DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment submitted on December 17, 2025 (“amendment”) in response to the Office action mailed on September 24, 2025 (“previous OA”) have been fully considered.
Support for claim 1 recitation “fabric substrate” can be found in paragraphs 0002 and 0008 of US Patent Application Publication 20220073795 A1 of the present application (“published application”). Support for the amendment to claims 17 and 20 can be found in paragraph 0062 of the published application.
In view of the amendment, the objection to claims 1, 5, 17, and 20 as set forth in the previous OA is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, the rejection of claims 15, 16, and18 under 35 USC 112(a), the rejection of claims 15 and 19 under 35 USC 112(b), and the rejection of claims 17 and 20 under 35 USC 112(d) as set forth in the previous OA are withdrawn. However, the rejection of claim 20 under 35 USC 112(a) is maintained.
In view of the amendment, a new rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is introduced.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, a new rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is introduced for claims 10 and 16.
In view of the amendment, the rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9, 16-18, and 20 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 6106941) as evidenced by Product Data Sheet “SP-1077” from Akrochem Corporation is modified.
Duplicate Claims
Applicant is advised that should claim 17 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, the specification fails to provide support for “in a single-phase mixture”. The examiner is unable to find the support for this limitation in the specification and applicant has not pointed out support for this limitation in the amendment.
As to claim 16, the specification fails to provide support for this claim.
As to claim 18, this claim recites “the at least one tackifier is a non-carbon hetero-atom-functional tackifier having softening point between 100°C and 135°C.” Specification fails to provide support for the aforementioned claim recitation. While there is support to claim a nonpolar tackifier has a softening point between 100°-135°C (0071 of the published application), there is no support to claim a tackifier containing non-carbon hetero-atom functionality has the softening point between 100-135°C.
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 is 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 recites that the adhesive composition of claim 1 further comprises at least 0.1 wt% of an antioxidant. Claim 1 recites the adhesive composition comprises “in a single-phase mixture” a styrenic block copolymer and a at least one tackifier. Accordingly, the styrenic block copolymer and the at least one tackifier are contained in the single-phase mixture. However, it is unclear from claim 10 whether the antioxidant is in the single-phase mixture.
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the adhesive composition is prepared by melt-mixing the styrenic block copolymer and the at least one tackifier to yield a single-phase hot-melt adhesive composition.” This recitation is indefinite. Claim 1 recites that the adhesive composition comprises “in a single-phase mixture” a styrenic block copolymer and a at least one tackifier. However, claim 16 recites that the adhesive composition is single-phase hot-melt adhesive composition (“to yield a single-phase hot-melt adhesive composition”). Therefore, it is unclear whether the single-phase mixture is styrenic block copolymer and the at least one tackifier or the entire adhesive composition of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 6106941) as evidenced by (a) Product Data Sheet “SP-1077” from Akrochem Corporation and (b) Fouqay et al. (US 20100193127 A1).
As to claim 1, Fisher discloses a multi-component adhesive system for adhering polar surfaces to non-polar surfaces (abstract). The multi-component adhesive system of Fisher includes a primer layer, which contains an adhesive composition (column 3, lines 24-25 and lines 45-50). The adhesive composition of Fisher comprises a major portion of elastomeric polyolefin, and optionally, one or more of the tackifier, cure package, colorants, fillers, UV stabilizers, and other known additives (column 3, lines 45-50).
Further, as to claim 1, as the elastomeric polyolefin, Fisher discloses “any one or mixture of the following: Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Copolymers…Styrene-Butadiene Copolymers…Styrene-Isoprene-Styrene Block Copolymers…” (column 3, line 60 to column 4, line 30). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select one or more of the elastomeric polyolefins of Fisher including styrenic block copolymer such as SIS, motivated by the desire to form the adhesive of Fisher.
Further, as to claim 1, Fisher discloses that the adhesive comprises a compatible tackifier. According to Fisher, suitable tackifiers are commercially available and include “hydrocarbon resins…phenol resins such as Arkon P-90 or P-133 (Akrochem); SP-1068 or SP-1077 (Schenectady Chemical)….and mixtures thereof…” (column 4, lines 35-50). Fisher does not explicitly mention that the at least one tackifier containing non-caron hetero atom functionality and the at least one tackifier has acid number of between 25-50 mgKOH/g. However, as set forth in the product data sheet of “SP-1077”, SP-1077 tackifier is modified alkylphenol resin and was previously known as “P-133 resin”. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that alkylphenol tackifier SP-1077 (P-133) would inherently have non-carbon hetero-atom functionality. Moreover, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “SP-1077” tackifier has acid number of 25-40 (see product data sheet), which be understood as 25-40 mgKOH/g by one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, Fisher as set forth previously also discloses another tackifier “SP-1077 (Schenectady Chemical)”, which is identical to the tackifier disclosed by the present application. As such, Fisher suggests claimed at least one tackifier containing non-carbon hetero-atom functionality (i.e. tackifiers “P-133” and “SP-1077”).
Further, as to the claimed amount of tackifier, Fisher discloses “A suitable amount of tackifier is readily determinable by one skilled in the art, although typically, tackifier concentration of about 15 to about 85% by weight of the adhesive composition is sufficient.” (Column 4, lines 50-55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any one or mixture of tackifier including SP-1077 or P-133 in the amount disclosed by Fischer, which renders obvious claimed tackifier, motivated by the desire to formulate the adhesive of Fisher and Fisher desires such tackifier.
As to claim 1, Fisher is silent as to disclosing the adhesive composition comprising “in a single-phase mixture” and the adhesive composition is a wash durable when bonded to a fabric substrate. However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness is established. See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Fisher’s adhesive composition as set forth previously includes the claimed styrenic block copolymer and at least one tackifier. Accordingly, Fisher renders obvious claimed adhesive composition. Accordingly, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the adhesive composition of Fisher would inherently be comprising in a single-phase mixture a styrenic block copolymer and the at least one tackifier, and the composition is wash durable when bonded to a fabric substrate as claimed. Additionally, as to the claim recitation “An adhesive composition comprising, in a single-phase mixture, Fisher discloses that the tackifier is a “compatible tackifier” (column 4, lines 35-36). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the compatible tackifier is a tackifier which when mixed in 50%/50% proportion with a styrenic block copolymers e.g. SIS, SIBS, SEBS, and SEPS, gives substantially homogeneous blend (see 0056 of Fouqany). Accordingly, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the adhesive composition of Fisher would inherently be comprising in a single-phase mixture a styrenic block copolymer and the at least one tackifier.
As to claims 3 and 4, these claims do not further recite further characteristics of a laminating adhesive or heat activated adhesive. Fisher as set forth previously renders obvious claimed adhesive composition. As such, absent any factual evidence, the adhesive of Fisher meets claims 3 and 4.
As to claim 5, Fisher is silent as to disclosing claimed polarity index of the tackifier. However, Fisher discloses identical tackifier as the present application (SP 1077). Accordingly, it is clear that the tackifier of Fisher would inherently have the claimed polarity index.
Alternatively, with respect to claim 5, the polarity index of SP 1077 disclosed by Fisher is calculated from the formula described on page 13, lines 1-4 of the present specification as following:
First, the amount of SP 1077 tackifier disclosed is taken to be 15 wt% as Fisher discloses the tackifier can be used in the amount of as low as about 15 wt% (column 4, lines 50-55).
Second, the acid number of SP 1077 tackifier is 25-42 (page 21 of the present specification). Further, applicant has stated that for calculation of the polarity index value, the value of the acid number is the average of the high and low values reported (page 21, lines 3-4 of the specification). Accordingly, the average value of the acid number of SP 1077 tackifier disclosed in Fisher is (25+42)/2 = 33.5.
Third, the polarity index of the tackifier = acid number of the tackifier * wt% of the tackifier (see polarity index formula disclosed on page 13, lines 1-4 of the specification). Accordingly, the polarity index of a SP 1077 tackifier disclosed by Fisher is 33.5*15 wt% = 503, which is greater than 2.5 as claimed.
As to claim 6, Fisher is silent as to disclosing claimed polarity index of the adhesive composition. However, the adhesive composition of Fisher as set forth previously is identical or substantially identical to the claimed adhesive composition. Accordingly, it is reasonable to presume that the adhesive composition of Fisher would inherently have the claimed polarity index.
As to claim 7, Fisher discloses SIS block copolymer (column 4, lines 29-30).
As to claim 9, Fisher as set forth previously discloses that typically, tackifier concentration of about 15 to about 85 wt% of the adhesive composition is sufficient (column 4, lines 50-55).
As to claim 16, the claim recitation “wherein the adhesive composition is prepared by melt mixing the styrenic block copolymer and the at least one tackifier to yield a single-phase hot-melt adhesive composition” is a product by process limitation. The product by process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. As set forth previously, Fisher inherently discloses an adhesive composition comprising in a single-phase mixture of the styrenic block copolymer and at least one tackifier. Therefore, absent any factual evidence on the record, Fisher’s adhesive composition would inherently be a single-phase hot-melt adhesive composition as claimed.
As to claims 17 and 20, Fisher as set forth previously discloses SP-1077 (P-133) tackifier, which has acid number of 25-42 (see product data sheet). Further, Fisher also discloses another tackifier “SP-1077 (Schenectady Chemical”)” (column 4, lines 45-50), which is identical to SP-1077 tackifier disclosed by present specification. As such, Fisher discloses claimed acid number.
As to claim 18, Fisher as set forth previously discloses SP-1077 (P-133) tackifier, which has softening temperature of 92-102°C (see product data sheet), which overlaps with the claimed softening point range of 100-135°C.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 6106941) as evidenced by (a) Product Data Sheet “SP-1077” from Akrochem Corporation and (b) Fouqay et al. (US 20100193127 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bolton et al. (WO2015195616 A1).
Fisher is silent as to disclosing claim 8.
Bolton discloses an adhesive tape with pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA), wherein the PSA includes at least one natural rubber elastomer and/or synthetic rubber and a polar phenolic tackifier (abstract). Further, Bolton discloses that the PSA includes styrene based block copolymers that are SIS diblock copolymers and SIS triblock copolymers (page 10, lines 15-20).
Fisher as set forth previously desires styrene block copolymer. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any styrene block copolymers including a diblock of styrenic block and an isoprene block and form the adhesive of Fisher, because such block copolymers are recognized in the art for their use in the adhesives and use of such block copolymer would be obvious for the purpose of forming Fisher’s adhesive.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 6106941) as evidenced by (a) Product Data Sheet “SP-1077” from Akrochem Corporation and (b) Fouqay et al. (US 20100193127 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Antony et al. (WO 2017136219 A1).
Fisher is silent as to disclosing claim 10.
Antony discloses a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) comprising at least one of an acrylic, a rubber, a natural rubber, an isoprene block copolymer, a butadiene block copolymer, and combinations thereof (0009). Antony further discloses that the adhesive comprises styrenic block copolymers such as styrene-isoprene-styrene (0010) and styrene-butadiene-styrene (0011). Further, Antony teaches 1.10 wt% of Irganox 1010 (Example 12 on page 17), which is an antioxidant (page 16, lines 15-16 of Antony).
It would have been obvious to select the antioxidant of Antony and use it in the amount disclosed by Antony in the adhesive of Fisher, motivated by the desire to form adhesive with oxidation resistance (weather resistance).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 6106941) as evidenced by (a) Product Data Sheet “SP-1077” from Akrochem Corporation and (b) Fouqay et al. (US 20100193127 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pernecker et al. (US 20160122607 A1).
Fisher is silent as to disclosing the tackifier of claim 19.
Pernecker discloses rosin ester tackifier (0001). Moreover, Pernecker discloses a water-dispersible, water insoluble adducted rosin ester and a process for making such rosin ester. According to Pernecker, a rosin is reacted with a polyol to give a rosin ester intermediate, which is then reacted with a dienophile to produce an adducted rosin ester. The adducted rosin ester is further esterified with a polyethylene glycol to produce the water-dispersible water insoluble adducted rosin ester (0010). Further, Pernecker discloses that the dienophile can be maleic anhydride (see 0020 disclosing “…the rosin ester intermediate is reacted with a dienophile to produce an adducted rosin ester.” and 0022 discloses “…the dienophile is selected from maleic anhydride….” at 0022). Further, the adducted rosin ester has acid value within the range of from 40-55 mgKOH/g (0029). Moreover, the rosin ester tackifier of Pernecker is useful in pressure sensitive adhesive including polymer emulsion such as styrene-butadiene polymers (0052).
It would have been obvious to select the rosin ester tackifier of Pernecker and use it with the adhesive of Fisher given that Fisher desires presence of tackifier, and use of such tackifier would be obvious for the purpose of forming the adhesive of Fisher with good loop tack and peel adhesion compared with commercial alternatives, even when the coat weight of the adhesive is reduced by 20% (0012 of Fisher).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments submitted in the amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The crux of applicant argument is (a) the adhesive of the present invention is homogenous compound formulation (single-phase mixture) whereas Fisher discloses multicomponent adhesive system, and (b) Fisher does not inherently disclose wash durability. These arguments are addressed by the examiner as set forth below.
As to applicant’s arguments on pages 7-9 (Preamble/Structural and Conceptual Distinction/Functional Implications/No Articulated Reason to Modify Fisher/Dependency on the Preamble), the examiner respectfully disagrees because of the following reasons.
First, as to applicant’s argument that applicant’s adhesive is a homogenous compound formulation (page 7 of the amendment), it is respectfully submitted that this argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The claimed invention recites “An adhesive composition comprising, in a single-phase mixture: a styrene block copolymer; and at least one tackifier….”. Therefore, the claimed invention does not require that the adhesive composition as a whole is homogeneous mixture (single-phase), instead, the adhesive composition includes a mixture of a styrenic block copolymer and at least one tackifier and this mixture is a single-phase. Accordingly, applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Second, as to the claimed single-phase mixture, the examiner respectfully submits that as set forth in the current OA, the adhesive composition of Fisher includes identical styrenic block copolymer and at least one tackifier as claimed. Moreover, as set forth previously, Fisher discloses that the tackifier is a compatible tackifier (column 4, lines 35-40). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the compatible tackifier is a tackifier which when mixed in 50%/50% proportion with a styrenic block copolymers e.g. SIS, SIBS, SEBS, and SEPS, gives substantially homogeneous blend (see 0056 of Fouqany). Absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the adhesive composition of Fisher would inherently comprise “in a single-phase mixture” a styrenic block copolymer and at least one tackifier. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Third, as to applicant’s argument relating to Fisher’s disclosure of a multi-component tape having at least two distinct adhesive layers vs the claimed invention being a single-phase mixture, the examiner respectfully submits that he acknowledges that Fisher discloses a multi-component adhesive system. However, the examiner is not relying on the entirety of the multi-component adhesive system to reject the claimed adhesive composition. As set forth in the previous OA (see page 7) and the current OA, Fisher discloses an adhesive composition at column 3, lines 45-50. This adhesive composition of Fisher contains a styrenic block copolymer and the at least one tackifier as claimed (see current OA and the previous OA). The examiner is relying upon the disclosure of this adhesive composition in Fisher to address the claimed adhesive composition. Accordingly, applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the basis of the rejection.
As to applicant’s arguments on pages 9-11 of the amendment (Wherein the adhesive composition is wash-durable when bonded to a substrate/Fisher’s Adhesive Is a Multilayer System/A Multilayer System Cannot Inherently Exhibit Wash Durability of a Single-Phase Composition/Environmental and Functional Disparity Reinforce Non-Inherency), the examiner respectfully disagrees because of the following reasons.
As set forth previously, the examiner is not relying on the entirety of the multi-component adhesive system to reject the claimed adhesive composition. Fisher discloses adhesive composition at column 3, lines 45-50. As set forth previously, the adhesive composition of Fisher includes identical styrenic block copolymer and at least one tackifier in a single phase mixture as claimed. Further, the claimed invention does not set forth any specific quantitative measurement that specifically define what is meant by wash durability other than reciting “wherein the adhesive composition is wash durable when bonded to a fabric substrate”. Given that Fisher and applicant disclose identical adhesive compositions, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the adhesive composition of Fisher is inherently wash durable when bonded to a fabric substrate. Further, even if applicant were to recite specific quantitative measurement defining wash durability, absent any factual evidence on the record, Fisher’s adhesive composition would still be considered to inherently meet such wash durability. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
As to applicant’s arguments on pages 11-13 (Fisher Teaches Away From Claimed Single-Phase Adhesive Composition/Fisher’s Core Principle is Maintaining Separation of Adhesive Phases/ Modifying Fisher to Form a Single-Phase Adhesive Would Destroy Its Function/ Fisher's Warnings Constitute a Classic Teaching Away/ No Articulated Reason or Expectation of Success), the examiner respectfully disagrees because of the following reasons.
First, applicant’s argument that Fisher teaches away from the claimed single-phase adhesive composition is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. As set forth previously, claimed invention recites “An adhesive composition comprising in a single-phase mixture…”. Second, as set forth previously, the examiner is not relying on the entirety of the multi-component adhesive system to reject the claimed adhesive composition. Third, as set forth previously, the adhesive composition of Fisher inherently comprises “in a single-mixture” the styrenic block copolymer and at least one tackifier as claimed. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
As to applicant’s arguments on pages 13-15 (No Reasonable Expectation of Success/ Fisher's Adhesion Mechanism Rests on Segregation, Not Compatibility/ Applicants' System Achieves Opposite Objectives/ Absence of Predictability in the Art/ Functional Performance Further Undermines Predictability), the examiner respectfully disagrees because of the following reasons.
First, as set forth previously, the examiner is not relying upon the entire multicomponent adhesive system disclosed by Fisher to address the claimed adhesive composition, rather the examiner is relying upon a specific disclosure of the adhesive composition in Fisher (see column 3, lines 45-50). Therefore, the examiner is not modifying Fisher’s multilayer structure into a single-phase adhesive mixture. Second, the claimed invention does not recite integration of the tackifier and styrenic block copolymer into a homogeneous thermoplastic phase as asserted by applicant (see under Applicants' System Achieves Opposite Objectives). Third, as to applicant’s argument “A practitioner following Fisher’s guidance would not have reasonably expected that combining a styrenic block copolymer with a phenolic or alkylphenol tackifier would yield a stable single-phase adhesive-particular not one capable of withstanding repeated washing” (page 14 of the amendment), the examiner respectfully submits that this argument is based on applicant’s personal opinion and without any factual evidence on the record. See MPEP 716.01(c). Further, the claimed invention does not require repeated washing. Fourth, as to applicant’s argument “Wash durability is the product of numerous coupled mechanisms…laundering endurance” (page 14 of the amendment), the examiner respectfully submits that this argument is based on applicant’s personal opinion and without any factual evidence on the record. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
As to the rejections of claims 8, 10, 15, and 19, on pages 16-17 of the amendment, applicant incorporates same arguments that are set forth previously. In response, the examiner incorporates his rebuttal as set forth previously here by reference.
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 ANISH P DESAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am ET to 4:30 PM ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/ANISH P DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 January 28, 2026