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 .
Drawings
Drawings have been reviewed and accepted.
Specification
The specification filed on 01/06/2025 has been entered. Specification has been reviewed and accepted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-14, 17, and 19-25 of Application No. 17106032 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application disclose or substantially suggest the structure and function of the claims of the instant application to those having ordinary skill in the art, as further shown in the tables below.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are compared to claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-14, 17, and 19-25, of U.S. application 17106032 in the following table :
Instant application: 19010985
1. A system, comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: receive an indication of a design to be fabricated on a material by a laser computer numerically controlled (CNC) machine via a fabrication process; perform at least one simulation of the fabrication process to determine at least one of (i) a cumulative quantity of energy exposure across the material during the at least one simulation or (ii) a quantity of energy exposure across the material at successive points in time daring the at least one simulation; determine, based on the at least one simulation, that a thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process, wherein the thermal event corresponds to one or more regions of the material exhibiting a change that is inconsistent with the design; and based on determining that the thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process, cause a visual preview of the design to be presented, wherein the visual preview indicates the one or more regions of the material corresponding to the thermal event.
2.The system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine that the thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine, prior to causing the laser CNC machine to begin the fabrication process, that the thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process.
3.The system of claim 1, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: receive an indication of a command to cause the laser CNC machine to begin the fabrication process; and based on determining that the thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process, refrain from executing the command.
4.The system of claim 3, wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine that the thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine that the thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process based on receiving the indication of the command.
5.The system of claim 1, wherein the visual preview shows a predicted final appearance of the material resulting from the laser CNC machine performing the fabrication process.
6.The system of claim 5, wherein the indication of the one or more regions of the material corresponding to the thermal event is included in a heat map for the design that is shown in the visual preview.
7.The system of claim 1, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: perform a calibration fabrication to thereby determine a value of at least one parameter of the at least one simulation, wherein the calibration fabrication is performed on at least one of (i) the material or (ii) a different material that is similar to the material.
8.The system of claim 7, wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine the value of the at least one parameter comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: determine the value of the at least one parameter based on at least one of (i) one or more images of the material captured after the calibration fabrication, (ii) one or more settings of the laser CNC machine, (iii) one or more characteristics of the material, or (iv) a user input identifying a region of the one or more regions of the material
9.The system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine that the thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: determine that the thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process further based on at least one of (i) a determination that a surface area of the material increases a likelihood of the thermal event or (ii) a determination that changes to the surface area of the material as a result of the fabrication process increases a likelihood of the thermal event.
10.The system of claim 1, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: determine at least one corrective action to address the thermal event, wherein the at least one corrective action includes modifying at least one of (i) the design, (ii) one or more characteristics of the material, or (iii) one or more settings of the laser CNC machine.
Claims 11-20 are rejection for similar reason as shown above.
17106032
1. A system, comprising: at least one processor;
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and
program instructions collectively stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to:
receive one or more configurations for a fabrication process during which a computer numerically controlled (CNC) machine delivers an electromagnetic energy configured to effect, in a material, one or more changes consistent with one or more designs, the one or more configurations including (i) a design file corresponding to the one or more designs, (ii) one or more characteristics of the material, and (iii) one or more settings of the CNC machine; receive an input indicating a command to cause the CNC machine to begin the fabrication process;
prior to causing the CNC machine to begin the fabrication process, determine, based on an analysis of the one or more configurations, whether a thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process, the thermal event corresponding to one or more regions of the material exhibiting a change that is inconsistent with the one or more designs in response to the electromagnetic energy being delivered to the material, wherein the analysis of the one or more configurations includes performing one or more simulations of the fabrication process to thereby determine a cumulative quantity of energy exposure across the material and/or a quantity of energy exposure across the material at successive points in time during the fabrication process; based on determining that a thermal event is not likely to occur during the fabrication process, execute the command to cause the CNC machine to begin the fabrication process; and
based on determining that a thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process, (i) refrain from executing the command to cause the CNC machine to begin the fabrication process and (ii) generate a visual preview of the one or more designs, where the visual preview of the one or more designs shows a predicted final appearance of the material resulting from the CNC machine performing the fabrication process, including a heat map for the design that indicates the one or more regions of the material corresponding to the thermal event.
1. A system, comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions collectively stored on the at least one non-transitory computer- readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to:… prior to causing the CNC machine to begin the fabrication process, determine, based on an analysis of the one or more configurations, whether a thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process
1. A system, comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions collectively stored on the at least one non-transitory computer- readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: …receive an input indicating a command to cause the CNC machine to begin the fabrication process; prior to causing the CNC machine to begin the fabrication process, determine, based on an analysis of the one or more configurations, whether a thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process, execute the command to cause the CNC machine to begin the fabrication process; and based on determining that a thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process, (i) refrain from executing the command to cause the CNC machine to begin the fabrication process
1. A system, comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions collectively stored on the at least one non-transitory computer- readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to… receive an input indicating a command to cause the CNC machine to begin the fabrication process… determine, based on an analysis of the one or more configurations, whether a thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process, the thermal event corresponding to one or more regions of the material exhibiting a change that is inconsistent with the one or more designs in response to the electromagnetic energy being delivered to the material
1. generate a visual preview of the one or more designs, where the visual preview of the one or more designs shows a predicted final appearance of the material resulting from the CNC machine performing the fabrication process
1. the thermal event corresponding to one or more regions of the material exhibiting a change … generate a visual preview of the one or more designs, where the visual preview of the one or more designs shows a predicted final appearance of the material resulting from the CNC machine performing the fabrication process, including a heat map for the design that indicates the one or more regions of the material corresponding to the thermal event.
3. The system of claim 2, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to :perform a calibration fabrication to thereby determine a value of at least one parameter of the one or more simulations, wherein the calibration fabrication is performed on the material and/or a different piece of a same or similar material.
4. wherein the program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to determine the value of the at least one parameter comprise program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to determine the value of the at least one parameter based on (i) one or more images of the material captured subsequent to the calibration fabrication, (ii) the one or more settings of the CNC machine, (iii) the one or more characteristics of the material, and/or (iv) a user input identifying a region of the one or more regions of the material exhibiting the change that is inconsistent with the one or more designs subsequent to the calibration fabrication.
1. A system, comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions collectively stored on the at least one non-transitory computer- readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to:
5. wherein the analysis of the one or more configurations includes: determining whether a surface area of the material and/or changes to the surface area of the material as a result of the fabrication process increases a likelihood of the thermal event.
11. further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the system is configured to: determine at least one corrective action to address the thermal event, wherein the at least one corrective action includes modifying at least one of (i) the design file, (ii) the one or more characteristics of the material, or (iii) the one or more settings of the CNC machine.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “ perform at least one simulation of the fabrication process to determine at least one of (i) a cumulative quantity of energy exposure across the material during the at least one simulation or (ii) a quantity of energy exposure across the material at successive points in time daring the at least one simulation; determine, based on the at least one simulation, that a thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process, wherein the thermal event corresponds to one or more regions of the material exhibiting a change that is inconsistent with the design”.
The limitations of “ perform at least one simulation of the fabrication process to determine at least one of (i) a cumulative quantity of energy exposure across the material during the at least one simulation or (ii) a quantity of energy exposure across the material at successive points in time daring the at least one simulation; determine, based on the at least one simulation, that a thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process, wherein the thermal event corresponds to one or more regions of the material exhibiting a change that is inconsistent with the design” are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” language, “performing a simulation to determine”, and “determine, based on the simulation”, in the context of this claim encompasses that the user mentally could make a decision, calculation, and observation. Simulation is fundamentally a computation process that frequently relies on mathematical modeling. Based on this simulation, the determination functions are done, which can be a mental process based on the mathematical result of the simulation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements- “receive an indication of a design to be fabricated on a material by a laser computer numerically controlled (CNC) machine via a fabrication process” which is simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmission by acquiring data and information and “at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium” which is simply insignificant extra solution activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, the claim also recites elements- : “A system, comprising: at least one processor”, “that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to” , “and based on determining that the thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process, cause a visual preview of the design to be presented, wherein the visual preview indicates the one or more regions of the material corresponding to the thermal event” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of receiving data which is simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmitting which is considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity- see MPEP 2106.05(d) buySAFE Inc. v. Google Inc. (computer receives and sends information over a network). The claim element of the memory storing instructions is simply insignificant extra solution activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, which is considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity- see MPEP 2106.05(d) Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “determine that the thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process”, and “determine, prior to causing the laser CNC machine to begin the fabrication process, that the thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally the claim recites- “wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to”, and “program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “to determine that the thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process comprise program instructions that”, and “system to determine that the thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process based on receiving the indication of the command” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally the claim recites- “wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system”, and “when executed by the at least one processor” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims inherit abstract ideas from claim 1. The claims additionally recite- “wherein the visual preview shows a predicted final appearance of the material resulting from the laser CNC machine performing the fabrication process which falls under field of use and technological environment- see MPEP 2106.05(h) Parker v. Flook ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable"). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims inherit abstract ideas from claim 1. The claims additionally recite- “wherein the indication of the one or more regions of the material corresponding to the thermal event is included in a heat map for the design that is shown in the visual preview” which falls under field of use and technological environment- see MPEP 2106.05(h) Parker v. Flook ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable"). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “perform a calibration fabrication to thereby determine a value of at least one parameter of the at least one simulation, wherein the calibration fabrication is performed on at least one of (i) the material or (ii) a different material that is similar to the material” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim element of the memory storing instructions is simply insignificant extra solution activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, which is considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity- see MPEP 2106.05(d) Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. Additionally the claim recites- “when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “determine the value of the at least one parameter”, and “determine the value of the at least one parameter based on at least one of (i) one or more images of the material captured after the calibration fabrication, (ii) one or more settings of the laser CNC machine, (iii) one or more characteristics of the material, or (iv) a user input identifying a region of the one or more regions of the material” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally the claim recites- “wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to “, and “comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “determine that the thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process”, and “determine that the thermal event is likely to occur during the fabrication process further based on at least one of (i) a determination that a surface area of the material increases a likelihood of the thermal event or (ii) a determination that changes to the surface area of the material as a result of the fabrication process increases a likelihood of the thermal event” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally the claim recites- “wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to“, and “comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “determine at least one corrective action to address the thermal event, wherein the at least one corrective action includes modifying at least one of (i) the design, (ii) one or more characteristics of the material, or (iii) one or more settings of the laser CNC machine” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim element of the memory storing instructions is simply insignificant extra solution activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, which is considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity- see MPEP 2106.05(d) Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. Additionally the claim recites- “when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to”, which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reasons as to claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reasons as to claim 2.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reasons as to claim 4.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reasons as to claim 5.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reasons as to claim 6.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reasons as to claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reasons as to claim 8.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reasons as to claim 9.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reasons as to claim 10.
Relevant Art Cited by Examiner
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Gold, US20200147868 discloses monitoring powder-bed additive manufacturing determining thermal conductive properties of the part and the powder bed, e.g., by estimating thermal lag between the printing of adjacent portions of the part.
Susnjara, US10245788 discloses thermal compensation during additive manufacturing performed on a CNC machine
Steinberg, US11638965 discloses manufacturing a component by maximizing deposition rates while residual stress and distortion are minimized by controlling heat input throughout the part, and monitoring the cell quality continuously, where a digital twin of the component is built for testing.
Kitaoka, US20220057789 discloses a simulation for determining which portion of an inspection target product indicated by a corrective computation model causes what kind of reaction when an external factor is applied.
Mochizuki, US20200130107 discloses simulating temperature distributions using different laser power.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are considered as allowable subject matter if written to overcome the 101 & double patenting rejection. The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The reasons for allowance of Claims 1, 11, and 20 are that the prior art of record, including the reference(s) cited below, neither anticipates, not renders obvious the recited combination as a whole; including the limitation of “…receive an indication of a design to be fabricated on a material by a laser computer numerically controlled (CNC) machine via a fabrication process; perform at least one simulation of the fabrication process to determine at least one of (i) a cumulative quantity of energy exposure across the material during the at least one simulation or (ii) a quantity of energy exposure across the material at successive points in time daring the at least one simulation”.
As dependent claims 1-10, and 12-18 depend from an allowable base claim; they are at least allowable for the same reasons as noted supra. The prior art made of record Gold, Susnjara, Steinberg, Kitaoka, and Mochizuki neither anticipates nor render obvious the above-recited combinations for at least the reasons specified. Examiner notes that the prior art made of record does not teach the above-recited combination as a whole.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVONNE T FOLLANSBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0634. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 1pm - 9pm.
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, ROCIO DEL MAR PEREZ-VELEZ can be reached on (571) 270-5935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YVONNE TRANG FOLLANSBEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights