim 11,
Lei as modified teaches, The all-ceramic heating element according to claim 3 (as discussed above),
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lei does not teach: wherein the weight ratio of ceramic materials of the inner conductive layer is: silicon nitride : aluminium oxide : yttrium oxide : lanthanum oxide : molybdenum disilicide = (500-700) : (40-80) : (50-90) : (0-30): (700- 3000).
Lei ‘685 teaches, except where struck through, wherein the weight ratio of ceramic materials of the inner conductive layer is: silicon nitride : aluminium oxide : yttrium oxide : (page 2 par. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the full ceramic electrothermal body of Lei with the weight ratios of Lei ‘685 for the purpose of creating a ceramic heater for a motor (Lei ‘685 page 2 par. 7).
Lei ‘685 does not expressly disclose the use of lanthanum oxide nor in the weight ratio of (0-30).
Jeong is directed to a heater [Title] and teaches the use of lanthanum oxide (page 5 par. 4 to 10 and page 6 par. 1 to par. 6) in the weight ratio of (0-30) (page 6 par. 6 teaches a range of 30-60% weight of Lanthanum oxide which is within the range disclosed in the instant application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the of lanthanum oxide in the weight ratio of (0-30) of Jeong full ceramic electrothermal body of Lei as modified for the purpose of that use of lanthanum oxide can “prevent[] the peeling phenomenon” [page 5].
Regarding claim 12,
Lei as modified teaches, The all-ceramic heating element according to claim 8 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lei does not teach: wherein the weight ratio of ceramic materials of the outer insulating layer is: silicon nitride: aluminium oxide : yttrium oxide : molybdenum disilicide = (500-700) : (40-80) : (50-90) : (10-800).
Lei ‘685 teaches an all-ceramic heating element (as discussed above) with material composition comprising silicon nitride : aluminium oxide : yttrium oxide: molybdenum disilicide = (500- 700) : (40-80) : (50-90) : (10-800) (page 2 par. 5).
It would have been a prima fascia case of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the material composition disclosed by Lei ‘685 of an insulation layer comprising a ceramic material prepared with the following materials in parts by weight: silicon nitride : aluminum oxide : yttrium oxide : molybdenum disilicide for an outer insulating layer. The use of silicon nitride, aluminum oxide, yttrium oxide, and molybdenum disilicide in a ceramic heating element is the use of known materials, applied to a known ceramic heating element, to achieve predictable results of creating a heating element capable of withstanding and generating a high temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights