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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-3 and 5-11 have been amended. Claims 12-20 are new. The rejections are revised in view of the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein each expanded bead comprises [a] defective portion.” The defective portion should be introduced with an indefinite article. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-7, 9, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (JP 6628374; with citations to English language equivalent US 2021/0300005) and optionally in view of Nohara (JP 2000210965).
Regarding claim 1, Takagi teaches a method for producing a molded article of thermoplastic resin expanded beads (abstract, [0102]), comprising: cracking filling by filling thermoplastic resin expanded beads each having a foamed layer into a molding cavity of a mold with a cracking gap ([0102]), and then completely closing the mold ([0102]); and in-mold molding by supplying a heating medium into the molding cavity after completion of the cracking filling to thereby fusion-bond the expanded beads to each other ([0102]), wherein the molding cavity in a state where the mold is completely closed simultaneously comprises (i) a first portion of which a length in an opening/closing direction of the mold is longer than an average length LA represented by Formula (1) below (a portion with a thickness greater than 50mm, (50mm*250mm*200mm)/(250mm*200mm), [0023] [0102-03]; shape is not limited, including curved and deformed shapes, which includes shapes without a planar bottom, [0023]), and (ii) a second portion of which a length in the opening/closing direction of the mold is shorter than the average length LA (a portion with a thickness less than 50mm, (50mm*250mm*200mm)/(250mm*200mm), [0023] [0102-03]; shape is not limited, including curved and deformed shapes, which includes shapes without a planar bottom, [0023]), wherein a difference, P2max - P1min between a minimum value P1min of a compression rate in the first portion represented by Formula (2) below and a maximum value P2max of a compression rate in the second portion represented by Formula (3) below in the cracking filling is in a range of from 5 to 100% (shape is not limited, included a curved or deformed shape, and therefore compression rate would have an overlapping range, [0023] [0102-03]; the above limitations call for a portion that has at least one area that is thicker than another, with the minimum thickness and the maximum thickness differing by 5%-100%, which would be true for many shapes), wherein the average length LA of the molding cavity in the opening/closing direction is 10 mm or more (50 mm is greater than 10 mm, [0102-03]), wherein the expanded beads each have a columnar shape (rod-shaped, [0062-64]), wherein each expanded bead comprises defective portion comprising (a) a through hole penetrating an inside of an expanded bead in an axial direction thereof and/or a groove extending along the axial direction on a side peripheral surface of the expanded bead (rod-shaped, [0062-64]), and wherein, in a cut surface obtained by cutting the expanded bead at a center in the axial direction along a plane perpendicular to the axial direction ([0064-65]), a Ca/A ratio of an average cross-sectional area Ca per one defective portion to an average cross-sectional area A of the expanded bead is in a range of from 0.01 to 0.20, and a Ct/A ratio of a total cross-sectional area Ct of the defective portion(s) to the average cross-sectional area A of the expanded bead is in a range of from 0.02 to 0.20 (an overlapping range is taught, see MPEP 2144.05(I), such as 2 mm particles with 0.5 mm inner diameters (.0625) and 8 mm particles with 3 mm inner diameters (.140625); these two examples are the ends of the more preferable range 2-8 mm particle size and more preferable 0.5-3 mm inner diameter, [0068]; by contrast, all of the particles in Example 2 are outside the range: an outer diameter of 4.1 and an inner diameter of 2.2 with another set of particles with an outer diameter of 3.7 and an inner diameter of 2.1, and another with an outer diameter of 3.4, and an inner diameter of 1.9; each of these range from 0.288 to 0.322 in cross sectional area of the through hole to cross sectional area of the particle; all of these are outside the claimed range; examiner note, for the particle shapes taught in [0068] of Takagi, Ca/A and Ct/A are the same),
LA= V/S (1)
P1min = (𝛿/L1max) X 100 (2)
P2max = (𝛿/L2min) X 100 (3),
wherein, V is a capacity in units of mm3 of the molding cavity in the state where the mold is completely closed, S is a projected area in units of mm2 of the molding cavity when projected in the opening/closing direction of the mold, 𝛿 is a dimension in units of mm of the cracking gap in the cracking filling, L1max is a maximum value in units of mm of a length of the first portion in the opening/closing direction measured in the state where the mold is completely closed, and L2min represents a minimum value in units of mm of a length of the second portion in the opening/closing direction measured in the state where the mold is completely closed (definitions of terms used above).
In addition to the teachings above about shape not being limited for Takagi, it is noted that, in the same field of endeavor of cracking filling, (p. 1), Nohara teaches wherein a difference, P2max - P1min between a minimum value P1min of a compression rate in the first portion represented by Formula (2) below and a maximum value P2max of a compression rate in the second portion represented by Formula (3) below in the cracking filling is in a range of from 5 to 100% (shapes with the minimum thickness and the maximum thickness differing by 5%-100%, see Figs. 1-4, “differential pressure between the chambers.”, p. 5).
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 have modified the method of Takagi, with shape not being limited, to use shapes like those in Nahara to have differential pressure between different sections because p. 5 of Nahara teaches shapes doing so and [0023] of Takagi teaches that shape is not limited.
Regarding claim 3, Takagi teaches wherein the maximum value P2max of the compression rate in the second portion in the cracking filling is in a range of from 25 to 150%(65-50=15 mm; 15 mm / 50 mm = 30% compression, [0103]; for a varied shape as discussed with reference to [0023], compression would be higher, with a wide range of embodiments before exceeding 150%).
Regarding claim 4, Takagi teaches wherein the maximum value of the length of the first portion in the opening/closing direction of the mold is 55 mm or more (with an average length of 50 mm, [0103]; and a varied shape as discussed with reference to [0023], length would be greater in a first portion, thereby embodiments in an overlapping range are taught, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, Takagi teaches wherein, in the molded article of thermoplastic resin expanded beads obtained by the method, a fusion-bonding rate of a portion corresponding to the first portion is 70% or more (method is followed in [0103] for bonding, thereby, molding likely achieves the bonding of 70%).
Regarding claim 6, Takagi teaches wherein a voidage of the molded article of thermoplastic resin expanded beads obtained by the production method is in a range of from 4 to 12% (5-50%, [0015]; tunable in [0026]; 5-30%, [0059]; an overlapping range is disclosed, see MPEP 2144.05(I); admittedly, the examples all have a voidage of 20%, which is outside of the range).
Regarding claim 7, Takagi teaches wherein the expanded beads each comprise the through hole as the defective portion ([0063]).
Regarding claim 9, Takagi teaches, wherein the foamed layer comprises a polyolefin-based thermoplastic resin ([0031-35].
Regarding claim 11, Takagi teaches wherein the expanded beads have a bulk density in a range from 10 to 50 kg/m3 (2-1, bulk density of 35 kg/m3), thereby disclosing an overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 12, Takagi teaches wherein the average length LA of the molding cavity in the opening/closing direction is in a range of from 15 to 500 mm (50 mm, with shape not limited, [0023] [0102-03]).
Regarding claim 13, Takagi teaches wherein the average length LA of the molding cavity in the opening/closing direction is in a range of from 20 to 300 mm (50 mm, with shape not limited, [0023] [0102-03]).
Regarding claim 14, Takagi teaches wherein the Ca/A ratio of the expanded bead is in a range of from 0.02 to 0.15 (an overlapping range is taught, see MPEP 2144.05(I), such as 2 mm particles with 0.5 mm inner diameters (.0625) and 8 mm particles with 3 mm inner diameters (.140625); these two examples are the ends of the more preferable range 2-8 mm particle size and more preferable 0.5-3 mm inner diameter, [0068]; by contrast, all of the particles in Example 2 are outside the range: an outer diameter of 4.1 and an inner diameter of 2.2 with another set of particles with an outer diameter of 3.7 and an inner diameter of 2.1, and another with an outer diameter of 3.4, and an inner diameter of 1.9; each of these range from 0.288 to 0.322 in cross sectional area of the through hole to cross sectional area of the particle; all of these are outside the claimed range; examiner note, for the particle shapes taught in [0068] of Takagi, Ca/A and Ct/A are the same).
Regarding claim 15, Takagi teaches wherein the Ct/A ratio of the expanded bead is in a range of from 0.03 to 0.18 Regarding claim 13, Takagi (an overlapping range is taught, see MPEP 2144.05(I), such as 2 mm particles with 0.5 mm inner diameters (.0625) and 8 mm particles with 3 mm inner diameters (.140625); these two examples are the ends of the more preferable range 2-8 mm particle size and more preferable 0.5-3 mm inner diameter, [0068]; by contrast, all of the particles in Example 2 are outside the range: an outer diameter of 4.1 and an inner diameter of 2.2 with another set of particles with an outer diameter of 3.7 and an inner diameter of 2.1, and another with an outer diameter of 3.4, and an inner diameter of 1.9; each of these range from 0.288 to 0.322 in cross sectional area of the through hole to cross sectional area of the particle; all of these are outside the claimed range; examiner note, for the particle shapes taught in [0068] of Takagi, Ca/A and Ct/A are the same).
Regarding claim 16, Takagi teaches wherein the difference P2max - P1min in the cracking filling is in a range of from 10.8 to 100% (shape is not limited, included a curved or deformed shape, and therefore compression rate would have an overlapping range, [0023] [0102-03]; the above limitations call for a portion that has at least one area that is thicker than another, with the minimum thickness and the maximum thickness differing by 10.8%-100%, which would be true for many shapes).
Regarding claim 17, Takagi teaches wherein the difference P2max - P1min in the cracking filling is in a range of from 14.8 to 100% (shape is not limited, included a curved or deformed shape, and therefore compression rate would have an overlapping range, [0023] [0102-03]; the above limitations call for a portion that has at least one area that is thicker than another, with the minimum thickness and the maximum thickness differing by 14.8%-100%, which would be true for many shapes).
Regarding claim 18, Takagi teaches wherein the difference P2max - P1min in the cracking filling is in a range of from 16.3 to 100% (shape is not limited, included a curved or deformed shape, and therefore compression rate would have an overlapping range, [0023] [0102-03]; the above limitations call for a portion that has at least one area that is thicker than another, with the minimum thickness and the maximum thickness differing by 16.3%-100%, which would be true for many shapes).
Regarding claim 19, Takagi teaches wherein the difference P2max - P1min in the cracking filling is in a range of from 23 to 100% (shape is not limited, included a curved or deformed shape, and therefore compression rate would have an overlapping range, [0023] [0102-03]; the above limitations call for a portion that has at least one area that is thicker than another, with the minimum thickness and the maximum thickness differing by 23%-100%, which would be true for many shapes).
Regarding claim 20, Takagi teaches wherein the difference P2max - P1min in the cracking filling is in a range of from 25 to 100% (shape is not limited, included a curved or deformed shape, and therefore compression rate would have an overlapping range, [0023] [0102-03]; the above limitations call for a portion that has at least one area that is thicker than another, with the minimum thickness and the maximum thickness differing by 25%-100%, which would be true for many shapes).
Regarding claims 16-20, in addition to the teachings above about shape not being limited for Takagi, it is noted that, in the same field of endeavor of cracking filling, (p. 1), Nohara teaches w wherein the difference P2max - P1min in the cracking filling is in a range of from 25 to 100% (shapes with the minimum thickness and the maximum thickness differing by substantial amounts, as shown in see Figs. 1-4, “differential pressure between the chambers.”, p. 5).
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 have modified the method of Takagi, with shape not being limited, to use shapes like those in Nahara to have differential pressure between different sections because p. 5 of Nahara teaches shapes doing so and [0023] of Takagi teaches that shape is not limited.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (JP 6628374; with citations to English language equivalent US 2021/0300005) and optionally in view of Nohara (JP 2000210965) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jidehiro (JP 2006307177).
Regarding claim 2, Takagi teaches an embodiment wherein a density ratio of an apparent density of the expanded beads to a bulk density of the expanded beads is more than 1.6 and less than 2.0 (2-2, apparent density 136 kg/m3, bulk density 73 kg/m3, [0100]). These particles do not overlap with features recited in claim 1, but they fall within the range.
However, in the same field of endeavor of molding with polypropylene-ethylene expanded beads that have through-holes (p. 1), Jidehiro teaches wherein a density ratio of an apparent density of the expanded beads to a bulk density of the expanded beads is more than 1.6 and less than 2.0 (1.6-1.9, p. 10 ll. 574-575, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
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 have modified the method of Takagi to tune the apparent density to the bulk density to the even more preferable range of Jidehiro because p. 10 ll. 579-585 of Jidehiro teaches that when the ratio is less than 1.6, the cooling effect is small and the molding cycle would otherwise be shorter and that when the ratio is higher than 2.6, when molding voids communicating between the expanded beads form, undesirably increasing water permeability of molded articles. Further, within this range, Jidehiro teaches 1.6-1.9 is the most preferable.
Regarding claim 10, Takagi teaches wherein a thermoplastic resin constituting the foamed layer is an ethylene-propylene random copolymer ([0043]). Takagi teaches a method substantially as claimed. Takagi does not disclose having an ethylene component amount of 0.5 mass% or more and 3.5 mass% or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor of molding with polypropylene-ethylene expanded beads that have through-holes (p. 1), Jidehiro teaches having an ethylene component having an ethylene component amount of 0.5 mass% or more and 3.5 mass% or less (overlapping range of 0.1-10% by wt. of the component other than propylene for a propylene-ethylene block random copolymer, p. 6 ll. 350-356, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
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 have modified the method of Takagi to use expanded beads as taught by Jidehiro because p. 11 ll. 606-611 of Jidehrio teaches using such particles in a cracking filling process.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (JP 6628374; with citations to English language equivalent US 2021/0300005) and optionally in view of Nohara (JP 2000210965) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takayama (JP 2018187270).
Regarding claim 8, Takagi teaches wherein the expanded beads each comprise a foamed layer ([0085]), wherein the foamed layer comprises a first thermoplastic resin as a foamed layer base resin ([0085]). Takagi teaches a method substantially as claimed.
Takagi does not disclose wherein the expanded beads each comprise a foamed layer and a fusion-bondability improving layer covering the foamed layer, and wherein the fusion-bondability improving layer comprises a second thermoplastic resin as the fusion-bondability improving layer is.
However, in the same field of endeavor of producing a mold filling from foamed particles with a through hole (abstract), Takayama teaches wherein the expanded beads each comprise a foamed layer and a fusion-bondability improving layer covering the foamed layer (core layer 24 and coating layer 25, p. 4), wherein the foamed layer comprises a first thermoplastic resin as a foamed layer base resin (core layer 24, p. 4), and wherein the fusion-bondability improving layer is a second thermoplastic resin as the fusion-bondability improving layer base resin (coating layer 25, p. 4,).
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 have modified the method of Takagi to include a second coating layer for fusion-bondability because p. 4 of Takayama teaches "by making the melting point of the resin constituting the coating layer 25 lower than the melting point of the resin constituting the core layer 24, the multilayer foam particles 21 can be more reliably fused at the time of molding the foam particle molded body 2 in the mold."
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/840,104 (PG Pub for that application is US 2025/0162212). The claims of copending Application No. 18/840,104 teach each and every element or at least an overlapping range for claims 1-4 and 6-11 of the present application.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 8-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 11 of copending Application No. 18/656,664 (PG Pub for that application is US 2024/0286324) in view of Takagi (JP 6628374; with citations to English language equivalent US 2021/0300005).
Differences between the claimed inventions are taught by Takagi. Both the present claims and those of copending Application No. 18/656,664 narrowly recite the same expanded beads (recitations of composition, apparent/bulk density, fusion-bondability improving layer covering a foamed layer, etc. The claims differ in the physical compression and ratios recited in present claim 1. As noted above, these limitations are taught by Takagi. It would have been obvious to modify the method to follow that of Takagi with the expanded beads of copending Application No. 18/656,664 due to substantial overlap in the recited composition and shape of the expanded beads used for the cracking filling of Takagi. Accordingly, following the method of Takagi would have been a predictable way to produce seat core material as envisioned by Takagi.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant does not address the double patenting rejection.
Applicant points out common ownership with some of the previously cited references. However, the rejections above, while they rely on some references co-owned by Applicant, were all published more than a year before the date of Applicant’s present priority document, including, Takagi (JP 6628374), published on February 20, 2020.
Applicant’s argues that reciting simultaneous dimensions of the mold cavity require withdrawal of the rejections, alleging that Takagi exclusively teaches shapes with planar bottoms. This argument is not persuasive because [0023] of Takagi (JP 6628374; with citations to English language equivalent US 2021/0300005) teaches that the shape is not limited, and can include a curved or deformed shape. Accordingly, the scope of Takagi’s teachings include shapes with non-planar bottoms. Such shapes are admittedly a subset of Takagi’s teachings, but that does not exclude such embodiments from the prior art, as Applicant seeks to do in alleging hindsight bias. Applicant appears to argue that manufacturing tolerances for planar bottoms would not result in at least a 5% differential in pressure, but this mischaracterizes the teachings of [0023] of Takagi and the mold cavity having a shape which is not limited.
Applicant is welcome to argue unexpected results, that the differentials in pressure result in unexpected beneficial properties in the resulting product. That unexpected benefit should be commensurate in scope with the claim. At present, claims 16-20 recite progressively narrowed ranges. A showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with one of those claims would overcome the present rejection to that claim.
Additionally, p.5 and the Figures of Nohara (JP 2000210965) teach additional shapes for such a mold with differential pressures, distinct from the embodiments of Takagi that have a planar bottom of the mold. For the reasons discussed above, Nohara provides additional justification for having different shapes with differential pressures with different thicknesses within the mold.
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 NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, Sam Xiao 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights