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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 24-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the groove” in line 6. It appears the claim should recite “the annular groove” in order to maintain consistency with “an annular groove” recited in Claim 1, line 14.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the ridge” in line 6. It appears the claim should recite “the annular ridge” in order to maintain consistency with “an annular ridge” recited in Claim 1, line 14.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the capsule” in line 4. It appears the claim should recite “the coffee capsule” in order to maintain consistency with “a coffee capsule” recited in Claim 25, line 1.
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.
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 4 and 24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a profile having a stretch substantially parallel to the axis” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what shape the claimed “stretch” entails.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “a stretch formed by the outside wall of the groove and the inside wall of the ridge” in line 6. It is unclear what shape the claimed “stretch” entails.
Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilber et al. US 2010/0288131 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed August 8, 2016) in view of Abegglen et al. US 2010/0015307, Rondelli WO 2013/132435 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed August 8, 2016), Digiuni WO 2013/136209 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed August 8, 2016), and Kamerbeek et al. US 2012/0225168.
Regarding Claim 25, Kilber et al. discloses a cup (container 40) for a coffee capsule (’131, Paragraph [0042]). The cup (container 40) comprises a containment body (body 41) extending between a bottom (base 43) and an upper edge (top 45) and further comprising at the upper edge (top 45) an annular flange (flange 44) which extends around an axis and which has a rear face (undersurface of flange 44 that does not contact lid 51) directed towards the containment body (body 41) and a front face (surface of flange 44 that contacts lid 51) (‘131, Paragraph [0063]). The containment body (body 41) and the annular flange (flange 44) are defined by a multilayer structure (multilayer sheet 10) (‘131, Paragraph [0041]) having an inner layer (first layer 12) made of a plastic material with a first hardness, the inner layer (first layer 12) defining the front face (surface of flange 44 that contacts lid 51) of the annular flange (flange 44) and the inside surface of the containment body (body 41) (‘131, Paragraph [0041]), an outer layer (tenth layer 30), the outer layer (tenth layer 30) defining the outside surface of the containment body (body 41) (‘131, Paragraphs [0041] and [0063]) and being made of a plastic material with a second hardness (‘131, Paragraph [0082]), and an intermediate layer (fourth layer 18) between the inner layer (first layer 12) and the outer layer (tenth layer 30) made of a material impermeable to oxygen and aromas (‘131, FIG. 6) (‘131, Paragraph [0054]).
PNG
media_image1.png
704
1344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kilber also discloses the individual layer thicknesses will vary in practice in accordance with the functionality desired for the various layers and depending upon the equipment chosen to make the sheet (‘131, Paragraph [0041]). However, Kilber does not explicitly state that the second hardness is lower than the first hardness so that the plastic material of the outer layer is softer than the plastic material of the inner layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to construct the capsule with layers thicknesses and/or rigidity in accordance with the functionality desired for the various layers and depending upon the equipment chosen to make the sheet. Kilber is also silent regarding the sealing element and the containment body being made of the same plastic material.
Abegglen et al. discloses a capsule comprising a sealing member formed of two or more injection materials having different hardness wherein an inner layer of a first material in injected on the body and an outer layer of a second material softer than the material of the inner layer is then overmolded on the inner layer wherein the outer layer is softer for reducing the closing efforts to close the enclosing members of a beverage production device on the capsule (‘307, Paragraph [0082]) wherein the sealing member is made of a thermoplastic polypropylene based elastomer (‘307, Paragraphs [0023] and [0061]) and the body and the sealing member are co-injected using a plastic material (‘307, Paragraph [0083]) and the body is a multilayered plastic laminate containing an intermediate layer between the inner layer and the outer layer made of a material (EVOH) impermeable to oxygen and aromas (‘307, Paragraph [0083]).
Kilber discloses the cup being molded by injection molding (‘131, Paragraph [0063]) using a thermoplastic sheet and/or flexible film material (‘131, Paragraph [0081]). Both Kilber and Abegglen et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of multilayered injection molded coffee cups used in beverage brewing machines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the multilayered cup of Kilber and make the inner layer made of a plastic material with a first hardness and the outer layer made of a plastic material with a second hardness lower than the first hardness so that the plastic material of the outer layer is softer than the plastic material of the inner layer as taught by Abegglen et al. in order to reduce the closing efforts necessary to close the enclosing members of the beverage production device on the capsule (‘307, Paragraph [0082]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the capsule of Kilber and construct the sealing element and the containment body out of the same co-injected plastic material as taught by Abegglen et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Abegglen et al. teaches that there was known utility in the coffee capsule art to construct the capsule body and the sealing element out of the same co-injected plastic material.
Further regarding Claim 25, Kilber discloses the capsule comprising an annular flange (flange 44). However, Kilber modified with Abegglen et al. does not disclose the annular flange having, on its rear face, an annular ridge and an annular groove which extend around the axis wherein the annular groove forms a recess with respect to a reference plane on which the annular flange lays and wherein the annular ridge forms a protrusion protruding from the reference plant towards the bottom end of the containment body, the protrusion having a top wall forming a plateau, the top wall of the ridge having a radial extension, and the groove having a maximum radial extension, wherein the radial extension of the top wall of the ridge is at least double the maximum radial extension of the groove and wherein the material of the outer layer is deformable wherein the annular ridge and the annular groove provides a resilient sealing element wherein the outer layer defines both the resilient sealing element provided at the rear face of the annular flange and the outer surface of the containment body.
Rondelli discloses a cup (capsule 1) for a coffee capsule comprising a containment body (cup shaped body 2) extending between a bottom (bottom wall 4) (‘435, Page 4, lines 13-25) and an upper edge (first annular portion 13, second annular portion 14, and third annular portion 15) (‘435, Page 5, lines 18/25) and further comprising at the upper edge (first annular portion 13, second annular portion 14, third annular portion 15) an annular flange (first annular portion 13 and second annular portion 14) which extends around an axis and which has a rear face (annular seat 17) directed towards the containment body (cup shaped body 2) and a front face (surface of first annular portion 13 that is closed by lid 5) (‘435, Page 5, lines 24-25) (‘435, Page 6, lines 1-2). The annular flange (first annular portion 13 and second annular portion 14) has, on its rear face, an annular ridge (annular projection 16) and an annular groove (annular seat 17) which extend inside the axis and the annular ridge (annular projection 16) and the annular groove are capable of interacting with an end edge of a pressure hood element (seat 22) of a coffee machine to provide a seal between the pressure hood element (seat 22) and the capsule (capsule 1) (‘435, Page 6, lines 18-23). The rear face of the annular flange (first annular portion 13 and second annular portion 14) lays on a reference plane. The annular groove (annular seat 17) forms a recess with respect to the reference plane and has a depth. The recess is directed towards the upper edge of the containment body (cup shaped body 2). The annular ridge (annular projection 16) forms a protrusion protruding from the reference plane towards the bottom end (bottom 4) of the containment body (cup shaped body 2). The protrusion has a top wall forming a plateau. The top wall of the ridge (annular projection 16) has a radial extension. The annular groove (annular seat 17) has a maximum radial extension. The annular ridge (annular projection 16) and annular groove (annular seat 17) are deformable. The annular ridge (annular projection 16) and the annular groove (annular seat 17) provide a resilient element (plastically deformable) which, in use, comes into contact with the pressure hood element (seat 22) of the coffee machine. The resilient sealing element (plastically deformable) is provided at the rear face of the annular flange (‘435, Page 5, lines 18-25). The annular ridge and the surface of the containment body are made of the same plastic material (the whole capsule 1 is made of a biodegradable plastic material) (‘435, FIGS. 3-4) (‘435, Page 8, lines 4-10).
PNG
media_image2.png
884
940
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kilber discloses using the coffee capsule in a typical beverage apparatus (‘131, Paragraph [0037] that is nonlimiting (‘131, Paragraph [0039]). Both modified Kilber and Rondelli are directed towards the same field of endeavor of coffee capsules used in beverage making machines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flange of the capsule of modified Kilber and incorporate onto the rear face of the annular flange an annular ridge and an annular groove which extend inside the axis and the annular ridge wherein the annular groove is capable of interacting with an end edge of a pressure hood element of a coffee machine to provide a seal between the pressure hood element and the capsule wherein the rear face of the annular flange lays on a reference plane, the groove forms a recess with respect to the reference plane and has a depth, the recess is directed towards the upper edge of the containment body, the ridge forms a protrusion protruding from the reference plane towards the bottom end of the containment body, the protrusion has a top wall forming a plateau, the top wall of the ridge has a radial extension, the groove has a maximum radial extension, the annular ridge and annular groove are deformable, the annular ridge and the annular groove provide a resilient element (plastically deformable) which, in use, comes into contact with the pressure hood element of the coffee machine, and the resilient sealing element (plastically deformable) is provided at the rear face of the annular flange wherein the ridge and the surface of the containment body are made of the same plastic material as taught by Rondelli since the configuration of the claimed sealing element disposed on the flange is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence indicating that the particular configuration of the claimed sealing element disposed on the flange was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Kamerbeek et al. teaches that there was known utility in the coffee capsule art to incorporate a sealing element onto the annular flange having the claimed structural elements and deformable properties when engaged with the pressure hood element of the coffee machine.
Further regarding Claim 25, Rondelli discloses the annular ridge and the annular groove being elastically deformable. However, Kilber modified with Abegglen et al. and Rondelli is silent regarding the sealing element undergoing at least partly plastic deformation upon interacting with the pressure hood element.
Digiuni discloses a cup (capsule 2) for a coffee capsule comprising a containment body (cup shaped body 3) extending between a bottom (lower wall 5) and an upper edge and further comprising at the upper edge an annular flange (perimetric edge 7) which extends around an axis (central axis 4) and which has a rear face directed towards the containment body (cup shaped body 3) and a front face. The annular flange (perimetric edge 7) has, on its rear face, an annular ridge (annular tooth 22) and an annular groove (annular groove 21) which extend around the axis (central axis 4). The annular ridge (annular tooth 22) and the annular groove (annular groove 21) are configured to interact with an end edge of a pressure hood element of a coffee machine to provide a seal between the pressure hood element and the capsule (capsule 2). The rear face of the annular flange (perimetric edge 7) lays on a reference plane. The groove (annular groove 21) forms a recess with respect to the reference plane and has a depth. The recess is directed towards the upper edge of the containment body (cup shaped body 3). The ridge (annular tooth 22) forms a protrusion protruding from the reference plane towards the bottom end (lower wall 5) of the containment body (cup shaped body 3). The protrusion has a top wall forming a plateau. The top wall of the ridge has a radial extension. The groove has a maximum radial extension. The annular ridge (annular tooth 22) and the annular groove (annular groove 21) provides a sealing element which, in use, comes into contact with the pressure hood element (annular edge 12) of the coffee machine (capsule holder 9) (‘209, FIG. 2) (‘209, Page 5, lines 4-11). Diguini further discloses the annular groove (annular groove 21) and the annular ridge (annular tooth 22) being deformable and undergoes at least partly plastic deformation or elastic deformation (‘209, Page 10, lines 18-21) upon interacting with the pressure hood element (annular edge 12) (‘209, FIGS. 5-6) (‘209, Page 10, lines 9-13).
PNG
media_image3.png
900
972
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Both modified Kilber and Diguini are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules comprising a flange having an annular groove and an annular ridge intended to seal with a beverage making machine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flange having an annular groove and an annular ridge of modified Kilber and have the annular groove and the annular ridge being deformable and undergoing at least partly plastic deformation as taught by Diguini in order to improve the seal (‘209, Page 10, lines 9-21
Further regarding Claim 25, Kilber modified with Abegglen et al., Rondelli, and Diguini is silent regarding the radial extension of the top wall of the ridge being at least double the maximum radial extension of the groove. However, Diguini discloses the pressure hood element of the coffee machine (capsule holder 9) having a projecting annular element 19 and/or respectively an annular seat 20 (‘209, Page 7, lines 26-30) and that in the sealed configuration the projecting annular element 19 of the coffee machine is inserted in the annular groove 21 of the capsule and/or respectively the annular seal 20 of the coffee machine receiving inside it the annular tooth 22 of the capsule and that it is possible that only annular element 19 and annular groove 21 are present or only the annular seat 20 and annular tooth 22 are present or annular element 19, annular seat 20, annular tooth 22 and annular groove 21 are present (‘209, Page 8, lines 2-9), i.e. the shape of the pressure hood element of the coffee machine matches the shape of the sealing element disposed on the flange of the capsule and also that a watertight seal is created irrespective of the shape of the surface of the annular edge 12 of the capsule holder 9 or the presence of any irregularities on it (‘209, Page 12, lines 5-15). While the art does not expressly recite the radial extension as claimed, “at least double” is considered to be an obvious variant of the prior art since limitations relating to the size of the radial extension is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.A.). Diguini teaches that the it is known in the coffee capsule art to vary the shape and dimensions of the coffee capsule holder of a beverage machine and match said shape and dimensions of the sealing element(s) disposed on the flange of the capsule and to create a watertight seal irrespective of the shape of the capsule holder or the presence of any irregularities on it (‘209, Page 12, lines 5-17). Furthermore, Kamerbeek et al. teaches a coffee machine comprising a pressure hood element having various shapes (irregularity in the form of a protrusion 34 or a recess 35) (‘168, FIGS. 3A-3B) (‘168, Paragraphs [0059]-[0060]) wherein the pressure hood element of the coffee machine sealingly engages with a flange of a capsule wherein the flange of the capsule has ridges having different shapes (‘168, Paragraph [0086]) and that the ridges possesses enough compressibility due to its shape and/or dimensions to provide a sealing engagement with the enclosing member even if the enclosing member comprises an irregularity at the location of the sealing engagement (‘168, Paragraphs [0013] and [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape and dimensions of the ridge of modified Kilber to have the claimed radial extension of the top wall of the ridge being at least double the maximum radial extension of the groove since the configuration of the claimed ridge and groove that serves as a sealing element of the capsule is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed ridge and groove sealing elements was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Kamerbeek et al. teaches that the ridges disposed on the flange of the capsule can have various shapes and that the pressure hood element of the coffee machine that contacts the annular ridge can have irregularities in the form of a protrusion or a dent, i.e. the pressure hood element of various coffee machines have different dimensions and configurations. One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the annular ridge and annular groove disposed on the flange of the capsule that sealingly engages with the pressure hood element of the particular coffee machine being used.
Further regarding Claim 25, the limitations “for a coffee capsule,” “adapted to receive a cup sealing lid to form the capsule,” and “wherein the annular ridge and the annular groove are configured to interact with an end edge of a pressure hood element of a coffee machine to provide a seal between the pressure hood element and the capsule,” “so that is undergoes at least partly plastic deformation upon interacting with the pressure hood element,” and “which, in use, comes into contact with the pressure hood element of the coffee machine” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “cup.” In this regard, applicant’s attention is invited to MPEP § 2114.I. and MPEP § 2114.II. which states features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does in view of Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed in view of Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Nevertheless, Kilber discloses the front face capable of receiving a cup sealing lid (lid 51) to form the capsule (cartridge 50) (‘131, FIG. 6) (‘131, Paragraph [0064]). The prior art combination explicitly teaches the remainder of the intended use limitations as enumerated in the obviousness rejections of Claim 25 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 20-23 are allowed.
Claims 4 and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior art of record, Kilber et al. US 2010/0288131 in view of Abegglen et al. US 2010/0015307, Rondelli WO 2013/132435, Digiuni WO 2013/136209, and Kamerbeek et al. US 2012/0225168, does not disclose or reasonably suggest a cup for a coffee capsule comprising an annular flange having on its rear face an annular ridge and an annular groove which extends around the axis wherein the groove forms a recess with respect to a reference plane…the protrusion having a top wall forming a plateau, the top wall of the annular ridge having a radial extension and the annular groove is at least double the maximum radial extension of the groove. FIG. 3 of Rondelli discloses the radial extension of a flat portion of the top wall of the annular ridge being significantly smaller than the radial extension of the annular groove. Furthermore, FIG. 5 of Diguini does not show a flat portion of the top wall of the annular ridge being at least double the radial extension of the annular groove.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that the previous Drawing Objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to Claim 9.
Examiner notes that the previous Claim Objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that the previous new matter rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that the previous indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that new Claim Objections have been made in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that new indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been made in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed September 15, 2025, with respect to the previous obviousness rejections under 35 USC 103(a) of Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues that FIG. 3 of Rondelli discloses the radial extension of a flat portion of the top wall of the annular ridge being significantly smaller than the radial extension of the annular groove. Furthermore, FIG. 5 of Diguini does not show a flat portion of the top wall of the annular ridge being at least double the radial extension of the annular groove. These arguments are found persuasive. Therefore, the previous obviousness rejections of Claim 1 under 35 USC 103(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant contends on Page 13 of the Remarks that the cited references do not teach or suggest the features of new independent Claim 25 for at least the same reasons discussed with respect to Claim 1. It is noted that Claim 1 recites the newly presented limitations “the annular ridge including a flat portion” and “wherein the annular groove is a singular annular groove and the annular ridge is a single annular ridge.” However, Claim 25 does not recite either of these limitations. The same prior art combination used to previously reject Claim 1 have been applied to reject new Claim 25. New Claim 25 does not require the annular ridge to include a flat portion or the radial extension of the flat portion of the top wall of the annular ridge to be at least double the maximum radial extension of the annular groove.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights