DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments directed to claim 1 and 26
Applicant argues that Liu is limited to cured tobacco waste material, does not teach or suggest uncured (“green”) tobacco biomass, does not provide a reasonable expectation of success for processing uncured biomass, and does not teach the claimed aqueous solution or the claimed nicotine sulfate-containing solution composition.
These arguments are not persuasive.
First, Applicant’s arguments regarding whether uncured tobacco is inherent in Liu are unfitting because the rejection does not rely on inherency. Rather, as set forth in the Office Action, Hearn teaches extraction of nicotine from green tobacco biomass that has not been cured or fermented (Hearn [0023]–[0025], [0048]), while Liu teaches the claimed nicotine extraction and purification process. Thus, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Liu and Hearn.
Second, Applicant’s contention that “cigarette waste material” in Liu would be understood as cured material does not overcome the rejection because it attacks Liu individually rather than the applied combination. Even assuming Liu’s starting material is cured, Hearn teaches uncured tobacco biomass as a known source of nicotine, and both references are directed to extraction and purification of nicotine from Nicotiana biomass. Substituting one known tobacco source (cured material) with another known source (uncured biomass) for the same purpose of obtaining nicotine represents a predictable variation within the ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2143)
Third, Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill would not have had a reasonable expectation of success due to compositional differences between cured and uncured tobacco is not persuasive. Differences in impurity profile do not establish inoperability of Liu’s process. As set forth in the Office Action, Liu expressly teaches purification steps designed to remove impurities and obtain high-purity nicotine (Liu [0006]–[0008], [0028]–[0029], [0047]). Thus, any variation in impurity content arising from the use of uncured biomass would have been addressed through known purification techniques and does not preclude successful application of Liu’s method.
Fourth, Applicant argues that Liu teaches an organic extract rather than the claimed aqueous solution. This argument is not persuasive. Liu teaches dissolving nicotine in sulfuric acid water to form nicotine sulfate (Liu [0033]), thereby producing an aqueous nicotine-containing solution as required by the claims. The presence of an earlier organic extraction step does not negate Liu’s explicit teaching of an aqueous phase.
Fifth, Applicant argues that the claimed nicotine sulfate-containing solution, comprising greater than 90% nicotine sulfate and limited amounts of myosmine and nicotine N-oxide, is not taught or suggested and is compositionally distinct.
This argument is not persuasive.
Again, Liu identifies myosmine and nicotine N-oxide as known impurities formed during nicotine processing and teaches purification processes that reduce such impurities and yield nicotine having a purity of 99.6–99.9% (Liu [0006]–[0008], [0047]). Because these impurities are known degradation or byproduct species, their concentrations are directly influenced by known process conditions, including extraction efficiency, oxidation control, and purification techniques.
Accordingly, the concentration of such impurities constitutes a result-effective variable that would have been routinely optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant has not provided evidence that the claimed impurity limits are critical or produce unexpected results. In the absence of such evidence, selecting impurity levels achievable through known purification methods represents routine optimization. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Arguments directed to Claim 12
Applicant argues that Liu teaches maintaining pH within a disclosed bounded range (about pH 12) and therefore would not have suggested adjusting the pH to about 13.
This argument is not persuasive.
As set forth in the Office Action, Liu teaches adjusting the pH to about 12 using a base to convert nicotine sulfate to free-base nicotine (Liu [0094]). This teaching establishes that strongly basic conditions are required to drive the conversion and facilitate extraction.
Given this teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that slight increases in basicity could be employed to ensure more complete neutralization and improve extraction efficiency, particularly in view of variations in feed composition and processing conditions.
Adjusting the pH from about 12 to about 13 represents a minor modification within an already strongly basic regime and does not depart from Liu’s teachings, but instead reflects routine optimization of a known process parameter to achieve the same intended result. Applicant has not provided evidence that the claimed pH value is critical or yields unexpected results. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN105566288), and further in view of Hearn et al. (US 20150223517).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a method for providing a nicotine isolate, comprising:
receiving a solution comprising nicotine derived from green tobacco biomass of a plant of the Nicotiana species (After the tobacco scraps are crushed and alkalized, the nicotine is extracted with a solvent to obtain the nicotine extract [0014]);
converting the nicotine to nicotine sulfate, giving a nicotine sulfate- containing solution (Extracting the nicotine extract obtained in step (1) with sulfuric acid water to obtain nicotine sulfate [0015]);
concentrating the nicotine sulfate-containing solution to give a nicotine sulfate concentrate (Concentrated nicotine sulfate [0016]);
adjusting the pH of the nicotine sulfate concentrate to a pH of about 9.5 or greater to convert the nicotine sulfate to nicotine in free base form, providing a basic concentrate (Put concentrated nicotine sulfate in the extraction tank, adjust the pH to 10-12, add solvent for extraction; [0035]);
extracting the basic concentrate with an organic solvent to partition the nicotine in free base form into the organic solvent, providing a nicotine-containing organic solution (and the volume ratio of the solvent to the concentrated nicotine sulfate is 1/10 to 1/1 to obtain nicotine containing organic solution [0035]);
distilling the nicotine-containing organic solution to afford a nicotine isolate, wherein the nicotine isolate comprises about 90% or more nicotine by weight (By controlling the temperature and vacuum in the distillation and separation of the long-range rectification column and the bottom of the column, industrial production can obtain a high purity, colorless and transparent, pure odor, and a purity of 99.6% to 99.9%, which can meet the high requirements of biomedical applications. Pure nicotine product [0047]).
Liu, therefore, teaches each of the process steps (a)–(f) and the final product purity limitation.
Liu discloses that industrially produced nicotine typically contains alkaloid impurities such as dehydroneonicotinic acid, mesmin (i.e., myosmine), nornicotinic acid, and cotinine (¶[0006]). Liu further explains that these impurities, as well as oxidation products formed during solvent removal and distillation, deteriorate nicotine quality and stability (¶[0007]). To address this issue, Liu teaches a purification process comprising continuous extraction and distillation steps that reduce such harmful impurities and oxidation by-products, yielding nicotine of at least 99.6–99.9% purity (¶¶[0008], [0028]–[0029], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize Liu’s extraction and distillation conditions—such as the temperature, vacuum degree, and oxidation control—to minimize the specific degradation impurities Liu identifies (e.g., myosmine and nicotine N-oxide) to the recited levels (≤3% and ≤2%, respectively). Such optimization constitutes a routine adjustment of result-effective variables to achieve a predictable improvement in product purity, consistent with the motivation expressly provided in Liu to produce high-purity, biopharmaceutical-grade nicotine. (See MPEP §2144.05(II); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)).
However, Liu does not explicitly disclose that the nicotine originates from green tobacco biomass that has not been cured.
Nevertheless, Liu specifies that the nicotine is extracted from tobacco stems and leaves discarded from the manufacturing process, without establishing that all such biomass was cured [0014]–[0016]. These discarded leaves, stems, and scraps inherently encompass both cured and uncured materials depending on the stage of processing.
Furthermore, Hearn discloses processes for deriving products such as nicotine from tobacco biomass wherein the biomass “may derive from the whole plant or any part thereof including leaves, buds, flowers, stems, stalks, or roots” [0001] and expressly defines the biomass as comprising “unmanufactured tobacco, tobacco refuse, air-cured tobacco, fire-cured tobacco, flue-cured tobacco, sun-cured tobacco, or combinations thereof” [0022]. Hearn teaches that biomass may include both cured and uncured tobacco.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize Liu’s process by selecting uncured (“green”) tobacco biomass as a feedstock consistent with Hearn’s disclosure.
Both references are directed to extraction and purification of nicotine from Nicotiana biomass, and the substitution of one known form of biomass (cured) for another (uncured) would have been a predictable variation expected to yield the same high-purity nicotine isolate (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Liu in view of Hearn to arrive at the presently claimed method, as the combination merely represents the use of a known process on a known alternative source material to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches treating the solution comprising nicotine with sulfuric acid (Dissolve the nicotine extract in sulfuric acid water with a mass percentage of 8% to 12% [0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches the nicotine sulfate-containing solution has a pH of about 2 to about 6 (When the pH of the sulfuric acid water is 3.5 to 5.5, stop the extraction to obtain nicotine sulfate [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches that the nicotine-sulfate-containing solution obtained after concentration comprises 30–50 wt % nicotine sulfate in water ([0034]) and may include up to 0.1–10 % stabilizing agents relative to the mass of nicotine sulfate ([0041]). Accordingly, when expressed on a dry-weight basis (excluding water), the solids fraction of the solution would be at least about 90 % nicotine sulfate, thereby meeting the limitation of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses that industrially produced nicotine typically contains alkaloid impurities such as dehydroneonicotinic acid, mesmin (i.e., myosmine), nornicotinic acid, and cotinine (¶[0006]). Liu further explains that these impurities, as well as oxidation products formed during solvent removal and distillation, deteriorate nicotine quality and stability (¶[0007]). To address this issue, Liu teaches a purification process comprising continuous extraction and distillation steps that reduce such harmful impurities and oxidation by-products, yielding nicotine of at least 99.6–99.9% purity (¶¶[0008], [0028]–[0029], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize Liu’s extraction and distillation conditions—such as the temperature, vacuum degree, and oxidation control—to minimize the specific degradation impurities Liu identifies (e.g., myosmine and nicotine N-oxide) to the recited levels (≤3% and ≤2%, respectively). Such optimization constitutes a routine adjustment of result-effective variables to achieve a predictable improvement in product purity, consistent with the motivation expressly provided in Liu to produce high-purity, biopharmaceutical-grade nicotine. (See MPEP §2144.05(II); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches wherein the concentrating in step c) comprises subjecting the nicotine sulfate-containing solution to vacuum evaporation or distillation (Concentrate nicotine sulfate at 70-90°C and a vacuum of 0.01-0.1 MPa to obtain concentrated nicotine sulfate with a concentration of 30%-50% [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches concentrating the nicotine-sulfate solution under vacuum and controlled temperature to remove solvent and water (¶¶ [0040]–[0046]) and specifically discloses vacuum levels of 0.001–0.05 MPa (≈ –29.9 to –25 in Hg) and temperatures of 60–120 °C during concentration and purification (¶¶ [0018], [0044]).
Liu, however, does not teach the specific sub-range of about 40–50 °C and –25 to –27 in Hg.
These claimed values fall within Liu’s broader taught ranges and directly influence the rate of evaporation and product quality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select or adjust the specific temperature and pressure within Liu’s disclosed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of known result-effective variables, with the predictable result of improving evaporation control and preventing nicotine degradation (MPEP § 2144.05(II); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches wherein the adjusting in step d) comprises adding a sodium hydroxide solution to the nicotine sulfate concentrate (the alkalizing agent used in the alkalization is selected from one or two of sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, ammonium hydroxide, and calcium oxide. 1%-10% of the mass of tobacco scraps [0037]).
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches wherein the adjusting in step d) comprises adjusting to a pH of about 12 or greater (add appropriate amount of sodium hydroxide to adjust the pH to 12 and stir [0094]).
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches adjusting pH during back-extraction by adding sodium hydroxide to achieve about pH 12 (¶ [0094]) but does not expressly disclose adjustment to pH 13. However, Liu already establishes that a strongly basic environment near pH 12 promotes conversion of nicotine sulfate to free-base nicotine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to slightly increase the pH to about 13 as a routine process optimization to ensure complete neutralization and maximize extraction efficiency. Such an adjustment represents a predictable improvement within an established effective range (In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches that after alkalization and stirring, the mixture is allowed to stand such that lower-layer impurities are removed and the clarified upper nicotine-containing phase is recovered (¶ [0094]).
While Liu does not explicitly state that solids are removed prior to extraction, the described settling and phase separation inherently remove insoluble residues from the basic concentrate before extraction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include an explicit solid-removal step, since clarification of alkaline mixtures before solvent extraction is a routine purification practice to prevent clogging and improve solvent–solute contact, yielding a predictable improvement in process efficiency (MPEP § 2144.04(VI)).
Regarding claim 14, Liu’s decantation or settling step (¶ [0094]) accomplishes the same purpose as filtration but does not expressly disclose filtering the solids. Because filtration is a known, functionally equivalent alternative to settling for removing suspended solids, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to substitute filtration for Liu’s separation method to achieve faster and more efficient clarification of the basic concentrate. Such substitution represents a predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device or method (MPEP § 2143(I)(A); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses adjusting the pH of the nicotine sulfate concentrate to convert nicotine sulfate to free-base nicotine (¶¶ [0035]–[0037]) and subsequently extracting the basic concentrate with an organic solvent such as n-hexane or No. 6 solvent oil to partition the nicotine into the organic phase (¶ [0035]). Liu further describes these operations as occurring in a continuous extraction process (¶¶ [0029], [0039]), which inherently indicates that the pH adjustment and solvent extraction steps occur sequentially without an intervening processing step.
Accordingly, Liu teaches or at least renders obvious performing step (d) and (e) consecutively as required by claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, Liu teaches concentrating the nicotine-containing organic solution to obtain an organic solution having a nicotine concentration greater than 50% (¶[0044]) and further discloses that the No. 6 solvent oil solution obtained in step (4) contains 68% nicotine (¶[0095]). Accordingly, Liu expressly teaches the nicotine-containing organic solution comprises at least about 40% nicotine by weight.
Regarding claim 18, Liu teaches that distillation comprises a first stage to remove organic solvent and a second stage to distill and collect the nicotine isolate (¶[0018]). Specifically, Liu describes first distilling off organic solvent and low-boiling impurities at 60–120°C and atmospheric pressure, followed by a second stage of separation and purification at 60–150°C and reduced pressure (0.001–0.05 MPa) to obtain high-purity nicotine (¶¶[0018]–[0021]). Thus, Liu expressly discloses the two-stage distillation structure recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 19, Liu teaches that the distillation process is carried out in two stages, wherein the first stage removes organic solvent and low-boiling impurities at atmospheric pressure and 60–120 °C and the second stage purifies the nicotine isolate at 60–150 °C under a vacuum of 0.001–0.05 MPa (¶[0018], ¶[0019]–[0021]). Accordingly, Liu expressly teaches conducting the first stage at elevated temperature and atmospheric pressure and the second stage under vacuum as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Liu teaches obtaining a nicotine isolate that is colorless, transparent, and has a purity of 99.6–99.9% (¶[0047]). Accordingly, Liu expressly teaches a nicotine isolate comprising about 98% or more nicotine by weight.
Regarding claim 21, Liu similarly teaches that the obtained nicotine isolate has a purity of 99.6–99.9% (¶[0047]), which falls within and exceeds the claimed purity range. Therefore, Liu expressly teaches the limitation of a nicotine isolate comprising about 99% or more nicotine by weight.
Regarding claim 26, Liu discloses a method of producing a high-purity nicotine isolate comprising:
(a) extracting nicotine from tobacco by-products using a solvent such as n-hexane or No. 6 solvent oil (¶¶ [0032]–[0039]);
(b) converting the extracted nicotine to nicotine sulfate by dissolving the nicotine extract in sulfuric-acid water having a mass percentage of 8–12 % H₂SO₄ (¶ [0033]);
(c) concentrating the nicotine-sulfate solution under reduced pressure (70–90 °C, 0.01–0.1 MPa) to obtain concentrated nicotine sulfate (¶ [0034]);
(d) adjusting the pH of the nicotine-sulfate concentrate to 10–12 with sodium hydroxide to convert nicotine sulfate to free-base nicotine (¶¶ [0035]–[0037]);
(e) extracting the basic concentrate with an organic solvent (e.g., No. 6 solvent oil or n-hexane) to partition the nicotine into the organic phase (¶ [0035]); and
(f) distilling the nicotine-containing organic solution under elevated temperature and vacuum to yield high-purity nicotine (¶¶ [0018], [0020]–[0029]).
Liu discloses that industrially produced nicotine typically contains alkaloid impurities such as dehydroneonicotinic acid, mesmin (i.e., myosmine), nornicotinic acid, and cotinine (¶[0006]). Liu further explains that these impurities, as well as oxidation products formed during solvent removal and distillation, deteriorate nicotine quality and stability (¶[0007]). To address this issue, Liu teaches a purification process comprising continuous extraction and distillation steps that reduce such harmful impurities and oxidation by-products, yielding nicotine of at least 99.6–99.9% purity (¶¶[0008], [0028]–[0029], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize Liu’s extraction and distillation conditions—such as the temperature, vacuum degree, and oxidation control—to minimize the specific degradation impurities Liu identifies (e.g., myosmine and nicotine N-oxide) to the recited levels (≤3% and ≤2%, respectively). Such optimization constitutes a routine adjustment of result-effective variables to achieve a predictable improvement in product purity, consistent with the motivation expressly provided in Liu to produce high-purity, biopharmaceutical-grade nicotine. (See MPEP §2144.05(II); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)).
Accordingly, Liu teaches every limitation of claim 26 except that Liu does not expressly specify that the nicotine is from green tobacco biomass that has not been cured.
Hearn discloses extraction of nicotine from green tobacco biomass (fresh leaves and stems) that have not been cured or fermented, for the purpose of obtaining nicotine formulations of high purity and desirable organoleptic properties (¶¶ [0023]–[0025], [0048]). Hearn teaches that uncured biomass minimizes thermally generated degradation products such as nornicotine and nicotine N-oxide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Liu’s multi-step nicotine-isolation and purification process to the green, uncured tobacco biomass described by Hearn, because both references seek to isolate high-purity nicotine from Nicotiana material. A skilled artisan would have recognized that substituting green, uncured biomass for Liu’s tobacco by-products would predictably reduce oxidation impurities and improve yield, representing a routine optimization of starting material within the same technical field and for the same objective, obtaining purified nicotine.
The phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the claim to the listed steps and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed method, namely, the conversion of nicotine from green biomass into a purified nicotine isolate via sulfate formation, pH adjustment, solvent extraction, and distillation. Liu’s method contains no additional steps that would materially alter these characteristics; its inclusion of conventional extraction and concentration operations remains within the scope permitted by “consisting essentially of.” Accordingly, the teachings of Liu, when modified by Hearn’s disclosure of uncured biomass as the nicotine source, meet the claim as a whole.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liu with Hearn to yield the method of claim 26, with a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination merely substitutes a known feedstock for an equivalent one in a known purification process to obtain predictable results. (See MPEP § 2143; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN105566288) and Hearn et al. (US 20150223517) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holton (US 20130078307).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Liu does not explicitly disclose that the nicotine-containing solution originates as a by-product of a method to provide one or more of protein, sugar, salt, or organic acids, nor that the organic solvent in step (e) comprises cyclohexane.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Liu’s process for recovering nicotine from tobacco by-products could likewise be applied to other plant-derived or processed sources containing nicotine, including by-products from biochemical extraction or fermentation processes yielding proteins or organic acids.
Holton discloses a nicotine-containing pharmaceutical composition isolated from a Nicotiana plant, wherein the process includes removing high-molecular-weight components such as proteins, polysaccharides, and pigments (¶ [0023]). Thus, Holton evidences that such by-product sources are recognized as suitable nicotine-containing materials from which nicotine may be recovered using the same general extraction and purification principles disclosed by Liu.
Liu further teaches extracting the basic concentrate with hydrocarbon solvents such as No. 6 solvent oil or n-hexane (¶ [0038]), while Holton identifies related solvent, e.g., hydrocarbons including heptane and hexane as suitable extraction media for separating nicotine from aqueous phases. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that cyclohexane, a non-polar hydrocarbon solvent with similar boiling point, polarity, and immiscibility with water, would be an equivalent and predictable substitute for Liu’s disclosed solvents, capable of achieving substantially the same extraction efficiency and simplifying solvent recovery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Liu’s nicotine-isolation process to alternative nicotine sources such as those described by Holton, and to employ cyclohexane as an interchangeable organic solvent, with a reasonable expectation of success, as the modifications represent routine optimization and substitution of known equivalents to achieve predictable results. (See MPEP § 2143; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
The prior art of record, including Liu, Hearn, US 2010/0093054 A1 (Lo), and US 3,147,200 (Neel), has been considered.
Liu and Hearn generally teach extraction and/or purification of nicotine or tobacco-derived components using aqueous systems. Lo teaches homogenizing green tobacco plant material in an aqueous buffer solution (e.g., phosphate buffer) to obtain a buffered plant extract, while Neel teaches distilling a nicotine-containing aqueous solution derived from tobacco processing to obtain a nicotine-water distillate.
However, none of the cited references, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests that the aqueous solution is a distillate obtained from extraction of green tobacco biomass with an aqueous buffer, as required by claim 27. In particular, Lo does not disclose distillation of the buffered extract, and Neel does not disclose extraction using an aqueous buffer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached on (571) 270-3882. 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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747