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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 6/17/24, 6/28/24, 5/28/25, and 11/6/25 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 8-13 in the reply filed on 8/27/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/27/26.
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 8 recites the limitation "wherein a maximum emission intensity ratio [I(Ti)/I(Mg)] of the metal oxide layer is 0.05 or more". The instant specification states that “the maximum emission intensity may be measured from a max intensity of Ti and Mg components through elemental analysis of the metal oxide layer in a thickness direction using a glow discharge surface analysis method” (paragraph [0109], as published). It is unclear how this ratio is measured. Glow Discharge Spectroscopy results in graphs which give varying elemental composition depending on sample depth and measurement criteria, including the type of plasma used, such as argon. See FIG. 1 of Shingaki et al. (US 20170121785 A1). It is unclear if the ratio is measured at the upper surface or at a fixed depth. It is unclear where on the sheet the measurement is taken, i.e., close to the edge, or towards the middle, or in multiple places. It is unclear if the ratio is of I(Ti) to I(Mg), both at a given depth, or if the highest of all values of I(Ti) is divided by the lowest of all values of I(Mg). Because the details of the surface analysis method are unclear, the meets and bounds of protection sought are unclear. One of ordinary skill in the art might find a sample which has a maximum emission intensity ratio [I(Ti)/I(Mg)] of the metal oxide layer of 0.05 or more using one surface analysis method, yet less than 0.05 using another. Claims 9-13 depend from claim 8 and do not resolve the issue, thus they are also rejected. See Ohashi, Modified Glow Discharge Spectroscopy for Surface Analysis of Steels, Surface and Interface Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1979, pp. 53-57. See also, Horbia, Glow Discharge Optical Emission Spectroscopy, https://www.horiba.com/usa/scientific/technologies/glow-discharge-optical-emission-spectroscopy/glow-discharge-optical-emission-spectroscopy/, last accessed 9/10/26, for discussions of the methods of surface analysis using glow discharge.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 depends from claim 8. While claim 8 begins with the open ended “comprising,” the claim concludes the recitation of the elemental composition with “a balance of Fe and inevitable impurities” which closes the claimed composition. Claim 9 attempts to then add in additional elements, which fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (KR 20200035752 A), as translated by its US equivalent, US 20220042123 A1, previously cited.
Regarding claim 8, Ko teaches that “an exemplary embodiment of the present invention relates to a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet” (which reads on “a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet comprising”; paragraph [0001]). Ko teaches “Si: 2.5 to 4.0 wt %” (which reads on “a base material containing, by wt%, 2.5 to 4.0% of Si”; paragraph [0054]). Ko teaches that “a part of C is removed during the decarburization annealing process, and that the content of C in a finally manufactured grain-oriented electrical steel sheet may be 0.005 wt % or less” (which reads on “0.005% or less (excluding 0%) of C”; paragraph [0058]). Ko teaches “Al: 0.015 to 0.04 wt %” (which reads on “0.015 to 0.040% of Al”; paragraph [0059]). Ko teaches “Mn: 0.04 to 0.15 wt %” (which reads on “0.04 to 0.15% of Mn”; paragraph [0061]). Ko teaches that “S: 0.01 wt % or less” (which reads on “0.01% or less (excluding 0%) of S”; paragraph [0067]). Ko teaches “N: 0.001 to 0.006 wt %” (which reads on “0.005% or less (excluding 0%) of N”; paragraph [0064]). Ko teaches that “Sn and Sb may be included in an amount of 0.02 to 0.08 wt % and 0.01 to 0.08 wt %, respectively” (which reads on “0.01 to 0.05% of Sb, 0.03 to 0.1% of Sn”; paragraph [0050]). Ko teaches “Cr: 0.03 to 0.15 wt %” (which reads on “0.05 to 0.2% of Cr”; paragraph [0044]). Ko teaches that “the balance Fe and other impurities that are inevitably mixed” (which reads on “and a balance of Fe and inevitable impurities”; paragraph [0016]). Ko teaches that “the purpose of the secondary recrystallization annealing is, broadly speaking, to form a {110}<001> texture by the secondary recrystallization, impart insulation properties due to the formation of a vitreous film by a reaction between an oxide layer formed during decarburization and MgO, and remove impurities that impair the magnetic characteristics” (which reads upon “a metal oxide layer located on the base material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0095]).
Ko is silent regarding the maximum emission intensity ratio [I(Ti)/I(Mg)] of the metal oxide layer of claim 8. Applicant teaches that the secondary recrystallization annealing process leads to the claimed maximum emission intensity ratio [I(Ti)/I(Mg)] of the metal oxide layer.
The instant specification states that “the content of nitrogen is controlled to be sufficiently high compared to the exposure time to the nitriding gas atmosphere, such that localized nitriding concentration in the oxide layer and a lower part of the oxide layer may be suppressed, sufficient nitride precipitates may be formed in the depth direction, and the metal oxide layer formed during the secondary recrystallization annealing is formed densely and uniformly, thereby increasing the maximum emission intensity ratio” (paragraph [0109], as published). The instant specification states that “a high maximum emission intensity ratio is advantageous for forming a firm metal oxide layer and thus providing uniform tension, and suppresses nitrogen loss before the secondary recrystallized grain formation, which ultimately leads to improved magnetism” (paragraph [0109], as published). The instant specification states that “the secondary recrystallization annealing was performed in a mixed atmosphere of 25 v % nitrogen and 75 v % hydrogen up to 1,200° C., and after reaching 1,200° C., the steel sheet was maintained in a 100% hydrogen atmosphere for 10 hours or longer and then subjected to furnace cooling” (paragraph [0118], as published).
Ko teaches the same secondary recrystallization annealing process. Ko teaches that “the final annealing was performed in a mixed atmosphere of 25 v % nitrogen and 75 v % hydrogen until 1200° C., and when the temperature reached 1200° C., the steel sheet was maintained in a 100 v % hydrogen atmosphere for 10 hours or more, and then furnace-cooled” (paragraph [0111]). Accordingly, it would be reasonable to expect that the same secondary recrystallization annealing process would lead to the sheet of Ko having the claimed maximum emission intensity ratio [I(Ti)/I(Mg)] of the metal oxide layer.
Regarding the maximum emission intensity ratio [I(Ti)/I(Mg)] of the metal oxide layer of claim 8, Ko teaches overlapping compositions and processing steps, as described above.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (both are grain-oriented electrical steel sheets, as described above), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see processing analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference sheet, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference sheet does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Since Ko has overlapping composition, structure, and processing with the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the steel of Ko to have the claimed maximum emission intensity ratio [I(Ti)/I(Mg)] of the metal oxide layer.
Ko therefore reads on the limitation wherein a maximum emission intensity ratio [I(Ti)/I(Mg)] of the metal oxide layer is 0.05 or more of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Ko teaches the sheet of claim 8 as stated above. Ko teaches that “in addition to the above elements, impurities that are inevitably incorporated, such as Zr and V may be included” (paragraph [0070]). Ko teaches that “since Zr, V, and the like are strong carbonitride forming-elements, it is preferred that these elements are not added as much as possible, and each needs to be contained in an amount of 0.01 wt % or less” (paragraph [0070]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of 0.002 to 0.01 wt% V lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art of 0.01 wt % or less. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Ko teaches the sheet of claim 8 as stated above. Ko teaches that “Sn and Sb may be included in an amount of 0.02 to 0.08 wt % and 0.01 to 0.08 wt %, respectively” (paragraph [0050]). Ko teaches that “a slab may include 0.03 to 0.15 wt % of Cr” (paragraph [0043]). While Ko is silent regarding the Expression, we can perform the calculation. Taking the highest values for each, [Sb] < [Cr] < [Sb] + 2 x [Sn]; (0.08) < (0.15) < (0.08) + (0.16) = 0.24. At the highest values, Expression 2 is satisfied. Taking the lowest values for each, [Sb] < [Cr] < [Sb] + 2 x [Sn]; (0.01) < (0.03) < (0.01) + (0.04) = 0.05. At the lowest values, Expression 2 is also satisfied.
Regarding claim 11, Ko teaches the sheet of claim 8 as stated above. Ko is silent regarding wherein the whiteness of the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet is 43 to 51 of claim 11. Applicant teaches that the whiteness of the metal oxide layer is measured. Applicant teaches that the secondary recrystallization annealing process leads to the metal oxide layer.
The instant specification states that “the whiteness may be measured when the insulating coating layer is absent or removed and only the metal oxide layer is present” (paragraph [0111], as published). The instant specification states that “the content of nitrogen is controlled to be sufficiently high compared to the exposure time to the nitriding gas atmosphere, such that localized nitriding concentration in the oxide layer and a lower part of the oxide layer may be suppressed, sufficient nitride precipitates may be formed in the depth direction, and the metal oxide layer formed during the secondary recrystallization annealing is formed densely and uniformly” (paragraph [0109], as published). The instant specification states that “a high maximum emission intensity ratio is advantageous for forming a firm metal oxide layer and thus providing uniform tension, and suppresses nitrogen loss before the secondary recrystallized grain formation, which ultimately leads to improved magnetism” (paragraph [0109], as published). The instant specification states that “the secondary recrystallization annealing was performed in a mixed atmosphere of 25 v % nitrogen and 75 v % hydrogen up to 1,200° C., and after reaching 1,200° C., the steel sheet was maintained in a 100% hydrogen atmosphere for 10 hours or longer and then subjected to furnace cooling” (paragraph [0118], as published).
Ko teaches the same secondary recrystallization annealing process. Ko teaches that “the final annealing was performed in a mixed atmosphere of 25 v % nitrogen and 75 v % hydrogen until 1200° C., and when the temperature reached 1200° C., the steel sheet was maintained in a 100 v % hydrogen atmosphere for 10 hours or more, and then furnace-cooled” (paragraph [0111]). Accordingly, it would be reasonable to expect that the same secondary recrystallization annealing process would lead to the same dense and uniform metal oxide layer, which in turn would result in the same whiteness measurement.
Regarding the whiteness of the metal oxide layer of claim 11, Ko teaches overlapping compositions and processing steps, as described above.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (both are grain-oriented electrical steel sheets, as described above), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see processing analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference sheet, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference sheet does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Since Ko has overlapping composition, structure, and processing with the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the steel of Ko to have the claimed whiteness.
Ko therefore reads on the limitation wherein whiteness of the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet is 43 to 51 of claim 11.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (KR 20200035752 A), as translated by its US equivalent, US 20220042123 A1, previously cited, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Shingaki et al. (US 20170121785 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ko teaches the sheet of claim 8 as stated above. Ko teaches that the “steel sheet was finally annealed in a coil shape by applying an annealing separator MgO to the steel sheet, and that the final annealing was performed in a mixed atmosphere of 25 v % nitrogen and 75 v % hydrogen until 1200° C., and when the temperature reached 1200° C., the steel sheet was maintained in a 100 v % hydrogen atmosphere for 10 hours or more, and then furnace-cooled” (paragraph [0111]).
Ko is silent regarding wherein the metal oxide layer contains 0.003 wt% or more of Ti.
Shingaki is similarly concerned with a primary recrystallization annealed sheet for grain-oriented electrical steel sheet production that is suitable for production of a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet and to a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet production method through which grain-oriented electrical steel sheets having excellent magnetic properties can be cheaply obtained (paragraph [0001]). Shingaki teaches that “Conventionally, such grain-oriented electrical steel sheets are produced by … applying an annealing separator mainly composed of magnesia (MgO) thereon and performing final annealing at 1200° C. for around 5 hours for secondary recrystallization and purification of inhibitor components (for example, U.S. Pat. No. 1,965,559 A, JP S40-15644 B, and JP S51-13469 B)” (paragraph [0003]). Shingaki teaches that “although numerous production methods have been proposed with the objective of achieving uniform precipitation of nitrides in steel when producing a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet through a method in which nitriding is adopted, it has still been difficult to simply form a uniform precipitation state in the sheet thickness direction of a steel sheet using any of these methods” (paragraph [0011]; using traditional methods, including an MgO annealing separator, it is difficult to simply form a uniform precipitation state in the sheet thickness direction of a steel sheet). Shingaki teaches that “an annealing separator containing MgO as a main component and 5% of TiO2 was applied onto each of the steel sheets as a water slurry, dried and baked on the steel sheet, and final annealing [was] performed” (paragraph [0079]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the MgO annealing separator of Ko with an annealing separator containing MgO as a main component and 5% of TiO2, as taught by Shingaki because one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention knows that TiO2 gently releases oxygen during annealing which is effective in improving coating adhesion. Said combination would amount to use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Modified Ko is silent regarding the metal oxide layer contains 0.003 wt% or more of Ti of claim 12. Applicant teaches that “Ti in the metal oxide layer may be derived from the Ti compound component in the annealing separator” (paragraph [0111], as published). Applicant teaches that “an annealing separator containing 95 wt % of MgO and 5 wt % of TiO2 as a solid content was applied to the steel sheet, and the steel sheet was subjected to secondary recrystallization annealing into a coil” (paragraph [0118], as published). Shingaki teaches that “an annealing separator containing MgO as a main component and 5% of TiO2 was applied onto each of the steel sheets as a water slurry, dried and baked on the steel sheet, and final annealing [was] performed” (paragraph [0079]). As discussed above, Ko teaches the same secondary recrystallization annealing process. Ko teaches that “the final annealing was performed in a mixed atmosphere of 25 v % nitrogen and 75 v % hydrogen until 1200° C., and when the temperature reached 1200° C., the steel sheet was maintained in a 100 v % hydrogen atmosphere for 10 hours or more, and then furnace-cooled” (paragraph [0111]). Accordingly, it would be reasonable to expect that the same secondary recrystallization annealing process of Ko using the annealing separator of Shingaki with 5% TiO2 would lead to the same amount of Ti in the metal oxide layer.
Regarding claim 13, Ko teaches the sheet of claim 8 as stated above. Ko is silent regarding an insulating coating layer located on the metal oxide layer, wherein a ratio of the sum of thicknesses of the metal oxide layer and the insulating coating layer to the total thickness of the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet is 0.03 or less. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01. Shingaki teaches that “thereafter, a phosphate-based insulating tension coating was applied and baked” (paragraph [0079]). Accordingly, 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 sheet of Ko by adding a phosphate-based insulating tension coating, as taught by Shingaki to improve insulation. Said combination would amount to use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding the thickness, it is noted that the rolled sheets have a similar dimension (“the steel was cold-rolled once to a thickness of 0.23 mm or 0.20 mm at a reduction ratio of 90%”, Applicant paragraph [0115] as published; “the cold-rolled sheet may be produced to have a final thickness of 0.1 to 0.3 mm by giving a pass aging effect through warm rolling at a temperature of 200 to 300° C. at least once during rolling”, Ko, paragraph [0074]). As discussed above, the metal oxide layer is formed during an identical secondary recrystallization annealing process, and thus it is reasonable to assume it would have the same thickness. Finally, the insulating coating layer is the same or very similar and thus it is reasonable to assume it would have the same thickness. Shingaki teaches that “thereafter, a phosphate-based insulating tension coating was applied and baked” (paragraph [0079]). Applicant teaches that “thereafter, an insulating coating layer forming composition containing a mixed solution of metal phosphate and colloidal silica was applied, and a heat treatment was performed, thereby forming an insulating coating layer” (paragraph [0119], as published). Since the sheets, the metal oxide layer, and the insulating coating are all presumed or known to be of similar thickness between the art and the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the steel of modified Ko to have the claimed ratio of the sum of thicknesses of the metal oxide layer and the insulating coating layer to the total thickness of the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet of 0.03 or less. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Uesaka et al. (US 20180030559 A1). Uesaka teaches “adding, to the annealing separator, one or more metal oxides selected from CuO2, SnO2, MnO2, Fe3O4, Fe2O3, Cr2O3, and TiO2 which gently release oxygen at least between 800° C. and 1050° C. so that the total content of the added metal oxides is 2.0% to 30% is effective in improving coating adhesion” (paragraph [0078]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q4: 9/21-9/30/26; Q1: 1/4-1/8/27.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights