Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4-5, 10, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anantharamaiah US 2017/0232371 (hereafter Anantharamaiah) and further in view of Emig et al. US 2002/0083690 (hereafter Emig), Hassenboehler et al. US 5,443,606 (hereafter Hassenboehler), Rule et al. US 2012/0225600 (hereafter Rule), Erlandsson et al. US 2015/0275404 (hereafter Erlandsson), Madsen et al. US 2014/0326661 (hereafter Madsen), Sentmanat “Filter Paper for Industrial Filtration” Filternew.com published Apr. 2016 (hereafter Sentmanat), and Ouellette et al. US 2003/0168153 (hereafter Ouellette).
Regarding claim 1, Anantharamaiah teaches a fibrous filtration media comprising a wet-laid (¶90), calendered (¶22) nonwoven fibrous web comprising:
synthetic staple fibers (¶32, synthetic fibers); and
from about 20 wt.% to about 80 wt.%, based on total weight of the fibrous web (¶49, “the total weight percentage of binder in the filtration layer comprising synthetic fibers may be … greater than or equal to about 20 wt. % … less than or equal to about 80 wt. %” and “All suitable combinations of the above-referenced ranges are also possible”), sheath-core bicomponent staple fibers (¶50) dispersed through the fibrous web (¶44-45), wherein
the single ply fibrous web has a density less than about 0.45 g/cm3 (¶62 where the basis weight is less than or equal to 110 g/m2, ¶84 where the thickness is less than or equal to 2.5 mm yielding a density of less than or equal to 0.044 g/cm3), and exhibits a dry burst strength of greater than 10 bar (¶59).
Anantharamaiah does not teach single ply, hot area-calendered, a wet burst strength of greater than 10 bar, a minimum pore size of 25 μm or less, and a mean flow pore size of 40 um or less and a maximum pore size of 50 um or less.
Ouellette teaches where filter webs are known to be single ply (¶45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Anantharamaiah by to be single ply as taught by Ouellette (¶45). Single ply would ensure that the finished product could not delaminate.
Emig teaches a filter where hot area calendering bonds bicomponent binder fibers in a wet laid filter non-woven filter media in order to improve web strength (col 6 lines 5-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calendering (¶22) of Anantharamaiah by hot area calendering (col 6 lines 5-19) as taught by Emig in order to improve web strength (col 6 lines 5-19).
Hassenboehler teaches nonwoven fiber web filter media comprising bicomponent fibers (table II) wherein filaments are bonded by hot calendering in order to impart integrity and strength (col 22 lines 30-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calendering (¶22) of Anantharamaiah by hot area calendering (col 22 lines 30-60) as taught by Hassenboehler in order to impart integrity and strength (col 22 lines 30-60).
Rule teaches a filter media (¶12) comprising bicomponent fibers (¶33) wherein the web is densified and/or strengthened by hot calendering (¶33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calendering (¶22) of Anantharamaiah by hot area calendering (¶33) as taught by Rule in order to densify and/or strengthen (¶33).
Erlandsson teaches a filter media (¶33) comprising bicomponent fibers (¶13, ¶16) where the web is stabilized by hot calendering (¶78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calendering (¶22) of Anantharamaiah by hot area calendering (¶78) as taught by Erlandsson in order to stabilize (¶78).
Seeberger teaches a filter media (¶1) comprising bicomponent fibers (¶9, ¶95) where the web is hardened by hot calendering (¶14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calendering (¶22) of Anantharamaiah by hot area calendering (¶14) as taught by Seeberger in order to harden (¶14).
MPEP §2144.05 I states that where claimed and prior art ranges overlap, a prima facie case exists to choose the overlapping portion of the ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 10 wt.% to about 80 wt.% (¶27, fusible fibers) of Emig by choosing the overlapping portion (20 wt.% to about 80 wt.%) as a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP §2144.05 I).
Anantharamaiah teaches where the pore size affects filtration performance (¶3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the minimum pore size, such as to a minimum pore size of 25 μm or less, in order to affect the filtration performance (Anantharamaiah ¶3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the mean flow pore size, such as to 40 μm or less, in order to affect the filtration performance (Anantharamaiah ¶3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the maximum pore size, such as to a maximum pore size of 50 μm or less, in order to affect the filtration performance (Anantharamaiah ¶3).
Sentmanat teaches wherein wet burst strength affects the pressure of water that will rupture the media (page 3 middle col).
Anantharamaiah teaches where burst strength is an important mechanical property (¶44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the wet burst strength of the fibrous web, such as wherein the fibrous web has a wet burst strength of greater than about 10 bar, in order to affect the pressure of water that will rupture the media (Sentmanat page 3 middle col) and improve an important mechanical property (Anantharamaiah ¶44).
Madsen teaches a filter comprising bicomponent fibers (¶68) wherein secondary fibers increase the dry and wet burst strengths (¶84).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the wet burst strength of the fibrous web (Madsen ¶84), such as wherein the fibrous web has a wet burst strength of greater than about 10 bar, in order to affect the pressure of water that will rupture the media (Sentmanat page 3 middle col) and improve an important mechanical property (Anantharamaiah ¶44).
Further, the calendering taught by Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, and/or Seeberger would have resulted in the claims wet and dry burst strengths.
Regarding claim 4, Anantharamaiah in view of Emig, Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, Madsen, Ouellette, and Sentmanat teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Anantharamaiah further teaches wherein the fibrous web has a density less than about 0.40 g/cm3 (¶62 where the basis weight is less than or equal to 110 g/m2, ¶84 where the thickness is less than or equal to 2.5 mm yielding a density of less than or equal to 0.044 g/cm3).
Regarding claim 5, Anantharamaiah in view of Emig, Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, Madsen, Ouellette, and Sentmanat teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Anantharamaiah teaches where the pore size affects filtration performance (¶3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the minimum pore size, such as to a minimum pore size of 22 μm or less, in order to affect the filtration performance (Anantharamaiah ¶3).
Regarding claim 10, Anantharamaiah in view of Emig, Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, Madsen, Ouellette, and Sentmanat teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Anantharamaiah further teaches wherein the filtration media comprises less than 10 wt.%, based on total weight of the fibrous web, of glass fibers (¶89).
Regarding claim 12, Anantharamaiah in view of Emig, Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, Madsen, Ouellette, and Sentmanat teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Anantharamaiah further teaches wherein the synthetic fibers comprise a mixture of at least two different types of synthetic fibers (¶42).
Regarding claim 13, Anantharamaiah in view of Emig, Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, Madsen, Ouellette, and Sentmanat teach all the limitations of claim 12.
Anantharamaiah further teaches wherein the synthetic fibers comprise a first type of synthetic fibers having an average diameter of less than 15 μm, and a second type of synthetic fibers having an average diameter of more than 15 μm in order to have beneficial performance properties such as such holding capacity, stiffness, and durability (¶17-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the average diameter of the first type of synthetic fibers to be between about 2.5 μm to about 10 μm as a matter of obvious choosing the overlapping portions of the prior art and claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05 I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the average diameter of the second type of synthetic fibers to be between about 15 μm to about 20 μm as a matter of obvious choosing the overlapping portions of the prior art and claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 14, Anantharamaiah in view of Emig, Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, Madsen, Ouellette, and Sentmanat teach all the limitations of claim 13.
Anantharamaiah further teaches wherein the first type of synthetic fibers have an average length of greater than 0.1 mm (¶39), and the second type of synthetic fibers have an average length of greater than 3mm (¶35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the average length of the first type of synthetic fibers to be between about 1mm to about 6mm as a matter of obvious choosing the overlapping portions of the prior art and claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05 I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the average length of the second type of synthetic fibers to be between about 5mm to about 24mm as a matter of obvious choosing the overlapping portions of the prior art and claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 15, Anantharamaiah in view of Emig, Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, Madsen, Ouellette, and Sentmanat teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Anantharamaiah further teaches wherein the synthetic staple fibers comprise between about 5 wt.% to about 30 wt.% based on total weight of the fibrous web (¶36), of regenerated cellulosic fibers (¶42, synthetic fibers include regenerated cellulose and combinations of other materials).
Regarding claim 17, Anantharamaiah in view of Emig, Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, Madsen, Ouellette, and Sentmanat teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Anantharamaiah further teaches wherein the filtration media further comprises flame or fire retardants (¶43).
Regarding claim 18, Anantharamaiah in view of Emig, Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, Madsen, Ouellette, and Sentmanat teach all the limitations of claim 7.
Anantharamaiah further teaches wherein the at least one additive comprises flame retardant fibers in an amount of greater than about 40 wt.%, based on total weight of the fibrous web (¶43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of flame retardant fibers to be about 40 to about 80 wt.%, based on total weight of the fibrous web as a matter of obvious choosing the overlapping portions of the prior art and claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 19, Anantharamaiah in view of Emig, Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, Madsen, Ouellette, and Sentmanat teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Anantharamaiah further teaches wherein the synthetic staple fibers are forms of a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyethylene (PE), polypropylenes (PP), nylon-6, nylon 6,6, nylon-6, 12, and combinations thereof (¶42).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anantharamaiah in view of Emig, Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, Madsen, Ouellette, and Sentmanat as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “The EN779:2012” AFPRO Filtration Group published 10 Feb. 2018 accessed at <https://web.archive.org/web/20180210091235/https://www.afprofilters.com/the-new-en7792012/> (hereafter Afpro).
Regarding claim 9, Anantharamaiah in view of Emig, Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, Madsen, Ouellette, and Sentmanat teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Anantharamaiah does not teach wherein the filtration media is capable of being classified as an F7 filter media according to EN779:2012 standard.
Afpro teaches where filtration media that is capable of being classified as an F7 filter media according to EN779:2012 standard has an efficiency of >35% on 0.4 micron particles (“Two biggest changes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filtration media of Anantharamaiah such that the filtration media is capable of being classified as an F7 filter media according to EN779:2012 standard in order to have an efficiency of >35% on 0.4 micron particles (“Two biggest changes”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anantharamaiah in view of Emig, Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, Madsen, Ouellette, and Sentmanat as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “The EN779:2012” AFPRO Filtration Group published 10 Feb. 2018 accessed at <https://web.archive.org/web/20180210091235/https://www.afprofilters.com/the-new-en7792012/> (hereafter Afpro).
Regarding claim 20, Anantharamaiah in view of Emig, Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, Madsen, Ouellette, and Sentmanat teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Anantharamaiah does not teach wherein the sheath and core of the bicomponent staple fibers are formed of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), wherein the PET forming the sheath has a melting temperature which is less than that of the PET forming the core (¶209, ¶211) in order to produce a preferable filter bicomponent (¶209, ¶211).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filtration media of Anantharamaiah such that the bicomponent sheath comprises the polyethylene terephthalate (¶209, ¶211) of Park in order to produce a preferable filter bicomponent (¶209, ¶211) and as a well known material (MPEP §2144.07).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anantharamaiah US 2017/0232371 (hereafter Anantharamaiah) and further in view of Emig et al. US 2002/0083690 (hereafter Emig), Hassenboehler et al. US 5,443,606 (hereafter Hassenboehler), Rule et al. US 2012/0225600 (hereafter Rule), Erlandsson et al. US 2015/0275404 (hereafter Erlandsson), Madsen et al. US 2014/0326661 (hereafter Madsen), and Sentmanat “Filter Paper for Industrial Filtration” Filternew.com published Apr. 2016 (hereafter Sentmanat).
Regarding claim 23, Anantharamaiah teaches usew of a fibrous filtration media comprising a wet-laid (¶90), calendered (¶22) nonwoven fibrous web comprising:
synthetic staple fibers (¶32, synthetic fibers); and
from about 20 wt.% to about 80 wt.%, based on total weight of the fibrous web (¶49, “the total weight percentage of binder in the filtration layer comprising synthetic fibers may be … greater than or equal to about 20 wt. % … less than or equal to about 80 wt. %” and “All suitable combinations of the above-referenced ranges are also possible”), sheath-core bicomponent staple fibers (¶50) dispersed through the fibrous web (¶44-45), wherein
the fibrous web has a density less than about 0.45 g/cm3 (¶62 where the basis weight is less than or equal to 110 g/m2, ¶84 where the thickness is less than or equal to 2.5 mm yielding a density of less than or equal to 0.044 g/cm3), and exhibits a dry burst strength of greater than 10 bar (¶59), said use comprising the steps of:
providing the filtration media comprising at least the fibrous filtration media as an outmost layer of the filtration media (¶107-109);
passing the gases and/ or liquids through the filtration media (¶107-109).
Anantharamaiah does not teach hot area-calendered, a wet burst strength of greater than 10 bar, a minimum pore size of 25 μm or less, and a mean flow pore size of 40 um or less and a maximum pore size of 50 um or less.
Emig teaches a filter where hot area calendering bonds bicomponent binder fibers in a wet laid filter non-woven filter media in order to improve web strength (col 6 lines 5-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calendering (¶22) of Anantharamaiah by hot area calendering (col 6 lines 5-19) as taught by Emig in order to improve web strength (col 6 lines 5-19).
Hassenboehler teaches nonwoven fiber web filter media comprising bicomponent fibers (table II) wherein filaments are bonded by hot calendering in order to impart integrity and strength (col 22 lines 30-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calendering (¶22) of Anantharamaiah by hot area calendering (col 22 lines 30-60) as taught by Hassenboehler in order to impart integrity and strength (col 22 lines 30-60).
Rule teaches a filter media (¶12) comprising bicomponent fibers (¶33) wherein the web is densified and/or strengthened by hot calendering (¶33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calendering (¶22) of Anantharamaiah by hot area calendering (¶33) as taught by Rule in order to densify and/or strengthen (¶33).
Erlandsson teaches a filter media (¶33) comprising bicomponent fibers (¶13, ¶16) where the web is stabilized by hot calendering (¶78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calendering (¶22) of Anantharamaiah by hot area calendering (¶78) as taught by Erlandsson in order to stabilize (¶78).
Seeberger teaches a filter media (¶1) comprising bicomponent fibers (¶9, ¶95) where the web is hardened by hot calendering (¶14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calendering (¶22) of Anantharamaiah by hot area calendering (¶14) as taught by Seeberger in order to harden (¶14).
MPEP §2144.05 I states that where claimed and prior art ranges overlap, a prima facie case exists to choose the overlapping portion of the ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 10 wt.% to about 80 wt.% (¶27, fusible fibers) of Emig by choosing the overlapping portion (20 wt.% to about 80 wt.%) as a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP §2144.05 I).
Anantharamaiah teaches where the pore size affects filtration performance (¶3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the minimum pore size, such as to a minimum pore size of 25 μm or less, in order to affect the filtration performance (Anantharamaiah ¶3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the mean flow pore size, such as to 40 μm or less, in order to affect the filtration performance (Anantharamaiah ¶3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the maximum pore size, such as to a maximum pore size of 50 μm or less, in order to affect the filtration performance (Anantharamaiah ¶3).
Sentmanat teaches wherein wet burst strength affects the pressure of water that will rupture the media (page 3 middle col).
Anantharamaiah teaches where burst strength is an important mechanical property (¶44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the wet burst strength of the fibrous web, such as wherein the fibrous web has a wet burst strength of greater than about 10 bar, in order to affect the pressure of water that will rupture the media (Sentmanat page 3 middle col) and improve an important mechanical property (Anantharamaiah ¶44).
Madsen teaches a filter comprising bicomponent fibers (¶68) wherein secondary fibers increase the dry and wet burst strengths (¶84).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the wet burst strength of the fibrous web (Madsen ¶84), such as wherein the fibrous web has a wet burst strength of greater than about 10 bar, in order to affect the pressure of water that will rupture the media (Sentmanat page 3 middle col) and improve an important mechanical property (Anantharamaiah ¶44).
Further, the calendering taught by Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, and/or Seeberger would have resulted in the claims wet and dry burst strengths.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anantharamaiah US 2017/0232371 (hereafter Anantharamaiah) and further in view of Emig et al. US 2002/0083690 (hereafter Emig), Hassenboehler et al. US 5,443,606 (hereafter Hassenboehler), Rule et al. US 2012/0225600 (hereafter Rule), Erlandsson et al. US 2015/0275404 (hereafter Erlandsson), Madsen et al. US 2014/0326661 (hereafter Madsen), Sentmanat “Filter Paper for Industrial Filtration” Filternew.com published Apr. 2016 (hereafter Sentmanat), and further in view of Ouellette et al. US 2003/0168153 (hereafter Ouellette)
Regarding claim 24, Anantharamaiah in view of Emig, Hassenboehler, Rule, Erlandsson, Madsen, and Sentmanat teach all the limitations of claim 23.
Anantharamaiah does not teaches wherein the wet-laid, hot area-calendered nonwoven fibrous web is a single ply.
Ouellette teaches where filter webs are known to be single ply (¶45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Anantharamaiah by to be single ply as taught by Ouellette (¶45). Single ply would ensure that the finished product could not delaminate.
Response to Argument
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 21 Jan. 2026:
Applicant argues that Anantharamiah does not teach a desnity of less than .45g/cm2 and the pore sizes as claimed because the Anantharamiah sample having a basis weight of 20 to 110g/m2 and an air permeability of 260 to 399 CFm must have a much larger pore size than claimed.
Examiner disagrees. Anantharamiah teaches where the basis weight is less than or equal to 110 g/m2 (¶62) as opposed to the limited range of 20 to 110g/m2 as argued by Applicant. Anantharamiah further teaches air permeability of 1 CFM or greater or air permeability of 300 CFM or less (¶81) as opposed to the limited range of 260 to 399 CFM as argued by Applicant. Thus, the air permeability is not necessarily much large as argued by Applicant.
Further, while the density of the invention is claimed, the thickness of the web is not. Thus, a web with a smaller thickness with the same claimed density would have a higher flow rate and would likely have a smaller pore size.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights