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Claims 1-27 are pending in the application, claims 21-27 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants' election without traverse of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 14 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 14 August 2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in this application on 3 January 2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[Pg. 1: li. 6] of the filed specification recites --Ohtani et al propose in--; it is recommended to correct this to read "Ohtani et al. proposes in".
The filed specification recites "sp2" and "sp2" throughout the disclosure; for consistency, it is recommended to correct all instances to read as one or the other.
The filed specification recites "sp3" and "sp3" throughout the disclosure; for consistency, it is recommended to correct all instances to read as one or the other.
[Pg. 3: li. 7] of the filed specification makes reference to "claim 1"; which is inappropriate as the number and context of the claims can change during prosecution, and will lead to confusion in understanding the scope of the presently claimed invention during prosecution.
[Pg. 17: li. 10] of the filed specification recites --the coating claimed in this patent on--; it is recommended to correct this to read "the coating claimed in this invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
With Regards to Claims 1-20: Instant claim 1 recites --a tetrahedral hydrogen-free amorphous carbon film-- in line 5. With regards to the term "hydrogen-free", the instant specification does not provide a clear definition as to clearly define the bounds of the term. The instant specification recites --FIGS. 7 and 9 show SIMS of the coating claimed-- in [Pg. 17: li. 10], wherein figure 7 clearly shows that hydrogen ("H") is present in a concentration of greater than 1 at.% and almost up to 5 at.%. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, "hydrogen-free" will be interpreted as any amount of hydrogen that is less than 5 wt.%.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites in lines 3 to 8 that:
a first material (1) and a coating system, applied on said substrate surface, said coating system comprising an amorphous carbon film (100), wherein the amorphous carbon film (100) is a tetrahedral hydrogen-free amorphous carbon film in which a share of sp3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds exceeds that of sp2 bond percentages, wherein:
the amorphous carbon film (100) is designed comprising a variable ratio of the share of the sp3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds in relation to that of the sp2 bond percentages along its thickness, wherein said ratio increasing
it is recommended to correct this to read:
a first materialan amorphous carbon filmthe amorphous carbon filma share of sp3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds exceeds that of sp2 bond percentages,
wherein the amorphous carbon film to comprise3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds in relation to that of the sp2 bond percentages along its thickness, and wherein said ratio is increasing along its thickness.
With Regards to Claim 2: Claim 2 recites in lines 2 to 8 that:
the amorphous carbon film (100) is formed as multilayered film comprising at least two tetrahedral hydrogen-free amorphous carbon layers, wherein the at least two layers are:
- a bottom layer (120) comprising a region of the amorphous carbon film (100) nearest to the substrate, and
- a top layer (150) comprising the region of the amorphous carbon film (100) most distant from the substrate, wherein said ratio of the share of the sp3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds in relation to that of the sp2 bond percentages is higher along the thickness of the top layer (150) than that along the thickness of the bottom layer (120)
it is recommended to correct this to read:
the amorphous carbon filma multilayered film comprising at least two tetrahedral hydrogen-free amorphous carbon layers, wherein the at least two tetrahedral hydrogen-free amorphous carbon layers are:
- a bottom layer
- a top layer3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds in relation to that of the sp2 bond percentages is higher along the thickness of the top layer
With Regards to Claim 3: Claim 3 recites the limitation --the top layer (150) is an outermost layer of the amorphous carbon film (100)-- in line 2; it is recommended to correct this to read "the top layer
With Regards to Claim 4: Claim 4 recites in lines 3 to 7 that:
the amorphous carbon film (100) is deposited on said substrate surface in such a manner that an interface layer (10) is formed between the first material (1) of said substrate surface and the amorphous carbon film (100), wherein the interface layer (10) consists of carbon implanted material, the carbon implanted material being formed of first material plus carbon implanted into it, wherein the thickness of the interface layer (10) is at least 3 nm
it is recommended to correct this to read:
the amorphous carbon film
With Regards to Claim 5: Claim 5 recites in lines 3 to 7 that:
a transition layer (30) is deposited between the interface layer (10) and the amorphous carbon film (100), wherein the transition layer (30) is a carbon layer improving interfacial transition between the interface layer (10) and the amorphous carbon film (100)
it is recommended to correct this to read:
a transition layer
With Regards to Claim 6: Claim 6 recites the limitation --the transition layer (30) is-- in line 2; it is recommended to correct this to read "the transition layer
With Regards to Claim 7: Claim 7 recites the limitation --the amorphous carbon film (100)-- in line 2; it is recommended to correct this to read "the amorphous carbon film
With Regards to Claim 8: Claim 8 recites the limitation --the amorphous carbon film (100)-- in line 2; it is recommended to correct this to read "the amorphous carbon film
With Regards to Claim 9: Claim 9 recites the limitation --the bottom layer (120) has hardness in a range from 30 GPa to 50 GPa, and the top layer (150) has hardness-- in lines 3 to 5; it is recommended to correct this to read "the bottom layer a hardness in a range from 30 GPa to 50 GPa, and the top layer a hardness".
With Regards to Claim 10: Claim 10 recites the limitation --the bottom layer (120) has Youngs modulus in a range from 250 GPa to 350 GPa, and the top layer (150) has Youngs modulus-- in lines 3 to 4; it is recommended to correct this to read "the bottom layer a Youngs modulus in a range from 30 GPa to 50 GPa, and the top layer a Youngs modulus".
With Regards to Claim 11: Claim 11 recites the limitation --the transition layer (30) has: at least hardness in a range from more than 50 GPa to 80 GPa or Youngs modulus-- in lines 3 to 6; it is recommended to correct this to read "the transition layer a hardness in a range from more than 50 GPa to 80 GPa, or a Youngs modulus".
With Regards to Claim 12: Claim 12 recites the limitation --the amorphous carbon film (100)-- in line 2; it is recommended to correct this to read "the amorphous carbon film
With Regards to Claim 13: Claim 13 recites the limitation --the amorphous carbon film (100)-- in line 2; it is recommended to correct this to read "the amorphous carbon film
With Regards to Claim 14: Claim 14 recites in lines 3 to 8 that:
a first material (1) and a coating system, applied on said substrate surface, said coating system comprising an amorphous carbon film (100), wherein the amorphous carbon film (100) is a tetrahedral hydrogen-free amorphous carbon film in which a share of sp3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds exceeds that of sp2 bond percentages, wherein:
the amorphous carbon film (100) is designed comprising a variable ratio of the share of the sp3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds in relation to that of the sp2 bond percentages along its thickness, wherein said ratio increasing
it is recommended to correct this to read:
a first materialan amorphous carbon filmthe amorphous carbon filma share of sp3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds exceeds that of sp2 bond percentages,
wherein the amorphous carbon film to comprise3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds in relation to that of the sp2 bond percentages along its thickness, and wherein said ratio is increasing along its thickness.
With Regards to Claim 14: Claim 14 recites the limitation --the amorphous carbon film (100) comprises at least one layer comprising a highest ratio of the share of the sp3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds in relation to that of the sp2 bond percentages along the thickness of a whole amorphous carbon film (100)-- in lines 3 to 5; it is recommended to correct this to read "the amorphous carbon film3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds in relation to that of the sp2 bond percentages along the thickness of the
With Regards to Claim 15: Claim 15 recites the limitation --along the thickness of the whole amorphous carbon film (100) is a top layer (150)-- in lines 3 to 4; it is recommended to correct this to read "along the thickness of the [[whole]] amorphous carbon film
With Regards to Claim 16: Claim 16 recites the limitation --the interface layer (10) is in a range from 3 nm to 200 nmor-- in lines 3 to 4; it is recommended to correct this to read "the interface layer nm; or
With Regards to Claim 16: Claim 16 recites the limitation --a top layer (150) is-- in line 5; it is recommended to correct this to read "a top layer
With Regards to Claim 17: Claim 17 recites the limitation --a bottom layer (10) is in a range from 30 nm to 200 or-- in lines 3 to 5; it is recommended to correct this to read "the interface layer; or".
With Regards to Claim 17: Claim 17 recites the limitation --a top layer (150) is in a range from 50 nm to 1000 nm-- in line 6; it is recommended to correct this to read "a top layer.".
With Regards to Claim 18: Claim 18 recites the limitation --the amorphous carbon film (100)-- in line 3; it is recommended to correct this to read "the amorphous carbon film
With Regards to Claim 19: Claim 19 recites the limitation --the amorphous carbon film (100)-- in line 3; it is recommended to correct this to read "the amorphous carbon film
With Regards to Claim 19: Claim 19 recites the limitation --500 Gpa and 800 Gpa-- in line 4, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "500 GPa[[Gpa]] and 800 GPa[[Gpa]]".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
With Regards to Claims 1-20: The term "tetrahedral hydrogen-free amorphous carbon film" in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "hydrogen-free" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The instant specification recites --FIGS. 7 and 9 show SIMS of the coating claimed-- in [Pg. 17: li. 10], wherein figure 7 clearly shows that hydrogen ("H") is present in a concentration of greater than 1 at.% and almost up to 5 at.%. As such, it is unclear as to what the cut-off is for the at.% of hydrogen in the structure so as to be considered "hydrogen-free". For the purposes of examination, "hydrogen-free" will be interpreted as less than 5 at.% of hydrogen.
Claims 2-20, which depend on claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claims 5 and 6: The term "improving interfacial transition" in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "improving interfacial transition" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to how the interfacial transition between the interface layer and the amorphous carbon is "improved", as there is no basis by which a comparison can be made. For the purposes of examination, so long as there is a carbon layer between the interface layer and the amorphous carbon film, the limitation will be considered taught.
Claim 6, which depends from claim 5, is rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claim 8: Regarding claim 8, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With Regards to Claim 12: Regarding claim 12, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With Regards to Claim 13: Regarding claim 13, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With Regards to Claim 16: Instant claim 16 recites --a transition layer-- in line 5. As written, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case, the claim does not define or distinguish what said "transition layer" is with respect to the claimed invention, which renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat said "transition layer" as any portion of the claimed coated substrate.
With Regards to Claim 17: Instant claim 17 recites --a bottom layer-- in line 3. As written, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case, the claim does not define or distinguish what said "bottom layer" is with respect to the claimed invention, which renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat said "bottom layer" as any portion of the claimed coated substrate.
With Regards to Claim 17: Instant claim 17 recites --a top layer-- in line 6. As written, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case, the claim does not define or distinguish what said "top layer" is with respect to the claimed invention, which renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat said "top layer" as any portion of the claimed coated substrate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Non-Patent Literature No. 1 (Zhang et al.; "Bias-graded deposition of diamond-like carbon for tribological applications") (referred to herein as "Zhang").
Regarding Claim 1: Zhang teaches an amorphous hydrogen-free diamond-like coating (DLC) on a substrate, the DLC being a bias-graded coating wherein the sp3 percent is lowest at the interface of the coating and the substrate, and gradually increasing to a higher sp3 fraction at the coating surface, wherein the coating exhibits a gradual variation of the sp3/sp2 ratio ([Pg. 867: paragraph 1], [Pg. 867: paragraph 3 to Pg. 868: paragraph 1], and [Pg. 870: paragraphs 2 to 6] of Zhang).
Regarding Claim 14: Zhang teaches that the amorphous carbon film comprises at least one layer comprising a highest ratio of the share of the sp3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds in relation to that of the sp2 bond percentages along the thickness of the amorphous carbon film ([Pg. 870: paragraphs 2 to 6] of Zhang).
Regarding Claim 15: Zhang teaches that the at least one layer comprising the highest ratio of the share of the sp3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds in relation to that of the sp2 bond percentages along the thickness of the amorphous carbon film is a top layer ([Pg. 867: paragraph 3 to Pg. 868: paragraph 1] and [Pg. 870: paragraphs 2 to 6] of Zhang).
Regarding Claim 20: Zhang teaches that the amorphous carbon film exhibits a coefficient of friction of 0.09, 0.12, 0.18, and 0.21 ([Pg. 869: paragraph 4] of Zhang); which anticipates the claimed range of --between 0.05 and 0.15--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
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.
Claims 2-6, 12, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature No. 1 (Zhang et al.; "Bias-graded deposition of diamond-like carbon for tribological applications") (referred to herein as "Zhang") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohtani et al. (EP 1266979 B1).
Zhang is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 2: Zhang fails to disclose --the amorphous carbon film is formed as multilayered film comprising at least two tetrahedral hydrogen-free amorphous carbon layers, wherein the at least two layers are: a bottom layer comprising a region of the amorphous carbon film nearest to the substrate, and a top layer comprising the region of the amorphous carbon film most distant from the substrate, wherein said ratio of the share of the sp3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds in relation to that of the sp2 bond percentages is higher along the thickness of the top layer than that along the thickness of the bottom layer--.
Ohtani discloses a tool with a coating, the coating comprising an amorphous carbon film with a high sp3 bonded carbon ratio ([0001], [0022], and [0024]-[0026] of Ohtani). Ohtani also discloses that adhesion of the amorphous carbon film can be improved by an interlayer between the amorphous carbon film and the base material, and even further improved by providing a mixed composition layer whose composition of each coated film is mixed or a gradient composition layer whose composition is continuously varied between the interlayer and the amorphous carbon film ([0046]-[0050] of Ohtani).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the coating of Ohtani with the coating system disclosed by Zhang in order to have --the amorphous carbon film is formed as multilayered film comprising at least two tetrahedral hydrogen-free amorphous carbon layers, wherein the at least two layers are: a bottom layer comprising a region of the amorphous carbon film nearest to the substrate, and a top layer comprising the region of the amorphous carbon film most distant from the substrate, wherein said ratio of the share of the sp3 bond percentages of the C-C bonds in relation to that of the sp2 bond percentages is higher along the thickness of the top layer than that along the thickness of the bottom layer--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the coating of Ohtani with the coating system disclosed by Zhang, from the stand-point of improving adhesion of the coating film to the base material ([0046] and [0050] of Ohtani).
Regarding Claim 3: Zhang in view of Ohtani discloses that the top layer is an outermost layer of the amorphous carbon film ([Pg. 870, paragraphs 2 to 6] of Zhang).
Regarding Claim 4: Zhang in view of Ohtani discloses that the amorphous carbon film is deposited on said substrate surface in such a manner that an interface layer is formed between the first material of said substrate surface and the amorphous carbon film, wherein the interface layer consists of carbon implanted material, the carbon implanted material being formed of first material plus carbon implanted into it, wherein the thickness of the interface layer is at least 0.5 nm and less than 10 nm ([0046]-[0050] of Ohtani); which overlaps the presently claimed range of --at least 3 nm--. Ohtani differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ohtani, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5: Zhang in view of Ohtani discloses a transition layer is deposited between the interface layer and the amorphous carbon film, wherein the transition layer is a carbon layer improving interfacial transition between the interface layer and the amorphous carbon film ([0046] and [0050] of Ohtani). (In the instant case, a portion of the multiple layers transitioning from the interface layer (interlayer) to the amorphous carbon film constitute said transition layer.)
Regarding Claim 6: Zhang in view of Ohtani discloses that the transition layer is a tetrahedral hydrogen-free amorphous carbon layer ([Pg. 870: paragraphs 2 to 6] of Zhang; [0046] and [0050] of Ohtani). (In the instant case, there would be a portion of the transition layer that comprises a ta-C layer.)
Regarding Claim 12: Zhang in view of Ohtani discloses that the amorphous carbon film can exhibit a plurality of color tones ([0042]-[0045] of Ohtani).
Regarding Claim 13: Zhang in view of Ohtani discloses that the amorphous carbon film can exhibit a single color ([0042]-[0045] of Ohtani).
Regarding Claim 16: Zhang in view of Ohtani discloses that the thickness of the interface layer is at least 0.5 nm and less than 10 nm ([0049] of Ohtani); which overlaps the presently claimed range of --from 3 nm to 200 nm--. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ohtani, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 17: Zhang in view of Ohtani discloses that the thickness of a top layer (i.e., the amorphous carbon film) ranges from 0.05 µm to 0.5 µm (50 nm to 500 nm) and 1.5 µm (1500 nm) ([Pg. 870: paragraphs 2 and 5] of Zhang; [0032] of Ohtani); which overlaps the presently claimed range of --from 50 nm to 1000 nm--. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ohtani, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11, 18, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Non-Patent Literature No. 1 (Zhang et al.; "Bias-graded deposition of diamond-like carbon for tribological applications") (referred to herein as "Zhang"): Zhang teaches --a coated substrate--, wherein Zhang's coated substrate further comprises the structure --an amorphous hydrogen-free diamond-like coating (DLC) on a steel disc substrate, the DLC being a bias-graded coating wherein the sp3 percent is lowest at the interface of the coating and the substrate, and gradually increasing to a higher sp3 fraction at the coating surface, wherein the coating exhibits a gradual variation of the sp3/sp2 ratio ([Pg. 867: paragraph 1], [Pg. 867: paragraph 3 to Pg. 868: paragraph 1], and [Pg. 870: paragraphs 2 to 6] of Zhang)--. However, Zhang does not teach that --the amorphous carbon film has a low residual compressive stress, corresponding to a value in absolute value not higher than 5.5 GPa-- {instant claim 7}, --the amorphous carbon film comprises at least a portion that exhibits a ratio of its average Young's modulus in relation to its average hardness, both properties measured in GPa by using standard nanoindentation techniques, in a range from 7 to 13-- {instant claim 8}, --the bottom layer has a hardness in a range from 30 GPa to 50 GPa, and the top layer has a hardness in a range from more than 50 GPa to 80 GPa-- {instant claim 9}, --the bottom layer has a Young's modulus in a range from 250 GPa to 350 GPa, and the top layer has a Young's modulus in a range from 500 GPa to 800 GPa-- {instant claim 10}, --the transition layer has: at least a hardness in a range from more than 50 GPa to 80 GPa; or a Young's modulus in a range from 500 GPa to 800 GPa-- {instant claim 11}, --an average hardness of the amorphous carbon film is in a range between 50 GPa and 80 GPa-- {instant claim 18}, or --an average Young's modulus of the amorphous carbon film is in a range between 500 GPa and 800 GPa-- {instant claim 19}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Zhang with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Zhang in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights