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 .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 3/3/2026.
Claims 17-20 are cancelled.
Claims 22-24 are new claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected Species C (Fig. 7), in the reply filed on 7/23/2025. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Therefore Figures 5-6, 8-10 are considered non-elected Species.
Claims 3, 6, 11-14 are withdrawn for being directed to non-elected Species.
Claims 17-20 were cancelled by applicant on 3/3/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22, 23, and their dependent claims, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 recites “Claim 22 recites “the boundary layer ingestion fan includes a fan rotatable about the mean line of the aircraft”. However, Applicant's specification does not describe and Applicant's drawings do not show the fan rotatable about the mean line as required by claim 22. Paragraph [0051] of the specification describes a mean line 15 and figure 2 shows 15 at an upward angle from left to right, which would not coincide with an axis of rotation of a horizontal axis of a fan, as should be seen in Figure 6 for example. Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one having ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claim 23 recites: “the main portion extends through the plurality of forward attachment arms, the cylindrical body portion, and the support ring along the mean line of the aircraft”. However, Applicant's specification does not describe and Applicant's drawings do not show “the main portion extends […] along the mean line of the aircraft” as required by claim 23. Paragraph [0051] of the specification describes a mean line 15 and figure 2 shows 15 at an upward angle from left to right, which would not coincide with the main portion, as should be seen in Figure 6 for example. Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one having ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 10, and their dependent claims, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1: regarding “wherein the main portion of auxiliary power unit exhaust duct” in line 8, it is unclear if/how “auxiliary power unit exhaust duct” relates to “an auxiliary power unit exhaust duct” recited earlier in line 3 of the claim.
Claim 1: regarding the limitation “entirely” in “wherein the main portion of auxiliary power unit exhaust duct extends entirely through the support shaft of the boundary layer ingestion fan”, it is unclear if the entire main portion of the auxiliary power unit exhaust duct extends through the support shaft of the boundary layer ingestion fan, or, if the main portion of the auxiliary power unit exhaust duct extends through the entirety of the length of the support shaft of the boundary layer ingestion fan (in other words, it is unclear which is longer, then main portion of the exhaust or the support shaft and what the limitation “entirely” describes).
Claim 10: regarding the limitation “entirely” in “wherein the main portion of the auxiliary power unit exhaust duct extends entirely through the support shaft”, it is unclear if the entire main portion of the auxiliary power unit exhaust duct extends through the support shaft, or, if the main portion of the auxiliary power unit exhaust duct extends through the entirety of the length of the support shaft (in other words, it is unclear which is longer, then main portion of the exhaust or the support shaft and what the limitation “entirely” describes).
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, 4-5, 7-10, 15-16, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker 20170101191 in view of Suciu 20180354637, Dhingra 8973650 and evidenced by Thodiyil 20090108134.
Regarding claim 1, Becker teaches:
An aircraft (10, Fig. 1) extending between a forward end (left end of Fig. 1) and an aft end (right end of Fig. 1), the aircraft comprising:
a gas turbine engine as a power source (“the power source 314 may alternatively be configured as a gas engine, such as a gas turbine engine” [0032], where the gas turbine engine reads on the claimed auxiliary power unit) positioned proximate the aft end of the aircraft (314 in Fig. 7, where Fig. 7 shows the aft portion of the aircraft); and
a boundary layer ingestion fan (300 [0028]) positioned proximate the aft end of the aircraft (Fig. 4 shows 300, aft end is to the right of Fig. 4), the boundary layer ingestion fan having a support shaft (315) a nacelle (306), and a structural member extending from the support shaft to the nacelle (328),
Becker teaches a gas turbine as discussed above but does not explicitly state that the gas turbine engine is an auxiliary power unit as claimed, having an inlet duct and an exhaust duct as claimed, the exhaust duct extends through a portion of the support shaft as claimed.
However, Suciu teaches a “boundary layer ingestion engine includes a gas generator” (abstract), located at the aft end of the aircraft (Fig. 1-4), and:
The gas turbine engine is an APU ([0009]).
the auxiliary power unit having an auxiliary power unit inlet duct (Fig. 1, 128, 126) and an auxiliary power unit exhaust duct (inter alia, 450 [0038])
wherein the auxiliary power unit exhaust duct includes a main portion (450)
wherein the main portion of auxiliary power unit exhaust duct extends entirely through the support shaft (inter alia, 452, 454, and Fig. 4 shows the main portion of the exhaust, 450, extending through the full length of 452 and 454) of the boundary layer ingestion fan (fan section 432, 434 [0038]) and along a mean line of the aircraft (Figs 1 and 2 show the system at the aft end of the aircraft and aligned with the center, mean line, or the aircraft)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Becker with Suciu's structure discussed above in order to drive the rotation of a fan and to perform some or all of the duties divided as offtakes power extraction to support aircraft operation snot directly associated with propulsive thrust generation (Suciu [0022, 0032]).
Becker in view of Suciu teaches the APU as discussed above, but is silent about its exhaust duct includes a bypass portion, as claimed.
However, Dhingra teaches a gas turbine engine (271, Fig. 10), with an exhaust flow 273, and pipes 265 and 266 that “transfer energy from the gas turbine exhaust flow to the gas turbine air intake” Col. 2 ll. 46-50, and:
[the auxiliary power unit (271) exhaust duct (“an exhaust section of a gas turbine engine” Col 3 ll. 32) includes a main portion (inter alia, 273) and] a bypass portion (265 and 266).
the bypass portion extends from the main portion (265 and 266 extend from the main portion 273, see Fig. 10)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Becker in view of Suciu with Dhingra’s teachings discussed above in order to provide “an anti-icing system […] for purposes of reducing or inhibiting ice formation” as taught by Dhingra Col 10 ll. 54-60.
Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra teaches the exhaust bypass extending from the main portion, and the structural member as already discussed above, Dhingra teaches “the anti-icing system 262 uses the superconductive heat transfer system 263 to selectively transfer heat from the exhaust flow 273 to the air intake 272” Col 11 ll. 30-34. Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra does not teach the bypass portion extends through the structural member and at least partially through the nacelle.
However, extending the bypass portion through the structural member taught by Becker would be one of only a few options to supply heat to the inlet, as taught by Dhingra; the Dhingra’s pipes would extend through the structural member, or they would extend outside of the structural member (and in this case increasing drag). "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The limitation “the bypass portion extends through the structural member and at least partially through the nacelle” in the combination is therefore obvious to try. See MPEP 2143(I) (E). Furthermore, piping extending through a support structure and at least partially through the nacelle was obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by Thodiyil, where conduit 34 that delivers hot gases from the e gas turbine to a forward position on the nacelle inlet 20, via a structural member 19, Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Becker further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 1, wherein the boundary layer ingestion fan defines a central axis (302) and further comprises:
a fan (304) rotatable about the central axis (Fig. 7) and including a plurality of fan blades (310) attached to a fan shaft (312);
the nacelle encircling the plurality of fan blades (306 encircles 310, Fig. 7); and
a structural member (inter alia, 328) extending from the support shaft of the boundary layer ingestion fan to the nacelle (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil teaches the invention as discussed for claim 4. Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil, as discussed above, teaches:
The aircraft of claim 4, wherein the bypass portion extends to the nacelle through the structural member (as already discussed), wherein an auxiliary power unit exhaust flow through the bypass portion to the nacelle is configured to de-ice the nacelle.
Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil, as discussed above, teaches the bypass portion extends to the nacelle (as discussed above and taught by Thodiyil), and the auxiliary power unit exhaust flow (as discussed above) through the bypass portion to the nacelle (as discussed above) is configured to de-ice the nacelle (“an anti-icing system […] for purposes of reducing or inhibiting ice formation” as taught by Dhingra Col 10 ll. 54-60)
Regarding claim 7, Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil, as discussed so far, is silent about the exhaust duct extends through the center of the support shaft as claimed.
However, Suciu further teaches:
the auxiliary power unit exhaust duct (as discussed for claim 1) extends through a center of the support shaft of the boundary layer ingestion fan (the support shaft as discussed for claim 1, and the center of the support shaft being at the bottom of Fig. 4, and through the center line of the shafts) along an axial direction (axial direction from left to right, see Figs. 3-4) of the boundary layer ingestion fan (fan section 432, 434 [0038]).
Regarding claim 8, Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Becker further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 1, wherein the boundary layer ingestion fan is incorporated (Fig. 4) into a tail section of the aircraft (Figs. 1, 2, 4) at the aft end of the aircraft (Figs. 1, 2, 4).
Regarding claim 9, Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Becker further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 1, wherein a portion of the boundary layer ingestion fan (as discussed above) makes up the aft end (see Becker Figs. 1, 2, 4) of the aircraft (10).
Regarding claim 10, Becker
An aircraft (10, Fig. 1) extending between a forward end and an aft end (left end of Fig. 1), the aircraft comprising:
a gas turbine engine as a power source (“the power source 314 may alternatively be configured as a gas engine, such as a gas turbine engine” [0032], where the gas turbine engine reads on the claimed auxiliary power unit) positioned proximate the aft end of the aircraft (314 in Fig. 7, where Fig. 7 shows the aft portion of the aircraft),
an aft engine (“aft engine” [0014-0017]) configured to be mounted to the aircraft at the aft end (Figs. 4, 6-7), the aft engine defining a central axis (302 is a central axis through the center of 314, see Fig. 4) and comprising:
a fan rotatable about the central axis of the aft engine (300 [0028]) and including a plurality of fan blades (310 [0030], Fig. 4) attached to a fan shaft (312 [0030]);
a support shaft (315) extending through the fan shaft (315 through 312 in Fig. 4);
a nacelle (306) encircling the plurality of fan blades (Fig. 4); and
a structural member (328) extending from the support shaft to the nacelle (Fig. 4);
Becker teaches a gas turbine as discussed above but does not explicitly state that the gas turbine engine is an auxiliary power unit as claimed, having an inlet duct and an exhaust duct as claimed, and the auxiliary power unit exhaust duct extends through the support shaft
However, Suciu teaches a “boundary layer ingestion engine includes a gas generator” (abstract), located at the aft end of the aircraft (Fig. 1-4), and:
The gas turbine engine is an APU ([0009]).
the auxiliary power unit having an auxiliary power unit inlet duct (Fig. 1, 128, 126) and an auxiliary power unit exhaust duct (inter alia, 450 [0038])
wherein the auxiliary power unit exhaust duct includes a main portion (450)
wherein the main portion of the auxiliary power unit exhaust duct extends entirely through the support shaft (inter alia, 452, 454, and Fig. 4 shows the main portion of the exhaust, 450, extending through the full length of 452 and 454) along a mean line of the aircraft (Figs 1 and 2 show the system at the aft end of the aircraft and aligned with the center, mean line, or the aircraft),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Becker with Suciu's structure discussed above in order to drive the rotation of a fan and to perform some or all of the duties divided as offtakes power extraction to support aircraft operation snot directly associated with propulsive thrust generation (Suciu [0022, 0032]).
Becker in view of Suciu teaches the APU as discussed above, but is silent about its exhaust duct includes a bypass portion, as claimed.
However, Dhingra teaches a gas turbine engine (271, Fig. 10), with an exhaust flow 273, and pipes 265 and 266 that “transfer energy from the gas turbine exhaust flow to the gas turbine air intake” Col. 2 ll. 46-50, and:
[wherein the auxiliary power unit (271) exhaust duct (“an exhaust section of a gas turbine engine” Col 3 ll. 32) includes] a bypass portion (265 and 266) that extends from the main portion (265 and 266 extend from the main portion 273, see Fig. 10)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Becker in view of Suciu with Dhingra’s teachings discussed above in order to provide “an anti-icing system […] for purposes of reducing or inhibiting ice formation” as taught by Dhingra Col 10 ll. 54-60.
Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra teaches the exhaust bypass, and the structural member as already discussed above, Dhingra teaches “the anti-icing system 262 uses the superconductive heat transfer system 263 to selectively transfer heat from the exhaust flow 273 to the air intake 272” Col 11 ll. 30-34. Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra does not teach bypass portion that extends through the structural member to the nacelle.
However, extending the bypass portion through the structural member taught by Becker would be one of only a few options to supply heat to the inlet, as taught by Dhingra; the Dhingra’s pipes would extend through the structural member, or they would extend outside of the structural member (and in this case increasing drag). "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The limitation “the bypass portion that extends through the structural member to the nacelle” in the combination is therefore obvious to try. See MPEP 2143(I) (E). Furthermore, piping extending through a support structure and at least partially through the nacelle was obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by Thodiyil, where conduit 34 that delivers hot gases from the e gas turbine to a forward position on the nacelle inlet 20, via a structural member 19, Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 15, Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil teaches the invention of claim 10. Becker further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 10, wherein the aft engine is configured as a boundary layer ingestion fan (the aft engine is configured as a boundary layer ingestion (BLI) fan 300 [0028]).
Regarding claim 16, Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil teaches the invention as discussed for claim 10. Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil, as discussed above, teaches the auxiliary power unit exhaust flow (as discussed above) through the bypass portion to the nacelle (as discussed above) is configured to de-ice the nacelle (“an anti-icing system […] for purposes of reducing or inhibiting ice formation” as taught by Dhingra Col 10 ll. 54-60)
Regarding claim 22, Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Becker further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 1, wherein the boundary layer ingestion fan includes a fan (304) rotatable about the mean line (15) of the aircraft and including a plurality of fan blades (310) attached to a fan shaft (312).
Regarding claim 23, Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil teaches the invention as discussed for claim 22. Becker further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 22, wherein the support shaft comprises:
a plurality of forward attachment arms (318) attached to a bulkhead (322) of a fuselage (12);
a support ring (321) coupled to the structural member (328); and
a cylindrical body portion (319) extending through a center of the fan shaft from the plurality of forward attachment arms to the support ring (Figs. 6, 7), the cylindrical body portion being concentric with the fan shaft (Figs. 6, 7) and connected to the fan shaft via roller bearings (324),
plurality of forward attachment arms, the cylindrical body portion, and the support ring along the mean line (15) of the aircraft (10).
Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra, as discussed so far, is silent about:
wherein the main portion extends […] along the mean line of the aircraft.
However, Suciu teaches:
wherein the main portion (450) extends along the mean line of the aircraft (line through the center of, inter alia, 340, from left to right, Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker 20170101191 in view of Suciu 20180354637, Dhingra 8973650 and Thodiyil 20090108134.
Regarding claim 21, Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil teaches the invention of claim 10. Becker further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 10, wherein the structural member is aft of the plurality of fan blades (328 is aft of 310, Fig. 4),
Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil, as discussed so far, is silent about:
and wherein the bypass portion extends within the nacelle from the structural member to a position forward of the plurality of fan blades.
However, Thodiyil teaches:
the bypass portion (inter alia, 34) extends within the nacelle (inter alia, 17) from the structural member (19) to a position forward of the plurality of fan blades (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil with Thodiyil's structure discussed above in order to provide “icing protection for aircraft structures, and more particularly, […] an icing protection system and method for enhancing heat transfer in aircraft structures that are susceptible to icing” as taught by Thodiyil [0001].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker 20170101191 in view of Suciu 20180354637, Dhingra 8973650 and evidenced by Thodiyil 20090108134, and further in view of Rose 20140127010.
Regarding claim 2, Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil is silent about a mixer as claimed.
However, Rose teaches a nozzle for a gas turbine [0002] that receives and mixes a cold outer flow (3a, Fig. 7) with hot core flow (2a). This teaching is analogous to mixing a boundary layer airflow and exhaust flow, teaching a mixer (9) in communication with a gas turbine ([0002], core flow [0013]) and a fan (bypass flow [0013]) such that the mixer receives and mixes (This generates axial and radial swirls downstream of the nozzle [0010]) airflow from the fan (bypass flow [0013]) and an exhaust flow from the gas turbine (Fig 7, [0013]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Becker in view of Suciu and Dhingra and evidenced by Thodiyil with Rose's teachings discussed above, providing a mixer in communication with the auxiliary power unit and the boundary layer ingestion fan such that the mixer receive and mixes a boundary layer airflow from the boundary layer ingestion fan and an auxiliary power unit exhaust flow from the auxiliary power unit exhaust duct, in order to have a mixer in communication with a hot inner core flow and a cold outer flow such that the mixer receives and mixes the cold outer flow with the hot inner flow, as taught by Rose, in order to reduce the sound emissions generated by the propulsive jet, while keeping aerodynamic losses low (Paragraph 0006 of Rose).
Additional relevant prior art: Nikkanen 5365731.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive because they do not apply to the new combination of references that was necessitated by applicant’s amendment. However, to the extent possible, applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections above, at the appropriate location.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights