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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 13, 16, 20-26 and 28-32 are pending and are under examination. Any objections or rejections not repeated below have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 32 is 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 32 recites, “the weight ratio of lecithin to polysorbate is between 2:1 to 2.5:1; the weight ratio of lecithin to sorbitan ester is between 8:1 and 20:1; and the weight ratio of polysorbate to sorbitan ester is between 4:1 to 8:1.” The specification does not discuss these ingredients being present in the formulation in “weight ratios” but only discusses the ingredients being in the formulation in percentages based on weight. While these ratios may be within the weight percentages disclosed in the specification, there is no mention in the disclosure of specific weight ratios for lecithin to polysorbate, lecithin to sorbitan ester or polysorbate to sorbitan ester. Thus, claim 32 is considered new matter since it is not present in the disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 31, which depends from claim 6, recites, “the amount of sorbitan ester is between 0.5 and 2% by weight.” Claim 6 recites, “between 1 and 20% by weight of sorbitan ester.” Thus, claim 31 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, broadening the lower end of the claimed range from 1% to 0.5%.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 13, 16, 20-26 and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sardo US 20060228458 (cited on IDS dated 03/19/2020) in view of Zhao et al. US 20160002483 (cited on IDS 03/19/2020).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 20 Sardo teaches a method for post-harvest treatment of fruit comprising applying to the fruit an edible aqueous formulation, as required by claim 1 (method for treating fruit comprising the application to the fruit of a composition; claim 27).
Sardo teaches the formulation consists of lecithin of plant origin as an active ingredient, as required by claim 1; and Sardo also teaches the lecithin of plant origin is lecithin from soy, as required by claim 20 (lecithin of natural origin from soya (soy) that has a phytoprotective effect by delaying or preventing the formation of blemishes or microlesions; [0001], [0016], [0037]). Sardo teaches the formulation consists of between 5-50% lecithin [0041]. This encompasses the claim 1 range of 5-30% lecithin. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Sardo teaches the formulation consists of an anti-fungal agent, as may be optionally applied in claim 1 and required by claim 5 (composition comprise the combination of one or more treatment agents for fruit which have fungicidal properties; [0018]).
Sardo teaches the formulation consists of water [0052] wherein all amounts are with respect to the weight of the formulation, as required by claim 1 (percentages indicated above and below are understood to be by weight; [0061]).
Sardo teaches wherein applying is done during any one of the stages of a post harvesting period, as required by claim 1 (applied by any means known after harvesting; [0058]).
Sardo teaches the formulation may comprise non-ionic synthetic emulsifying agents [0052], but does not specifically name polysorbate or sorbitan ester, as required by claim 1.
Zhao teaches an edible coating for plants that is effective at protecting fresh and processed produce from various types of damage (Abstract). The composition of Zhao comprises a surfactant selected from a combination of polysorbate and sorbitan ester (sorbitan surfactant; [0104], Claim 9) ranging from about 0.01% to about 5% [0011], [0105], (Claim 10). Thus, it would have been obvious to have provided these components of polysorbate and sorbitan ester in the amounts as claimed, as the claimed amounts fall within the range taught by the prior art [0104-0105] (Claims 9-10). See MPEP 2144.05(I). Zhao discloses that when additive agents, such as a sorbitan ester (sorbitan surfactant) in combination with a polysorbate, are applied as a coating to an object like fruit, the coating can protect the object from water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity, all of which are responsible for significant quality deterioration, microbial spoilage and monetary losses in the food industry [0162].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sardo by incorporating the teachings of Zhao to treat fruit after harvest with a composition containing polysorbate and sorbitan ester in the amounts as claimed because when these are applied as a coating to an object, such as fruit, it can reduce water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity, all of which are responsible for significant quality deterioration, microbial spoilage and monetary losses in the food industry, as recognized by Zhao [0162].
Regarding claim 2, modified Sardo teaches the method of claim 1 above. Sardo teaches wherein said aqueous formulation is diluted in water at a ratio from 1 to 20 l/m3 of water (Claim 28), or .1 to 2% (v/v). This is within the claimed range of between 0.1-10%.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sardo teaches the method of claim 1 above. Sardo teaches wherein the formulation is in a liquid state and is applied via drencher (application by means of showering; [0077]).
Regarding claims 6, 10, 28 and 31, Sardo teaches an edible aqueous formulation for post-harvest treatment of fruit, as required by claims 6 and 28 (the use of lecithin formulated in water for treating fruit by applying to the fruit after harvesting [0001], [0052], [0058]).
Sardo teaches the formulation consists of lecithin of plant origin as an active ingredient, as required by claims 6 and 28; and Sardo also teaches the lecithin of plant origin is lecithin from soy, as required by claim 10 (lecithin of natural origin from soya (soy) that has a phytoprotective effect by delaying or preventing the formation of blemishes or microlesions; [0001], [0016], [0037]). Sardo teaches the formulation consists of between 5-50% lecithin [0041]. This encompasses the claim 6 range of 5-30% lecithin and the claim 31 range of between 10-16%, and this overlaps the claim 28 range of between 1-30%. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Sardo teaches the formulation consists of an anti-fungal agent, as may be optionally applied in claims 6 and 28 (composition comprise the combination of one or more treatment agents for fruit which have fungicidal properties; [0018]).
Sardo teaches the formulation consists of water [0052] wherein all amounts are with respect to the weight of the formulation, as required by claims 6 and 28 (percentages indicated above and below are understood to be by weight; [0061]).
Sardo teaches the formulation may comprise non-ionic synthetic emulsifying agents [0052], but does not specifically name polysorbate or sorbitan ester, as required by claims 6 and 28.
Zhao teaches an edible coating for plants that is effective at protecting fresh and processed produce from various types of damage (Abstract). The composition of Zhao comprises a surfactant, specifically a combination of polysorbate and sorbitan ester (sorbitan surfactant; [0104], Claim 9) ranging from about 0.01% to about 5% [0011], [0105], (Claim 10). Thus, it would have been obvious to have provided these components of polysorbate and sorbitan ester in the amounts as claimed in claims 6, 28 and 31, as the claimed amounts fall within the range taught by the prior art [0104-0105] (Claims 9-10). See MPEP 2144.05(I). Zhao discloses that when additive agents, such as a sorbitan ester (sorbitan surfactant) in combination with a polysorbate, are applied as a coating to an object like fruit, the coating can protect the object from water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity, all of which are responsible for significant quality deterioration, microbial spoilage and monetary losses in the food industry [0162].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sardo by incorporating the teachings of Zhao to treat fruit after harvest with a composition containing polysorbate and sorbitan ester in the amounts as claimed because when these are applied as a coating to an object, such as fruit, it can reduce water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity, all of which are responsible for significant quality deterioration, microbial spoilage and monetary losses in the food industry, as recognized by Zhao [0162].
Regarding claim 8, modified Sardo teaches the aqueous formulation as discussed above in claim 6. Sardo discloses the formulation is in liquid form (formulated in water; [0052]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sardo teaches the aqueous formulation of claim 6 above. Sardo does not teach the formulation comprises glycol.
Zhao teaches the coating composition can further comprise one or more additive agents that when applied to the object to be coated can protect the object from water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity. Zhao teaches the additive agent comprises glycol selected from the group consisting of glycerin or propylene glycol and combinations thereof (suitable additive agents include plasticizers such as glycerin and propylene glycol; [0162]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Sardo in view of Zhao to further incorporate the teachings of Zhao by having the composition comprise glycerin or propylene glycol or combinations thereof because when added to the coating composition and applied to the object to be coated it protects the object from water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity, as recognized by Zhao [0162].
Regarding claim 13, modified Sardo discloses the aqueous formulation of claim 6 above. Sardo teaches a dilution which comprises the aqueous formulation, wherein said aqueous formulation is diluted in water at a ratio from 1 to 20 l/m3 of water (Claim 28), or .1 to 2% (v/v). This is within the claimed range of between 0.1-10%.
Regarding claim 16, modified Sardo teaches the method of claim 1 above. Sardo does not teach the formulation comprises glycol.
Zhao teaches the coating composition can further comprise one or more additive agents that when applied to the object to be coated can protect the object from water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity. Zhao teaches the additive agent comprises glycol selected from the group consisting of glycerin or propylene glycol and combinations thereof (suitable additive agents include plasticizers such as glycerin and propylene glycol; [0162]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Sardo in view of Zhao to further incorporate the teachings of Zhao by having the composition comprise glycerin or propylene glycol or combinations thereof because when added to the coating composition and applied to the object to be coated it protects the object from water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity, as recognized by Zhao [0162].
Regarding claim 21, modified Sardo teaches the method of claim 1 above. Sardo discloses wherein the method reduces damage caused by post-harvest physiological disorders during the post-harvest treatment of the fruit as determined by visual inspection of the fruit compared to fruit not treated according to the method (treatment of apples after harvesting by means of showering using the treatment composition diluted in water compared to a control which were not treated or only treated with water but subject to the same storage conditions, [0106-0110]; Figure 1 shows the occurrences of decay appearing on the pieces of fruit two to four months following application, where the fruit treated with the treatment method had reduced damage or reduced occurrences of decay by more than 50%, [0110], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, modified Sardo teaches the method of claim 21 above. Sardo discloses wherein the post-harvest physiological disorders include at least one of physiological scald and aging (decay appearing on the pieces of fruit; [0101], [0110]).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, modified Sardo teaches the method of claim 21 above. Sardo teaches the fruit is a pome fruit, as required by claim 23; where the fruit is an apple, as required by claim 24 (apples were treated after harvesting; [0106]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Sardo teaches a method of post-harvest treatment on fruit comprising applying to the fruit the edible aqueous formulation of claim 28 (method for treating fruit comprising the application to the fruit of a composition; claim 27). Sardo teaches wherein applying is done during any one of the stages of post harvesting period (applied by any means known after harvesting; [0058]).
Regarding claim 26, modified Sardo teaches the method of claim 1 above. Sardo teaches wherein compared to fruit not treated by the method, the method reduces at least one of: physiological scald during preservation and physiological scald due to senescence; wherein physiological scald is measured by visual inspection (treatment of apples after harvesting by means of showering using the treatment composition diluted in water compared to a control which were not treated or only treated with water but subject to the same storage conditions, [0106-0110]; Figure 1 shows the occurrences of decay appearing on the pieces of fruit two to four months following application, where the fruit treated with the treatment method had reduced damage or reduced occurrences of decay by more than 50%, [0110], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 29, modified Sardo teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Sardo discloses wherein compared to fruit not treated by the method, the method reduces physiological scald caused by Controlled Atmosphere (CA) treatment, wherein physiological scald is measured by visual inspection (treatment of apples after harvesting by means of showering using the treatment composition diluted in water compared to a control which was not treated or only treated with water but subject to the same storage conditions, wherein the storage conditions are storage in a refrigerator with a modified atmosphere (i.e. controlled atmosphere treatment) [0106-0110]; Figure 1 shows the occurrences of decay appearing on the pieces of fruit two to four months following application, where the fruit treated with the treatment method had reduced damage or reduced occurrences of decay by more than 50%, [0110], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 30, modified Sardo teaches the aqueous formulation of claim 6, as discussed above. Regarding the recitation, “wherein treatment of fruit with the aqueous formulation reduces at least one of… wherein physiological scald and friction scald are measured by visual inspection,” this recitation is directed toward the intended use of the composition and does not further limit the claim. There is no patentable distinction of the aqueous formulation’s intended use. The intended use does not impose any limit on the interpretation of the claim. Therefore, the recitation does not further limit the claim.
Regardless, the prior art does meet the claimed limitation. Sardo discloses wherein treatment of fruit with the aqueous formulation reduces physiological scald caused by Controlled Atmosphere (CA) treatment, wherein physiological scald is measured by visual inspection of the fruit compared to fruit not treated with the aqueous formulation (treatment of apples after harvesting by means of showering using the treatment composition diluted in water compared to a control which was not treated or only treated with water but subject to the same storage conditions, wherein the storage conditions are storage in a refrigerator with a modified atmosphere (i.e. controlled atmosphere treatment) [0106-0110]; Figure 1 shows the occurrences of decay appearing on the pieces of fruit two to four months following application, where the fruit treated with the treatment method had reduced damage or reduced occurrences of decay by more than 50%, [0110], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 32, modified Sardo teaches the aqueous formulation of claim 6. As discussed in the above, modified Sardo teaches lecithin between 5-50%, polysorbate between 0.01-4.99% and sorbitan easter between 0.01-4.99%. Thus, modified Sardo teaches the weight ratio of lecithin to polysorbate is between about 1:1 to about 5000:1; the weight ratio of lecithin to sorbitan ester is between about 1:1 to about 5000:1; and the weight ratio of polysorbate to sorbitan ester is between 499:1 to about 1:499. These encompasses the claimed range ratio ranges of between 2:1 to 2.5:1, 8:1 to 20:1 and 4:1 to 8:1, respectively. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pgs. 9-10 of their remarks, that the secondary reference Zhao does not teach or suggest the claimed weight of sorbitan ester of 1-20%, but only teaches a theoretical amount of 0.49%. However, the Office disagrees for the following reasons.
Before applicant amended the claimed range of sorbitan ester, the lower range embodiment was used and referenced in Zhao, specifically claim 13. However, with the claim amendment changing the claimed range of sorbitan ester from 0.1-20% to 1-20%, a different embodiment was used and referenced in Zhao for the range of sorbitan ester, specifically claim 10, [0011], [0104-0105].
Thus, as shown by the above rejection, the composition of Zhao comprises a surfactant, specifically a combination of polysorbate and sorbitan ester (sorbitan surfactant; [0104], Claim 9) ranging from about 0.01% to about 5% [0011], [0105], (Claim 10); and it would have been obvious to have provided these components of polysorbate and sorbitan ester in the amounts as claimed in claims 1, 6, and 28, as the claimed amounts fall within the range taught by the prior art [0104-0105] (Claims 9-10). See MPEP 2144.05(I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sardo by incorporating the teachings of Zhao to treat fruit after harvest with a composition containing polysorbate and sorbitan ester in the amounts as claimed because when these are applied as a coating to an object, such as fruit, it can reduce water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity, all of which are responsible for significant quality deterioration, microbial spoilage and monetary losses in the food industry, as recognized by Zhao [0162].
Applicant argues, on pgs. 10-11, that while data in Fig. 1 of Sardo might show reduced number of infection sites, that this reduction was obtained with a substantially different composition which is outside the scope of the presently claimed composition. Applicant then compares the claimed composition to specific examples in Sardo, noting that the composition of Sardo omits polysorbate and sorbitan ester and that Sardo example 3 contains a different amount of lecithin than the claimed amount. However, the Office disagrees for the following reasons.
While some specific examples within Sardo focus on lower ranges of lecithin and some examples focus on higher ranges of lecithin, and while these noted examples do not specifically point out the use of polysorbate or sorbitan ester as emulsifying agents, Sardo does teach lecithin within the claimed range and does teach that emulsifying agents may be in the formulation. As stated in MPEP 2123, “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).” Thus, it is reasonable for a person of ordinary skill to have selected emulsifying agents such as polysorbate and sorbitan ester and to have selected the amount of lecithin within the claimed range, since it is taught in the prior art. Also, it would have been reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have expected a reduced number of infections sites for any of these alternate formulations that are taught by Sardo, since Sardo recognizes these ranges and ingredients help preserve the fruit [0015-0016].
Additionally, the claimed ingredients and formulation are not just found in Sardo alone but are based on a combination of Sardo in view of Zhao. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues, on pgs. 11-14, that even given the beneficial results disclosed in Sardo the skilled person would have no expectations that the presently claimed composition would provide the presently claimed reduction in physiological and/or friction scald. Applicant states that unexpected results are obtained and the present inventors surprisingly found that scald can be reduced in the absence of traditional anti-scald additives such as diphenylamine (DPA) and ethoxyquin. Applicant presents evidence that traditional anti-scald agents are not necessary, reproducing Fig. 4 from the specification. Applicant explains that their formulations are non-toxic alternatives to traditional anti-scald agents such as DPA, discussing the advantages their formulation has over formulations containing DPA. However, the Office disagrees for the following reasons.
Sardo does not require the use of the anti-scald additives such as diphenylamine and ethoxyquin. While the disclosure of Sardo does state that these can be used in addition to the formulation they are not required and do not need to be used with the formulation [0001], [0005], [0027].
A skilled person would have expectations that Sardo in view of Zhao, which teaches the claimed formulation, would provide a reduction in physiological scald, specifically limiting blemishes that happen during storage and through the physical treatment of the fruit ([0025], [0106-0110], Fig. 1). As shown by the above rejection, Sardo discloses wherein treatment of fruit with the aqueous formulation reduces physiological scald caused by Controlled Atmosphere (CA) treatment, wherein physiological scald is measured by visual inspection of the fruit compared to fruit not treated with the aqueous formulation (treatment of apples after harvesting by means of showering using the treatment composition diluted in water compared to a control which was not treated or only treated with water but subject to the same storage conditions, wherein the storage conditions are storage in a refrigerator with a modified atmosphere (i.e. controlled atmosphere treatment) [0106-0110]; Figure 1 shows the occurrences of decay appearing on the pieces of fruit two to four months following application, where the fruit treated with the treatment method had reduced damage or reduced occurrences of decay by more than 50%, [0110], Fig. 1).
Even if the applicant does not feel that Sardo in view of Zhao teach the “unexpected results” of the claimed invention, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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 STEPHANIE GERLA whose telephone number is (571)270-0904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Wed. and Fri. 7-12 pm; Th. 7-2pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/S.R.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights