DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action was written in response to the Applicants Remarks filed 4/8/26. Claims 1-25 have been cancelled. Claims 26-45 are new, pending and have been examined.
Withdrawn Rejections
The objection to claim 7 has been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 17, 18, 22, and 25 over Danielle Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. 2005 “Cream ingredients” and in view of Brookshire, and McManaman have been withdrawn due to the cancellations of the claims.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 6 and 8 over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire and McManaman and Jensen have been withdrawn due to the cancellations of the claims.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 7 over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire, McManaman and Rachel Nall as evidenced by Bezard has been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 9-12 over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire and McManaman and Thomas (US 2019/0151771) have been withdrawn due to the cancellations of the claims.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 13 and 14 over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. in view of Brookshire, McManaman and Kolsky (US 2016/0158298) have been withdrawn due to the cancellations of the claims.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 19 over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire, McManaman and GB 1,051,167 has been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 22 over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire, McManaman and Horikoshi et al. (CA 2010894) has been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 23 over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire, McManaman, Thomas (US 2019/0151771) and Kolsky (US 2016/0158298) has been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 24 over Danielle Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. 2005 “Cream ingredients”, Brookshire, McManaman and GB 1,051,167 has been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 39 depends from claim 1 which has been cancelled. The claim has been interpreted as being dependent upon claim 26. However, appropriate correction is required.
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 26-28, 34-43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinai et al. (US 2018/0042845) in view of Hart et al. (3,970,584).
Regarding Claim 26: Sinai discloses a cannabis emulsion preparation [abstract]. Sinai discloses a water phase (aqueous component) [0029; 0108; 0110; 0152]; an oil phase [0045; 0108; 0332], and a cannabinoid including cannabidiol [0041]. Sinai discloses that the lipid/oil can be coconut oil, behenic acid, caprylic/capric glycerides etc. which all include triglycerides [0224; 0333]. Sinai discloses that the cannabinoid is in the oily phase [0110; 0415]. Sinai discloses the oily phase as about 5 to about 50% of the composition [0045; 0332]. Sinai discloses the cannabinoid at about 50% of the oily fraction [0217]. Therefore Sinai discloses cannabis in the composition at 2.5% to 25%. Sinai discloses that the composition can be formulated as an aerosol [0369]. Sinai discloses the composition for the administration of pharmaceutical formulations and discloses cannabidiol (CBD) as such [0002; 0007]. Sinai discloses the cannabinoids as therapeutic [0167; 0330].
Sinai does not disclose wherein the edible formulation is in the form of a colloid having a continuous phase including the edible formulation and a dispersed phase including a gas. However, it is known in the art that an emulsion is a form of colloid.
Hart discloses an aerosol composition containing an oil-in-water emulsion and a gas [abstract]. Hart discloses that the invention applied to food products and pharmaceutical preparations [col. 3, lines 1-10]. Hart discloses that it is known to utilize nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen to dispense food compositions as foams [col. 1, lines 15-28]. Hart discloses that any convention aerosol container can be used [col. 4, lines 59-63].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Sinai to include it with a gas as in Hart since Hart discloses oil in water emulsion and pharmaceutical preparations as within the scope of aerosol formulations, since cannabis is considered to be a pharmaceutical and since the cannabis is part of an oil-in-water emulsion of Sinai.
Although Sinai does not explicitly disclose 0.1% to about 10% of a cannabis-derived oil one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Sinai overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding Claim 27: Sinai as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai discloses a composition where the cannabidiol can be the only cannabis derived oil [0041; 0365; 0366].
Regarding Claim 28: Sinai as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai discloses a composition where the cannabidiol can be the only cannabis derived oil and also discloses it in combination with THC; and discloses a ratio of 40%:10% [0041; 0365; 0366].
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the amount of cannabidiol for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272.
Regarding Claim 34: Sinai as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai discloses that the composition contains phospholipids and discloses including cow’s milk as a phospholipid source [0009; 0053; 0125; 0179]. Sinai discloses that the phospholipids act as surfactants [0032; 0109-0111]. Although Sinai does not explicitly disclose that the lipid component is surrounded by at least one phospholipid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the lipid component would have been surrounded by the phospholipid provided in Sinai since “products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 35: Sinai as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai discloses the emulsion containing an oily phase at about 5 to about 50% of the composition [0045; 0332]. Sinai does not explicitly disclose the amount of water phase. However, since Sinai discloses an oily phase at about 5 to about 50% then the water phase would have been present at about 50 to about 95%.
Although Sinai does not explicitly disclose comprised by from about 55 wt. % to about 65 wt. % of the aqueous component and from about 25 wt. % to about 40 wt. % of the lipid component. one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Sinai overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding Claim 36: Sinai as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai discloses the composition containing cannabis derived oil wherein said cannabinoid is selected from the group consisting of: Cannabigerol (CBG) type, Cannabichromene (CBC) type, Cannabidiol (CBD) type, Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) type, Δ8-THC type, Cannabicyclol (CBL) type, Cannabielsoin (CBE) type, Cannabinol (CBN) and Cannabinodiol (CBND) types, Cannabitriol (CBT) type, cannabinoids with miscellaneous types and any combination thereof [0021].
Regarding Claims 37 and 38: Sinai as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai discloses wherein the composition contains triglyceride containing oils including coconut oil, behenic acid, caprylic/capric glycerides, glyceryl stearate, glyceryl palmitate, glyceryl behenate [0333].
Regarding Claim 39: Sinai as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai discloses wherein the composition also contains sweeteners, flavor, colors, and preservatives [0074].
Regarding Claims 40 and 41: Sinai as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai does not disclose wherein the gas is carbon dioxide (claim 40); wherein the gas includes nitrous oxide (claim 41).
Hart discloses an aerosol composition containing an oil-in-water emulsion and a gas [abstract]. Hart discloses that the invention applied to food products and pharmaceutical preparations [col. 3, lines 1-10]. Hart discloses that it is known to utilize nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen to dispense food compositions as foams [col. 1, lines 15-28]. Hart discloses that any convention aerosol container can be used [col. 4, lines 59-63].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the composition of Sinai to include carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide as gas as in Hart since they are food safe and easy to compress.
Regarding Claims 42 and 43: Sinai as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai does not disclose wherein the edible formulation is the product of being dispensed from a pressurized container (claim 42); wherein the pressurized container is pressurized with a gas including nitrous oxide (claim 43).
Hart discloses an aerosol composition containing an oil-in-water emulsion and a gas [abstract]. Hart discloses that the invention applied to food products and pharmaceutical preparations [col. 3, lines 1-10]. Hart discloses that it is known to utilize nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen to dispense food compositions as foams [col. 1, lines 15-28]. Hart discloses that any convention aerosol container can be used [col. 4, lines 59-63].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the composition of Sinai to include carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide as gas as in Hart since they are food safe and easy to compress and to provide it in a container to give a vessel from which to dispense and market the product to a consumer.
Regarding Claim 45: Sinai discloses a cannabis emulsion preparation [abstract]. Sinai discloses a water phase (aqueous component) [0029; 0108; 0110; 0152]; an oil phase [0045; 0108; 0332], and a cannabinoid including cannabidiol [0041]. Sinai discloses that the lipid/oil can be coconut oil, behenic acid, caprylic/capric glycerides etc. which all include triglycerides [0224; 0333]. Sinai discloses that the cannabinoid is in the oily phase [0110; 0415]. Sinai discloses the emulsion containing an oily phase at about 5 to about 50% of the composition [0045; 0332]. Sinai does not explicitly disclose the amount of water phase. However, since Sinai discloses an oily phase at about 5 to about 50% then the water phase would have been present at about 50 to about 95%.
Sinai discloses the cannabinoid at about 50% of the oily fraction [0217]. Therefore Sinai discloses cannabis in the composition at 2.5% to 25%. Sinai discloses that the composition can be formulated as an aerosol [0369]. Sinai discloses the composition for the administration of pharmaceutical formulations and discloses cannabidiol (CBD) as such [0002; 0007]. Sinai discloses the cannabinoids as therapeutic [0167; 0330].
Sinai does not disclose wherein the edible formulation is in the form of a colloid having a continuous phase including the edible formulation and a dispersed phase including a gas. However, it is known in the art that an emulsion is a form of colloid.
Sinai does not disclose the edible formulation is packaged in a container pressurized with a gas including nitrous oxide, and dispensing the edible formulation from the container results in the edible formulation taking the form of a colloid having a continuous phase including the edible formulation and a dispersed phase including the gas.
Hart discloses an aerosol composition containing an oil-in-water emulsion and a gas [abstract]. Hart discloses that the invention applied to food products and pharmaceutical preparations [col. 3, lines 1-10]. Hart discloses that it is known to utilize nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen to dispense food compositions as foams [col. 1, lines 15-28]. Hart discloses that any convention aerosol container can be used [col. 4, lines 59-63].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Sinai to include it with a gas as in Hart since Hart discloses oil in water emulsion and pharmaceutical preparations as within the scope of aerosol formulations, since cannabis is considered to be a pharmaceutical and since the cannabis is part of an oil-in-water emulsion of Sinai.
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the composition of Sinai to include nitrous oxide as gas as in Hart since it is food safe and easy to compress and to provide it in a container to give a vessel from which to dispense and market the product to a consumer.
Although Sinai does not explicitly disclose comprised by from about 55 wt. % to about 65 wt. % of the aqueous component and from about 25 wt. % to about 40 wt. % of the lipid component. one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Sinai overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Although Sinai does not explicitly disclose 0.1% to about 10% of a cannabis-derived oil one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Sinai overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Claims 29, 30, 31, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinai et al. (US 2018/0042845) in view of Hart et al. (3,970,584) as applied to claim 26 above and in further view of Kleidon et al. (US 2017/0172977).
Regarding Claim 29: Sinai discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai discloses a nonpsychoactive [0201; 0350]. Sinai discloses the composition as containing CBD [0023; 0041; 0204; 0218]. Sinai discloses a composition where the cannabidiol can be the only cannabis derived oil [0041; 0365; 0366]. Sinai does not explicitly disclose the cannabis derived oil as continuing less than about 0.3% THC.
Kleidon discloses an edible formulation including a lipid component and a cannabis derived oil at about at least 0.04% cannabinoid and also discloses at most about 0.1% to at most about 10% [0020; 0022; 004; 0049]. Kleidon discloses cannabidiol [0043; 0047; 0049]. Kleidon discloses a THC content of less than 0.3%; less than 0.1% [0053]. Kleidon discloses that the composition substantially lacks a psychoactive amount of THC [0024].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cannabis derived oil of Sinai to contain less 0.3% as on Kleidon in order to reduce the psychoactive effect of the cannabis oil and providing a therapeutic amount as opposed to a psychoactive amount of cannabis substance.
Regarding Claim 30: Sinai discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai does not explicitly disclose the cannabis derived oil as containing less than about 0% THC.
Kleidon discloses an edible formulation including a lipid component and a cannabis derived oil at about at least 0.04% cannabinoid and also discloses at most about 0.1% to at most about 10% [0020; 0022; 004; 0049]. Kleidon discloses cannabidiol [0043; 0047; 0049]. Kleidon discloses a THC content of less than 0.3%; less than 0.1% [0053]. Kleidon discloses that the composition substantially lacks a psychoactive amount of THC [0024].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cannabis derived oil of Sinai to contain less 0.3% as on Kleidon in order to reduce the psychoactive effect of the cannabis oil and providing a therapeutic amount as opposed to a psychoactive amount of cannabis substance.
Although Kleidon does not explicitly disclose 0% tetrahydrocannabidiol one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Kleidon overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding Claim 31: Sinai discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai discloses a composition where the cannabidiol can be the only cannabis derived oil and also discloses it in combination with THC; and discloses a ratio of 40%:10% [0041; 0365; 0366]. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the amount of cannabidiol for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272.
Sinai does not explicitly disclose the cannabis derived oil as continuing less than about 0.3% THC.
Kleidon discloses an edible formulation including a lipid component and a cannabis derived oil at about at least 0.04% cannabinoid and also discloses at most about 0.1% to at most about 10% [0020; 0022; 004; 0049]. Kleidon discloses cannabidiol [0043; 0047; 0049]. Kleidon discloses a THC content of less than 0.3%; less than 0.1% [0053]. Kleidon discloses that the composition substantially lacks a psychoactive amount of THC [0024].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cannabis derived oil of Sinai to contain less 0.3% as on Kleidon in order to reduce the psychoactive effect of the cannabis oil and providing a therapeutic amount as opposed to a psychoactive amount of cannabis substance.
Regarding Claim 33: Sinai as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai discloses extracted cannabis oil [0019; 0020; 0021]. Sinai does not disclose that the cannabis-derived oil is prepared from an ethanol extraction of cannabis.
Kleidon discloses carbon dioxide extraction of cannabinoid [0095].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Sinai to include carbon dioxide extracted oil as in Kleidon in order to provide purified cannabis oil.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinai et al. (US 2018/0042845) in view of Hart et al. (3,970,584) as applied to claim 26 above and in further view of Speier (US 9,186,386).
Regarding Claim 32: Sinai as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai discloses extracted cannabis oil [0019; 0020; 0021]. Sinai does not disclose that the cannabis-derived oil is prepared from an ethanol extraction of cannabis.
Speier discloses extraction of cannabis oil [col. 2, lines 46-63]. Speier discloses extraction with ethanol [col. 13, lines 44].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Sinai to include ethanol extracted oil as in Speier in order to provide purified cannabis oil.
Regarding Claim 33: Sinai as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai discloses extracted cannabis oil [0019; 0020; 0021]. Sinai does not disclose that the cannabis-derived oil is prepared from an ethanol extraction of cannabis.
Speier discloses extraction of cannabis oil [col. 2, lines 46-63]. Speier discloses carbon dioxide extraction [col. 13, lines 44].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Sinai to include carbon dioxide extracted oil as in Speier in order to provide purified cannabis oil.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinai et al. (US 2018/0042845) in view of Hart et al. (3,970,584) as applied to claim 26 above and in further view of Horikoshi et al. (CA 2010894).
Regarding Claim 44: Sinai as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Sinai discloses that the oily phase of the composition contains phospholipids and discloses including cow’s milk as a phospholipid source [0009; 0053; 0125; 0179; Table 1 and 2]. Sinai discloses that the phospholipids act as surfactants [0032; 0109-0111]. Although Sinai does not explicitly disclose that the lipid component is surrounded by at least one phospholipid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the lipid component would have been surrounded by the phospholipid provided in Sinai since “products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Sinai does not disclose wherein the lipid component includes a milk fat globule membrane composed of lipids and proteins that surrounds a milk fat globule, the milk fat globule surrounded by a phospholipid trilayer containing proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids, and the milk fat globule membrane making up about 2% to 6% of the total milk fat globule.
Horikoshi discloses that the fat in milk globules are present at about 94% [pg. 9, lines 10-26]. Horikoshi also discloses that per gram of fat globules the membrane is present at 0.5 to 1.5% [pg. 10, lines 14-16]. Horikoshi discloses that milk fat membranes are preferably added at 2 to 10% of the neutral fat [pg. 13, lines 1-29]. Horikoshi discloses that the membranes are composed of fat and protein [pg. 10, lines 1-10]. Horikoshi discloses stabilization of suspensions using membranes pg. 9, lines 10-17, 28-31] and increasing foam stability [pg. 11, lines 22-27].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Sinai to include the milk fat globule as disclosed in Horikoshi to aid in stabilization and that the milk fat membrane would make up about 2 to 6% of the total milk fat globule since the fat in milk fat globules are present at about 94%.
Response to Arguments
The objection to claim 7 has been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 17, 18, 22, and 25 over Danielle Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. 2005 “Cream ingredients” and in view of Brookshire, and McManaman have been withdrawn due to the cancellations of the claims.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 6 and 8 over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire and McManaman and Jensen have been withdrawn due to the cancellations of the claims.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 7 over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire, McManaman and Rachel Nall as evidenced by Bezard has been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 9-12 over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire and McManaman and Thomas (US 2019/0151771) have been withdrawn due to the cancellations of the claims.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 13 and 14 over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. in view of Brookshire, McManaman and Kolsky (US 2016/0158298) have been withdrawn due to the cancellations of the claims.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 19 over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire, McManaman and GB 1,051,167 has been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 22 over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire, McManaman and Horikoshi et al. (CA 2010894) has been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 23 over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire, McManaman, Thomas (US 2019/0151771) and Kolsky (US 2016/0158298) has been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 24 over Danielle Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. 2005 “Cream ingredients”, Brookshire, McManaman and GB 1,051,167 has been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim.
Pertinent Prior Art
29. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lindeman et al. (US 2016/0213624) discloses cannabidiol extracted using CO2 [abstract]; discloses an aqueous emulsion containing CBD [claim 1].
Sekura et al. (US 9,095563) discloses CBD in an oil in water emulsion [claim 11]. Sekura discloses hemp seed oil and the THC content [col. 5, lines 35-53].
Conclusion
30. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA C TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3733. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-4:00 pm.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/Felicia C Turner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights