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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 09, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 – 3, and 8 – 9 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “sintering the pressed body to form a high density, closed-porosity ceramic body” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high density” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation is subjective to what the Applicant envisions as a high density for the formed ceramic body making the scope of protection unclear.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 8 – 9, 39 – 40, 42, 45, and 49 – 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuno et al. (US 2023/0302427 A1), in view of Appleby et al. (US 2011/0189440 A1) and Kollenberg (DE 102008028742 B4).
Regarding claim 1, Cuno et al. teaches method of forming a ceramic fluidic module for a flow reactor [0036], [0042], comprising:
surrounding a positive passage mold (130) with first ceramic particles (“binder-coated ceramic powder” 120) [0043], the positive passage mold (130) defining a passage having a tortuous shape (see FIG. 4, and [0036], [0040]),
positioning the first ceramic particles and the positive passage mold between second ceramic particles (e.g., see [0043] “the passage mold 130 is placed on/in the ceramic powder 120 (e.g., FIG. 4 B1) and an additional amount of powder is put on top of the mold 130, such that the powder 120 surrounds the mold 130 (e.g., FIG. 4 C1, step 30 of FIG. 4).”),
pressing the first ceramic particles, the second ceramic particles, and the positive passage mold to form a pressed body (150) (see FIG. 4 D and E, and [0043]);
heating the pressed body (150) to remove the positive passage mold [0045]; and
sintering the pressed body (150) to form a high density, closed-porosity ceramic body (“monolithic closed-porosity body” 200, [0036]) having a tortuous fluid passage extending therethrough (see FIG. 4 G, FIG. 5 [0018], and [0046]).
Cuno et al. does not explicitly disclose 1. the first ceramic particles having first particle sizes defined by a first particle size distribution (PSD) with a first mean, a first median, and a first mode; and
2. the second ceramic particles having second particle sizes defined by a second PSD with a second mean, a second median, and a second mode, wherein at least one of (i) the first mean is less than the second mean, (ii) the first median is less than the second median, and (iii) the first mode is less than the second mode.
Cuno et al., however, discloses that “to achieve the smooth internal passage walls, ceramic powder with generally smaller particle sizes is preferred, as are passage mold materials having generally higher hardness.” (Cuno et al. [0048]).
Kollenberg teaches a method for producing a ceramic shaped body wherein at least two different ceramic powders are used for a first layer, either for the same layer or for successive layers (lines 90 – 101). Kollenberg discloses that by using at least two different ceramic powders, the layer alone can be configured by the ceramic powder such that the resulting shaped body or green body has, for example, properties of different ceramic materials, wherein the various ceramic powders can be applied alternately in layers, and/or the ceramic powders do not alternate after each layer, but several layers, and/or it might be also possible to apply the various ceramic materials on the same layer at different locations, e.g., one half of the layer may be formed of one particular ceramic powder and the other half formed of a different ceramic powder (lines 107 – 115),
the ceramic powders may differ from each other in their composition comprising a proportion of 10 to 40 wt. % of a porosity agent and/or another ceramic material, and/or in that it has a different form of grains, grain size or grain size distribution – additionally producing a gradation in terms of, for example, the density and porosity or the chemical/mineralogical composition. (lines 116 – 123),
Kollenberg discloses that particle size distribution of the particles of the ceramic powders used is, for example, bimodal, wherein in particular one of the particle fractions has an average grain diameter (median) in a range from 0.2 to 50 μm and a further particle fraction has a mean grain diameter (median) in a range from 80 to 150 microns (lines 124 – 127) [analogous to the claimed “a first particle size distribution (PSD) with a first mean, a first median, and a first mode and the second ceramic particles having second particle sizes defined by a second PSD with a second mean, a second median, and a second mode”].
Appleby et al., in the same field of endeavor of methods of forming ceramic articles made up of layers comprising metallic, polymeric and/or ceramic material [0126], such as fluidic modules (see [0125]-[0128], [0128] discloses, “Some exemplary embodiments can further include positioning an insert into the cavity prior to filling the mold with the first cast material [e.g., analogous to first ceramic particles], wherein the insert occupies only a portion of the space defined by the cavity.”, see also [0830], [0855], [1165]), teaches a method for manufacturing a ceramic fluidic module potentially having high resolution and/or aspect ratios (e.g., fluidic and/or microfluidics devices [0855], flow reactors e.g., surface reactors [0836], fuel cells [0837], “Membranes having capillary-type pores are called screen membranes, and those having so-called tortuous-type pores are called depth membranes.” [0830]).
[1213] discloses that the molding composition can utilize e.g., ceramic materials, such as silica, alumina, and/or zircon, etc., and that “The bulk density, apparent density, apparent porosity, and/or other properties of the baked or fired part can be controlled by varying the relative proportions of the filler and/or siloxane resin, by varying the size distribution of the ceramic particles employed in the molding composition”.
[1219] discloses that “The distribution of the particles of the powder comprised by the molding composition can be controlled over the entire cast part and/or any portion thereof, such as, in the case of a core, the core body, trailing edge of the core, and/or leading edge of the core, etc.”
[1232] discloses that “During and/or after filling of the mold with the molding composition, its particles can be compacted, densified, and/or packed in a maximum density configuration to substantially eliminate gaps between ceramic particles, thereby helping the particles to sinter to each other during ceramic firing That is, the location, size distribution, count, and/or packing density of the particles can be adjusted (such as per the particle sizes described in the Minco silica product literature) and/or controlled via applying energy, such as vibrational energy, to the mold during and/or after filling.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the ceramic composition in the method of forming a ceramic fluidic module for a flow reactor of Cuno et al. with a first ceramic particles having first particle sizes defined by a first particle size distribution (PSD) with a first mean, a first median, and a first mode, and the second ceramic particles having second particle sizes defined by a second PSD with a second mean, a second median, and a second mode, as suggested by the prior art of Kollenberg (e.g., bimodal, lines 124 – 127), for the purpose of controlling as desired the bulk density, and/or apparent density, and/or apparent porosity properties of the formed ceramic body, since Appleby et al. at [1213] teaches that “The bulk density, apparent density, apparent porosity, and/or other properties of the baked or fired part can be controlled by varying the relative proportions of the filler and/or siloxane resin, by varying the size distribution of the ceramic particles employed in the molding composition”. See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ceramic composition in the method of forming a ceramic fluidic module for a flow reactor of Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby, wherein at least (i) the first mean is less than the second mean, as suggested by the prior art of Kollenberg (lines 124 – 127), e.g., the first ceramic particles size being smaller than the second ceramic particles size, for the purpose of, as suggested by the prior art of Cuno et al., achieving a smooth internal passage wall, since Cuno et al. teaches that “to achieve the smooth internal passage walls, ceramic powder with generally smaller particle sizes is preferred, as are passage mold materials having generally higher hardness.” (Cuno et al. [0048]). MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 2, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the method of claim 1, wherein surrounding the positive passage mold (Cuno et al. 130) with the first ceramic particles comprises: forming a first layer with a first portion of the first ceramic particles, positioning the positive passage mold on the first layer, and forming a second layer on the first layer by covering the first portion of the first ceramic particles and the positive passage mold with a second portion of the first ceramic particles. (see Cuno et al. [0042], FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the method of claim 2, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein positioning the first ceramic particles and the positive passage mold (e.g., Cuno et al. 130) between the second ceramic particles comprises: forming a base layer with a first portion of the second ceramic particles, the first layer of the first ceramic particles formed on the base layer, and forming a cover layer on the second layer by covering the first ceramic particles and the positive passage mold surrounded therein with a second portion of the second ceramic particles.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positioning of the layers of first and second ceramic particles as claimed in method of Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby, since Kollenberg teaches a method for producing a ceramic shaped body wherein at least two different ceramic powders are used for a first layer, either for the same layer or for successive layers (lines 90 – 101), and Appleby [1219] teaches that “The distribution of the particles of the powder comprised by the molding composition can be controlled over the entire cast part and/or any portion thereof, such as, in the case of a core, the core body, trailing edge of the core, and/or leading edge of the core, etc.”, since “In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes.” (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding claim 9, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches method of claim 8, wherein applying the first ceramic particles to the surface of the positive passage mold comprises one or more of wash coating, spraying, and flocking to form the surface coating (e.g., Appleby et al. teaches [01234] “A surface of an insert [analogous to the claimed positive passage mold”] can be treated via any known technique, such as via dipping, coating, brushing, spraying, plating, vapor deposition, abrading, blasting, etching, cavitating, and/or chemical reaction, etc. The surface treatment can be compatible with the material of the insert, the molding composition, the cast part, and/or the investment casting material.”).
Regarding claim 39, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches a fluidic module (Cuno et al. [0053]), comprising: a monolithic closed-porosity ceramic body (e.g., see Cuno et al. [0036] “module 300 comprises a monolithic closed-porosity body 200 and a tortuous fluid passage P extending through the body 200”) having a first region (e.g., modified Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby comprising a first region of first ceramic particles surrounding mold 130) and a second region with the first region disposed between the second region (e.g., modified Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby comprising a second region comprised of second ceramic particles), the first and second regions differing with respect to a common attribute of a ceramic material of the ceramic body (e.g., being bimodal, having differing particles size, as taught by Kollenberg lines 124 – 127); and a tortuous fluid passage extending through the ceramic body and surrounded by the first region such that the tortuous fluid passage is separated entirely from the second region (see Cuno et al. [0036]), the tortuous fluid passage having an interior surface with a surface roughness of less than or equal to 5 µm Ra (see Cuno et al. [0036] “0.1 to 5, or even 0.1 to 1 μm Ra”).
Regarding claim 40, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the fluidic module of claim 39, wherein the surface roughness is in a range of from 0.1 to 5 μm Ra (see Cuno et al. [0036] “0.1 to 5, or even 0.1 to 1 μm Ra”).
Regarding claim 42, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the fluidic module of claim 39, wherein the ceramic material of the ceramic body has a density of at least 97% of a theoretical maximum density of ceramic material (see Cuno et al. [0037] “the body 200 of the fluidic module 300 has a density of at least 95% of a theoretical maximum density of silicon carbide, or even of at least 96, 97, 98, or 99% of theoretical maximum density.”).
Regarding claim 45, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the fluidic module of claim 39, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the common attribute is density, the first region having a first density that is greater than a second density of the second region.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluidic module of Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby so that the common attribute is density, the first region having a first density that is greater than a second density of the second region (e.g., the ceramic particles of the first region comprising smaller particles than those of the second region for the purpose of obtaining a smooth internal passage walls, as suggested by Cuno et al. [0048]), since Kollenberg teaches at lines 120-123, that “the other ceramic powders different from the first ceramic powder may preferably differ from the first ceramic powder in that it has a different form of grains, grain size or grain size distribution. This can additionally produce a gradation in terms of, for example, the density and porosity or the chemical/mineralogical composition.”, and Appleby at [1213] teaches that the molding composition can utilize e.g., ceramic materials, such as silica, alumina, and/or zircon, etc., and that “The bulk density, apparent density, apparent porosity, and/or other properties of the baked or fired part can be controlled by varying the relative proportions of the filler and/or siloxane resin, by varying the size distribution of the ceramic particles employed in the molding composition”. See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 49, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the fluidic module of claim 39, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the common attribute is closed porosity, the first region having a first closed porosity that is less than a second closed porosity of the second region.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluidic module of Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby so that the common attribute is closed porosity, the first region having a first closed porosity that is less (e.g., to obtain a smoother inner surface of the passage) than a second closed porosity of the second region (e.g., the ceramic material of the first region comprising lower closed porosity than those of the second region for the purpose of produce a gradation in terms of porosity, as suggested by Kollenberg lines 120 – 123), since Kollenberg teaches at lines 120-123, that “the other ceramic powders different from the first ceramic powder may preferably differ from the first ceramic powder in that it has a different form of grains, grain size or grain size distribution. This can additionally produce a gradation in terms of, for example, the density and porosity or the chemical/mineralogical composition”, and Appleby at [1213] teaches that the molding composition can utilize e.g., ceramic materials, such as silica, alumina, and/or zircon, etc., and that “The bulk density, apparent density, apparent porosity, and/or other properties of the baked or fired part can be controlled by varying the relative proportions of the filler and/or siloxane resin, by varying the size distribution of the ceramic particles employed in the molding composition”. See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 50, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the fluidic module of claim 39, wherein the common material attribute is average grain size, the first region having a first average grain size that is less than a second average grain size of the second region (see Cuno et al. [0048], Kollenberg teaches at lines 120-123, that “the other ceramic powders different from the first ceramic powder may preferably differ from the first ceramic powder in that it has a different form of grains, grain size or grain size distribution. This can additionally produce a gradation in terms of, for example, the density and porosity or the chemical/mineralogical composition.”, and the discussion of claims 45 and 49 above. See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 51, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the fluidic module of claim 39, wherein the second region comprises at least two outer layers and the first region comprises an inner layer disposed between the at least two outer layers (e.g., see Kollenberg lines 107 – 112, Appleby [0136], [0197], [0202], [0222]).
Regarding claim 52, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the fluidic module of claim 39, wherein the at least two outer layers and the inner layer are planar layers arranged between major surfaces of the fluidic module (e.g., see Kollenberg lines 107 – 112, see Appleby FIG. 15 and [0136], [0197], [0202], [0222]).
Regarding claim 53, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the fluidic module of claim 39, wherein the first region has a substantially uniform thickness extending substantially perpendicularly from the interior surface of the tortuous fluid passage (e.g., see Appleby FIG. 15 and [0136], [0197], [0202], [0222]).
Regarding claim 54, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the fluidic module of claim 53, wherein the thickness of the first region is in a range of from about 50 µm to about 500 µm (see Kollenberg lines 169 – 174).
Regarding claim 55, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the fluidic module of claim 39, wherein at least one interface between the first region and the second region comprises the ceramic material, and wherein the value of the common attribute of the at least one interface is between the value of the common attribute of the first region and the value of the common attribute of the second region (e.g., Kollenberg teaches at lines 120-123, that “the other ceramic powders different from the first ceramic powder may preferably differ from the first ceramic powder in that it has a different form of grains, grain size or grain size distribution. This can additionally produce a gradation in terms of, for example, the density and porosity or the chemical/mineralogical composition.” – hence, the value of a common attribute such as e.g., density and/or porosity at the interface would be between (e.g., in a gradient) the values for the common attribute of each region).
Regarding claim 56, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the fluidic module of claim 55, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the at least one interface includes a plurality of interfaces and the value of the common attribute of each interface is between the value of the common attribute of the first region and the value of the common attribute of the second region. However, Kollenberg lines 107 – 115 teaches that various ceramic powders can preferably be applied alternately in layers, and that by using at least two different ceramic powders, the layer alone or several layers, can be configured by the ceramic powder such that the resulting shaped body or green body has, for example, properties of different ceramic materials.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the interfaces as the number of layers/regions is increased, for the purpose of, as suggested by the prior art, the layers can be configured by the ceramic powder such that the resulting shaped body or green body has, for example, properties of different ceramic materials, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (B):
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 57, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the fluidic module of claim 55, wherein the common attribute of the at least one interface and/or all the interfaces transitions gradually between the common attribute of the first region and the common attribute of the second region (see Kollenberg lines 120-123).
Regarding claim 58, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the fluidic module of claim 55, wherein the interior surface of tortuous fluid passage comprises a floor (Cuno et al. 212) and a ceiling (Cuno et al. 214) separated by a height h and two opposing sidewalls (216) joining the floor and the ceiling, the sidewalls separated by a width W measured perpendicular to the height h and at a position corresponding to one-half of the height h wherein the height h of the tortuous fluid passage is in the range of from 0.1 to 20 mm (see Cuno et al. [0040]).
Claim(s) 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuno et al. (US 2023/0302427 A1), in view of Appleby et al. (US 2011/0189440 A1) and Kollenberg (DE 102008028742 B4), as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Ohya et al. (US Pat. No. 5,686,172).
Regarding claim 46, Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby teaches the fluidic module of claim 39, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the ceramic material of the ceramic body has a closed porosity of less than 3%.
Nonetheless, Cuno et al. discloses that the fluidic module is “a monolithic closed-porosity body” [0036], and that “the fluidic module 300 has an open porosity of less than 1%, or even of less than 0.5%, 0.4%, 0.2% or 0.1%” [0038].
Ohya et al. teaches a process for the production of a continuous porous ceramic sintered body impregnated with a thermosetting resin [analogous to Cuno’s “binder-coated ceramic powder”] and used in a metal-foil-clad ceramic board (Col. 1, lines 5 – 11). Ohya et al. discloses that the closed porosity is e.g., preferably 5% or less, more preferably 2% or less, and explains that when a large amount of closed pores are present or closed pores are unevenly distributed, or when a large sintered portion of ceramic as a raw material is locally present, closed pores which are not impregnated with a resin may open, or a large area of the ceramic may be exposed when the resin-impregnated sintered body (substrate) is machined, resulting in a fragile resin-impregnated sintered body having portions not improved in chemical resistance, and could result in a sintered body having nonuniform residual stress distribution so that it may undergo cracking. (Col. 10, lines 30 – 45).
As the residual stress of the ceramic sintered body is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the percentage and distribution of said closed porosity, with said residual stress decreasing as the percentage of the closed porosity is decreased, the precise closed porosity would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed closed porosity cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the percentage of the closed porosity in the fluidic module of Cuno/Kollenberg/Appleby to obtain the desired balance between the closed porosity percentage and distribution that result in minimal nonuniform residual stress distribution so that cracking of the ceramic body may be avoided, as suggested by Ohya et al. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Devoe et al. (US 20150249256 A1): [0046] FIG. 9 shows how the paste materials can transition from one layer to the next to give a grading in the thickness direction (z direction), for example, a graded porosity with layer 24a being highly porous, layer 24b having medium porosity, and layer 24c have low porosity, for example in a direction away from the electrolyte.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742