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
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on June 19, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 11 – 12 and 13 are currently amended. Claim 14 is new. Claims 1 – 14 are pending and under examination. The amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
New Grounds of Rejection
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsamura et al. (JP-H063626-U; of record, “Matsamura”), in view of GERLACH et al. (WO 2012/097224 A2; “GERLACH”).
Regarding claim 1, Matsamura et al. teaches a blow molding mechanism (see Matsamura et al. lines 30 – 33, 40 – 41, and FIGs. 1 – 5) comprising:
a split mold (2, 12 and 22 denote blowable split molds, see lines 41 – 43 and lines 117 – 119) that forms a part of a mold used in blow molding with respect to an intermediate molding product (products 11, 21, see FIGs. 4 – 5 and line 41), capable of performing mold opening after the blow molding is completed (see Matsamura et al. FIGs. 2, 6 – 7 and lines 53 – 54, lines 78 – 80, lines 115 – 117; however, the Examiner notes that these limitation recites the manner of operating the apparatus or what certain features are used for, which fail to limit apparatus claims);
a first bottom portion mold (e.g., bottom molds 3, 13, 23 see lines 47 – 50, and lines 119 – 120) that forms a part of the mold (see FIGs. 1, 4 – 5), and capable of molding at least a part of a bottom portion of the intermediate molding product on a side opposite to a mouth portion (see Matsamura et al. lines 43 – 44, lines 119 – 120 and FIGs. 1, 4 – 5) in which an inlet for a fluid in the blow molding is formed (see Matsamura et al. lines 131 – 132; however, the Examiner notes that these limitation recites the manner of operating the apparatus or what certain features are used for, which fail to limit apparatus claims); and
a suction unit (see elements 7, 17, 27 in FIGs. 1, 4 – 5 and lines 43 – 50, lines 57 – 59, lines 120 – 122) and hence capable of starts suction of at least a part of the bottom portion of a final molding product, which is a result of the blow molding, after the split mold performs the mold opening and before the final molding product is separated from the first bottom portion mold due to a change in a posture of the final molding product, at the same time as the split mold performs the mold opening, or before the split mold performs the mold opening, after the blow molding is completed (see Matsamura et al. lines 43 – 50, lines 57 – 59, lines 120 – 122; however, the Examiner notes that these limitation recites the manner of operating the apparatus or what certain features are used for, which fail to limit apparatus claims).
Matsamura does not disclose the blow molding mechanism, wherein: the split mold includes a first split mold and a second split mold, and the blow molding mechanism is configured such that the first split mold starts mold opening after the second split mold starts mold opening.
Like Matsamura, GERLACH teaches a blow molding mechanism and a blow-molding process, the blow-molding process producing articles comprising at least one recess proximal to an opening portion of the article that enables the integration of the design of the closure with the design of the article (page 1 lines 5 – 21, page 2 lines 28 – 31, page 6 lines 21 – 29).
(page 4 lines 5 – 14) discloses that the process could include the steps of: (i) Blowing an article in a mold cavity, to form an integral neck portion and at least one recess proximal thereto; (j) Opening the mold (see FIGs. 3A, 5A – F) via a first displacement of at least one first portion of the mold, preferably proximal to the neck portion, and a subsequent at least second displacement of at least two segments of a second portion of the mold [analogous to the claimed “the blow molding mechanism is configured such that the first split mold starts mold opening after the second split mold starts mold opening”];
wherein said first and second displacements are about a first and second plane, preferably said first and second planes are perpendicular relative to each other; and ejecting the finished article.
(page 13 lines 29 – 32, page 14 lines 1 – 2) “de-molding such recessed articles may be achieved by a process utilizing moving mold inserts. The advantage of such a process is that complex geometries generating the undercuts may be formed directly by blowing. The portions of the mold that would normally be trapped by said undercut during mold opening, are divided into a plurality of mold inserts and displaced in one or more phases, following the forming step, until clearance is provided and the formed article can be removed by simple opening of the mold.”
(page 14 lines 21 – 23) “the mold may be divided in at least two parts to enable opening along a mold parting line, preferably said at least two parts are symmetric and each form one half of the mold.” [analogous to the claimed “a first split mold and a second split mold”];
(page 16 lines 6 – 23) “de-molding such recessed articles may be achieved by a process utilizing a particular mold design comprising a number of parting lines, defining a number of mold portions, the process comprising the action of displacing said mold portions in a predetermined manner. The advantage of such process is that complex geometries generating the undercuts may be formed directly by blowing. The sections of the mold that would normally be trapped by said undercut are divided into a plurality of mold portions and displaced in more phases to enable ejecting the finished article without damage.”
(page 16 lines 25 – 34, page 17 lines 1 – 30) “the displacements (both first and second displacements) in step (ii) may be selected from the group consisting of translational, rotational, and combinations thereof. The actual translation to be used may depend on the design of the recess.” …“the mold (605) is opened via several displacement phases occurring in step (ii). The first phase may comprise the displacement of the first portion (606) away from the second portion (607), namely the body part, in a direction substantially parallel to the z-axis. The second phase may comprise the displacement of at least two segments (616, 617) of the second portion (607) each in a substantially opposite direction, preferably in a direction perpendicular to the z-axis . If the mold (605) comprises a base part (608), then said base part (608) is displaced away from said second portion (607) prior to said second phase, preferably in a direction substantially parallel to the z-axis.”
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 split mold in the blow molding mechanism of Matsamura, so that the split mold includes a first split mold capable of forming recessed articles (e.g., GERLACH mold first portion 606 and/or 609/610) and a second split mold (e.g., Matsamura blowable split mold 2), and the blow molding mechanism is configured such that the first split mold starts mold opening after the second split mold starts mold opening, for the purpose of, as suggested by the prior art of GERLACH, enable ejecting the finished article without damage, since GERLACH teaches (page 16 lines 6 – 23) “de-molding such recessed articles may be achieved by a process utilizing a particular mold design comprising a number of parting lines, defining a number of mold portions, the process comprising the action of displacing said mold portions in a predetermined manner. The advantage of such process is that complex geometries generating the undercuts may be formed directly by blowing. The sections of the mold that would normally be trapped by said undercut are divided into a plurality of mold portions and displaced in more phases to enable ejecting the finished article without damage.” See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding the limitations indicated as reciting the manner of operating the device being claimed or what certain features are used for (e.g., “performs mold closing before the blow molding starts”, “after the split mold performs the mold opening”, etc.) the Examiner has considered the limitations to the extent they further limit the claimed apparatus structure. However, Applicant is respectfully reminded that, as per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 2, Matsamura/GERLACH teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 1, further comprising: a second bottom portion mold (e.g., Matsamura ejector pin 5 in FIG. 1 lines 122 – 124, ejector pin 15 FIG. 4 lines 63 – 64, core 28 FIG. 5 lines 49 – 50) that is disposed in a portion penetrating a part of the first bottom portion mold in an axial direction of the intermediate molding product (Matsamura FIGs. 1, 4 – 5), and that molds at least a part of the bottom portion (Matsamura FIGs. 1, 4 – 5).
Regarding claim 3, Matsamura/GERLACH teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 2, wherein the blow molding mechanism is a mechanism that is applied to an intermediate mold (e.g., Matsamura mold device of a blow stage FIG. 3, lines 35 – 39) included in a mold unit (see Matsamura FIG. 3) that performs injection blow forming (see Matsamura FIG. 3 and lines 30 – 33, lines 51 – 59, lines 114 – 117).
Regarding claim 4, Matsamura/GERLACH teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 3, wherein the first split mold is a split mold that is configured to perform mold opening and mold closing in a direction perpendicular to a direction where the intermediate mold and a movable mold are opened and closed (e.g., see GERLACH page 16 lines 25 – 34, page 17 lines 1 – 30).
Regarding claim 5, Matsamura/GERLACH teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 4, wherein the first split mold molds the mouth portion (e.g., GERLACH “closure”) in a state of the mold closing during injection molding, and grips the mouth portion in a state of the mold closing during the blow molding (see the discussion of GERLACH in claim 1 above, and GERLACH FIGs. 3A, 5A – F).
Regarding claim 6, Matsamura/GERLACH teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 5, wherein the first split mold releases the mouth portion by performing the mold opening after the blow molding is completed (see the discussion of GERLACH in claim 1 above, and GERLACH FIGs. 3A, 5A – F). See MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Matsamura/GERLACH teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 4, wherein the second split mold (e.g., Matsamura et al. 2, 12, 22; FIGs. 1, 4 – 5) is a split mold that is configured to perform the mold opening and the mold closing (see Matsamura et al. FIGs. 2 – 7) in the direction (see the arrows in Matsamura et al. FIGs. 1, 2, 4, 5) perpendicular to the direction where the intermediate mold (e.g., mold device of a blow stage FIG. 3, lines 35 – 39) and the movable mold (e.g., Matsamura et al. injection stage in FIG. 3) are opened and closed (see Matsamura et al. FIGs. 1 – 7). (See the discussion of GERLACH in claim 1 above, and GERLACH FIGs. 3A, 5A – F; page 16 lines 25 – 34, page 17 lines 1 – 30) “the displacements (both first and second displacements) in step (ii) may be selected from the group consisting of translational, rotational, and combinations thereof. The actual translation to be used may depend on the design of the recess.”)
Regarding claim 8, Matsamura/GERLACH teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 2, wherein the first bottom portion mold (Matsamura 3, 13, 23) includes a through-hole (Matsamura 7, 17, 27) penetrating in a direction where the intermediate mold and a movable mold are opened and closed (see Matsamura et al. FIGs. 1, 4 – 5).
Regarding claim 9, Matsamura/GERLACH teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 8, wherein a diameter of the through-hole (Matsamura 7, 17, 27) is larger than an outer diameter of the second bottom portion mold (Matsamura 5, 15, 28) – (see Matsamura FIGs. 1, 4 – 5).
Regarding claim 10, Matsamura/GERLACH teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 2, wherein the suction unit sucks at least a part of the bottom portion through a gap (e.g., Matsamura et al. suction/blowing air ports 7, 17, 27) between the second bottom portion mold (e.g., Matsamura 5, 15, 28) and the first bottom portion mold (e.g., Matsamura 3, 13, 23), which is formed around the second bottom portion mold (see Matsamura FIGs. 1, 4 – 5).
Regarding claim 11, Matsamura/GERLACH teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the first split mold (e.g., GERLACH mold first portion 606 and/or 609/610) is configured to mold the mouth portion (GERLACH “closure”), and the second split mold (Matsamura et al. 2, 12, 22; FIGs. 1, 4 – 5) is configured to mold a main body which is a portion other than the mouth portion and the bottom portion (e.g., see Matsamura et al. FIGs. 1, 4 – 5; GERLACH FIGs. 3A1, 5A – F), and the suction unit (see Matsamura et al. elements 7, 17, 27 in FIGs. 1, 4 – 5 and lines 43 – 50, lines 57 – 59, lines 120 – 122) is capable of starting the suction after the first split mold and the second split mold perform mold opening and before the final molding product, which is the result of the blow molding, is separated from the first bottom portion mold due to the change in the posture of the final molding product, at the same time as the first split mold and the second split mold perform the mold opening, or before the first split mold and the second split mold perform the mold opening, after the blow molding is completed – (however, the Examiner notes that these limitation recites the manner of operating the apparatus or what certain features are used for, which fail to limit apparatus claims).
As previously indicated, Applicant is respectfully reminded that, as per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Matsamura teaches an intermediate mold (e.g., mold device of a blow stage FIG. 3, lines 35 – 39) comprising:
a blow molding mechanism that performs blow molding with respect to an intermediate molding product (see Matsamura et al. lines 30 – 33, 40 – 41, and FIGs. 1 – 5),
wherein the blow molding mechanism includes a split mold (2, 12, 22 FIGs. 1, 4 – 5) that forms a part of a mold used in the blow molding with respect to the intermediate molding product (see FIGs. 1 – 7), capable of performing mold closing before the blow molding starts, and performs mold opening after the blow molding is completed (Matsamura et al. lines 41 – 43, lines 51 – 59),
a first bottom portion mold (3, 13, 23 FIGs. 1, 4 – 5) that forms a part of the mold, and molds at least a part of a bottom portion of the intermediate molding product on a side opposite to a mouth portion in which an inlet for a fluid in the blow molding is formed (Matsamura et al. FIGs. 1, 4 – 5 lines 43 – 50, lines 51 – 59), and
a suction unit (see elements 7, 17, 27 in FIGs. 1, 4 – 5 and lines 43 – 50, lines 57 – 59, lines 120 – 122) capable of starting suction of at least a part of the bottom portion of a final molding product, which is a result of the blow molding, after the split mold performs the mold opening and before the final molding product is separated from the first bottom portion mold due to a change in a posture of the final molding product, at the same time as the split mold performs the mold opening, or before the split mold performs the mold opening, after the blow molding is completed (see Matsamura et al. lines 43 – 50, lines 57 – 59, lines 120 – 122; however, the Examiner notes that these limitation recites the manner of operating the apparatus or what certain features are used for, which fail to limit apparatus claims).
Matsamura et al. does not disclose, the split mold includes a first split mold and a second split mold, and the blow molding mechanism is configured such that the first split mold starts mold opening after the second split mold starts mold opening.
However, as discussed in claim 1 above, said limitations would be obvious over GERLACH teachings. 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 split mold in the blow molding mechanism of Matsamura, so that the split mold includes a first split mold capable of forming recessed articles (e.g., GERLACH mold first portion 606 and/or 609/610) and a second split mold (e.g., Matsamura blowable split mold 2), and the blow molding mechanism is configured such that the first split mold starts mold opening after the second split mold starts mold opening, for the purpose of, as suggested by the prior art of GERLACH, enable ejecting the finished article without damage, since GERLACH teaches (page 16 lines 6 – 23) “de-molding such recessed articles may be achieved by a process utilizing a particular mold design comprising a number of parting lines, defining a number of mold portions, the process comprising the action of displacing said mold portions in a predetermined manner. The advantage of such process is that complex geometries generating the undercuts may be formed directly by blowing. The sections of the mold that would normally be trapped by said undercut are divided into a plurality of mold portions and displaced in more phases to enable ejecting the finished article without damage.” See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
As previously indicated, Applicant is respectfully reminded that, as per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, Matsamura et al. teaches a mold unit comprising:
a stationary mold (e.g., injection stage FIG. 3, lines 35 – 39);
an intermediate mold that includes a blow molding mechanism performing blow molding with respect to an intermediate molding product (e.g., mold device of a blow stage FIG. 3, lines 35 – 39); and
a movable mold (e.g., rotary stage FIG. 3, lines 35 – 39),
wherein the blow molding mechanism of the intermediate mold includes a split mold (2, 12, 22 FIGs. 1, 4 – 5) that forms a part of a mold used in the blow molding with respect to the intermediate molding product (see FIGs. 1 – 7), capable of performing mold closing before the blow molding starts, and performs mold opening after the blow molding is completed (Matsamura et al. lines 41 – 43, lines 51 – 59),
a first bottom portion mold (3, 13, 23 FIGs. 1, 4 – 5) that forms a part of the mold, and molds at least a part of a bottom portion of the intermediate molding product on a side opposite to a mouth portion in which an inlet for a fluid in the blow molding is formed (Matsamura et al. FIGs. 1, 4 – 5 lines 43 – 50, lines 51 – 59), and
a suction unit (see elements 7, 17, 27 in FIGs. 1, 4 – 5 and lines 43 – 50, lines 57 – 59, lines 120 – 122) capable of starting suction of at least a part of the bottom portion of a final molding product, which is a result of the blow molding, after the split mold performs the mold opening and before the final molding product is separated from the first bottom portion mold due to a change in a posture of the final molding product, at the same time as the split mold performs the mold opening, or before the split mold performs the mold opening, after the blow molding is completed (see Matsamura et al. lines 43 – 50, lines 57 – 59, lines 120 – 122; however, the Examiner notes that these limitation recites the manner of operating the apparatus or what certain features are used for, which fail to limit apparatus claims).
Matsamura et al. does not disclose, the split mold includes a first split mold and a second split mold, and the blow molding mechanism is configured such that the first split mold starts mold opening after the second split mold starts mold opening.
However, as discussed in claim 1 above, said limitations would be obvious over GERLACH teachings. 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 split mold in the blow molding mechanism of Matsamura, so that the split mold includes a first split mold capable of forming recessed articles (e.g., GERLACH mold first portion 606 and/or 609/610) and a second split mold (e.g., Matsamura blowable split mold 2), and the blow molding mechanism is configured such that the first split mold starts mold opening after the second split mold starts mold opening, for the purpose of, as suggested by the prior art of GERLACH, enable ejecting the finished article without damage, since GERLACH teaches (page 16 lines 6 – 23) “de-molding such recessed articles may be achieved by a process utilizing a particular mold design comprising a number of parting lines, defining a number of mold portions, the process comprising the action of displacing said mold portions in a predetermined manner. The advantage of such process is that complex geometries generating the undercuts may be formed directly by blowing. The sections of the mold that would normally be trapped by said undercut are divided into a plurality of mold portions and displaced in more phases to enable ejecting the finished article without damage.” See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
As previously indicated, Applicant is respectfully reminded that, as per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, Matsamura/GERLACH teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 9, wherein the second bottom portion mold (Matsamura 5, 15, 28, FIGs. 1, 4 – 5) is disposed in the through-hole (Matsamura 7, 17, 27), a gap (e.g., see Matsamura FIGs. 1, 4 – 5) and the suction unit is configured to suck at least a part of the bottom portion through the gap (see Matsamura elements 7, 17, 27 in FIGs. 1, 4 – 5 and lines 43 – 50, lines 57 – 59, lines 120 – 122), except for, a gap is formed between an inner peripheral surface of the first bottom portion mold defining the through-hole and an outer peripheral surface of the second bottom portion mold.
Matsamura, however, discloses a gap formed between an inner peripheral surface of the bottom mold and an outer peripheral surface of an ejector pin 15 (see FIGs. 1, 4 – 5), where the suction unit is configured to suck at least a part of the bottom portion through the gap.
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 rearrange the through-hole in the blow molding mechanism of Matsumura/GERALCH, with good expectation of success, and the modification would not have changed the operation of the device, and produced nothing more than predictable results (i.e., a blow molding mechanism comprising capable of sucking at least a part of the bottom portion through the gap, regardless of the gap arrangement), for the purpose of, e.g., changing the design of the second bottom mold portion to achieve a different blown molded article’s bottom surface, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C).
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). “Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975). “The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious.”
“It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments are based on newly amended limitations which have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Usami et al. (US 2015/0021343 A1): [0013] a blow molding method, a blow mold, and a blow-molded container that can expand the application range of the two-step blow molding method by making it possible to accurately transfer a specific part of an intermediate molded article obtained by primary blow molding to a specific cavity position in a secondary blow mold without requiring complex design. [0074] According to another aspect of the invention, there is provided a blow-molded container comprising: [0075] a neck that is open; [0076] a body that follows the neck; and [0077] a bottom that follows the body, [0078] the neck, the body, and the bottom being shaped by primary blow molding and secondary blow molding.
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
Prosecution Insights