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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's argument filed 01/29/2026, in response to the non-final rejection, are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any previous rejection or objection not mentioned herein is withdrawn.
Claims 1, 6-10, 12, 13, 18, 22-25, 41, 44 and 54-55 are pending of which claims 18, 22-25 and 41 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1, 6-10, 12, 13,, 44 and 54-55 are being examined on the merits.
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, 6-10, 12-13, 44 and 54-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troppmann (WO2010040835A2), Pohl (from IDS, Antifungal free fatty acids: A Review, Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances, A. Mendez-Vilas (Ed.), pp 61-71) and Savage (US6103768). This rejection is maintained to take-into-account the arguments and amendments filed on 01/29/2026.
Troppmann’s general disclosure is to novel liquid formulations containing pyraclostrobin for crop protection against pests (see abstract).
Regarding claim 1, 6, 9-10, 12-13, 44 and 54-55, Troppmann teaches that pyraclostrobin is an active substance for controlling phytopathogenic fungi and that Pyraclostrobin is an amorphous, low-melting substance. Because of this property, it is not suitable for the preparation of aqueous suspension concentrates in a conventional manner. Pyraclostrobin is therefore often formulated in the form of emulsifiable concentrates. Such formulations of pyraclostrobin, however, suffer from the general problems associated with emulsifiable concentrates (EC) and suspension concentrates (SC). Thus, pyraclostrobin-containing aqueous suspension concentrates are distinguished from corresponding emulsifiable concentrates by better environmental compatibility and industrial hygiene, but do not have their good application properties. In addition, the fungicidal effects of both SC and EC formulations of the pyraclostrobin are unsatisfactory and can only be brought to a satisfactory level by adding large amounts of adjuvants” (see description bottom page 2 to top of page 3).
Troppmann teaches a liquid formulation for crop protection, comprising: a) pyraclostrobin; b) at least one organic solvent LM 1 having a water solubility of less than 2 g / l at 20 ° C (see claim 1), and selecting solvents from aliphatic hydrocarbons and fatty acids having C8-C20 fatty acids which have boiling points of 100-310 degrees Celsius, in particular from 120-280 degrees Celsius (see bottom of page 4 to top of page 5) and further teaches caprylic acid (octanoic acid) as a C8 fatty acid organic solvent (see 2nd para, page 6). Caprylic acid’s melting point is known to be at 237 degrees Celsius and would thus be an ideal candidate for solvent selection.
Troppmann finally teaches the weight ratio of solvent LM1 and total amount of pyraclostrobin will usually be in the range of 0.05: 1 to 20: 1, preferably in the range of 0.1: 1 to 10: 1, and more preferably in the range of 0.5: 1 to 5:1 and these ratios are within the instantly claimed 1:10,000 to 100:1.
Regarding claim 9, Troppmann teaches the range for including pyraclostrobin and octanoic acid which is within the taught range of the instant application for synergistic activity (see instant page 35 and 36), thus the combined ingredients would have the same synergistic activity as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Troppmann teaches effective amounts of formulations (see bottom of page 14, also claim 22 and 23).
Regarding claims 6 and 45-48, Troppmann teaches the exact same components of the instant invention and within the discloses ranges for being synergistically effective, thus it would flow naturally that the same claimed ingredients within the same given ratios would have the same activity and modes of action as the instant invention as there has been nothing done to these active ingredients that would make them behave in any other way. The applicant is only claiming these combined ingredients at specific ratios which has already been disclosed in the prior art.
Troppmann teaches a wide selection of possible organic solvents for use in formulations with the pyraclostrobin, however does not specifically teach why the octanoic (caprylic) acid is to be selected from the list of possible solvents.
Pohl’s general disclosure is to the antifungal, antibacterial, antimalarial properties of free fatty acids (see abstract).
Pohl teaches that the development of resistance of microbes, including fungi and yeasts, towards antimicrobial agents already in use, necessitates the search for alternative antimicrobials, including fatty acids and their derivatives. Although fatty acids may not be as effective as chemical fungicides, they pose less environmental risks. They are not only biodegradable, but exhibit a high degree of specificity. In addition, fatty acids are accepted food additives and importantly, pathogenic fungi are less likely to become resistant to antifungal fatty acids. The most important part of antifungal fatty acids is the cell membrane. They cause an increase in membrane fluidity, which will result in leakage of the intracellular components and cell death” (see abstract).
Pohl also teaches that the saturated fatty acid Octanoic (caprylic) acid is known to have antifungal activity to at least seven different fungi (see table 1).
Savage’s general disclosure is to “fatty acids and their derivatives to eradicate existing fungal and bacterial infections in plants. Also, described herein are combination treatments whereby fatty acids are used to enhance or augment the activity of fungicides, bactericides, and biological control agents” (see abstract).
Savage teaches fatty acids pesticides comprising of C5 to C19 being saturated or unsaturated (column 6, line 66 to column 7, line 18) and teaches the fatty acids are highly advantageous for pesticidal use because they occur commonly in nature and have little mammalian toxicity (column 5, lines 31-35). The fatty acids are disclosed to improve or compliment the activity of other fungicidal and bactericidal chemicals (column 5, lines 41-42; column 10, 45-54).
Regarding claims 54-55, pertaining to wherein the synergistic pesticidal composition has an FIC Index value of less than 0.75 or 0.5. Please note, since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing Applicants’ composition with the composition of the prior art, the burden is on applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980), and “as a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). Also, the prior art teaches the ranges at which the combined ingredients show the synergistic activity and thus at these ranges would exist the same FIC values as being claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date to use Troppmann’s invention to create the synergistic pesticidal composition which would comprise of pyraclostrobin as the active pesticidal active ingredient and to select octanoic (caprylic) acid as the saturated aliphatic acid to be utilized as the solvent for the liquid formulation of the referenced invention because as Pohl teaches, this fatty acid is already known to be useful as a pesticide most notably against fungi. Troppmann already teaches the ratio for using caprylic acid as a solvent for the liquid pyraclostrobin composition, which is within the instantly taught range and thus Troppmann already teaches the instantly claimed composition.
Furthermore, Savage teaches that combining fatty acids with fungicidal and bactericidal chemicals improves or compliments their activity, thus the instantly claimed composition would have been made obvious and the effects of combining those components would have been expected to be enhanced upon their combination.
Given the relied upon prior art, there would be a high expectation of success in creating the instant invention because combining prior art elements known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. Also, there would be a high expectation of success in creating the instant composition because fatty acids are known to help with inhibiting fungi resistance to antimicrobials and selecting caprylic acid as the solvent for the pyraclostrobin liquid composition taught by Troppmann or selecting this fatty acid to combine with pyraclostrobin in order to assist with the inhibition of resistance would have been obvious at the time of filing. Furthermore, these saturated aliphatic acids are known to come from animal and plant sources and so claiming that they comprise of plant and animal oil extracts would have been prima facie obvious.
With regards to the FIC value being less than 1, the prior art does not specifically teach that the combination of the pyraclostrobin and saturated aliphatic acid would have this value, however the prior art teaches the claimed combination and to be within the claimed ranges. The prior art also recognizes that the fatty acid claimed is highly advantageous for pesticidal use because they occur commonly in nature and have little mammalian toxicity and improve or compliment the activity of other fungicidal and bactericidal chemicals. Troppmann teaches the range for including pyraclostrobin and octanoic acid which is within the taught range of the instant application for synergistic activity (see instant page 35 and 36), thus the combined ingredients would have the same synergistic activity as claimed and would also be expected to have the same FIC value as claimed.
Furthermore, It is well established that “[m]ere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In Baxter, the court held that even when the prior art did not expressly disclose hemolysis-suppression feature or property of a blood bag plasticizer, such unrecognized feature or property is insufficient for rebutting a prima facie case of obviousness over a prior art blood bag that utilized the same plasticizer. Id. See also Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985) (“The fact that appellant 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’). Thus, the FIC value of less than 1 would not have been unexpected because Troppmann discloses the components within the claimed ranges. Pohl also teaches that the saturated fatty acid octanoic (caprylic) acid is known to have antifungal activity to at least seven different fungi and Savage teaches that combining fatty acids with fungicidal and bactericidal chemicals improves or compliments their activity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Troppmann does not teach a composition solely a pesticidal active agent and a C6-C10 saturated aliphatic acid, nor does Troppmann teach that the composition is synergistic. In response to the argument that Troppmann does not teach a pesticidal active agent and a C6-C10 saturated aliphatic acid, this is incorrect. Troppmann indeed teaches both as laid out in the above rejection. In response to the argument that Troppmann does not teach a composition solely comprising those two components. Troppmann does not have to teach that the composition has to solely comprise of just those two components because the instant claims are directed to a composition which would ultimately allow for other ingredients. The applicant is arguing broader than what they claim.
The applicant argues that with so many different ingredients the person having ordinary skill would not think to combine pyraclostrobin and octanoic acid in the range of 1:1000 to 100:1 and arrive at a synergistic composition. This however is also an incorrect assumption as can be appreciated from the above combination of combined art. Troppmann may not have recognized that the two components combined within the instantly claimed range would be synergistic however Pohl teaches wherein octanoic acid is known to have antifungal activity with at least seven different fungi and Savage teaches wherein these saturated fatty acids are highly advantageous for pesticidal use and indeed improve, enhance and compliment the activity of other fungicides. These combined teachings give guidance to any person having ordinary skill to combine the two ingredients of Troppmann to be within the range of 1:1000 and 100:1 because Troppmann teaches combining the two at ratios within this claimed range. Savage confirms that combining the saturated fatty acids of C5 to C19 would indeed enhance, improve and compliment the activity of fungicides which pyraclostrobin is a commonly used fungicide. Combining known equivalents is prima facie obvious and given the relied upon art there is an expectation that combining these two ingredients within the ratios already taught by Troppmann would indeed work together in a manner that the composition has an overall enhanced effect.
The applicant argues that persons skilled in the art reading Troppmann would understand that the various (LM1, LM2) and surfactants (OS1, OS2) are essential for creating and stabilizing the mircoemulsion. Persons having ordinary skill would also understand that pyraclostrobin alone acts as a fungicide and the same is said about octanoic acid. Combining the two enhance each other as Savage teaches which is the same as the instant applicant has found in their combining of the two ingredients. Troppmann recognizes that pyraclostrobin is an active substance for controlling pathogenic fungi but is difficult to prepare with aqueous solutions and suggests combining with solvents of which include aliphatic hydrocarbons and fatty acids such as caprylic acid (octanoic acid) in ranges of 0.05:1 to 20:1, preferably 0.1:1 to 10:1 and 0.5:1 to 5:1. Combining an emulsifier merely allows for there combination to be in more favorable formulations. The applicant makes the argument that Troppmann teaches too many combinations and selecting the specific instantly claimed combination would not have been obvious to those skilled in the art. The instant applicant also teaches many combinations and this is irrelevant because with the teachings of Pohl and Savage a person would indeed arrive at the instant invention with a great expectation of success because the ingredients are known to enhance each other.
The applicant argues that person having skill would not arbitrarily remove the co-solvents and surfactants taught by Troppmann to arrive at the claimed invention. Again, persons having skill would not have to remove any component of Troppmann to arrive at the instant claimed invention and indeed if one wanted to make a mere synergistic composition that was of a lesser quality in formulation (ie one which does not stay as an emulsion over time as well), one could rely on the provided art and expect the two combined ingredients to still work well together with enhancing effects because that is exactly what the prior art recognizes and describes.
The applicant argues that Pohl and Savage provide only general teachings relating to fatty acids and do not remedy the shortcomings of Troppmann, however technically speaking there are no shortcomings of Troppman as Troppmann teaches the instant combined components and gives reasons to combine them. Pohl and Savage are relied upon to show why a person having ordinary skill would indeed select the octanoic acid to combine with the known fungicide.
The applicant makes arguments toward synergy however given the prior art’s recognition of the combined ingredients and a recognition of combining them to be in specific working ratios one would expect a synergistic effect. As discussed in the MPEP: 716.02(a), I., “a greater than additive effect is not necessarily sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness because such an effect can either be expected or unexpected. Applicants must further show that the results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage. Ex parte The NutraSweet Co., 19 USPQ2d 1586 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991). In this case the art teaches clearly the combined components both directed as antifungal agents when combined together would indeed have advantageous effects. The effect being claimed by the applicant is not unexpected at all, given the relied upon art.
Examiner’s note: It is suggested to the applicant to appeal the case as their arguments have not changed and the case may be better suited to be decided upon by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The applicant has requested for a phone call from the Office however the phone numbers of record for Jennifer Marles does not appear to allow calls.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 6-10, 12, 18, 22-25, 44 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 7-9, 11, 16-17, 19, 22, 26 of copending Application No. US18/694,199 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application broadly claim the same ingredients which can be both pyraclostrobin and octanoic acid for pesticide compositions. The claims also incorporate non-ionic surfactants which the present application describes being used in the instant specs at page 30 and it is unclear as to if the applicant may amend the claims to incorporate this component. Additionally the saturated and unsaturated aliphatic acids are also tested in the current application and these additional components would be obvious to incorporate given both applications. It cannot be anticipate how the applicant would amend these claims and thus these claims need to stand rejected.
Claims 1, 6-10, 12, 18, 22-25, 44 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 12, 18, 21-23, 26-27, 33, 35, 45-50 of copending Application No. US20210352895A1 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of the instant application are already claimed within the pending Application No. US20210352895A1 and thus are anticipated. The pending Application No. US20210352895A1 claims a synergistic pesticidal composition comprising a pesticidal active ingredient and a C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid or an agriculturally compatible salt thereof wherein a ratio of the concentrations of said pesticidal active ingredient and said C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid or an agriculturally compatible salt thereof is between about 1:15000 and 15000:1. The instant application claims the same components however teaches a C6-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid or an agriculturally compatible salt thereof and between about 1:5000 and 5000:1 which would be encompassed by the previous disclosure.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1, 6-10, 12, 18, 22-25, 44 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 12, 16-17, 19-20, 24, 30-31, 34-36 of copending Application No. US20220000107A1 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending Application No. US20220000107A1claims a synergistic pesticidal composition comprising a pesticidal active ingredient at least one nicotinic acetylcholine receptor disruptor or allosteric modulator; and a C6-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid or an agriculturally compatible salt thereof wherein a ratio of the concentrations of said pesticidal active ingredient and said C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid or an agriculturally compatible salt thereof is between about 1:15000 and 15000:1. The instant application claims the same C6-C10 aliphatic acid and pesticidal active ingredient and claims the ratios at 1:5000 and 5000:1 which are also encompassed by the co-pending application and thus would anticipate the co-pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 6-10, 12, 44 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 6, 9, 12-14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 33, 41, 44-49 and 51, of copending Application No. US20200305425A1 in view of Savage (US6103768). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because co-pending Application No. US20200305425A1 claims a synergistic pesticidal composition comprising a pesticidal active ingredient and a C6-C10 unsaturated aliphatic acid wherein a ratio of the concentrations of said pesticidal active ingredient and said C6-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid or an agriculturally compatible salt thereof is between about 1:10000 and 10000:1. The instant application claims the same components however teaches a C6-C10 saturated aliphatic acid or an agriculturally compatible salt thereof and between about 1:5000 and 5000:1 which would be encompassed by the previous disclosure. Both applications also teach the FIC values being less than 1 and teach the same pesticidal active ingredients.
Although the instant application claims saturated fatty acids as opposed to unsaturated fatty acids, this limitation would have been made obvious over Savage (US6103768). Savage teaches fatty acids pesticides comprising of C5 to C19 being saturated or unsaturated (column 6, line 66 to column 7, line 18) and teaches the fatty acids are highly advantageous for pesticidal use because they occur commonly in nature and have little mammalian toxicity (column 5, lines 31-35). The fatty acids are disclosed to improve or compliment the activity of other fungicidal and bactericidal chemicals (column 5, lines 41-42; column 10, 45-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize the saturated fatty acids taught by Savage in the composition because both saturated and unsaturated fatty acids are known to be useful in pesticidal formulations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 6-10, 12, 44 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 12-14, 18-21, 23, 25-28, 34-36 of copending Application No. US 20230000081 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because co-pending Application No. US20230000081A1 claims A synergistic pesticidal composition comprising a pesticidal active ingredient selected from the list comprising: benzovindiflupyr, bixafen, boscalid, cyproconazole, fenpicoxamid, fenpyrazimine, florylpicoxamid, flutriafol, fluxapyroxad, isopyrazam, isotianil, kresoxim-methyl, metrafenone, oxathiapiprolin, penflufen, penthiopyrad, picoxystrobin, prothioconazole, pydiflumetofen, revysol, sedaxane, trifloxystrobin, pyraclostrobin, azoxystrobin, chlorothalonil, cyprodinil, metalaxyl, epoxiconazole, propiconazole, difenoconazole, fludioxonil, mancozeb, tebuconazole, valifenalate, and combinations thereof; and a C4-C 10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid or an agriculturally compatible salt thereof; wherein a ratio of the concentrations of said pesticidal active ingredient and said C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid or an agriculturally compatible salt thereof is between about 1:15000 and 15000:1. These active ingredients, fatty acids and their specified amounts would be encompassed by the co-pending application and so would anticipate the co-pending application.
Claims 1, 6-10, 44, 54-55 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-36 of copending Application No. 17/789,486 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims are directed to pesticidal compositions comprising of C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid or an agriculturally compatible salt thereof and a pesticidal active ingredient which would overlap in scope with the C6-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid being claimed instantly. The FIC values being claimed are the same and there exists formulations that would be inclusive of the different bonds formed between the active ingredients and from the different fungicides being claimed as these have all been described and listed out in both inventions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1, 6-10, 44, 54-55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,839,212. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent 11,839,212 would include at least synergistic combinations of the same ingredients as being instantly claimed because both inventions are directed to pesticidal compositions having an insecticidal active ingredient and a C6-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid or an agriculturally compatible salt thereof within the same overlapping ranges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued that the provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections be held in abeyance. This is noted; however, the rejection is still deemed proper and stands for the reasons of record.
Conclusion
Currently no claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB ANDREW BOECKELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 571-272-0775. 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.
JACOB A BOECKELMAN Examiner, Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655