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
The preliminary amendment filed on September 24, 2024, has been entered. Claims 4, 9-11, 15-17, 22-24, 27-28, 30, 23-35, and 37-39 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-14, 18-21, 25-26, 29, 31, 36 and 40 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2024, 03/10/2025, and 10/06/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 5-8, 13-14, 18-21, 26, 29, 31, 36 and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of each of the claims recites e.g., in the case of claim 2, “The electronically-controlled method of Claim 1 further”. The claims should be amended by re-writing the phrase in the preamble by removing the capitalization of the word “Claim”, and adding a comma “,” before the word “further, e.g., as follows - - The electronically-controlled method of claim 1, further - -. See MPEP 608.01(m). 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, 5 – 8, 12 – 14, 18 – 21, 25 – 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieratschker et al. (US 2019/0039252 A1), in view of Martin (US 2005/0061422 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and claim 25, Nieratschker et al. teaches an electronically-controlled method for manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite structure (thus, a non-polymer structure – as in claim 25) with a desired shape ([0002-0005, 0030-0035, 0047, 0060-0061]), the electronically-controlled method comprising:
processing at a first location (e.g., cutting table 106, FIG. 3, [003
2-0034]) a first ceramic matrix composite ply (e.g., a first cut-out 100a [0033]) and a second ceramic matrix composite ply (e.g., a second cut-out 100b [0033]) to form a stack (e.g., [0033] “After removing a ply 100 from the sheet 104 of material, the automated machine 102 may move the ply to a ply storage area 108, to a ply layup or stacking area 110, or to another suitable location away from the sheet 104”);
wherein the processing comprises: peeling away a top backing film from a top surface of the first ceramic matrix composite ply (see [0059] “For example, the last deposited ply 100 may have a sticky surface, e.g., exposed by the removal of a backing layer of paper, film, or the like by the end effector 200 or other suitable device”); and
placing the bottom surface of the second ceramic matrix composite ply on top of the top surface of the first ceramic matrix composite ply (see [0059] “the last deposited ply 100 may have a sticky surface, e.g., exposed by the removal of a backing layer of paper, film, or the like by the end effector 200 or other suitable device, and the end effector 200 must apply enough force to stick the ply 100 the end effector is currently gripping to the ply 100 last deposited in the stacking area 110.”);
transporting the stack from the first location to a second location, which is remote from the first location (e.g., see [0058-0062] “[0058] Referring still to FIG. 6, the method 600 also includes stacking the cut-outs 100 removed from the sheet 104 on top of one another in a stacking area 110, or multiple stacking areas 110”); and
processing the stack at the second location to yield the ceramic matrix composite structure with the desired shape (e.g., see [0031-00] “An exemplary arbitrarily shaped ply 100, having a length L, a width W, and an edge or perimeter 101, is illustrated in FIG. 2, but it will be appreciated that the plies 100 used to form a composite component may have any shape and/or size”; [0061] “In addition, the end effector may perform basic compaction of the cut-outs or plies as the end effector stacks the cut-outs or plies in the stacking area”).
Nieratschker et al. does not disclose the method comprising after the peeling away the bottom backing film, peeling away a bottom backing film from a bottom surface of the second ceramic matrix composite ply.
Nieratschker, however, discloses that, [0059] “For example, the last deposited ply 100 may have a sticky surface, e.g., exposed by the removal of a backing layer of paper, film, or the like by the end effector 200 or other suitable device”. That is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is construed that the ceramic matrix composite ply disclosed by Nieratschker et al. comprises at least one side having a backing layer, and therefore only one peeling operation is performed on a first processed ply.
Like Nieratschker et al., Martin teaches a fully automated method and apparatus for laminating structural articles with multiple layers of a resin impregnated fiber tape (Abstract, [0002]), Martin discloses the impregnated fiber tape could comprise continuous fibers selected from the group consisting of, inter alia, ceramics, which has been preimpregnated with a resin binder and further provided with a releasable backing layer [0003].
Martin discloses a tape laying head member including multiple tape supply and associated backing [analogous to the claimed “top/bottom backing film”] removal mechanisms, and that the prepreg tape [analogous to the claimed ceramic matrix composite ply] selected for such purpose can further include backing layers disposed on both major surfaces to better enable release of the tape from tape supply spools as well as to help avoid adhesion of the unbacked tape to surfaces physically contacted in the head member [0011].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the first and/or second ceramic matrix composite ply having a single-sided backing layer in the method of Nieratschker et al., with a ceramic matrix composite ply comprising backing layers disposed on both major surfaces (e.g., top and bottom), as suggested and taught by the prior art of Martin [0011], since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the ceramic matrix composite ply comprising backing layers disposed on both major surfaces for the purpose of e.g., to better enable release of the tape from tape supply spools as well as to help avoid adhesion of the unbacked tape to surfaces physically contacted in the end effector system 150 of Nieratschker et al., as suggested and taught by the prior art of Martin [0011]. See MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the method steps in the method of Nieratschker/Martin to include a step of peeling away a bottom backing film from a bottom surface of the second ceramic matrix composite ply comprising backing layers disposed on both major surfaces (e.g., top and bottom), as suggested and taught by the prior art of Martin [0011], and after the peeling away the bottom backing film, placing the bottom surface of the second ceramic matrix composite ply on top of the top surface of the first ceramic matrix composite ply, since “In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding claim 5, Nieratschker/Martin teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 1, wherein each of the first ceramic matrix composite ply and the second ceramic matrix composite ply comprises a matrix and fiber reinforcements within the matrix (see Nieratschker et al. [0026-0029]).
Regarding claim 6, Nieratschker/Martin teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 5, wherein the matrix comprises a ceramic based material, and the fiber reinforcements within the matrix comprise ceramic fibers (Nieratschker et al. [0027] “Exemplary CMC materials may include silicon carbide (SiC), silicon, silica, or alumina matrix materials, or combinations thereof, and ceramic fibers embedded within the matrix material. Ceramic fibers may be embedded within the matrix”).
Regarding claim 7 and claim 29, Nieratschker/Martin teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 1 and claim 25, respectively, wherein each of the first ceramic matrix composite ply and the second ceramic matrix composite ply comprises a fabric that is pre-impregnated with a matrix material (see Nieratschker et al. [0027-0029]).
Regarding claim 8, Nieratschker/Martin teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 1, except for explicitly disclosing, further comprising orientating fiber reinforcements of each of the first ceramic matrix composite ply and the second ceramic matrix composite ply such that the fiber reinforcements reinforce each other when the ceramic matrix composite structure with the desired shape is manufactured.
Nieratschker et al., however, discloses at [0061] that the end effector can manipulated the cuts so that “the cut-outs may be placed in a stack of cut-outs with a high degree of accuracy as to the position and orientation of the cut-outs because the end effector maintains or replicates the position and orientation of the cut-outs from the cutting table to the stacking area.” And at [0002] that “ceramic matrix composite (CMC) materials can withstand relatively extreme temperatures; accordingly, there is particular interest in replacing components within a combustion gas flow path of a gas turbine engine with components made from CMC materials. Many composite materials, such as carbon fiber and CMC materials, are formed from plies, and the plies may be laid up to form a preform component that may then undergo various processing cycles to arrive at a component made from the composite material.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have orientated the fiber reinforcements of each of the first ceramic matrix composite ply and the second ceramic matrix composite ply in the method of Nieratschker/Martin, such that the fiber reinforcements reinforce each other when the ceramic matrix composite structure with the desired shape is manufactured, for the purpose of manufacturing components for a gas turbine engine capable of withstand the forces and relatively extreme temperatures generated within a combustion gas flow path of a gas turbine engine, as suggested by Nieratschker et al. [0002] (see MPEP 2143(I)(G)), since "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). MPEP § 2141 (I).
Regarding claim 12, Nieratschker/Martin teaches an electronically-controlled method for manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite structure with a desired shape (see the discussion of claim 1 above), except for disclosing, wherein the first ceramic matrix composite ply that is sandwiched between a first bottom backing film and a first top backing film and the second ceramic matrix composite ply that is sandwiched between a second bottom backing film and a second top backing film.
Martin discloses a tape laying head member including multiple tape supply and associated backing [analogous to the claimed “top/bottom backing film”] removal mechanisms, and that the prepreg tape [analogous to the claimed ceramic matrix composite ply] selected for such purpose can further include backing layers disposed on both major surfaces to better enable release of the tape from tape supply spools as well as to help avoid adhesion of the unbacked tape to surfaces physically contacted in the head member [0011].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the first and/or second ceramic matrix composite ply having a single-sided backing layer in the method of Nieratschker et al., with a ceramic matrix composite ply comprising backing layers disposed on both major surfaces (e.g., top and bottom), as suggested and taught by the prior art of Martin [0011], since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the ceramic matrix composite ply comprising backing layers disposed on both major surfaces for the purpose of e.g., to better enable release of the tape from tape supply spools as well as to help avoid adhesion of the unbacked tape to surfaces physically contacted in the end effector system 150 of Nieratschker et al., as suggested and taught by the prior art of Martin [0011]. See MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 13, Nieratschker/Martin teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 12, except for explicitly disclosing, further comprising: prior to transporting the stack from the table surface at the first location to the tool surface at the second location, peeling away the first bottom backing film from a bottom surface of the first ceramic matrix composite ply.
Nieratschker et al., however, at [0059] discloses “the end effector 200 applies some force to the ply 100 as it releases the ply in order to position the ply on top of the last deposited ply 100. For example, the last deposited ply 100 may have a sticky surface, e.g., exposed by the removal of a backing layer of paper, film, or the like by the end effector 200 or other suitable device”.
However, the rearrangement of the peeling steps would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since “In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes” (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding claim 14, Nieratschker/Martin teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 12, further comprising: after transporting the stack (the modified stack comprised of ceramic matrix composite plies comprising backing layers disposed on both major surfaces, besides the ones peeled away to make the first and second plies stick together) from the table surface at the first location to the tool surface at the second location (see the discussion of claims 1 and 12 above), forming shape of the stack to shape of the tool surface (e.g., Nieratschker et al. [0039] discloses “The stacking surface may have a contour that is non-planar, and while the exemplary gripping surface 202 generally is planar, the gripping surface also has enough flexibility to adapt to the contour of the stacking surface such that the gripping surface 202 contacts the stacking surface as the cut-out 100 is deposited on the stacking surface.”), except for specifically disclosing, and then peeling away the first bottom backing film from a bottom surface of the first ceramic matrix composite ply.
However, rearranging the method steps so that the step of peeling away the first bottom backing film from a bottom surface of the first ceramic matrix composite ply happens after the step of forming shape of the stack to shape of the tool surface would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since “In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes” (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to rearrange the step of peeling away the first bottom backing film from a bottom surface of the first ceramic matrix composite ply to happen after the step of forming shape of the stack to shape of the tool surface, with reasonable anticipation of success, for the purpose of e.g., sticking the first ceramic matrix composite ply to the surface of the tool surface avoiding unwanted displacement after the gripping surface flexibly adapt to the contour of the stacking surface such that the gripping surface contacts the stacking surface as the cut-out is deposited on the stacking surface, as suggested by Nieratschker et al. [0039], since "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 18, Nieratschker/Martin teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 12, wherein (i) picking a first ceramic matrix composite ply that is sandwiched between a first bottom backing film and a first top backing film includes picking a first ceramic matrix composite ply having a first matrix and fiber reinforcements within the first matrix, and (ii) picking a second ceramic matrix composite ply that is sandwiched between a second bottom backing film and a second top backing film includes picking a second ceramic matrix composite ply having a second matrix and fiber reinforcements within the second matrix (see Nieratschker et al. [0026-0029]).
Regarding claim 19, Nieratschker/Martin teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 18, wherein each of the first matrix and the second matrix comprises a ceramic based material, and the fiber reinforcements within the first matrix and the second matrix comprise ceramic fibers (Nieratschker et al. [0027] “Exemplary CMC materials may include silicon carbide (SiC), silicon, silica, or alumina matrix materials, or combinations thereof, and ceramic fibers embedded within the matrix material. Ceramic fibers may be embedded within the matrix”).
Regarding claim 20, Nieratschker/Martin teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 12, wherein (i) picking a first ceramic matrix composite ply that is sandwiched between a first bottom backing film and a first top backing film includes picking a first ceramic matrix composite ply having a first fabric that is pre-impregnated with a matrix material, and (ii) picking a second ceramic matrix composite ply that is sandwiched between a second bottom backing film and a second top backing film includes picking a second ceramic matrix composite ply having a second fabric that is pre-impregnated with a matrix material (see Nieratschker et al. [0027-0029]).
Regarding claim 21, Nieratschker/Martin teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 18, except for explicitly disclosing, further comprising: orientating fiber reinforcements of each of the first ceramic matrix composite ply and the second ceramic matrix composite ply during placement of the first ceramic matrix composite ply and the second ceramic matrix composite ply on the table surface at the first location such that the fiber reinforcements reinforce each other when the ceramic matrix composite structure with the desired shape is manufactured (see the discussion of claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 26, Nieratschker/Martin teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 25, wherein the transporting the stack of at least the first non-polymer ply and the second non-polymer ply from the table surface at the first location to the tool surface at the second location comprises: transporting the stack of at least the first non-polymer ply and the second non-polymer ply from the table surface at the first location to the tool surface at the second location, wherein the first non-polymer ply and the second non-polymer ply comprise a ceramic matrix composite (e.g., see Nieratschker et al. [0058-0062] “Referring still to FIG. 6, the method 600 also includes stacking the cut-outs 100 removed from the sheet 104 on top of one another in a stacking area 110, or multiple stacking areas 110”; [0031-00] “An exemplary arbitrarily shaped ply 100, having a length L, a width W, and an edge or perimeter 101, is illustrated in FIG. 2, but it will be appreciated that the plies 100 used to form a composite component may have any shape and/or size”; [0061] “In addition, the end effector may perform basic compaction of the cut-outs or plies as the end effector stacks the cut-outs or plies in the stacking area”).
Claim(s) 2 – 3, 31 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieratschker et al. (US 2019/0039252 A1), in view of Martin (US 2005/0061422 A1), as applied to claim 1 and claim 25 above, and further in view of DISS et al. (US 2021/0155552 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Nieratschker/Martin teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 1, except for, further comprising positioning at the second location a vacuum membrane against the stack to provide a vacuum-tight seal against the stack.
Nieratschker et al., however, discloses [0033] “After removing a ply 100 from the sheet 104 of material, the automated machine 102 may move the ply to, inter alia, a ply layup or stacking area 110, or to another suitable location away from the sheet 104. Thus, removing and moving plies cut from a sheet of material may be an automated process performed by one or more machines rather than a manual process performed by human hands.”
DISS et al., teaches a vacuum molding process for manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite structure made from stacked (5) ceramic matrix composite plies (6) (see [0002-0003, 0025-0028, 0035-0037, 0052]), wherein the plies (6) are placed on a support (3) and a vacuum membrane (flexible membrane 10) is positioned against the stack (6) to provide a vacuum-tight seal against the stack (6) (see FIG. 3, [0052-0053] “stack 5 is present in an internal volume V delimited by the support 3 and by a flexible membrane 10”). DISS et al. [0054-0058] discloses a compaction (step E3) is performed by vacuum drawing inside the volume V by suction (arrow A) through an orifice 14 formed in the flexible membrane 10. During this vacuumization, the membrane 10 applies a compaction pressure (arrow C) on the stack 5 in order to reduce its thickness. It is noted that DISS et al. discloses that the plies could be pre-impregnated before the positioning on the support 3, see [0059] “FIG. 2 relates to an alternative method in which the stack is obtained by depositing plies pre-impregnated with the suspension (step 20). In this case, the plies have been impregnated before being deposited. Once the stack is achieved, the method is continued in a manner similar to that described in relation to FIG. 1: compaction to obtain the preform (step E30), optional drying of the filled preform (step E40) and sintering of the particles in order to obtain the composite material part (step 50).” [0060] the fiber plies 6 may be unidirectional sheets or two-dimensional textures. The plies can be textures of a three-dimensional fabric. [0061] The fiber plies 6 can be deposited one by one or, alternatively, in groups of several plies during the formation of the stack 5.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the method of Nieratschker/Martin with a step comprising positioning at the second location (e.g., wherein Nieratschker et al. stacking area 110 is comprised by DISS et al. support 3) a vacuum membrane against the stack to provide a vacuum-tight seal against the stack, as suggested and taught by DISS et al. [0052-0053], for the purpose of compacting to a desired thickness the stack by vacuum drawing inside the volume V by suction through an orifice 14 formed in the flexible membrane 10, as taught by DISS et al. [0054-0058]. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 3, Nieratschker/Martin/DISS teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 2, further comprising drawing a vacuum to pull the vacuum membrane against the stack (see DISS et al. [0054-0058]).
Regarding claim 31, Nieratschker/Martin/DISS teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 25, further comprising: applying a vacuum to the stack of at least the first non-polymer ply and the second non-polymer ply to form a shaped stack that conforms to a shape of the tool surface and thereby to provide the non-polymer structure with the desired shape (see the discussion of claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 40, Nieratschker/Martin/DISS teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 1, further comprising vacuum compacting the stack (see the discussion of claim 2 above and DISS et al. [0054-0058], FIG. 3).
Claim(s) 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieratschker et al. (US 2019/0039252 A1), in view of Martin (US 2005/0061422 A1), as applied to claim 1 and claim 25 above, and as evidenced by the non-patent literature of Dean McClements (“Ceramic Matrix Composite (CMC): Types, Components, and Uses”, thomasnet.com, 2025).
Regarding claim 36, Nieratschker/Martin teaches the electronically-controlled method of claim 25, wherein weight of the non-polymer structure for a given volume of the non-polymer structure is less than weight of an equivalent volume of a metal structure, as evidenced by McClements, non-polymer structures such as those manufacture from ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) “CMCs are significantly lighter than metals and most high-strength alloys, offering the potential for weight savings in aerospace and automotive applications.” (McClements lines 26-30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DULL et al. (BR 102015002345 A2): vacuum packaging unit and method for carrying a composite upper layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742