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 .
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 1-6, 9, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerstetter, et al., (US20160340480, herein Kerstetter), in the view of Smink et al., (WO2011028206, herein Smink) and Kerstetter-1, et al., (US20120059105, herein Kerstetter-1), as evidenced by Irganox® 1076 datasheet.
Regarding Claims 1-6, 9, 10, Kerstetter teaches the rubber is dynamically vulcanized with the curative in the presence of the thermoplastic resin and the propylene-based elastomer to form the thermoplastic vulcanizate [0018], which indicates dynamically vulcanizing the composition to yield a thermoplastic vulcanizate (TPV), including: the thermoplastic resin, such as a polypropylene [0053]; natural rubber [0031] reads on the vulcanizable elastomer, also including: “Black MB” was a carbon black masterbatch that contained 57.75 wt % polypropylene, 41.1 wt % carbon black, and 0.25 wt % primary antioxidant [0133]; oil [0083].
Kerstetter does not teach the specific hindered phenol antioxidant and range, however, Smink teaches octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate [0031], reads on hindered phenolic antioxidant, with melting range 50-55° C, and comprises an alkyl chain of 18 carbons [as evidenced by Irganox® 1076 datasheet], and in the range of “the antioxidant is added up to about 15% by weight of the masterbatch” [0031], which overlaps the claimed range, structure see below [as evidenced by Irganox® 1076 datasheet]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kerstetter and Smink are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the polypropylene, carbon black and antioxidant based masterbatch formation toward extruded articles manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate [0031], in the range of “the antioxidant is added up to about 15% by weight of the masterbatch” [0031], and further apply the masterbatch with the specific hindered phenol antioxidant and range into the composition formation, because doing so would further achieve the desired property of improved handleability, excellent physical and mechanical strength of the extruded article [0016; 0019] as taught by Smink, who also explicitly teaches antioxidants are incorporated into polymers to stabilize peroxide radicals to prevent degradation [0031] which further lead to the desired processability and the prevention of the loss of mechanical property during materials processing.
Kerstetter teaches carbon black as fillers [0098], but does not teach the specific carbon black dimension as claimed, however, Kerstetter-1 teaches the carbon black may have a particle size of from about 12 nm to about 40 nm [0040], lies in the claimed range. Kerstetter and Kerstetter-1 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the polypropylene, carbon black and antioxidant based thermoplastic vulcanizates (TPV) formation of molded seals as vehicle parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the carbon black may have a particle size of from about 12 nm to about 40 nm [0040] into the composition formation, because doing so would further achieve the desired UV resistance to the thermoplastic vulcanizate [0012] as taught by Kerstetter-1, wherein, the nanoscale carbon black particle sizes significantly increase the polymer-filler interfacial area, lead to the improved UV resistance.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding wherein the TPV has a UV ΔE 3200 hrs of less than 1, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Kerstetter, Smink and Kerstetter-1 teach all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and Kerstetter teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process as of extrusion [0120]. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself, wherein, the instant application discloses processing techniques such as extrusion [Instant App. US20220169834; 0090]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. UV ΔE would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients and amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 12, Kerstetter teaches “mixer” [0101].
Claims 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerstetter, et al., (US20160340480, herein Kerstetter), Smink et al., (WO2011028206, herein Smink) and Kerstetter-1, et al., (US20120059105, herein Kerstetter-1) as applied in claim 1 above, in the view of Chung, et al., (US20170022332, herein Chung).
Regarding Claims 7, 8, Kerstetter teaches “process oils” [0018], but does not explicitly teach wherein the process oil comprises one or more of a Group II base oil and/or a Group II base oil resin-in-oil and the hydrotreating process. However, Chung teaches “Group II oil” [0067]; process oils can be hydrotreated [0070]. Kerstetter and Chung are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the thermoplastic vulcanizates comprising process oil selection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute “Group II oil” [0067] and process oils can be hydrotreated [0070] from Chung into the composition formation, because doing so would further achieve the desired property of oils obtained from a catalytic hydrotreating process have low Noack volatility which can further help improve fogging properties when such oils are used in the TPVs described herein [0071] and optimized viscosity range.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerstetter, et al., (US20160340480, herein Kerstetter), in the view of Smink et al., (WO2011028206, herein Smink) and Kerstetter-1, et al., (US20120059105, herein Kerstetter-1), as evidenced by Irganox® 1076 datasheet.
Regarding Claims 13-14, 16-18, Kerstetter teaches the rubber is dynamically vulcanized with the curative in the presence of the thermoplastic resin and the propylene-based elastomer to form the thermoplastic vulcanizate [0018], which indicates dynamically vulcanizing the composition to yield a thermoplastic vulcanizate (TPV), including: the thermoplastic resin, such as a polypropylene [0053]; curatives include phenolic resins [0085]; natural rubber [0031] reads on the vulcanizable elastomer, and also including: “Black MB” was a carbon black masterbatch that contained 57.75 wt % polypropylene, 41.1 wt % carbon black, and 0.25 wt % primary antioxidant [0133]; oil [0083].
Kerstetter does not teach the specific hindered phenol antioxidant and range, however, Smink teaches octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate [0031], reads on hindered phenolic antioxidant, with melting range 50-55° C, and comprises an alkyl chain of 18 carbons [as evidenced by Irganox® 1076 datasheet], and in the range of “the antioxidant is added up to about 15% by weight of the masterbatch” [0031], which overlaps the claimed range, structure see below [as evidenced by Irganox® 1076 datasheet]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kerstetter and Smink are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the polypropylene, carbon black and antioxidant based masterbatch formation toward extruded articles manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate [0031], in the range of “the antioxidant is added up to about 15% by weight of the masterbatch” [0031] and further apply the masterbatch with the specific hindered phenol antioxidant and range into the composition formation, because doing so would further achieve the desired property of improved handleability, excellent physical and mechanical strength of the extruded article [0016; 0019] as taught by Smink, who also explicitly teaches antioxidants are incorporated into polymers to stabilize peroxide radicals to prevent degradation [0031] which further lead to the desired processability and the prevention of the loss of mechanical property during materials processing.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Kerstetter teaches carbon black as fillers [0098], but does not teach the specific carbon black dimension as claimed, however, Kerstetter-1 teaches the carbon black may have a particle size of from about 12 nm to about 40 nm [0040], lies in the claimed range. Kerstetter and Kerstetter-1 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the polypropylene, carbon black and antioxidant based thermoplastic vulcanizates (TPV) formation of molded seals as vehicle parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the carbon black may have a particle size of from about 12 nm to about 40 nm [0040] into the composition formation, because doing so would further achieve the desired UV resistance to the thermoplastic vulcanizate [0012] as taught by Kerstetter-1, wherein, the nanoscale carbon black particle sizes significantly increase the polymer-filler interfacial area, lead to the improved UV resistance.
Regarding wherein the TPV has a UV ΔE 3200 hrs of less than 1, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Kerstetter, Smink and Kerstetter-1 teach all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and Kerstetter teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process as of extrusion [0120]. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself, wherein, the instant application discloses processing techniques such as extrusion [Instant App. US20220169834; 0090]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. UV ΔE would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients and amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 15, Kerstetter teaches the TPV comprises antioxidants in an amount less than or equal to 2 wt % [0100] overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerstetter, et al., (US20160340480, herein Kerstetter), in the view of Smink et al., (WO2011028206, herein Smink) and Kerstetter-1, et al., (US20120059105, herein Kerstetter-1), as evidenced by Irganox® 1076 datasheet.
Regarding Claims 19, 20, 21, 22, Kerstetter teaches the rubber is dynamically vulcanized with the curative in the presence of the thermoplastic resin and the propylene-based elastomer to form the thermoplastic vulcanizate [0018] via the method of blending by melt-mixing in any order in a mixer heated to above the melting temperature of the thermoplastic resin component [0101], which indicates dynamically vulcanizing the composition to yield a thermoplastic vulcanizate (TPV) and also indicates the mixing temperature is above the thermoplastic resin melting temperature, including: the thermoplastic resin, such as a polypropylene [0053]; natural rubber [0031] reads on the vulcanizable elastomer, and also including: “Black MB” was a carbon black masterbatch that contained 57.75 wt % polypropylene, 41.1 wt % carbon black, and 0.25 wt % primary antioxidant [0133]; oil [0083].
Kerstetter does not teach the specific hindered phenol antioxidant and range, however, Smink teaches octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate [0031], reads on hindered phenolic antioxidant, with melting range 50-55° C, and comprises an alkyl chain of 18 carbons [as evidenced by Irganox® 1076 datasheet], and in the range of “the antioxidant is added up to about 15% by weight of the masterbatch” [0031], which overlaps the claimed range, structure see below [as evidenced by Irganox® 1076 datasheet].
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kerstetter and Smink are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the polypropylene, carbon black and antioxidant based masterbatch formation toward extruded articles manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate [0031], in the range of “the antioxidant is added up to about 15% by weight of the masterbatch” [0031] and further apply the masterbatch with the specific hindered phenol antioxidant and range into the composition formation, because doing so would further achieve the desired property of improved handleability, excellent physical and mechanical strength of the extruded article [0016; 0019] as taught by Smink, who further explicitly teaches antioxidants are incorporated into polymers to stabilize peroxide radicals to prevent degradation [0031] which further lead to the desired processability and the prevention of the loss of mechanical property during materials processing.
Kerstetter teaches carbon black as fillers [0098], but does not teach the specific carbon black dimension as claimed, however, Kerstetter-1 teaches the carbon black may have a particle size of from about 12 nm to about 40 nm [0040], lies in the claimed range. Kerstetter and Kerstetter-1 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the polypropylene, carbon black and antioxidant based thermoplastic vulcanizates (TPV) formation of molded seals as vehicle parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the carbon black may have a particle size of from about 12 nm to about 40 nm [0040] into the composition formation, because doing so would further achieve the desired UV resistance to the thermoplastic vulcanizate [0012] as taught by Kerstetter-1, wherein, the nanoscale carbon black particle sizes significantly increase the polymer-filler interfacial area, lead to the improved UV resistance.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding wherein the TPV has a UV ΔE 3200 hrs of less than 1, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Kerstetter, Smink and Kerstetter-1 teach all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and Kerstetter teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process as of extrusion [0120]. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself, wherein, the instant application discloses processing techniques such as extrusion [Instant App. US20220169834; 0090]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. UV ΔE would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients and amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerstetter, et al., (US20160340480, herein Kerstetter), Smink et al., (WO2011028206, herein Smink) and Kerstetter-1, et al., (US20120059105, herein Kerstetter-1), as applied to claim 19 above, in the further view of Jourdain, et. al., (US20180319961, herein Jourdain).
Regarding Claim 23, Kerstetter, Smink and Kerstetter-1 collectively teach the method of claim 19 as shown above. Kerstetter is silent on the steps of introducing to the blender each of kaolin and zinc oxide powder prior to dynamic vulcanization; however, Jourdain teaches “inorganic filler, kaolin, zinc oxide” [0082]; “followed by addition of the inorganic fillers to make the compositions. Dispersion (or “letdown”) of the masterbatch may take place as part of a processing step used to fabricate articles, such as in the extruder on an injection molding machine” [0096], indicates the kaolin and zinc oxide powder were introduced prior to dynamic vulcanization. Kerstetter and Jourdain are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the thermoplastic vulcanizates via inorganic filler selection and processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “inorganic filler, kaolin, zinc oxide” [0082]; “followed by addition of the inorganic fillers to make the compositions. Dispersion (or “letdown”) of the masterbatch may take place as part of a processing step used to fabricate articles, such as in the extruder on an injection molding machine” [0096] into the composition formation, because doing so would further achieve the product formation toward “molded articles include vehicle sealing systems, coatings, e.g., low friction coating, thermoplastic veneers, thermoplastic overmoldings, films, tapes, noise attenuating devices, automotive interior surfacing, automotive and industrial belts and hoses, packaging (in decorative and protective applications), construction compositions, decorative building compositions and consumer goods such as handbags, backpacks, clothing, hand or power tools, drawer and cabinet liners, picture frames, and hunting decoys.” [0111] as taught by Jourdain.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/6/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kerstetter, et al., (US20160340480, herein Kerstetter), Smink et al., (WO2011028206, herein Smink) and Kerstetter-1, et al., (US20120059105, herein Kerstetter-1).
In this case, the applicant’s arguments are directed toward the amendment of the claims, which has been addressed by the rejection set forth above.
In response to applicant's argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the teachings of Smink to modify the masterbatch and thermoplastic vulcanizate of Kerstetter, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, Kerstetter teaches thermoplastic vulcanizate [0018] comprising: the thermoplastic resin, such as a polypropylene [0053]; natural rubber [0031] reads on the vulcanizable elastomer, and also including: “Black MB” was a carbon black masterbatch that contained 57.75 wt % polypropylene, 41.1 wt % carbon black, and 0.25 wt % primary antioxidant [0133]; oil [0083], collectively lead to the extruded article such as seals [0120], as analogous art, Smink teaches the specific octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate [0031], reads on hindered phenolic antioxidant, and in the range of “the antioxidant is added up to about 15% by weight of the masterbatch” [0031], which lead to the improved handleability, excellent physical and mechanical strength of the extruded article [0016; 0019] as taught by Smink, who also explicitly teaches antioxidants are incorporated into polymers to stabilize peroxide radicals to prevent degradation [0031] which further lead to the desired processability and the prevention of the loss of mechanical property during materials processing. Therefore, the teachings from Kerstetter and Smink further collectively meet the TPV comprises antioxidants additives like hindered phenols, lead to the compositions of this invention can be processed and reprocessed by extrusion [Instant App. US20220169834; 0090] with improve the retention of useful mechanical properties [Instant App. US20220169834; 0043]. Hence, Smink does not teach away from the instant claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, Smink not only teaches the masterbatch composition that includes a colorant, a thermoplastic carrier, a high polymer processing aid, and optionally an additive, as applicant pointed out, but also explicitly teaches the antioxidants including the specific octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate [0031], and Smink expressly identifies these antioxidants as suitable materials for use in the same capacity as the materials included in the examples, as Smink explicitly teaches antioxidants are incorporated into polymers to stabilize peroxide radicals to prevent degradation [0031] which further lead to the desired processability and the prevention of the loss of mechanical property during materials processing, which can meet the compositions of this invention can be processed and reprocessed by extrusion [Instant App. US20220169834; 0090] with improve the retention of useful mechanical properties [Instant App. US20220169834; 0043]. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07. See also In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the genus of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).
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 extension fee 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights