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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (has PRO 62855481, filed on 31 May 2019) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 35-37, 39, 43, 45-47, 51-52, 54, 59-61, 64-66, 126-127, 130-131 and 137-140 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 35 recites the limitations “first solid features” and “second solid features” in connection with the second and third layers, respectively. The Specification does not provide objective boundaries for what physical structures constitute the “second solid features” in the third layer because the third layer is alternatively described as a fibrillated polymer layer (e.g., ePTFE) or a non-woven polyester textile (e.g., PET fibers) (¶[0037], ¶[0211], ¶[0233], ¶¶[0358]–[0364]). As a result, the “second solid features” reasonably include different candidates depending on the material, including node fibril structures, fibers, fiber intersections, or fiber bundles, and Claim 35 further requires measuring a “second representative minor axis” and “spacing” of the second solid features without specifying which structures are to be measured. For a fibrous textile third layer, Claim 35 does not specify whether the “second representative minor axis” and “spacing” are to be determined based on individual fiber diameter, a fiber bundle diameter, a fiber intersection dimension, or a pore opening width between fibers. The general definition in the Specification that solid features are “generally immovable and resistant to deformation” (¶[0209]) is functional and does not identify which structures qualify for measurement with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the scope of Claim 35 is ambiguous. Claims 36–39, 43, 45–47, 51–52, 54, 59–61, 64–66, 126–127, 130–131 and 137–140, which depend on Claim 35, are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 35-37, 39, 43, 45-47, 51-52, 54, 59-61, 64, 126-127, 130-131 and 137-140 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NIKI et al. (US20180264392A1, hereinafter NIKI) in view of BRANCA et al. (US5814405, hereinafter BRANCA) and LI et al. (US20170120175A1, hereinafter LI).
Regarding Claim 35, NIKI discloses a multilayer membrane comprising three distinct structural layers. FIG. 4 illustrates a second porous PTFE membrane 2, a first porous PTFE membrane 1, and a fiber layer 3, with membrane 1 positioned between membrane 2 and the fiber layer (¶[0031]).
The first porous PTFE membrane 1 (i.e., a second layer) comprises fibers with an average diameter of 0.24 to 0.45 μm (¶[0039]) and average fiber lengths of 53 to 274 μm (¶[0041]). It has a pore diameter of 3 to 30 μm (¶[0043]), a thickness of 7 to 36 μm (¶[0045]), which falls within the range of the claimed “a second layer having a first thickness less than about 60 microns”, with a porosity of 90% to 99% (¶[0047]). These structural features define it as a relatively open microporous layer.
The second porous PTFE membrane 2 (i.e., a first layer) comprises fibers with an average diameter of 0.04 to 0.23 μm (¶[0054]) and an average fiber length of 3 to 50 μm (¶[0055]). It has an average pore diameter of 0.1 to 3 μm (¶[0057]) and a thickness of 1 to less than 7 μm (¶[0058]). These dimensions result from biaxial stretching below the PTFE melting point, producing a denser structure than the first porous membrane (¶[0068]).
Fiber layer 3 (i.e., a third layer) comprises a non-woven fabric formed from PET/PE composite fibers, with PET as the core and PE as the sheath (¶[0076]). The fibers have an average diameter of 10 to 30 µm, preferably 15 to 25 µm (¶[0072]), which falls within the claimed range of less than 40 microns. The fiber layer has a thickness of 130 to 200 µm (¶[0073]), a basis weight of 15–100 g/m² (¶[0074]), with high air permeability (¶[0071]).
PNG
media_image1.png
566
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 4 From NIKI et al.
The porous PTFE membranes are formed by stretching under biaxial tension below the melting point of PTFE (¶[0068]), and the fiber layer is laminated to the PTFE membranes using heat-assisted bonding methods, including nip lamination and infrared heating, which preserve layer thickness and structural integrity, where the configuration allows flexible stacking while maintaining direct contact between the PTFE membranes and the fiber layer (¶¶[0077]–[0078]).
However, NIKI does not explicitly disclose that “a majority of a first solid feature spacing is less than about 50 microns,” nor that “a majority of the first solid features has a representative minor axis from about 3 microns to about 20 microns.”
BRANCA discloses a multilayer membrane structure comprising at least two ePTFE layers with distinct node-fibril microstructures, suitable for filtration, medical, and industrial applications where high flow and strength are required (Col. 1, Lns. 13–18; Col. 2, Lns. 3–11). In one embodiment, a paste-extruded ePTFE membrane is laminated to another using calendering, drying, and sequential stretching and sintering to form an asymmetric composite (Col. 3, Ln. 60 – Col. 4, Ln. 2).
The multilayer membrane has elongated nodes interconnected by fibrils. The process uses two stages of stretching, before and after amorphous locking, to define and stabilize the microstructure, where longitudinal expansion sets the scale of the node and fibril dimensions. Subsequent heating above the crystalline melt point coalesces the nodes into solid regions, followed by a transverse stretch that elongates the nodes and separates the fibrils, yielding an open morphology (Col. 4, Lns. 3–33).
In Example 1, a calendered tape is stretched 9:1 longitudinally at 300°C, amorphously locked at 365°C, and stretched 9.1:1 transversely at 375°C. Scanning electron microscopy confirms a uniform node-fibril structure suitable for high-flow applications (Col. 8, Ln. 49 – Col. 9, Ln. 11).
Advantageously, the membrane by BRANCA is highly uniform in thickness, mass per area, and resistance to fluid flow with minimal sensitivity to processing temperature or rate, and high air flow membranes remain easy to handle and integrate into downstream processes (Col. 6, Lns. 9–51), and reinforced nodular ribs oriented transverse to the stretch direction resist longitudinal tear propagation, improving durability for lamination or composite construction without stretch axis failure (Col. 4, Lns. 35–52). In view of NIKI’s multilayer membrane composite, BRANCA’s membrane construction would be selected for use in the composite based on these advantages.
The limitations “first solid features wherein a majority of a first solid feature spacing is less than about 50 microns” and “a majority of the first solid features has a representative minor axis from about 3 microns to about 20 microns” are considered result effective variables for an expanded PTFE membrane formed by sequential stretching and thermal stabilization. BRANCA explains that an additional longitudinal stretch after amorphous locking increases the total post amorphous locking stretch ratio, and states that total stretch ratios after amorphous locking of 24:1 and greater can be achieved (Col. 5, Ln. 55 to Col. 6, Ln. 8). In view of this sequential stretching and thermal stabilization membrane construction approach in BRANCA, applying this membrane construction approach to the porous PTFE membrane in NIKI would allow the microstructure dimensions, including spacing and node size, to be adjusted by selecting stretch ratios and processing conditions to obtain the claimed dimensional ranges.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate sequential stretching and thermal stabilization conditions, as disclosed by BRANCA, into the formation of the multilayer membrane filter by NIKI.
However, modified NIKI does not explicitly disclose that “a majority of a second solid feature spacing is greater than 50 microns.”
In porous filtration media, it is well known that the opening size of a nonwoven layer is selected to balance permeability with particle retention, regardless of the particular end use environment. In this context, LI discloses geocomposites usable in environments having a high content of fine grained geomaterials and addresses filtration and drainage where controlling flow and retention is critical (¶¶[0004]–[0005]).
The geotextile filter includes a primary layer consisting of a nonwoven fabric having an apparent opening size at least about 0.180 mm and a thickness greater than about 1.0 mm at 2 kPa normal load, and a secondary layer consisting of a woven fabric, where the nonwoven fabric is connected to the woven fabric by needle punching such that fibers of the nonwoven fabric are punched through the woven fabric (¶[0011]), and the opening size is selected to work with needles in the needle punching process and lead to the desired pore size for the finished product (¶[0042]). For the nonwoven fiber layer, the recited “spacing” between second solid features corresponds to the openings between adjacent fibers, as characterized by the apparent opening size.
Advantageously, the nonwoven fabrics disclosed by LI include light spots with relatively large openings that degrade filtration performance, and a second layer having a consistent pore structure fixes the nonwoven light spots and prevents particles from piping through the relatively large openings, and a stable textile layer decreases strains exerted on the nonwoven fabric and prevents adverse changes in pore opening size distribution in the finished composite (¶¶[0054]–[0055]).
In view of modified NIKI’s nonwoven fiber third layer in a multilayer membrane composite, and recognizing that filtration principles regarding pore size and permeability are applicable across filtration domains, a person skilled in the art would select the nonwoven opening size to provide a majority second solid feature spacing greater than 50 microns to increase permeability while maintaining particle retention, consistent with LI.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a nonwoven opening size selection, as disclosed by LI, into the nonwoven fiber layer of the multilayer membrane filter by modified NIKI.
Regarding Claim 36, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses that the second porous PTFE membrane (i.e., a first layer) has an average pore diameter of 0.1 to 3 µm (¶[0057]), and a person skilled in the art would select a PTFE membrane grade within NIKI’s disclosed pore size options to meet a target maximum pore size (MPS) less than about 1 micron, which is a routine design choice.
Regarding Claim 37, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses that the second porous PTFE membrane (i.e., a first layer) has a thickness of 1 to less than 7 µm (¶[0058]) and a porosity of 90%–99% consistent with the first porous membrane (¶[0047]), yielding a mass per area of approximately 0.022 to 1.54 g/m², which falls within the claimed “less than about 5 g/m².”
Regarding Claim 39, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. BRANCA discloses in Example 10.1.1 an expanded PTFE membrane formed by paste extrusion, calendering, and sequential biaxial stretching of a PTFE resin containing 5% aluminum oxide (Col. 12, Lns. 32–54). This membrane has a thickness of 50 µm and exhibits transverse tensile strength (mTS(T)) of 80 N/mm and machine direction strength (mTS(M)) of 52 N/mm (Table 3, Entry 10.1.1), which correspond to 80,000 N/m and 52,000 N/m, respectively. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the modified NIKI composite, comprising two ePTFE layers and a non-woven fiber layer, would exceed a tensile load of 40 N/m in its weakest axis.
Regarding Claim 43, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. BRANCA discloses elongated polymer nodes formed through sequential longitudinal and transverse stretching of PTFE following amorphous locking (Col. 4, Lns. 13–33). These nodes exhibit aspect ratios up to 150:1 (Col. 2, Lns. 13–23). Example 1 describes a membrane with a final thickness of 0.0105 inch (266.7 µm), and the post stretch SEM images FIG. 1B illustrate a node-fibril microstructure consisting of elongated nodes interconnected by separated fibrils (Col. 8, Ln. 49 – Col. 9, Ln. 11).
PNG
media_image2.png
551
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1B from BRANCA
The node structures inherently exhibit a representative minor axis, a representative major axis, and a solid feature depth, as they are formed as three dimensional features during biaxial stretching. Given that BRANCA discloses the processing method and stretch ratios that govern node elongation and shape, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select stretching and thermal processing conditions to produce node structures in which at least two of the representative minor axis, major axis, or depth exceed about 5 µm, which is a routine design choice when configuring node geometry in expanded PTFE membranes.
Regarding Claim 45, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses biaxially stretching unsintered PTFE below its melting point to form porous membranes (¶[0068]), and bonding the layers using heat-assisted lamination, including nip and infrared heating (¶[0077]). This bonding places at least a portion of the first solid features at the bonded interface in contact with the first layer, and the bonded interface comprises a bonded solid feature.
Regarding Claim 46, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses biaxially stretching unsintered PTFE below its melting point (¶[0068]), forming a node-fibril microstructure where fibrils are deformable.
Regarding Claim 47, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses that the fiber layer has a thickness of 130 to 200 µm (¶[0073]), which falls within the claimed range of about 30 to 200 µm.
Regarding Claim 51, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses that the third layer comprises a non-woven fabric made of PET/PE composite fibers (¶[0076]), and fiber elements with their diameter are inherent features of woven or non-woven textiles.
Regarding Claim 52, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses that the layers are bonded using heat-assisted lamination techniques, including nip lamination and infrared heating (¶[0077]).
Regarding Claim 54, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses that the second porous PTFE membrane (i.e., a first layer) has a thickness of 1 to less than 7 µm (¶[0058]), and the first porous PTFE membrane (i.e., a second layer) has a thickness of 7 to 36 µm (¶[0045]). The fiber layer (i.e., a third layer) has a thickness of 130 to 200 µm (¶[0073]). The third thickness exceeds the combined thickness of the first and second layers (8–43 µm).
Regarding Claim 59, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses that the first and second porous membranes are formed of PTFE (¶[0044], ¶[0056]).
Regarding Claim 60, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses that the third layer is a non-woven fabric made from PET/PE composite fibers (¶[0076]).
Regarding Claim 61, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses that the third layer is a non-woven fabric formed from PET/PE composite fibers (¶[0076]), which functions as a reinforcing component.
Regarding Claim 64, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses that the first and second porous membranes are both made of PTFE (¶[0031]), and PTFE is a thermoplastic polymer.
Regarding Claim 126, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses that the first porous PTFE membrane 1 has a thickness of 7 to 36 µm (¶[0045]), which is within the claimed “second layer has a first thickness less than about 60 microns.”
Regarding Claim 127, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 61. NIKI discloses that the reinforcing component comprises a non-woven fabric formed from PET/PE composite fiber (¶[0076]).
Regarding Claim 130, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses joining the membrane layers using heat-assisted bonding techniques, including nip lamination and infrared heating (¶[0077]). Such lamination conditions are routinely selected to achieve a desired interlayer bond strength in a composite, and a person skilled in the art would select lamination pressure, temperature, and dwell time to provide a measured composite z-strength greater than 100 kPa.
Regarding Claim 131, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses a PET/PE fiber layer within the composite, with PET as the core and PE as the sheath (¶[0076]). The composite is supported by a frame which serves as an external reinforcing component (¶[0084]).
Regarding Claim 137, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses the third layer as a PET/PE non-woven fiber layer with high porosity and permeability (¶[0071], ¶[0076]), which is reasonably capable of functioning as a vascularization layer.
Regarding Claim 138, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 137. NIKI discloses a structure in which the first porous PTFE membrane 1 is positioned and in contact between the second porous PTFE membrane 2 and the fiber layer 3 (FIG. 4; ¶[0031]).
Regarding Claim 139, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. NIKI discloses the first porous PTFE membrane 1 (i.e., the second layer) as biaxially stretched to form expanded PTFE (¶[0066]), with fibrillated polymer as an inherent feature.
Regarding Claim 140, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 139. BRANCA’s SEM image Fig. 1B from Example 1 shows a post-stretch node-fibril microstructure of expanded PTFE, with nodes as the first solid features and fibrils extending between them.
Claim 65 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NIKI in view of BRANCA and LI as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of NA et al. (US20170001151A1, hereinafter NA).
Regarding Claim 65 and 66, modified NIKI makes obvious a multilayer membrane of Claim 35. However, modified NIKI does not explicitly disclose “the biocompatible membrane composite has thereon a surface coating, the surface coating being selected from antimicrobial agents, antibodies, pharmaceuticals, and biologically active molecules,” nor “at least one of the first layer, the second layer, or the third layer has a hydrophilic coating at least partially thereon.”
NA discloses a thin-film composite membrane comprising a polyamide barrier layer on a porous support and a surface coating that includes a microgel core with multiple hydrophilic polymer arms (¶[0007]). The coating includes both antifouling and antimicrobial moieties and can be applied to the membrane as an ultra-thin, often monolayer, coating using a simple aqueous process that preserves the membrane’s permeability (¶[0008]).
The hydrophilic arms contain neutral polyethylene glycol moieties for antifouling and amine-functionalized groups that form positively charged ammonium species under neutral or acidic conditions, providing antimicrobial functionality. The star polymers electrostatically self-assemble on the negatively charged polyamide surface, forming a chemically and physically stable monolayer coating. The resulting surface modification enhances wettability and inhibits microbial formation (¶¶[0064]–[0066]).
Advantageously, the antifouling and antimicrobial coatings disclosed by NA enhance thin-film composite membranes by incorporating star polymers with hydrophilic polyethylene glycol moieties that repel foulants and positively charged amine-functional groups that inhibit bacterial growth (¶¶[0005]–[0006]), and form an ultra-thin, often monolayer, surface layer that preserves membrane permeability while preventing biofilm formation (¶[0008]). In view of modified NIKI’s multilayer membrane composite, a person skilled in the art would apply NA’s ultra-thin antimicrobial surface coating to improve biocompatibility while preserving permeability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the antimicrobial coating, as disclosed by NA, onto the surface of the multilayer membrane by modified NIKI.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed October 23, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 35–37, 39, 43, 45–47, 51–52, 54, 59–61, 64, 126–127, 130–131, and 137–140 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and Claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for Claim 35 is maintained. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained with update in view of NIKI, BRANCA, LI, and NA.
The Applicant argues that “solid feature” is understood in context in response to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of Claim 35. This argument is not persuasive because Claim 35 recites the limitation “second solid features” for the third layer and further requires determining “a majority of a second solid feature spacing” and “a representative minor axis” for the second solid features, but the claim does not provide objective boundaries for what physical structure in the third layer constitutes the “second solid features” for purposes of those measurements, such that it is unclear what must be identified and measured to satisfy the spacing and minor axis requirements. Applicant’s citations to example embodiments do not resolve this ambiguity because the claim does not set forth an objective basis for selecting which third layer structure is the “second solid feature” for measurement, and different plausible selections yield different spacing and minor axis values, such that the scope remains unclear.
The Applicant argues that NIKI does not expressly or inherently teach that a majority of a second solid feature spacing is greater than 50 microns for the third layer, and contends the Examiner’s inference based on NIKI’s high air permeability, thickness, and basis weight is unsupported, such that the rejection relies on common sense without adequate factual foundation. This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner has provided LI as prior art evidence that expressly addresses opening size for a fibrous layer corresponding to the third layer, which supports spacing greater than 50 microns. Accordingly, Applicant’s critique of the Examiner’s “common sense” inference does not overcome the maintained rejection.
The Applicant argues that modifying NIKI with BRANCA would render NIKI unsuitable for its intended purpose, and characterizes the rejection as substituting BRANCA’s manufacturing process for NIKI’s process in a manner that would destroy NIKI’s fiber diameter relationship and permeability characteristics. This argument is not persuasive because it is based on an inaccurate characterization of the modification relied upon by the rejection. The rejection does not require substituting BRANCA’s manufacturing process for NIKI’s process, nor does it require changing NIKI’s layered design objective. Rather, BRANCA is applied as evidence that the stretching and thermal stabilization conditions used to form expanded PTFE are result-effective variables for controlling the resulting node and fibril morphology. Since NIKI already forms porous PTFE membranes by stretching, a person skilled in the art would routinely select stretching and stabilization conditions in forming NIKI’s porous PTFE membrane to obtain a desired micrometer-scale morphology consistent with the recited representative minor axis and feature spacing. Accordingly, Applicant’s “unsuitable for intended purpose” argument is not commensurate with the modification relied upon by the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is (703)756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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, PREM C. SINGH can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/TAK L. CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777