DETAILED ACITON
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18020338, filed on February 08, 2023.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that “corrosion-resistant” coating is subject to a wide broadest reasonable interpretation. All coatings are to some degree “corrosion-resistant”, merely by their existence. For purposes of examination, any coating shall be considered to be “corrosion resistant”.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “□ m” twice should read “µm” per [0033] of the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 it is indefinite how the silicon-rich phase is “insularly distributed” when the “silicon-rich phase” and the “low-silicon phase” overlap their compositions and can be a single phase as presently recited.
Regarding claims 2-5, 7-11, and 13-15, these claims are rejected for their respective incorporation of the above due to their individual dependencies on claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, it is indefinite how the silicon-rich phase what “insular distribution” is, when the “silicon-rich phase” and the “low-silicon phase” overlap their compositions and can be a single phase as presently recited. Claim 6 is further rejected for its incorporation of the above due to its dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination any amount of Al2O3 shall be considered to meet this claim limitation. Claim 12 is further rejected for its incorporation of the above due to its dependence on claim 1.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-5, and 7-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12252755. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they contain the following overlapping subject matter.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 11, and claim 1 of ‘755, both recite a steel component having a corrosion-resistant coating, comprising a steel substrate having, at least on one side of the steel substrate, an aluminum-based corrosion-resistant coating, wherein the corrosion-resistant coating comprises: a low-silicon phase which contains, in addition to unavoidable impurities, overlapping compositions, a first silicon-rich phase which contains, in addition to unavoidable impurities overlapping compositions. ‘755 does not specifically teach the average Fe of the corrosion-resistant coating is 30-45 wt%, nor an Fe content of the corrosion resistant coating at each point is more than 10 wt%, nor a flat shape. However, as the range of Fe in the low-silicon phase is 40-60 w5% and the first silicon rich phase has 40-70 wt% in ‘755 both overlap the content amount including at every point, where only these two phases are present the amount of Fe overlaps. Further, the specification of ‘755 states “average Fe content of the corrosion-resistant coating is 30-45 wt% (Col. 6 Lns. 49-50).
Regarding “flat” of the instant claim it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the claimed product. The motivation for doing so was that configuration of an object is a matter of choice which is obvious absent persuasive evidence the particular configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding instant claim 2 and claim 1 of ‘755, both teach a diffusion layer comprising Fe3Al and Fe2Al5 with overlapping thickness which is disposed adjacent to the steel substrate.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding instant claim 3 and claims 1, 4 and 5 of ‘755, both teach a layer of a second silicon-rich phase with a thickness of between 1 μm and 3 μm, which is disposed adjacent to the diffusion layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding instant claim 4 and claims 1, 4 and 5 of ‘755, both teach wherein the second silicon-rich phase contains, in addition to unavoidable impurities, 10-15 wt % of Si, 40-70 wt % of Fe, up to 1 wt % of Mn and 40-80 wt % of aluminum. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding instant claim 5 and claim 6 of ‘755, both teach the fraction of the first silicon-rich phase in the corrosion-resistant coating overlaps. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding instant claim 7 and claim 7 of ‘755, both teach wherein the first silicon-rich phase has discrete, unconnected regions which are surrounded by the low-silicon phase, the discrete unconnected regions having a surface area of less than 100 μm2 that make up more than 80% of the first silicon-rich phase. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding instant claim 8 and claim 8 of ‘755, both teach wherein the first silicon-rich phase has discrete, unconnected regions which are surrounded by the low-silicon phase, the discrete unconnected regions having a surface area of less than 50 μm2 that make up more than 50% of the first silicon-rich phase. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding instant claims 9 and 10 and claim 1 of ‘755, both recite a flat steel product. ‘755 does not specifically teach a mean roughness of 0.5-1.6 micron nor the product has a thickness of 0.8-2.8 mms. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ‘755 to these limitations. The motivation for doing so is where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12252755 in view of Oh et al. (US 2023/0086620 A1), hereinafter Oh.
Regarding instant claims 14 and 15 and claim 1 of ‘755, both recite a flat steel product. ‘755 does not specifically teach the claimed substrate composition. Oh is in a similar field of endeavor of a steel sheet plated with aluminum-iron and a preparation method therefor, the steel sheet comprising: a base steel sheet; and a plated layer formed on the surface of the base steel sheet and comprising: an alloyed layer containing at least one of Fe3Al, FeAl(Si), Fe2Al5, and FeAl3; and an aluminum layer formed on the alloyed layer (Abstract). Oh teaches the base steel sheet composition in weight % of 0.04-0.5% C, Mn: 0.01-10%, Si: 0.01-2%, P: ≤ 0.05%, S: < 0.02%, N: < 0.02%, Al: 0.001-1.0%, balance of Fe and inevitable impurities ([0013]), a sum of Cr, Mo and W of 0.01-4.0% total, and a sum of Ti, NB, Zr and V of 0.001-0.4%, a sum of Cu and Ni: 0.005-2.0% total and B: 0.0001-0.01% ([0015]). Regarding calcium, Oh is silent to the presence of it, such that it is not considered to be present in an appreciable amount, also note examples. If an element is not listed it is understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is reasonable that it is not present. Therefore, Ca is considered to be present in an amount within, or at least overlapping, applicant’s claimed proportions (which include 0%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify ‘755 with the steel substrate of Oh before the effective filing date of the invention. The motivation for doing so would have been simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I B). The prior art of ‘755 contains a product differing from that claimed only by the composition of the substrate (see above) (finding 1). This product was known in ‘755 and the composition of the substrate was known in Oh (above citations) (finding 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Oh in a similar field of endeavor to substitute the details of the substrate composition. Steel substrate compositions and their subsequent properties are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (finding 3).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
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) 1-6, 9-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2023/0086620 A1), hereinafter Oh.
Regarding claims 1-5 and 11, the examiner notes that as presently recited the low-silicon and silicon-rich phases (first and second) contain overlapping compositions (i.e. at 10 wt% Si, 40-60 wt% Fe and 40-60 wt% Al and the entire range of Mn), and to meet the claimed limitations for composition and the insular distribution, it could be a single phase composition, as Oh teaches.
Oh teaches a base steel sheet with a plated layer formed on a surface of the base steel sheet containing Fe3Al and Fe2Al5 and having an aluminum layer formed on the surface of the base steel sheet, where the alloying layer has a thickness less than 10% of the plated layer which has a total thickness of 20-35 micron ([0012]; [0032]; thickness of diffusion layer is less than 3.5 microns), the alloying layer is formed by diffusion ([0034]), where the plated layer includes 7-15 wt% Si, a balance of Al and inevitable impurities and iron diffused from the base sheet ([0013]). One of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understands that elements not explicitly listed in a composition of a plating layer are excluded (including Mn).
Further, Oh teaches an alloy phase may contain 50% or more or up to 95% or more of Fe3Al and Fe2Al5 ([0036]). These percentages with the overall composition of the plating layer including diffusion of Fe, and the amount of Si that would be in it as a result of the total plating layer overlap the claimed silicon-rich and silicon-low phases (first and second) and average Fe content of the coating, claimed composition.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
‘Regarding “corrosion-resistant”, please see claim interpretation section above.
Regarding “a layer of the silicon rich phase has a thickness of between 1-3 microns, which is disposed adjacent to the diffusion layer”, as the low and rich silicon areas overlap, this is considered part of the total layer and is met by the overall thickness of the diffusion layer cited above.
Regarding the fraction of the silicon-rich phase >5 vol.%. as the low and rich silicon areas overlap, this is considered part of the total layer and is met by the overall thickness of the layer above.
Regarding claim 6, Oh teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. The examiner notes that as presently recited the low-silicon and silicon-rich phases (first and second) contain overlapping compositions (i.e. at 10 wt% Si, 40-60 wt% Fe and 40-60 wt% Al and the entire range of Mn), and to meet the claimed limitations for composition and the insular distribution, it could be a single phase composition, as Oh teaches.
Oh further teaches a base steel sheet with a plated layer formed on a surface of the base steel sheet containing Fe3Al and Fe2Al5 and having an aluminum layer formed on the surface of the base steel sheet, where the alloying layer has a thickness less than 10% of the plated layer which has a total thickness of 20-35 micron ([0012]; [0032]; thickness of diffusion layer is less than 3.5 microns), the alloying layer is formed by diffusion ([0034]), where the plated layer includes 7-15 wt% Si, a balance of Al and inevitable impurities and iron diffused from the base sheet ([0013]). One of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understands that elements not explicitly listed in a composition of a plating layer are excluded (including Mn).
Further, Oh teaches an alloy phase may contain 50% or more or up to 95% or more of Fe3Al and Fe2Al5 ([0036]). These percentages with the overall composition of the plating layer including diffusion of Fe, and the amount of Si that would be in it as a result of the total plating layer overlap the claimed silicon-rich and silicon-low phases (first and second) and average Fe content of the coating, claimed composition.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding the limitation of claim 6, as the low and rich silicon areas overlap, this is considered part of the total layer and is met by the overall layer cited above.
Regarding 9 and 10, Oh teaches each limitation of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not specifically teach a mean roughness of 0.5-1.6 micron nor the product has a thickness of 0.8-2.8 mms. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Oh to these limitations. The motivation for doing so is where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Regarding claim 12, Oh teaches each limitation of claim 1 as discussed above, and further teaches forming an oxide on the surface ([0071]; i.e. surface of the steel) and a plated layer on a surface of the base steel sheet ([0032]; i.e. the oxide is between the steel and plated surface) and the steel sheet (that is oxidized) includes aluminum ([0048]). One of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understands where steel sheet contains aluminum and is oxidized there will be an amount of Al2O3 formed.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Oh teaches each limitation of claim 1 as discussed above, and further teaches the base steel sheet composition in weight % of 0.04-0.5% C, Mn: 0.01-10%, Si: 0.01-2%, P: ≤ 0.05%, S: < 0.02%, N: < 0.02%, Al: 0.001-1.0%, balance of Fe and inevitable impurities ([0013]), a sum of Cr, Mo and W of 0.01-4.0% total, and a sum of Ti, NB, Zr and V of 0.001-0.4%, a sum of Cu and Ni: 0.005-2.0% total and B: 0.0001-0.01% ([0015]). Regarding calcium, Oh is silent to the presence of it, such that it is not considered to be present in an appreciable amount, also note examples. If an element is not listed it is understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is reasonable that it is not present. Therefore, Ca is considered to be present in an amount within, or at least overlapping, applicant’s claimed proportions (which include 0%). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and claims 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and obviousness double patenting, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of Oh et al. (US 2023/0086620 A1), hereinafter Oh, is the closest prior art to the instant claims, as shown above in the rejections. Oh does not teach or suggest, alone or in combination with the prior art the limitations of first silicon rich phase has discrete, unconnected regions which are surrounded by the low-silicon phase nor the oxide composition of the flat steel product. Further, Oh does not teach a substantially identical process to that which applicant teaches is critical to forming the product. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that these properties are inherently present. Thus the claims would be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cho et al. (KR20200066237A herein referring to patent family member EP3889313A1 for translation), teaches an aluminum plated steel sheet with Fe, Si and Mg in the plating layer ([0053]-[0056]) with an alloying layer comprising Fe3Al and Fe2Al5 (diffusion layer) (claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached on 571-272-0604. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights