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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 15, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment filed with the RCE submission of May 15, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 1-12 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 2 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the amendment of May 15, 2026 clarifying the claim language.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 2010-155765 (hereinafter ‘765, used as provided with the IDS of September 16, 2024, including the translation) in view of Sato (US 2010/0055222) and Bailey et al (US 4048348), EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by WO 2021/124978 (hereinafter ‘978).
*** Please Note that Nishida et al (US 2022/0313002) is used as the translation for WO 2021/124978, so the citations to paragraph numbers are to Nishida et al (US 2022/0313002). ***
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10: ‘765 teaches a method of manufacturing a quartz member (such as a quartz glass crucible) fr0m a quartz substrate (note outer layer 11 of quartz glass can be considered a substrate) (note 0020, 0021, can be made from natural quartz, 0041), where the process includes contacting one side of the quartz glass substrate with a rotating carbon mold surface (note 0041, 0044, would be carbon material as desired by claim 7). As to further thermal spraying silica onto a surface opposite the one side of the quartz substate, it is provided by ‘765 that silica powder is arc sprayed (thermally sprayed) onto the inner surface of the quartz substrate layer 11 (note 0044). As to the quartz substrate contacting the surface the one side of the quartz substrate with the thermally conductive material (carbon mold) during the thermal spraying of the silica, this would at least be suggested by ‘765, where ‘765 describes another applying of a silica layer to previously applied quartz, where this is done in the mold (note 0041-0042), suggesting that it would be predictably acceptable to provide the application of silica to the inner surface of the quartz while the outer/opposite surface of the quartz contacts the carbon mold (the is understood to provide the features of claim 2).
‘765 does not teach the specific thermal conductivity of the carbon mold. However, Sato teaches that when providing rotating molds that can be used for forming silica crucibles (and can be used with application of silica or quartz powder), the mold is preferably a carbon mold with a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K (so thermally conductive), which gives desirable crucible formation (note 0022-0023, 0036).
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 ‘765 to use a carbon mold surface with a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K (in the range of claims 1 and 6) as suggested by Sato with an expectation of predictably acceptable result since ‘765 is using a carbon mold for forming crucibles made with quartz and Sato indicates in a similar case, the carbon mold desirably has a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K. As to the thermal conductivity measured at 25 degrees C, Sato gives no temperature limitations for measurement, and thus the results would have been expected to apply when measured at 25 degrees C as well.
Optionally, further as evidenced by ‘978, ‘978 would further evidence that carbon based material used to form a chamber can conventionally have a thermal conductivity overlapping that of Sato (‘978 with 80 W/m-K or more, for example) when measured at 25 degrees C (note 0049), further evidencing that it would be expected for the thermal conductivity of Sato to acceptably be in the described range at 25 degrees C.
As to the thermal spraying being performed using a burner, ‘765 indicates providing thermal spraying silica powder in the form of arc spraying (note 0044).
Bailey describes how thermal spraying of silica powder material can be provided by an arc spraying process in the form of arc plasma spraying (note figure 1, column 1, lines 5-15, column 2, lines 15-45). The process includes providing the powder into an arc plasma spray gun, which can be considered a burner as it forms a plasma flame that melts the particles as projects them to the surface to be sprayed to form a coating (note figure 1, column 2, lines 15-50).
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 ‘765 in view of Sato, EITHER alone OR as evidenced by ‘978 to provide the thermal spraying using a burner as suggested by Bailey with an expectation providing a predictably acceptable silica spraying and application, since ‘765 describes arc spraying the silica and Bailey indicates an arc spraying process for silica by providing plasma arc spraying of silica powder using an arc plasma spray gun/burner to provide an acceptable silica application. The combined process would also provide the features of claim 8. The features of claim 10 would be suggested as discussed for claim 6 above.
Claims 3, 9: The process of ‘765 in view of Sato and Bailey, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘978 also provides depositing silica powder on one side/upper side of the quartz substrate by thermal spraying (described for claim 1 as a surface opposite the one side of the quartz substrate) and contacting a surface opposite the one side of the quartz substrate/lower side (described for claim 1 as the one side) with a thermally conductive material having a thermal conductivity of more than 30 W/cmK at 25 degrees C during the thermal spraying (note the discussion of claim 1 above). Furthermore, as to the heating and melting of the powder using a burner and the heating and melting during the substrate contact with the thermally conductive material, Bailey would further suggest that the arc plasma spraying acts to heat and melt the silica powder for application (note column 2, lines 35-45, column 3, lines 5-20, where the melting process is part of forming a desirably adhered coating). This provides the features claimed of claims 3 and 9.
Claim 4: ‘765 would further suggest heating one surface of the quartz member to smooth the surface, where heating occurs while contacting the quartz substrate surface opposite that being heated with the thermally conductive material (carbon mold), where the entire inner surface of the silica/quartz powder is heated and melted, pressure is further reduced from the mold side at the same time as heating, gas within the quartz is sucked into the outer layer side through a vent in mold and discharged to outside the vent, so removing air bubbles in the inner side of the crucible and forming a transparent quartz glass layer 12, substantially free from bubbles (note 0042), so the surface understood to be smoothed to at least some degree.
Claim 5: when providing the heating and melting in ‘765, the temperature can be to a surface temperature of 1720 degrees C or higher, in the claimed range (note 0042).
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 2010-155765 (hereinafter ‘765, used as provided with the IDS of September 16, 2024, including the translation) in view of Sato (US 2010/0055222) and Japan 07-126025 (hereinafter ‘025, used as provided with the IDS of September 16, 2024), EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by WO 2021/124978 (hereinafter ‘978).
*** Please Note that Nishida et al (US 2022/0313002) is used as the translation for WO 2021/124978, so the citations to paragraph numbers are to Nishida et al (US 2022/0313002). ***
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10: ‘765 teaches a method of manufacturing a quartz member (such as a quartz glass crucible) fr0m a quartz substrate (note outer layer 11 of quartz glass can be considered a substrate) (note 0020, 0021, can be made from natural quartz, 0041), where the process includes contacting one side of the quartz glass substrate with a rotating carbon mold surface (note 0041, 0044, would be carbon material as desired by claim 7). As to further thermal spraying silica onto a surface opposite the one side of the quartz substate, it is provided by ‘765 that silica powder is arc sprayed (thermally sprayed) onto the inner surface of the quartz substrate layer 11 (note 0044). As to the quartz substrate contacting the surface the one side of the quartz substrate with the thermally conductive material (carbon mold) during the thermal spraying of the silica, this would at least be suggested by ‘765, where ‘765 describes another applying of a silica layer to previously applied quartz, where this is done in the mold (note 0041-0042), suggesting that it would be predictably acceptable to provide the application of silica to the inner surface of the quartz while the outer/opposite surface of the quartz contacts the carbon mold (the is understood to provide the features of claim 2).
‘765 does not teach the specific thermal conductivity of the carbon mold. However, Sato teaches that when providing rotating molds that can be used for forming silica crucibles (and can be used with application of silica or quartz powder), the mold is preferably a carbon mold with a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K (so thermally conductive), which gives desirable crucible formation (note 0022-0023, 0036).
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 ‘765 to use a carbon mold surface with a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K (in the range of claims 1 and 6) as suggested by Sato with an expectation of predictably acceptable result since ‘765 is using a carbon mold for forming crucibles made with quartz and Sato indicates in a similar case, the carbon mold desirably has a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K. As to the thermal conductivity measured at 25 degrees C, Sato gives no temperature limitations for measurement, and thus the results would have been expected to apply when measured at 25 degrees C as well.
Optionally, further as evidenced by ‘978, ‘978 would further evidence that carbon based material used to form a chamber can conventionally have a thermal conductivity overlapping that of Sato (‘978 with 80 W/m-K or more, for example) when measured at 25 degrees C (note 0049), further evidencing that it would be expected for the thermal conductivity of Sato to acceptably be in the described range at 25 degrees C.
As to the thermal spraying being performed using a burner, ‘765 indicates providing thermal spraying silica powder in the form of arc spraying (note 0044). ‘765 indicates how quartz can be considered silica (note 0020-0021).
‘025 indicates how quartz can be considered as silica (note 0010), and also notes how quartz can be spayed for application to a surface with heating/melting of the quartz (so a thermal spraying) using either an oxyhydrogen flame burner or electric arc flame burner, where powder is provided for spraying and heated with the burner as projected to the surface to be sprayed (note 0008, 0014-0015, figures 1-4).
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 ‘765 in view of Sato, EITHER alone OR as evidenced by ‘978 to provide the electric arc spraying using a burner, or alternatively using an oxyhydrogen burner as suggested by ‘025 with an expectation providing a predictably acceptable silica spraying and application, since ‘765 describes arc spraying the silica and ‘025 indicates that either an electric arc burner can be used for spraying quartz/silica (so giving an arc spraying) or an oxyhydrogen burner can be used for spraying quartz/silica to a surface, so either method is understood to give a predictably acceptable application.
Claims 3, 9: The process of ‘765 in view of Sato and Bailey, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘978 also provides depositing silica powder on one side/upper side of the quartz substrate by thermal spraying (described for claim 1 as a surface opposite the one side of the quartz substrate) and contacting a surface opposite the one side of the quartz substrate/lower side (described for claim 1 as the one side) with a thermally conductive material having a thermal conductivity of more than 30 W/cmK at 25 degrees C during the thermal spraying (note the discussion of claim 1 above). Furthermore, as to the heating and melting of the powder using a burner and the heating and melting during the substrate contact with the thermally conductive material, ‘025 would further suggest that the burner spraying acts to heat and melt the silica/quartz powder for application (note 0014-0015, where the melting process is part of forming a desirably adhered coating). This provides the features claimed of claims 3 and 9.
Claim 4: ‘765 would further suggest heating one surface of the quartz member to smooth the surface, where heating occurs while contacting the quartz substrate surface opposite that being heated with the thermally conductive material (carbon mold), where the entire inner surface of the silica/quartz powder is heated and melted, pressure is further reduced from the mold side at the same time as heating, gas within the quartz is sucked into the outer layer side through a vent in mold and discharged to outside the vent, so removing air bubbles in the inner side of the crucible and forming a transparent quartz glass layer 12, substantially free from bubbles (note 0042), so the surface understood to be smoothed to at least some degree.
Claim 5: when providing the heating and melting in ‘765, the temperature can be to a surface temperature of 1720 degrees C or higher, in the claimed range (note 0042).
Claims 3, 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 2010-155765 (hereinafter ‘765, used as provided with the IDS of September 16, 2024, including the translation) in view of Sato (US 2010/0055222) and Japan 2004-002082 (hereinafter ‘082), EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by WO 2021/124978 (hereinafter ‘978).
*** Please Note that Nishida et al (US 2022/0313002) is used as the translation for WO 2021/124978, so the citations to paragraph numbers are to Nishida et al (US 2022/0313002). ***
Claims 3, 9: ‘765 teaches a method of manufacturing a quartz member (such as a quartz glass crucible) fr0m a quartz substrate (note outer layer 11 of quartz glass can be considered a substrate) (note 0020, 0021, can be made from natural quartz, 0041), where the process includes depositing silica powder onto one side of the quartz substrate and heating and melting the silica powder, where the surface opposite the side of the quartz substrate on which the silica is deposited contacts a thermally conductive material (carbon mold) during the heating and melting of the silica powder (note 0041-0042, where the synthetic quartz powder would have silica powder, note reference to silica powder in 0042). For claim 9, the upper surface of the quartz substrate can be considered the silica deposition side and the lower surface the side contacting the quartz substrate.
‘765 does not teach the specific thermal conductivity of the carbon mold. However, Sato teaches that when providing rotating molds that can be used for forming silica crucibles (and can be used with application of silica or quartz powder), the mold is preferably a carbon mold with a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K (so thermally conductive), which gives desirable crucible formation (note 0022-0023, 0036).
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 ‘765 to use a carbon mold surface with a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K (in the range of claims 1 and 6) as suggested by Sato with an expectation of predictably acceptable result since ‘765 is using a carbon mold for forming crucibles made with quartz and Sato indicates in a similar case, the carbon mold desirably has a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K. As to the thermal conductivity measured at 25 degrees C, Sato gives no temperature limitations for measurement, and thus the results would have been expected to apply when measured at 25 degrees C as well.
Optionally, further as evidenced by ‘978, ‘978 would further evidence that carbon based material used to form a chamber can conventionally have a thermal conductivity overlapping that of Sato (‘978 with 80 W/m-K or more, for example) when measured at 25 degrees C (note 0049), further evidencing that it would be expected for the thermal conductivity of Sato to acceptably be in the described range at 25 degrees C.
Additionally, as to the melting using a burner, ‘765 describes that the silica melting can be performed using arc discharge (note 0042). ‘765 describes that quartz glass can be conventionally silica glass (note 0020, 0022, as to layer 12) and also that quartz powder can be considered silica powder (note 0041-0042).
‘082 provides making quartz glass crucibles (abstract) and indicates melting of quartz glass by an arc discharge or an oxyhydrogen flame burner (note 0014, 0016).
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 ‘765 in view of Sato, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by ‘978 to provide the melting using a oxyhydrogen flame burner instead of arc discharge as suggested by ‘082 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘765 indicates that the quartz/silica material can be melted by arc discharge, and ‘082 indicates that quartz can similarly be melted by arc discharge or an oxyhydrogen flame burner.
Claims 11-12: ‘765 teaches a method of manufacturing a quartz member (such as a quartz glass crucible) fr0m a quartz substrate (note outer layer 11 of quartz glass can be considered a substrate) (note 0020, 0021, can be made from natural quartz, 0041), where the process includes contacting the quartz glass substrate with a rotating carbon mold surface (note 0041, 0044, would be carbon material). ‘765 would further suggest heating one surface of the quartz member to smooth the surface, where heating occurs while contacting the quartz substrate surface opposite that being heated with the thermally conductive material (carbon mold), where the entire inner surface of the silica/quartz powder is heated and melted, pressure is further reduced from the mold side at the same time as heating, gas within the quartz is sucked into the outer layer side through a vent in mold and discharged to outside the vent, so removing air bubbles in the inner side of the crucible and forming a transparent quartz glass layer 12, substantially free from bubbles (note 0042), so the surface understood to be smoothed to at least some degree. When providing the heating and melting in ‘765, the temperature can be to a surface temperature of 1720 degrees C or higher, in the claimed range (note 0042) of claim 11/
‘765 does not teach the specific thermal conductivity of the carbon mold. However, Sato teaches that when providing rotating molds that can be used for forming silica crucibles (and can be used with application of silica or quartz powder), the mold is preferably a carbon mold with a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K (so thermally conductive), which gives desirable crucible formation (note 0022-0023, 0036).
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 ‘765 to use a carbon mold surface with a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K (in the range of claims 11 and 12) as suggested by Sato with an expectation of predictably acceptable result since ‘765 is using a carbon mold for forming crucibles made with quartz and Sato indicates in a similar case, the carbon mold desirably has a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K. As to the thermal conductivity measured at 25 degrees C, Sato gives no temperature limitations for measurement, and thus the results would have been expected to apply when measured at 25 degrees C as well. This would also provide the features of claim 12 as well.
Optionally, further as evidenced by ‘978, ‘978 would further evidence that carbon based material used to form a chamber can conventionally have a thermal conductivity overlapping that of Sato (‘978 with 80 W/m-K or more, for example) when measured at 25 degrees C (note 0049), further evidencing that it would be expected for the thermal conductivity of Sato to acceptably be in the described range at 25 degrees C.
Additionally, as to the smoothing using a burner, ‘765 describes that the silica melting/smoothing can be performed using arc discharge (note 0042). ‘765 describes that quartz glass can be conventionally silica glass (note 0020, 0022, as to layer 12) and also that quartz powder can be considered silica powder (note 0041-0042).
‘082 provides making quartz glass crucibles (abstract) and indicates melting of quartz glass by an arc discharge or an oxyhydrogen flame burner (note 0014, 0016).
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 ‘765 in view of Sato, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by ‘978 to provide the melting/smoothing using a oxyhydrogen flame burner instead of arc discharge as suggested by ‘082 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘765 indicates that the quartz/silica material can be melted by arc discharge, and ‘082 indicates that quartz can similarly be melted by arc discharge or an oxyhydrogen flame burner.
DE 10160451 notes how a plasma spray torch can be referred to as a burner (note abstract and page 3, translation). Tsuji et al (US 6524668) notes providing a quartz glass layer in contact with a carbonaceous material (note abstract, figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and the declaration filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered.
Note the adjustments to the rejections with the new rejection using ‘025.
It is argued as to the 35 USC 103 rejections that one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand a “burner” to include arc plasma spraying (noting the declaration of May 15, 2026).
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments and declaration however, the declaration, in the form of opinion evidence is not sufficient to establish such a position. Note MPEP 716.
In assessing the probative value of an expert opinion, the examiner must consider the nature of the matter sought to be established, the strength of any opposing evidence, the interest of the expert in the outcome of the case, and the presence or absence of factual support for the expert’s opinion. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 227 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986).
Here, the declarant is attempting to establish that “burner” would not include arc plasma spraying, has an interest (as an employee of the applicant corporation), and has no factual support for the position. On the other hand, evidence opposing applicant’s position is substantial. For example, note US 6379754 at column 2, lines 25-40, column 13, lines 30-55, figure 7, noting for plasma spraying with an arc, using a burner to provide the plasma flame; US 2007/0259126 at 0003-0004 similarly noting the use of a plasma burner, US 2016/0273477 at 0016, 0022-0025, figure 1 noting the use of burners for plasma transferred wire arc spraying, and DE 10160451 notes how a plasma spray torch can be referred to as a burner (note abstract and page 3, translation). Additionally, applicant’s own specification indicates that a burner can provided with plasma (note 0061-0062 of the specification as filed). Therefore, after weighing all these considerations and noting the evidence against the declarant’s position, the declaration is not sufficient to overcome the Examiner’s position that arc plasma spraying can be provided using a burner. Also note the new rejection using ‘025, which specifically is cited as to use of a burner.
Additionally, the position that arc plasma does not have sufficient heat flux for the melting would also not overcome the rejections above. Firstly, only claim 2 actually requires melting. As well, the declarant is attempting to establish that arc plasma would not sufficiently melt the silica particles, has an interest (as an employee of the applicant corporation), and has no factual support for the position. On the other hand, evidence opposing applicant’s position is substantial. Specifically, Bailey indicates that the arc spraying provides heating and melting as discussed in the rejection above. Furthermore, applicant’s own specification describes using a plasma burner for melting (note 0061-0062 of the specification as filed). Note also ‘025 as used above also indicates melting with plasma burners. Therefore, after weighing all these considerations and noting the evidence against the declarant’s position, the declaration is not sufficient to overcome the Examiner’s position that melting can be provided with the arc plasma spraying can be provided using a burner. Also note the new rejection using ‘025, which specifically is cited as to use of melting with a burner.
Additionally, there is a position that the cited references, including ‘765, specifically use a carbon mold to soften and shape their component using heat, which would be an alternative to using a burner, and thus would not use a burner as claimed in claim 1.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejection is maintained. As claimed, in claim 1, the thermal spraying of the silica is provided using a burner. Since ‘765 has thermally spraying of the silica, regardless of how the mold used, thermal spraying of silica would still be suggested. The Examiner has cited, for example, the suggestion of using a burner to provide the thermal spraying, and thus this would meet the requirements of a burner as claimed. The arguments and the declaration appear to be an opinion as to the legal conclusion at issue, and are thus not given weight, and as well are contradicted by the cited references as to the actual requirements of the claim.
As to the arguments as to claims 3 and 9 that ‘082 would distinguish between melting by discharge or oxyhydrogen flame burner, the Examiner is of the position that this does not prevent there from being thermal spraying with arc plasma using a burner as claimed, since the art cited shows the known use of such burners. The arguments and the declaration appear to be contradicted by the cited references as to the actual requirements of the claim.
Conclusion
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