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 the Claims
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments and replacement drawing filed on 06/20/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 12-13 are cancelled. Claims 2-9, 11, and 14-19 are non-elected claims, and are withdrawn. Claims 20-30 are new. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 1, 10, and 20-30 are presented for examination on the merits for patentability.
Rejection(s) not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
Modified Rejection As Necessitated by the Amendment Filed 06/20/2025
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 23-24, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 still recites “preferred ratio”, which is indefinite.. While the claim recites a ratio of 5.5 grams of (D) beta-hydroxybutyrate and 4.5 grams of (D) 1,3-butanediol, it is unclear what other ratio, i.e. the non-preferred, is implied in the claim. Clarification is required.
Claim 23 is indefinite for the recitation of “ascorbic acid…configured to increase an oral availability of ascorbic acid and an active transport into immune cells via heightened insulin sensitivity associated with an increase in serum (D)-beta-hydroxybutyrate. It is not clear what is meant by “configured to increase”, and how the ascorbic acid is configured to obtain a result is not easily ascertained.
Claims 24 and 26 recite “beta-hydroxybutyrate salts comprising at least one of sodium beta-hydroxybutyrate…potassium beta-hydroxybutyrate, calcium beta hydroxybutyrate, magnesium beta-hydroxybutyrate, …beta-hydroxy butyrate sodium salt, beta-hydroxy butyrate potassium salt, beta-hydroxy butyrate calcium salt, or beta-hydroxy butyrate magnesium salt”. It is unclear what the difference is between sodium beta-hydroxybutyrate and beta-hydroxy butyrate sodium salt, potassium beta-hydroxybutyrate and beta-hydroxy butyrate potassium salt, calcium beta hydroxybutyrate and beta-hydroxy butyrate calcium salt, and lastly, magnesium beta-hydroxybutyrate and beta-hydroxy butyrate magnesium salt. Correction or clarification is needed.
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.
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, 10, 20-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llosa et al. (US 2018/0057846 A1; Of record), hereinafter Llosa.
Llosa discloses compositions and methods for producing near instant and/or therapeutic levels of nutritional ketosis with an enrich Ketone Blend comprising any two or more of (D)-β-hydroxybutyrate salts, (D)-β-hydroxybutyrate free acid, (D)-1,3-butanediol, and ketone ester [0002]. Regarding the ketogenic level, Llosa comprehends that if a person ingesting sodium β -hydroxybutyrate would be limited to a diet of approximately 0.5 mmol/L of ketones which is short of the nutritional ketosis, whereas ingestion of non-racemic (D)-1,3-butanediol can have markedly improved efficacy in achieving ketosis, i.e. an increase in ketones of approximately 3.2 mmol/L (Fig. 6; [0041]-[0042]; [0074]). Preferred compositions can be designed to reach target levels of 2.5-10.0 mmol/L of ketones in the blood, which overlaps with the claimed range [0055].
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Llosa teaches oral or parenteral delivery in order to raise the blood ketone levels [0059]. Llosa teaches that the range of ketones should be between 200-1,000 mg/kg body weight, which for an average 70 kg person would be 14-70 grams just prior to the onset of physical activity [0066]. The preferred embodiment contains the ketone blend with 51-99% free acid of β-hydroxybutyrate, 1-25%- β-hydroxybutyrate salt, 1-10%-1,3-butanediol, and 1-49%-Ketone Ester [0027]. β-hydroxybutyrate salt can be sodium (Na+), potassium (K+), calcium (Ca+), and/or a combination of two or more [0005].
Llosa teaches an embodiment the ketone blend dosing protocol should be between 7-52 grams per 70 kg male, which overlaps with the claimed 10-100 grams per 75 kg body weight [0060]. 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. One would necessarily adjust the amount of the blend comprising (D)-β-hydroxybutyrate free acid and (D)-1,3-butanediol for ingestion depending on the weight of the user and the intended result.
Regarding the recitation of “wherein the supplement is comprised of 2.6 - 3.9 grams or 4.1 - 8.9 grams of (D)-beta hydroxybutyrate…for every 10 grams ingested” in Claim 1 and “5.5 grams of (D) beta-hydroxybutyrate” in Claim 10, Llosa teaches a preferred embodiment, a 250 mL drink contains 40 mol% (D)-β-HB in its free acid, 40 mol% (D)- β-HB salt, and 10mol% (D)-1,3 butanediol at a 30 gram serving containing approximately 6 grams of the free acid of (D)- β-HB [0053]. By Examiner’s calculation, a 10 gram serving would correspondingly contain about 2 g (D)-β-HB in its free acid, 2.7 g of potassium β-HB salt, for example, which would give a total of 4.7g BHB, which is within the claimed range in Claim 1, and near the 5.5 g in Claim 10. 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. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the recitations of “1.1 - 7.4 grams of (D)-1,3-butanediol for every 10 grams ingested” in Claim 1, and “4.5 grams of (D) 1,3-butanediol” in Claim 10, Llosa teaches an embodiment wherein a 30 g serving contains 10% (D)-1,3-butanediol [0053]. By Examiner’s calculation, this corresponds to 3 g (D)-1,3 butanediol, or 1 g for every 10 g. However, Llosa also teaches that the preferred embodiment shall contain between 1-100% of the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) while at the same time delivering 10-150 grams of (D)-β-hydroxybutyrate for an average sized man [0034]; a preferred embodiment can include a mixture by molar ratio of 10-15 parts free acid (D)- β -HB, 10-20 parts (D)- β -HB salt, and 1 to 5 parts (D)-1,3-butanediol, and the ratios can be modified depending on the results ([0049], [0053],[0071]-[0073]). Furthermore, Llosa relays that (D/L) 1,3-butanediol is considered as a possible high density food for astronauts but it is an alcohol that, in excess, causes inebriation [0003]. As such, one would adjust the amount of the blend comprising (D)-β-hydroxybutyrate free acid and (D)-1,3-butanediol for ingestion depending on the weight of the user and the intended result, and considering the need for high density food and possibility of inebriation.
Importantly, based on the ranges in Claim 1, there appears to be no criticality to the amounts in Claim 10. It is generally noted that differences in amounts do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such amounts are critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Given that applicant did not point out the criticality of amount of (D)-1,3-butanediol of the invention, it is concluded that the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known would provide the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of ranges is the optimum amount. NOTE: MPEP 2144.05. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Regarding Claims 20-21, Llosa Discloses buffering bases including sodium bicarbonate [0004]-[0005]. Regarding Claim 24, Llosa teaches sodium (D)-β-hydroxybutyrate, potassium (D)- β -hydroxybutyrate, and/or calcium (D)- β-hydroxybutyrate [0006].
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llosa, as applied to Claims 1, 10, 20-21 and 24 above, and in view of D’Agostino et al. (US 2019/0099394 A1), hereinafter D’Agostino.
Regarding Claims 22-23, Llosa does not expressly teach the addition of the recited components.
D’Agostino is in the same field of interest teaching ketone supplementation, recognizing butanediol and BHB salt as supplement ingredients (Claim 1; Example 2). D’Agostino teaches the composition may contain other nutritional substrates such as amino acids, vitamins, minerals, electrolytes, NADH, ascorbic acid etc. ([0045], [0063]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Llosa and D’Agostino and add one or more of the nutritional substrates identified by D’Agostino to provide additional nutritional benefits in the supplement.
Further, attention is invited to In re Levin, 84 USPQ 232 and the cases cited therein, which are considered in point in fact situation of the instant case. At page 234, the Court stated as follows:
This court has taken the position that new recipes or formulas for cooking food which involve the addition or elimination of common ingredients, or for treating them in ways which differ from the former practice, do not amount to invention, merely because it is not disclosed that, in the constantly developing art of preparing food, no one else ever did the particular thing upon which the applicant asserts his right to a patent. In all such cases, there is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients which produces a new, unexpected and useful function. In re Benjamin D. White, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 956, 39 F.2d 974, 5 USPQ 267; In re Mason et al., 33 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1144, 156 F.2d 189, 70 USPQ 221.
Regarding the recitation of “configured to increase an oral availability of ascorbic acid and an active transport into immune cells via heightened insulin sensitivity associated with an increase in serum (D)-beta-hydroxybutyrate”, this is an intended use.
With respect to the art rejection above, it is noted that the reference does not teach that the ascorbic acid in combination with BHB and 1,3-β-butanediol can be used in the manner instantly claimed. However, the intended use of the composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, because such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. See MPEP 2111.02. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference and the body of the claim does not depend on the intended use for completeness but rather can stand alone. Consequently, the intended use is not limiting.
Claims 25-26 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llosa, and applied to Claims 1, 10, 20-21 and 24 above, in view of Clarke et al. (US 2011/0237666 A1), hereinafter Clarke.
The teachings of Llosa have been set forth supra.
Llosa does not teach “one part (D) 1,3-butanediol and one part (D) beta hydroxybutyrate”.
Clarke discloses a 3-hydroxybutyl 3-hydroxybutyrate and an ingestible composition which comprises the compound, wherein the ingestible composition is a food product, a beverage, a drink, a food supplement, a dietary supplement etc. (Claims 1-3).
Regarding Claim 25, Clarke teaches that the (3R, 3R') enantiomer is cleaved in vivo to form (3R)-hydroxybutyrate and (R)-1,3-butanediol [0026]. The (3R)-hydroxybutyrate is released immediately, giving a rapid effect following ingestion. The (R)-1,3-butanediol is converted in the liver to (3R) hydroxybutyrate which is then released into blood, which gives a favorable pharmacokinetic profile, since raised blood levels of the desired (R)-3-hydroxybutyrate are both achieved quickly and then sustained over a period of time [0026]. Clarke teaches that beta-hydroxybutyrate (bHB) and (R)-1,3-butanediol are natural calorie source which can be classified as a food and can form part of a food product [0045].
(R)-1,3-butanediol and (D)-1,3-butanediol are the same compound and (3R)-hydroxybutyrate and (D)-beta hydroxybutyrate (D-BHB) are identical molecules. Because the hydrolysis of the ester produces one part (3R)-hydroxybutyrate and one part (R)-1,3-butanediol, Claim 25 is obvious.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Llosa with Clarke and prepare a composition wherein the ratio of BHB to BD is 1:1 because Clarke has taught the 3-hydroxybutyl 3-hydroxybutyrate ester hydrolysis produces this ratio which gives a favorable pharmacokinetic profile, with raised blood levels of the desired (R)-3-hydroxybutyrate are both achieved quickly and then sustained over a period of time.
Regarding Claim 26, Llosa has taught sodium (D)-β-hydroxybutyrate, potassium (D)-β-hydroxybutyrate, and/or calcium (D)- β-hydroxybutyrate [0006].
Regarding Claim 29-30, Llosa has taught buffering bases including sodium bicarbonate [0004]-[0005].
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llosa in view of Clarke, and applied to Claims 1, 10, and 20-26 above, and in view of D’Agostino.
The teachings of Llosa, Clarke, and D’Agostino have been set forth supra.
Regarding Claims 27-28, Llosa does not expressly teach the addition of the recited components.
D’Agostino is in the same field of interest teaching ketone supplementation, recognizing butanediol and BHB salt as supplement ingredients (Claim 1; Example 2). D’Agostino teaches the composition may contain other nutritional substrates such as amino acids, vitamins, minerals, electrolytes, NADH, ascorbic acid etc. ([0045], [0063]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Llosa and D’Agostino and add one or more of the nutritional substrates identified by D’Agostino to provide additional nutritional benefits in the supplement.
Further, attention is invited to In re Levin, 84 USPQ 232 and the cases cited therein, which are considered in point in fact situation of the instant case. At page 234, the Court stated as follows:
This court has taken the position that new recipes or formulas for cooking food which involve the addition or elimination of common ingredients, or for treating them in ways which differ from the former practice, do not amount to invention, merely because it is not disclosed that, in the constantly developing art of preparing food, no one else ever did the particular thing upon which the applicant asserts his right to a patent. In all such cases, there is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients which produces a new, unexpected and useful function. In re Benjamin D. White, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 956, 39 F.2d 974, 5 USPQ 267; In re Mason et al., 33 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1144, 156 F.2d 189, 70 USPQ 221.
Regarding the recitation of “configured to increase an oral availability of ascorbic acid and an active transport into immune cells via heightened insulin sensitivity associated with an increase in serum (D)-beta-hydroxybutyrate”, this is an intended use.
With respect to the art rejection above, it is noted that the reference does not teach that the ascorbic acid in combination with BHB and 1,3-β-butanediol can be used in the manner instantly claimed. However, the intended use of the composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, because such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. See MPEP 2111.02. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference and the body of the claim does not depend on the intended use for completeness but rather can stand alone. Consequently, the intended use is not limiting.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Remarks:
Applicant’s argues regarding the amended Claim 1 now reciting "wherein the supplement is comprised of2.6- 3.9 grams or 4.1-8.9 grams of (D)-beta-hydroxybutyrate and 1.1 - 7.4 grams of (D )-1, 3-butanediol for every 10 grams ingested". Applicant also argues that amended Claim 10 is not obvious with regards to the recitation of "a preferred ratio for every 10 grams ingested is 5.5 grams of (DJ beta-hydroxy butyrate and 4.5 grams of (DJ 1,3-butanediol".
The Examiner considered the argument but was not persuaded. The amendment necessitated the modified rejection supra. Contrary to Applicant’s allegation, Llosa still renders the amended claim obvious because, as explained above, Llosa also teaches that the preferred embodiment shall contain between 1-100% of the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) while at the same time delivering 10-150 grams of (D)-β-hydroxybutyrate for an average sized man [0034]; a preferred embodiment can include a mixture by molar ratio of 10-15 parts free acid (D)- β -HB, 10-20 parts (D)- β-HB salt, and 1 to 5 parts (D)-1,3-butanediol, and the ratios can modified depending on the results ([0049], [0053],[0071]-[0073]). Furthermore, Llosa relays that (D/L) 1,3-butanediol is considered as a possible high density food for astronauts but it is an alcohol that, in excess, causes inebriation [0003]. As such, one would adjust the amount of the blend comprising (D)-β-hydroxybutyrate free acid and (D)-1,3-butanediol for ingestion depending on the weight of the user and the intended result, and considering the need for high density food and possibility of inebriation.
Absent a showing of criticality, it is generally noted that differences in amounts do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such amounts are critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Given that applicant did not point out the criticality of amount of (D)-1,3-butanediol of the invention, it is concluded that the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known would provide the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of ranges is the optimum amount. NOTE: MPEP 2144.05. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
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 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 4-7, and 17 of US 11,760,963 B2, hereinafter ‘963, in view of Llosa et al. (US 2018/0057846 A1; Of record), hereinafter Llosa.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to the same subject matter and composition components.
Both the instant claims and ‘963 are drawn to ingestible compositions comprising (D)-β-hydroxybutyrate free acid and (D)-1,3-butanediol. ‘963 does not describe amount for administration. This deficiency is cured by Llosa, whose teachings have been described in the 103 rejection supra. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Llosa and ‘963 and use the amount taught by Llosa for administration to a user and modify as needed. One would have been motivated to do so, for example, to achieve weight loss, which Llosa has taught.
Therefore, the claims are drawn to the same subject matter and are not patentably distinct from the instant claims.
Response to Remarks:
As above, the crux of Applicant’s argument appears to be on the amended Claims 1 and 10.
The Examiner refers to the rejection and response above with regards to Llosa. As such, '963 in view of Llosa still renders the instant claims obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6 EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (571) 270-3475. 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.
/J.Y.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792