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 .
The amendment of January 29, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 8 and 21 are canceled, and claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending for examination.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed October 22, 2024 are approved.
Specification
The substitute specification filed October 22, 2024 is accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a smoothing member” in claims 13 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17, line 6, now has “a body” which is confusing and indefinite as “a body” is already provided at line 3, so it is unclear if the body of line 3 is referred to, or another body is referred to. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, either is understood to meet the claim requirements, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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 is withdrawn due to the cancelation of claim 8.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10-12, 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 2007-261875 (hereinafter, ‘875, used as provided with the IDS of September 10, 2024, including the translation).
Claim 1: ‘875 teaches a method for manufacturing a quartz member (note claim 4, 0001-0003). The method includes spraying a carrier gas containing silica powder onto a surface of a target member through a burner (note claim 4, 0007, 0019-0023, figure 3). The spraying is performed in an oxyhydrogen flame atmosphere (note 0010, figure 3). The temperature of the target member surface is adjusted to control the resulting film/coating provided, where if a large amount of heat is supplied a dense film is provided, and if the amount of heat is reduced, a coarse film with low relative density is provided (note 0023).
‘875 does not teach the specific target member temperature, but as noted above the temperature is to be controlled to provide the desired coating structure, and 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 ‘875 to optimize the target member temperature used to optimize the coating film structure formed, giving a temperature value in the range claimed. Note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A):
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 2: as to the burner having a multilayer structure, this is provided by ‘875 (note figure 3, 0019-0020).
Claim 4: in ‘875, the burner has a supply tubes for silica powder, oxygen gas, and hydrogen gas (note 0019, it is not prevented for a supply tube to supply both silica powder and oxygen gas).
Claim 10: in ‘875, the burner is a quartz burner (note 0019).
Claim 11: As to the supply amount of silica powder, ‘875 does not give a specific amount, but notes that the desire is to provide an uneven roughened layer on the surface (note claim 4, and note figure 3), which is desired to increase adhesive strength of the film attached in use (note 0002-0003), where in application there is relative movement between the substrate and burner (note figure 3), and as well, it is indicated for the relative density of the quartz film can be adjusted with amounts of quartz/silica powder used changing (note 0024) and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of ‘875 to optimize the supply amount of silica powder (and for it to be specifically this amount as the preferred amount, so within a variation of +/- 3% as claimed) for the specific article being formed, giving a value in the claimed range. Note, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 12: As to the amount of metal impurities in the silica powder, ‘875 teaches that the silica/quartz powder used is desirably with high purity and few impurities (note 0008), and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of ‘875 to optimize to provide the minimum amount of impurities, including metal impurities, in the silica powder used, giving an amount of less than 0.1 ppm metal impurities. Note, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 14: when forming the quartz member in ‘875, it indicates that a quartz jig would be a desirable member to make (note 0006, 0012).
Claim 15: ‘875 teaches a method of spray coating a quartz/silica powder (note 0007, 0019, figure 3). The powder is sprayed with a carrier gas through a quartz burner having a multilayer structure, under an oxyhydrogen flame atmosphere onto a surface of a target member to form a coating (note 0007, 0019-0023, figure 3). ‘875 teaches that the target member is a quartz glass and the spray powder is quartz powder that is synthetic silica (note 0019), it is indicated that in the process the flame melts the quartz glass and fuses the quartz powder to the glass at the same time (note 0019) and it is describe that silica powder can be melted by the heat capacity of the molten quartz glass, but it is described that if heat capacity insufficient individual powder grains do not melt and only localized parts of the glass surface has enough heat capacity to bond the quartz particles together, and that particles with small diameter require less heat capacity, and fuse to the glass surface first, and the amount of heating from the oxyhydrogen flame can be adjusted to form a dense film (with high heat), where such can be desired for the first layer, for example (note 0022-0024), and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of ‘875 to optimize the heating conditions to form a dense film, which would provide at least some melting of the silica powder under the flame atmosphere (as the atmosphere is present when impacting powder with the target surface, note claim 3), since the quartz target member can also have melting.
‘875 does not teach the specific target member temperature, but the temperature of the target member is to be controlled to provide the desired coating structure (note 0023), and 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 ‘875 to optimize the target member temperature used to optimize the coating film structure formed, giving a temperature value in the range claimed. Note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A):
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 18: As to the supply amount of silica powder, ‘875 does not give a specific amount, but notes that the desire is to provide an uneven roughened layer on the surface (note claim 4, and note figure 3), which is desired to increase adhesive strength of the film attached in use (note 0002-0003), where in application there is relative movement between the substrate and burner (note figure 3), and as well, it is indicated for the relative density of the quartz film can be adjusted with amounts of quartz/silica powder used changing (note 0024) and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of ‘875 to optimize the supply amount of silica powder (and for it to be specifically this amount as the preferred amount, so within a variation of +/- 3% as claimed) for the specific article being formed, giving a value in the claimed range. Note, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 19: As to the amount of metal impurities in the silica powder, ‘875 teaches that the silica/quartz powder used is desirably with high purity and few impurities (note 0008), and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of ‘875 to optimize to provide the minimum amount of impurities, including metal impurities, in the silica powder used, giving an amount of less than 0.1 ppm metal impurities. Note, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 3, 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘875 as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 10-12, 14-15 and 18-19 above, and further in view of Ishikawa et al (US 2006/0081004).
Claims 3, 5, 16: as to the burner having a triple or more multilayer structure, with supply tubes for the burner arranged such that the supply tube for the silica powder, the supply tube for oxygen gas, the supply tube for hydrogen gas are positioned in this order in the radial direction from the center of the burner, ‘875 describes a burner a two layer structure with a first inner center supply tube with oxygen and silica powder, and a second outer supply tube in the radial direction from the center supplying hydrogen (note figure 3, 0019).
However, Ishikawa also provides a burner 6 used to supply silica powder/raw material for deposition on a target member 1/10 (note figure 1, 0001, 0053, 0032-0034, 0045). The burner can provide an oxyhydrogen flame (note 0047). The burner 6 can be a multiport/multilayer structure that is a quintuple (so five layer structure) port burner (note 0047, figure 5). Supply tubes for the burner can be arranged concentrically (note figures 1, 5, 0047), where for example, center bore 7 can feed the raw material/silica powder, intermediate port/bore 32 can be fed with oxygen gas, and outer port/tube 34 can be fed with hydrogen gas (and thus positioned in the order of silica supply tube, oxygen supply tube and hydrogen supply tube in the radial direction from the center of the burner) (note 0047, 0050, note the claim does not prevent intermediate tubes 31, 33, and as well it is indicated that the gas feed can be in different ports, note 0048, 0049, further suggesting to optimize the gas in the specific ports, giving a pattern as claimed with an expectation of predictably acceptable results).
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 ‘875 to use a burner having a triple or more multilayer structure, with supply tubes for the burner arranged such that the supply tube for the silica powder, the supply tube for oxygen gas, the supply tube for hydrogen gas are positioned in this order in the radial direction from the center of the burner as suggested by Ishikawa with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘875 indicates using a burner with feed of silica powder, oxygen and hydrogen to spray apply the silica powder, and Ishikawa teaches for similar application of silica powder to use a burner with feed of silica powder, oxygen and hydrogen to spray apply the silica powder, it would be conventionally known to use a burner system with a burner having a triple or more multilayer structure, with supply tubes for the burner arranged such that the supply tube for the silica powder, the supply tube for oxygen gas, the supply tube for hydrogen gas are positioned in this order in the radial direction from the center of the burner.
Claims 6, 7, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘875 in view of Ishikawa as applied to claims 3, 5 and 16 above, and further in view of Japan 10-101343 (hereinafter ‘343, used as provided with the IDS of September 10, 2024, including the translation).
Claims 6, 7, 9, 17: as to the burner further having a convergence point for blowing flows of silica powder, oxygen gas and hydrogen gas in front of the burner, where the burner has a tapered section from the body to the tip of the burner, and the burner has oxygen gas nozzles (a plurality) arranged in the tapered section in a concentric circle (or multiple concentric circles), where hydrogen gas flows into gaps between the oxygen nozzles,
‘343 further describes a burner used for application of glass to a target member (note 0001, 0010), where the burner can provide an oxyhydrogen flame (note 0027), where the burner is a multilayer/multiport burner (note figures 1, 3), where the burner includes a center feed tube for raw gas material, hydrogen gas tube and oxygen tubes (note 0014, figures 1, 3). The burner further has a convergence point in front of the burner for blowing flow of the glass material, oxygen gas and hydrogen gas to give deposit without distributing flow (note figure 3, 0025). The burner also has a tapered section from the body to the tip of the burner (note figure 3), and has oxygen gas nozzles 3, 4 (a plurality) located in what can be considered multiple concentric circles in the tapered section (note figure 1, 0025), and where the burner is structured so that part of the hydrogen gas flows into gaps between the oxygen gas nozzles (note hydrogen flow 5) (figures 1, 3, 0025).
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 ‘875 in view of Ishikawa to further use a burner having a convergence point for blowing flows of silica powder, oxygen gas and hydrogen gas in front of the burner, where the burner has a tapered section from the body to the tip of the burner, and the burner has oxygen gas nozzles (a plurality) arranged in the tapered section in a concentric circle (or multiple concentric circles), where hydrogen gas flows into gaps between the oxygen nozzles as suggested by ‘343 with an expectation of providing a desirable burner for use, where ‘875 in view of Ishikawa would use a burner with silica, oxygen and hydrogen flow, and ‘343 indicates a burner that can be used with material, oxygen and hydrogen flow with a desirable structure that gives deposit without disturbing flow and provides having a convergence point for blowing flows of silica powder, oxygen gas and hydrogen gas in front of the burner, where the burner has a tapered section from the body to the tip of the burner, and the burner has oxygen gas nozzles (a plurality) arranged in the tapered section in a concentric circle (or multiple concentric circles), where hydrogen gas flows into gaps between the oxygen nozzles.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘875 as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 10-12, 14-15 and 18-19 above, and further in view of Ishikawa et al (US 2006/0081004) and Japan 5749385 (hereinafter ‘385).
Claims 13, 20: as to the silica powder being stored in a hopper and is supplied to the burner through a suction line made of a tube, and the surface of the silica powder stored in the hoper is smoothed with a smoothing member,
However, Ishikawa also provides a burner 6 used to supply silica powder/raw material for deposition on a target member 1/10 (note figure 1, 0001, 0053, 0032-0034, 0045). The burner can provide an oxyhydrogen flame (note 0047). Ishikawa provides that the initial silica powder/raw material can be stored in a hopper/container 11 and be supplied to the burner through a suction line made of a tube 16 (note figure 2, 0036).
‘385 further describes providing powder in a hopper/container 52 to be transferred to a spray device 62 (note figure 1, page 4, translation), where there is also a grip portion 66A, 66B provided in the hopper/container, where the grip portion has a scraper 71 which acts to smooth the powder in the hopper, such that the height of powder in the hopper can be measured more easily (note figures 1, 9, 10, page 5, translation).
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 ‘875 to provide the silica powder being stored in a hopper and is supplied to the burner through a suction line made of a tube, and the surface of the silica powder stored in the hoper is smoothed with a smoothing member of a scraper as suggested by Ishikawa and ’385 to provide for desirable providing of the silica powder, since ‘875 provides silica powder to the burner for application, and Ishikawa indicates a conventional way to provide such powder to a burner is from a hopper and supplying from the hopper through a suction line made of a tube, and ‘385 further provides that it is known to use a scraper smoothing member (meeting the 35 USC 112(f) requirements) to allow for desirable measuring of the height of the powder in the hopper used to supply powder to a spray device.
The rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ishikawa et al (US 2006/0081004) is withdrawn due to the amendments of January 29, 2026 changing the scope of the claims.
Gotoh et al (US 2002/0002843) notes the use of a burner with oxygen, hydrogen to make quartz glass (note the abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
note the new 35 USC 112 rejection due the amendments to the claims.
(B) As to the rejections using Ishikawa as the primary reference, these have been withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims.
(C) As to rejections using ‘875 as the primary reference, it is argued that the present method forms a film high in purity, smooth and without bubbles, while ‘875 is forming a roughened layer, and while ‘875 indicates controlling the plate temperature, it does not teach any specific temperature range, which would not enable one to arrive at the claimed subject matter, and based on the teachings would expect the temperature used to be much lower, as sintering taught to be in the range of 1100-120 degrees C.
The Examiner notes these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. While the disclosure may describe forming a smooth coating, (1) at 0038 this is simply one embodiment, so the coating is not limited to such a structure, and (2) the smoothness of the coating is not claimed, and so the claims do not require this feature, and therefore, ‘875 still is a reference that can provide/suggest what is claimed. Furthermore, as to the specific temperature suggestion from ‘875, while it does not teach the exact temperature, it clearly indicates that the temperature is a result effective variable that would be controlled/optimized based on the specific structure desired (note 0022-0024),and as discussed in the rejections MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) would indicate the obviousness of optimizing the temperature, where applicant has not made a showing as to the criticality of the claimed range. ‘875 indicates using a described sintering temperature to use after applying the quartz/silica simply as an aqueous slurry and not the thermal spraying (note 0007, 0011) as opposed to the thermal spraying option which has controlling temperature of the substrate while heating (note 0007, 0022-0024), and so would not limit the temperature used for the substrate during thermal spraying. The thermal spraying already as melting the silica (note 0007), and indicates the powder needs to bond to the surface, where the temperature can be large for a dense film and lower for a coarse film with lower density, and thus it would be suggested that temperatures toward or above melting can be used to allow some flow for denseness, and not be limited to 1100-1200 degrees C. It is noted that the melting point of silica is around 1700 degrees C, and thus giving a suggestion to use temperatures around this range if a dense coating desired.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights