DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, and 33 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.
Regarding claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, and 33, claim 21 recites a first die-to-collector distance from about 110 mm to about 150 mm, and a second die-to-collector distance from about 110 mm to about 150 mm, wherein each of the first die-to-collector distance and the second die-to-collector distance is measured from the first spunbond layer. Applicants’ specification at paragraph 0075 as originally filed teaches that the distance 34 is the distance from the die of beam 23 to the collection surface 22 of the endless forming belt. The specification does not appear to indicate that each of the die-to-collector distances are measured from the first spunbond layer. Therefore, the limitation constitutes new matter.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2003/0018310 to Allen in view of EP 2266514 to Udengaard and USPN 6,471,910 to Haggard.
Regarding claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 32, Allen teaches a multi-layer absorbent product including a fibrous nonwoven top sheet, a fibrous nonwoven absorbent core layer, and a fibrous nonwoven back sheet, wherein each component layer or sheet is meltspun and laminated together at a combining station (Allen, Abstract). Allen teaches a bottom sheet forming station comprising a combination of a spunbond die assembly and at least one meltblowing die assembly, or preferably two meltblowing die assemblies (Id., paragraph 0057, Fig. 1, claims 1-26). Allen teaches that the spunbond die assembly processes a thermoplastic resin such as polypropylene into filaments which are collected as a web (Id., paragraph 0057, Fig. 1). Allen teaches depositing meltblown fibers forming a spunbond/meltblown composite, and meltblowing additional thermoplastic fibers forming a three-layer spunbond/meltblown/meltblown composite (Id., paragraph 0058). Allen teaches that the top sheet and core/bottom sheet composite are brought together (Id., paragraph 0066), wherein the component layers may be bonded together by thermobonding (Id., paragraph 0097). Allen teaches that the resin used in the spunbond die assembly is preferably polypropylene (Id., paragraph 0102) and that the resin used in the meltblowing dies is preferably polypropylene (Id., paragraph 0103).
Regarding the claimed die-to-collector distance, Allen teaches meltblowing fibers onto a spunbond layer (Allen, Fig. 1), wherein exemplary DCDs in inches for the core forming station are 3 to 20 inches, preferably 3 to 8 inches (Id., paragraph 0104). It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the multiple meltblown layers would have similar and overlapping DCD
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the barrier art at the time the invention was made to form the multi-layer product of Allen, wherein the polypropylene meltblown layers are deposited from a die having a die-to-collector distance measured from the spunbond layer, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional multi-layer product using a die-to-collector distance as established by Allen. Note that a plain reading of die-to-collector distance would entail a DCD which overlaps with the claimed ranges for each of the first and second DCD.
Allen does not appear to teach the claimed second spunbond layer and basis weights of each of the layers and in the claimed relationship and the claimed pore size, as set forth in claim 22, and the claimed cross-section of the fibers.
Regarding the claimed second spunbond layer and basis weight, Udengaard teaches a similar absorbent hygiene article that comprises a barrier component which comprises a nonwoven barrier sheet, comprising at least a spunbond nonwoven web or layer with spunbond fibers and/or a meltblown nonwoven web or layer with meltblown fibers (Udengaard, Abstract). Udengaard teaches that the fibers of the nonwoven layer are made of thermoplastic polymers, wherein polypropylene compositions are preferred (Id., paragraphs 0026-0030). Udengaard teaches that the nonwoven barrier sheet may comprise one or more nonwoven webs or layers (Id., paragraph 0056), including a spunmelt web (also referred to as “SMS” web), wherein one or several layers of spunbond fibers are laid down, then one or several layers of meltblown fibers are directly cast onto the layer while still in a partially molten state, and lastly one or several layers of spunbond fibers again, followed by a bonding step (Id., paragraphs 0061, 0066-0070). Udengaard teaches that the webs may be laminated or partially laminated to one another by bonding methods including thermal bonding (Id., paragraphs 0062-0065). Udengaard teaches that the total weight percentage of the meltblown web(s) or layers may for example be from 5% to 30% by weight of the nonwoven barrier sheet, and that the total weight of the meltblown webs in the nonwoven barrier sheet may for example be from 1.5 to 5 g/m2 (Id., paragraph 0072). Udengaard teaches that the nonwoven barrier sheet may have pores of a mean flow pore size within the range of from 1 to 30 microns, and preferably from 5 to 20 microns (Id., paragraph 0074). Udengaard teaches that the nonwoven barrier sheet may preferably have a basis weight of from 10 g/m2 to 70 g/m2, preferably from 15 g/m2 to 35 g/m2 (Id, paragraph 0075). Udengaard teaches that thinner and more meltblown fibers result in a lower pore size of the nonwoven and higher surface area of the fibers, such that higher barrier properties are achievable (Id., paragraph 0070). Udengaard teaches that the barrier component may have a desired hydrostatic head value and surface tension strike through value (Id., paragraphs 0076-0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the multi-layer product of Allen, and laying an additional outer spunbond layer, and adjusting and varying the basis weights of each of the layers and the product, such as within the claimed ranges and within the claimed relationship, as taught by Udengaard, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional multi-layer product having known and desirable basis weights suitable for similar applications, where higher barrier properties are desirable.
Regarding the claimed pore size, as set forth above, Udengaard teaches a similar structure for a similar purpose as the prior art, wherein the nonwoven barrier sheet may have pores of a mean flow pore size within the range of from 1 to 30 microns, and preferably from 5 to 20 microns (Udengaard, paragraph 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the diaper art at the time the invention was made to form the lightweight nonwoven barrier laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the laminate comprises a mean flow pore size, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Udengaard, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional lightweight nonwoven barrier laminate having a pore diameter known in the art as being predictably suitable for SMS or SMMS laminates used in absorbent articles based on the desired barrier properties.
Although the prior art combination does not appear to specifically teach that the pore size is measured at 10% of cumulative filter flow, the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as the claimed invention, including a flow pore size. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the claimed pore size measured at the claimed cumulative filter flow is either taught by the prior art combination, or naturally flows from the structure of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding the claimed cross-section of the fibers, Haggard teaches that it was known in the nonwoven barrier art to form a nonwoven fabric formed form a spunbond process by extruding generally ribbon-shaped fibers to achieve a substantially uniform molecular orientation throughout a transverse cross-section of the fibers, yielding stronger fibers (Haggard, Abstract, column 14 lines 56-67). Haggard teaches that the ribbon-shaped fibers are extruded in a spunbond process (Id., Abstract), wherein a spunbond process refers to a process of forming a nonwoven fabric or web from thin fibers or filaments (Id., column 1 lines 33-50). Therefore, the ribbon-shaped fibers of Haggard appear to be thin fibers or filaments.
Haggard teaches that round fibers tend to be relatively stiff and tend to produce fabrics having a texture that is less soft (Haggard, column 1 lines 51-59), which produces fabrics having limited surface area coverage and limited ability to serve as a barrier material (Id., column 1 lines 60-67). Additionally, Haggard teaches that round fibers inherently have a limited surface area to collect or block fluids (Id., column 2 lines 39-45). Haggard teaches that ribbon-shaped fiber nonwoven fabrics have more coverage, enhanced filtration properties due to the greater fiber surface area for a given basis weight, increased softness since ribbon-shaped fibers can bend more easily, and increased bonding due to greater contact area between fibers (Id., column 4 lines 38-53). Haggard teaches that a web formed from ribbon-shaped fibers can be coupled to non-ribbon webs or laminates in a multi-layered product (Id., column 5 lines 25-33), wherein the ribbon-shaped fiber web can be composed solely of ribbon-shaped fibers (Id., column 14 lines 38-55). Haggard teaches that the nonwoven fabric can be used in a variety of products where softness, strength, stretchability, filtration or fluid barrier properties, and high coverage at a low fabric weight are desirable or advantageous, including disposable articles and medical fabrics such as surgical gowns and drapes (Id., column 5 lines 34-40, column 14 lines 56-67).
Haggard teaches that the ribbon-shaped fibers can comprise melt spinnable resins such as polypropylene (Haggard, column 7 lines 59-63), wherein the aspect ratio of the fiber is at least approximately 3.0 (Id., column 6 lines 30-53) such as 3.0 or 6.0 (Id., column 7 lines 24-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the barrier art at the time the invention was made to form the multi-layer product of the prior art combination, wherein the cross-section of the meltblown fibers and spunbond filaments are ribbon-shaped, including having an aspect ratio of the fiber is at least approximately 3.0, such as 3.0 or 6.0, as taught by Haggard, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional multi-layer product suitable for use in diapers, having predictably enhanced softness, strength, stretchability, filtration or fluid barrier properties, and high coverage at a low fabric weight suitable for the intended application.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, the prior art combination teaches that each of the layers may comprise polypropylene (Allen, paragraphs 0102-0103).
Regarding claim 27, the prior art combination does not appear to teach the specific composition of the meltblown layer. However, the prior art combination establishes that the meltblown web has improved barrier properties. Additionally, Haggard teaches that the ribbon-shaped fiber web encompasses mixed fiber embodiments, wherein ribbon-shaped fibers and conventional (e.g. round) fibers are simultaneously spun from a single spinneret to produce a sheet of mixed fiber composition (Haggard, column 14 lines 38-55). Haggard teaches that fibers having a round transverse cross-sectional shape are the most common and least expensive fibers used to form nonwoven fabrics (Id., column 1 lines 51-59). Haggard discloses advantages of ribbon-shaped fibers over round fibers, such as more coverage, enhanced filtration properties due to the greater fiber surface area for a given basis weight, increased softness since ribbon-shaped fibers can bend more easily, and increased bonding due to greater contact area between fibers (Id., column 4 lines 38-53). It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that including a minor amount of round fibers may be beneficial, from the perspective of at least cost and availability, while additionally providing a balance of properties, such as filtration properties and softness, suitable for the intended application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the multi-layer product of the prior art combination, wherein each meltblown layer comprises ribbon-shaped fibers in combination with non-ribbon shaped fibers, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Haggard, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional multi-layer product, which comprises cheaper and more available fibers, while additionally providing a balance of properties, such as filtration properties and softness, suitable for the intended application.
Regarding claim 32, the prior art combination teaches that the multi-layer product is thermobonded (Allen, paragraph 0097).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Udengaard and Haggard, as applied to claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 32 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2004/0092900 to Hoffman.
Regarding claim 29, the prior art combination establishes that the multi-layer products are suitable for use in absorbent articles and barrier applications including medical gowns and drapes, and disposable articles and medical fabrics. The prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed pore size and air permeability. However, Hoffman teaches a disposable absorbent article with a backsheet and a first topsheet and preferably a second topsheet (Hoffman, Abstract). Hoffman teaches that the second topsheets are air-permeable to ensure comfortable wear to the user and to help reduce the risk of skin problems, wherein the topsheet has an air permeability of at least 35 Darcy/mm (Id., paragraph 0072). Note that 1 Darcy/m is equivalent to 0.398 m/min. Hoffman teaches that the second topsheet has uniform pore size distribution with small pores, wherein the topsheet has pores with a maximum pore size most preferably less than 25 µm (Id., paragraph 0080), and preferably a mean pore size less than 20 µm (Id., paragraph 0081). Hoffman teaches that the topsheet comprises preferably at least two layers, one of which is a meltblown layer and another is a spunbond layer (Id., paragraph 0083), wherein preferred executions are SMS and SMMS nonwoven laminates (Id., paragraph 0084) formed from polypropylene fibers (Id., paragraph 0085). Hoffman teaches that the second topsheet is preferably very thin, soft and compliant, preferably having a very low basis weight less than 25 g/m2 or even less than 15 g/m2 (Id., paragraph 0087). Hoffman teaches that the second topsheet can reduce bowel movement waste leakage, whereby the second topsheet traps bowel movement (Id., paragraphs 0003, 0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the diaper art at the time the invention was made to form the lightweight nonwoven barrier laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the laminate comprises a pore diameter and air permeability, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Hoffman, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional lightweight nonwoven barrier laminate having a pore diameter and air permeability known in the art as being predictably suitable for SMS or SMMS laminates used in absorbent articles, wherein the structure predictably allows for reduced bowel movement waste leakage, such that when used, for example as a second topsheet, the structure allows for trapping of bowel movement.
Although the prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed low surface tension liquid strike through flow and the claimed ratio of low surface tension liquid strike through flow to air permeability. However, as set forth above, the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as the claimed invention, including pore diameter and air permeability, as the claimed invention. Additionally, Applicants do not recite further elements which are necessarily required to meet the claimed limitations. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the claimed properties naturally flow from the structure of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Udengaard and Haggard, as applied to claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 32 above, and further in view of USPN 5,804,512 to Lickfield.
Regarding claim 33, the prior art combination teaches that the multi-layer product is thermobonded (Allen, paragraph 0097). The prior art combination does not appear to teach a plurality of discrete thermal bonds. However, Lickfield teaches a nonwoven laminate fabric includes first and second nonwoven webs formed of spunbonded filaments and a nonwoven web of meltblown microfibers having a basis weight between about 1 and 20 gsm sandwiched between and bonded to the first and second nonwoven webs to form a composite nonwoven fabric (Lickfield, Abstract). Lickfield teaches that the outer plies have basis weights in the range of about 10 to about 100 gsm, wherein the thermoplastic filaments can be made of polyolefins such as polypropylene (Id., column 3 line 43 to column 4 line 17). Lickfield teaches that the microfibers of meltblown web can be formed of various thermoplastic materials including polyolefins such as polypropylene (Id., column 4 lines 35-46). Lickfield teaches that the layers are bonded together by thermal bonding, including a multiplicity of discrete thermal bonds distributed throughout the fabric to form a coherent fabric (Id., column 4 lines 59-67). Lickfield teaches that the layers are bonded together by thermal bonding, including a multiplicity of discrete thermal bonds distributed throughout the fabric to form a coherent fabric (Id., column 4 lines 59-67). Lickfieldn teaches that the laminate fabrics exhibit high flexibility and superior softness (Id., column 11 lines 29-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the multi-layer product of the prior art combination, wherein the layers are thermobonded including a multiplicity of discrete thermal bonds, as taught by Lickfield, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional multi-layer product which is bonded in a known manner to form laminate fabrics exhibiting high flexibility and superior softness.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed December 23, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Allen does not disclose depositing a first and a second meltblown layer from the claimed die-to-collector distance, with the claimed combined meltblown basis weight and the claimed ribbon-shaped continuous filaments having the claimed aspect ratio. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, Allen teaches meltblowing fibers onto a spunbond layer, wherein exemplary DCD distances in inches for the core forming station are 3 to 20 inches, preferably 3 to 8 inches, which overlaps with the claimed ranges for each of the first and second DCD.
Additionally, Allen alone is not relied on to teach the claimed combined meltblown basis weight and the claimed ribbon-shaped continuous filaments having the claimed aspect ratio. Therefore, Applicants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the current rejection.
Additionally, although Applicants rely on Tables 10 and 11 to show DCD values to show that such values consistently produce pore sizes as claimed, it is noted that the limitation directed to the DCD values in totality lacks support in the specification as originally claimed. Additionally, it is unclear if the examples shown in the Tables are consistent with the claimed invention. For example, Examples 1-10 recite a distance from die to collector distance which are identical for each of the 2nd and 3rd beams. Based on the claimed invention, which explicitly requires each of the first die-to-collector distance and the second die-to-collector distance being measured from the first spunbond layer, such a structure as shown at Examples 1-10 cannot be within the scope of the claim, as that would require each of the meltblown layers to be formed at the exact same distance. Therefore, Applicants’ reliance on the Tables is inconclusive.
Applicants argue that Udengaard does not disclose pore size measured at 10% cumulative filter flow, nor the DCD values or the use of the claimed filaments having the aspect ratios. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Udengaard does not disclose the pore size measured at 10% cumulative filter flow, Udengaard establishes mean flow pore size which would appear to overlap with the claimed property. As set forth in the Rejection, the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as the claimed invention, including a flow pore size. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the claimed pore size measured at the claimed cumulative filter flow is either taught by the prior art combination, or naturally flows from the structure of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Applicants have not proven otherwise.
Additionally, as set forth above, Udengaard alone is not relied on to teach the claimed DCD value or the use of the claimed filaments having the aspect ratios. Therefore, Applicants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the current rejection.
Applicants argue that Haggard does not disclose limiting the aspect ratio to no greater than about 7:1, nor the coordinating fiber shape with a dual-layer meltblown structure. Additionally, Applicants argue that Haggard does not disclose limiting non-ribbon shaped fibers as claimed, nor the basis weights and the claimed pore size at 10% cumulative filter flow.
Regarding Applicants’ arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Haggard teaches that the ribbon-shaped fibers can comprise melt spinnable resins such as polypropylene, wherein the aspect ratio of the fiber is at least approximately 3.0, such as 3.0 or 6.0, which are values within the claimed range.
Additionally, Haggard teaches that ribbon-shaped fiber nonwoven fabrics have more coverage, enhanced filtration properties due to the greater fiber surface area for a given basis weight, increased softness since ribbon-shaped fibers can bend more easily, and increased bonding due to greater contact area between fibers. Therefore, Haggard establishes the use of ribbon-shaped fibers and the benefits of including ribbon-shaped fibers. Additionally, Haggard teaches that a web formed from ribbon-shaped fibers can be coupled to non-ribbon webs or laminates in a multi-layered product, wherein the ribbon-shaped fiber web can be composed solely of ribbon-shaped fibers. Therefore, is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that including a minor amount of round fibers may be beneficial, from the perspective of at least cost and availability, while additionally providing a balance of properties, such as filtration properties and softness, suitable for the intended application. Applicants have not established to the contrary.
Additionally, as set forth above, Haggard alone is not relied on to teach the claimed DCD value or the basis weights and the claimed pore size. Therefore, Applicants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the current rejection.
Applicants argue that Hoffman does not disclose a low surface tension liquid strike-through flow, air permeability, nor the claimed ratio. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hoffman teaches a similar SMMS multilayer product having an air permeability of at least 35 Darcy/mm and a maximum pore size most preferably less than 25 µm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the diaper art to form the lightweight nonwoven barrier laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the laminate comprises a pore diameter and air permeability, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Hoffman, having a pore diameter and air permeability known in the art as being predictably suitable for SMS or SMMS laminates used in absorbent articles, wherein the structure predictably allows for reduced bowel movement waste leakage, such that when used, for example as a second topsheet, the structure allows for trapping of bowel movement. Applicants have not established to the contrary.
Additionally, although Applicants argue that Hoffman does not disclose the claimed die to collector distances, Hoffman alone is not relied on to teach the claimed DCD value. Therefore, Applicants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the current rejection.
Applicants argue that Lickfield does not disclose the claimed continuous filaments and aspect ratios, nor depositing dual meltblown layers at the claimed DCD value, and the claimed basis weights and pore size. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lickfield is only relied on to teach the predictable benefits of thermobonding as claimed. Applicants’ remaining arguments are not commensurate in scope with the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786