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 1-7 are pending on the application, all of which are amended.
Certain rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments, however some have been maintained as the amendments do not obviate the issues.
In light of the amendments the previous art rejection has been withdrawn in favor of the new ground of rejection present below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered are moot in light of the new reference utilized to meet the amended limitation. To the extent that applicant’s arguments do apply they are addressed hereafter.
Applicant’s remarks regarding inherency are moot, as the rejection relying on it is not maintained in light of the amendment to the claim.
Applicant’s argument (see pp.9) alleging the bottomed bottom-shaped holes is not persuasive. Applicant argues that a closed end recess hole is structurally different from a surface indentation. However, a surface indentation defines a recessed portion which can be construed as a closed end hole.
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: “ultrasonic wave transmitting unit”, “vibrating unit”, “pressure reducing unit” in claims 1-7.
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
Claims 1 & 7 are not clear because it is not clear what shape of holes is referenced as "bottomed bottom-shaped holes" in claims 1 and 7. The claims could not be understood in view of the specification. The used term does not appear to be the term of the art. The specification does not provide any definition or description of what is referenced by the used term. The specification merely states:
"[0017] In the metal lamination-printed article 20 of the present embodiment, a plurality of bottom-shaped holes 21 are formed. The holes 21 are formed to be recessed from a surface of the metal lamination-printed article 20."
No explanation or definition is provided by the specification regarding the used term. The claims could not be understood in view of the drawings because the drawings fail to illustrate the shape of the "bottomed bottom-shaped holes". Based on applicants remarks (see pp.6) it is believed bottomed bottom shaped holes merely indicates recesses and will be interpreted as such for examination purposes. Clarification and correction are required.
Claim limitations “ultrasonic wave transmitting unit”, “vibrating unit”, “pressure reducing unit”, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid any structure that performs the function in the claim Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (WO 2021/193339, US 2023/0036748, citation by the US documents) in view of Noble (US20230372981A1).
As to claims 1 and 2: Miyazaki et al teaches immersing in the container with the organic solvents (at least [0223-233]), teach the use of different solvents (at least [0087-103]) and application of the ultrasonics (at least [0236]). Miyazaki et al teaches the use of multiple solvents (at least [0087-103] & [0102]). Since Miyazaki et al teach application of ultrasonics, the presence of the ultrasonic wave transmitting unit is inherent in the apparatus used by Miyazaki et al. Since Miyazaki et al teach the article, which include complicated surface indentations or flow channels (at least [0225]), it is reasonably believed that the referenced limitation is either met by or obvious over the disclosure of Miyazaki et al. Although Miyazaki does not explicitly indicate the vapor pressure of one organic component being greater than the others, an acoustic impedance of another component being greater than the others, and a viscosity of another different component being greater than the others. A cleaning fluid composition with such organic components is known in the art, as seen by Noble.
Noble discloses an art related manner from removing unwanted material, such as metal [0025], from a surface (abstract) via submerging in a cleaning fluid and exposing the fluid and article to ultrasonic waves [0055]. The composition of the cleaning fluid includes a plurality of organic solvents (see [0029, 0035, & 0040-0042]. The list of potential organic small in nature, and Noble indicates that a cleaning fluid composition contains a glycol ether, a diol/triol, and an emulsifier (e.g., 3 organic solvents). In the instance of the glycol ether being 2-Butoxy Ethanol (e.g., a first organic solvent), the diol/triol being ethylene glycol (e.g., a third organic solvent), and the emulsifier being glycerol (e.g., a second organic solvent), the composition would meet the limitations pertaining to vapor pressure, acoustic impedance, and viscosity. The selection of organic components is not a cherry picking of organic compounds, rather an understandable and simple combination that a skilled artisan may select. 2-Butoxy Ethanol and Ethylene Glycol are first options within the list of glycol ethers and diols/triols, while glycerol is a generic, cheap, and widely available organic solvent from the list of emulsifiers .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Miyazaki to utilize the cleaning fluid of Noble to achieve improved removal of unwanted material (Noble [0023]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known cleaning solution in place of, or in addition to, another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claims 3-4, Modified Miyazaki teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the ultrasonic generating device produces ultrasonic waves having different frequencies (Noble [0060-0061]) with such changes occurring at a predetermined cycle (Noble [0060-0061], i.e., changing based on predetermined reflected wave reads on predetermined as the change does not occur until a change in the reflected frequency occurs). As the ultrasonic operation contributes to improved removal of unwanted material (Noble [0023]), a skilled artisan would find it obvious to implement such a feature. Further, such a limitation is intended use of the ultrasonic generating device, as long as the device is capable of performing such a function it reads on the claim.
As to claim 7: Miyazaki et al teach a method for cleaning a metal lamination article. The method comprises immersing the metal laminated printed article in an organic solvent in a container (at least [0223-233]). Miyazaki et al also teach application of the ultrasonics to the immersed article (at least [0236]). Miyazaki et al teach the use of the mixture of the different organic solvents (at least [0102]). Miyazaki et al teaches the use of different solvents (at least [0087-103]). Miyazaki et al also teach that the article is formed by laser sintering (at least [0210], [0215]). Miyazaki et al also teach the use of metal powder material (at least [0154-157], [0160]). Since Miyazaki et al teaches the article, which includes complicated surface indentations or flow channels (at least [0225]), it is reasonably believed that the limitation pertaining to the holes is either met by or obvious over the disclosure of Miyazaki et al. Although Miyazaki does not explicitly indicate the vapor pressure of one organic component being greater than the others, an acoustic impedance of another component being greater than the others, and a viscosity of another different component being greater than the others. A cleaning fluid composition with such organic components is known in the art, as seen by Noble.
Noble discloses an art related manner from removing unwanted material, such as metal [0025], from a surface (abstract) via submerging in a cleaning fluid and exposing the fluid and article to ultrasonic waves [0055]. The composition of the cleaning fluid includes a plurality of organic solvents (see [0029, 0035, & 0040-0042]. The list of potential organic small in nature, and Noble indicates that a cleaning fluid composition contains a glycol ether, a diol/triol, and an emulsifier (e.g., 3 organic solvents). In the instance of the glycol ether being 2-Butoxy Ethanol (e.g., a first organic solvent), the diol/triol being ethylene glycol (e.g., a third organic solvent), and the emulsifier being glycerol (e.g., a second organic solvent), the composition would meet the limitations pertaining to vapor pressure, acoustic impedance, and viscosity. The selection of organic components is not a cherry picking of organic compounds, rather an understandable and simple combination that a skilled artisan may select. 2-Butoxy Ethanol and Ethylene Glycol are first options within the list of glycol ethers and diols/triols, while glycerol is a generic, cheap, and widely available organic solvent from the list of emulsifiers .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Miyazaki to utilize the cleaning fluid of Noble to achieve improved removal of unwanted material (Noble [0023]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known cleaning solution in place of, or in addition to, another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (WO 2021/193339, US 2023/0036748, citation by the US documents) and Noble (US20230372981A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saito (JP 2022-025524). The following alternative rejection is made assuming arguendo that a predetermined cycle is indicative of a predetermined time, and such a limitation is not intended use.
As to claim 4, Modified Miyazaki fails to specifically recite the ultrasonic wave transmitting unit that changes the frequencies at a predetermined cycle. However, a cleaning apparatus with such transmitting units is known in the art as evidenced by Saito.
Saito discloses an art related ultrasonic cleaning device, wherein it is known to utilize time-based frequency modulation of the ultrasonic waves to improve cleaning efficiency (See at least Figure 6 and [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Miyazaki to change frequency based on predetermined periods of time in order to improve cleaning efficiency (Saito [0031]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (WO 2021/193339, US 2023/0036748, citation by the US documents) and Noble (US20230372981A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saijo (JP 08-267029).
As to claim 5, Miyazaki et al does not specifically teach the details of the apparatus. Miyazaki et al fails to specifically recite the vibrating unit that vibrates the article in an up-down direction. However, the apparatuses with such vibration units were known in the art as evidenced by Saijo.
Saijo discloses an art related ultrasonic cleaning apparatus wherein it is known to lift and lower an article being cleaned with ultrasonic waves in order to enhance cleaning efficiency (See at least Figures 1-3 and the related description also [0019-0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Miyazaki in include an article lifting and lowering unit order to enhance cleaning efficiency (Saijo [0019-0020]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (WO 2021/193339, US 2023/0036748, citation by the US documents) and Noble (US20230372981A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakurai (JP 07-185484).
As to claim 6, Miyazaki et al does not specifically teach the details of the apparatus. Miyazaki et al fails to specifically recite the pressure reducing unit. However, the apparatuses with such pressure units were known in the art as evidenced by Sakurai. See at least Figure 2 and the related description.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use a pressure reducing unit of Sakurai in the apparatus of Miyazaki et al in order to use the known device for its known purpose.
Claim(s) 1-4 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noble (US20230372981A1) in view of Miyazaki et al (WO 2021/193339, US 2023/0036748, citation by the US documents).
As to claims 1-2 & 7, Noble disclose a cleaning system for cleaning articles (abstract) including those that have unwanted metal [0025] comprising a housing unit (ref 28) that is filled with a mixed solvent such that the article is immersed within the solvent in the housing and exposed to ultrasonic waves [0054-0055] via and an ultrasonic generating device (refs 22/70). The solvent is composed of at least three organic solvents [0029, 0035, & 0040-0042]. The composition of the cleaning fluid includes a plurality of organic solvents (see [0029, 0035, & 0040-0042]. The list of potential organic small in nature, and Noble indicates that a cleaning fluid composition contains a glycol ether, a diol/triol, and an emulsifier (e.g., 3 organic solvents). In the instance of the glycol ether being 2-Butoxy Ethanol (e.g., a first organic solvent), the diol/triol being ethylene glycol (e.g., a third organic solvent), and the emulsifier being glycerol (e.g., a second organic solvent), the composition would meet the limitations pertaining to vapor pressure, acoustic impedance, and viscosity. The selection of organic components is not a cherry picking of organic compounds, rather an understandable and simple combination that a skilled artisan may select. 2-Butoxy Ethanol and Ethylene Glycol are first options within the list of glycol ethers and diols/triols, while glycerol is a generic, cheap, and widely available organic solvent from the list of emulsifiers. Noble does not explicitly disclose a metal lamination-printed article formed as a layer via a metal powder that laser sintered. However, Noble does indicate that the device is made to remove unwanted metal powder [0025] from a printed article and does showcase cleaning of complex geometry articles (see Figs.3A-4E). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would reasonably believe that Noble also envisages the cleaning of metal laminated articles with complex shapes, such as surface indentations, grooves, or the like. Further, the cleaning of articles formed by laser sintering of metal powder is known in the field, as seen by Miyazaki.
Miyazaki discloses an art related manner of immersing an article in fluid and applying ultrasonic waves to the fluid and article [0223-0233, 0236]. Moreover, Miyazaki discloses that such articles to be cleaned include articles in which a layer was formed via metal powder sintered to form a layer on the article [0210 & 0215], thereby reading on a metal laminated article. Such articles may present with complex geometry such as indentations or flow channels thereon [0225].
Accordingly, a skilled artisan would glean from Miyazaki that metal laminated articles with surface indentations and/or flow channels also require cleaning to remove unwanted material. To this extent, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to utilize Noble to perform cleaning on metal laminated article having such surface indentations and/or flow channels with a reasonable expectation of success. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a device intended to clean printed articles for its intended purpose for various different printed articles, as desired, with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification would allow the apparatus to perform the method as claimed in claim 7 with the metal lamination printed article (e.g., see Noble [0053-0055 & 0058-0061]).
As to claims 3-4, Modified Noble teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the ultrasonic generating device produces ultrasonic waves having different frequencies (Noble [0060-0061]) with such changes occurring at a predetermined cycle (Noble [0060-0061], i.e., changing based on predetermined reflected wave reads on predetermined as the change does not occur until a change in the reflected frequency occurs). Further, such a limitation is intended use of the ultrasonic generating device, as long as the device is capable of performing such a function it reads on the claim.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noble (US20230372981A1) and Miyazaki et al (WO 2021/193339, US 2023/0036748, citation by the US documents) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saito (JP 2022-025524). The following alternative rejection is made assuming arguendo that a predetermined cycle is indicative of a predetermined time, and such a limitation is not intended use.
As to claim 4, Modified Noble fails to specifically recite the ultrasonic wave transmitting unit that changes the frequencies at a predetermined cycle. However, a cleaning apparatus with such transmitting units is known in the art as evidenced by Saito.
Saito discloses an art related ultrasonic cleaning device, wherein it is known to utilize time-based frequency modulation of the ultrasonic waves to improve cleaning efficiency (See at least Figure 6 and [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Noble to change frequency based on predetermined periods of time in order to improve cleaning efficiency (Saito [0031]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noble (US20230372981A1) and Miyazaki et al (WO 2021/193339, US 2023/0036748, citation by the US documents) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saijo (JP 08-267029A).
As to claim 5, Modified Noble fails to specifically recite the vibrating unit that vibrates the article in an up-down direction. However, the apparatuses with such vibration units were known in the art as evidenced by Saijo.
Saijo discloses an art related ultrasonic cleaning apparatus wherein it is known to lift and lower an article being cleaned with ultrasonic waves in order to enhance cleaning efficiency (See at least Figures 1-3 and the related description also [0019-0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Noble in include an article lifting and lowering unit order to enhance cleaning efficiency (Saijo [0019-0020]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noble (US20230372981A1) and Miyazaki et al (WO 2021/193339, US 2023/0036748, citation by the US documents) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakurai (JP 07-185484).
As to claim 6, Modified Noble fails to specifically recite the pressure reducing unit. However, an apparatuses with such a pressure unit is known in the art as evidenced by Sakurai. See at least Figure 2 and the related description.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use a pressure reducing unit of in the apparatus of Noble in order to use the known device for its known purpose.
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 OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights