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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Withdrawn Rejections:
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on 11/24/2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
The application is examined in view of citrus greening as specific plant disease; Candidatus Liberibacter as specific microbial Pathogen; citrus tree as specific plant; mixture of humic and fulvic acid as specific growth stimulant; irrigation application as specific application method; fruit drop as specific symptom. Claims 29-31, 38-44, 46, 48-49 and 52 read on the elected species and are under examination; 47 and 50-51 do not read on the elected species and are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 29-31, 38-44 and 46-52 are pending; claims 29-31, 38-44, 46, 48-49 and 52 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/24/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 29-31, 38, 43, 46 and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, JR. et al. (US20190090476) in view of Smiling Gardener (https ://web.archive.org/web/20140320064011 /https://www.smilinggardener.com/sale/seaminerals-fertilizer/), Abrao et al. (“Copaifera langsdorffii oleoresin and its isolated compounds: antibacterial effect and antiproliferative activity in cancer cell lines”, BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine (2015) 15:443), Dean (US8076266), Yananton (US8173857) and Man et al. (US20050192197).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Smith, JR. et al. teaches Methods, compositions, and systems comprising microemulsions for agricultural use are generally provided (abstract). Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas) is the causal bacteria of Huanglongbing ([0005]). In some embodiments, microemulsion compositions for treating foliage of a plant are provided comprising from about 3 wt % to about 22 wt % of a hydrocarbon solvent; from about 10 wt % to about 50 wt % of at least one type of surfactant; and from about 20 wt % to about 50 wt % of a first aqueous phase comprising a water-soluble agriculturally active chemical ([0022]). In some embodiments, the hydrocarbon solvent comprises a terpene solvent ([0024]). In some embodiment, the terpene is pine oil ([0077]). In some embodiments, the microemulsion comprises an aqueous phase comprising water. In some embodiments, the water comprises surface water derived from lakes, ponds, reservoirs, rivers, streams, or the like. In some embodiments, the water comprises well water. In some embodiments, the water comprises tap water. In some embodiments, the aqueous phase is present in the microemulsion in an amount from about 10 wt % to about 70 wt %, or from about 35 wt % to about 60 wt %, or from about 20 wt % to about 50 wt %, or from about 4 wt % to about 60 wt % versus the total microemulsion ([0053]). In some embodiments, the microemulsion may be used as an adjuvant to increase the activity of an agriculturally active chemical (AAC) in a plant or crop. The term AAC generally refers to compounds and mixtures thereof, which can be used as agricultural fertilizers, nutrients, plant growth accelerants, herbicides, plant growth controlling chemicals, and other chemicals which are effective in killing plants, insects, microorganisms, fungi, bacteria and the like. AACs may be commonly referred to as herbicides, insecticides, pesticides, bactericides, fertilizers, plant, nutrient and plant growth regulators (including phytohormones), nematocides, fumigants, synergists, or other chemical compounds ([0111]), Suitable agriculturally active chemicals include but are not limited to herbicides, insecticides, pesticides, fungicides, bactericides, fertilizer, plant nutrients and plant growth regulators that may advantageously be applied to plant foliage, or combinations thereof. Suitable AACs include but are not limited to oxytetracycline, FireLine™ and FireWall™ (AgroSource™), Mycoshield® (Nufarm®), streptomycin, glyphosate, 2,4-D, and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). In some embodiments, the AACs may be used to treat Huanglongbing (e.g., citrus greening) ([0112]). In some embodiments, the microemulsion may be used as an adjuvant in combination with solutions of AACs, ultralow volume solutions of AACs, emulsifiable concentrates, soluble powders, wettable powders, suspension concentrates, flowable concentrates, water dispersible granules, and granules. In some embodiments, the AAC is a water-soluble compound. In some embodiments, the AAC is a lipophilic water-insoluble compound ([0113]). Spray Application to Plant Foliage ([0114]). In some embodiments, the microemulsions described herein are (e.g., comprising at least one solvent, a surfactant, and a first aqueous phase) combined with an ACC for application to plant foliage. The microemulsions may be combined with one or more AACs at the manufacturing facility. In some embodiments, the AAC is included in the microemulsion (e.g., comprising a solvent, at least one surfactant, and a first aqueous phase), when manufactured, followed by dilution of the microemulsion with a second aqueous phase to form a nanodroplet dispersion ([0115]). The microemulsion described herein may be diluted using methods known in the art. In some embodiments, the microemulsion is added to a second aqueous phase. The microemulsion may be present in the second aqueous phase in any suitable amount, for example, from about 0.01 wt % to about 5 wt %, or from about 0.01 wt % to about 2 wt %. ([0118]).
Smiling Gardener teaches sea mineral fertilizer is favorite organic fertilizer (first page).
Abrao et al. teaches antibacterial action of the Copaifera langsdorffii oleoresin and ten compounds isolated from this oleoresin against multiresistant bacteria (abstract).
Dean teaches gum rosin in the fertilizer and fungicide composition (column 14, line 1-8).
Yananton teaches Gum rosin was once the only commercial Source of rosin and is the oleoresin (pine gum) of the living pine tree (column 15, line 25-30).
Man et al. teaches composition can include an effective amount of antimicrobial agent, such as about 0.001 wt-% to about 60 wt-% antimicrobial agent, about 0.01 wt-% to about 15 wt-% antimicrobial agent, or about 0.08 wt-% to about 2.5 wt-% antimicrobial agent (page 19, [0211]). The antimicrobial compositions can also be used plant species to reduce surface microbial populations. Particular plant Surfaces include both harvested and growing leaves, roots, Seeds, Skins or shells, Stems, Stalks, tubers, corms, fruit, and the like (page 23, [0254]). In one embodiment, the composition is a concentrate composition (page 17, [0189]).
When the density of the aqueous composition is about 1g/ml, the percentage by weight is about the same as percentage by volume. Thus, the percentage by weight is applied directly as percentage by volume without additional calculation or discussion.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the instant application and Smith, JR. et al. is that Smith, JR. et al. do not expressly teach salt water, gum rosin and amount. This deficiency in Smith, JR. et al. is cured by the teachings of Smiling Gardener, Abrao et al., Dean, Yananton and Man et al.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Smith, JR. et al., as suggested by Smiling Gardener, Abrao et al., Dean, Yananton and Man et al., and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include sea mineral in the aqueous phase of the plant treating composition because sea mineral is suitable fertilizer ingredient. MPEP 2144.07. Under guidance from Smith, JR. et al. teaching fertilizer, Smiling Gardener teaching sea mineral as fertilizer, it is obvious to include sea mineral in the aqueous phase of the plant treating composition and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include gum rosin in the plant treating composition because gum rosin is a suitable ingredient in the plant treating composition. MPEP 2144.07. Under guidance from Smith, JR. et al. teaching bactericide, Abrao et al. teaching antibacterial action of the Copaifera langsdorffii oleoresin (gum rosin as evidenced by Yananton), Dean teaching gum rosin in the fertilizer and fungicide composition, it is obvious to include gum rosin in the plant treating composition and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include gum rosin from 0.01% to 15% because this is optimization under prior art condition or through routing experimentation. MPEP 2144.05. Under guidance from Man et al. teaches 0.01% to 15% of antimicrobial (bactericide) in the plant treating concentrate, it is obvious to include 0.01% to 15% of gum rosin (bactericide) and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 29-31, 38, prior arts teach a method of treating citrus with citrus greening by diluting an emulsion composition with water and applying the diluted composition to citrus, the emulsion comprising agriculturally active chemical, gum rosin from 0.01% to 15%; solvent such as pine oil from 3-22%; 10-50% of surfactant; 20-50% of water and sea mineral (salt), this meets the limitation of salt water according to applicant’s specification.
Regarding the limitation of “wherein the application of the composition mitigates at least one symptoms of the disease” in claim 29 and functional properties in claims 46 and 48-49, these are regarded as results from prior art process. In summary, although the reference is silent about all the functional properties instantly claimed, it does not appear that the claim language or limitations result in a manipulative difference in the method steps when compared to the prior art disclosure. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Ben Venue Laboratories, 58 USPQ2d 1508 (CAFC 2001). “It is a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the process again patentable.” In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Granting a patent on the discovery of an unknown but inherent function would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See M.P.E.P. 2145. On this record, it is reasonable to conclude that the same plant is being applied the same composition comprising the active agents by the same mode of application in the same amount in both the instant claims and the prior art reference. The fact that Applicant may have discovered yet another beneficial effect from the method set forth in the prior art does not mean that they are entitled to receive a patent on that method. Thus, prior art teaches, either expressly or inherently implied, each and every limitation of the instant claims. it remains the Examiner's position that the instantly claimed method is obvious.
Regarding claim 43, Smith, JR. et al. teaches application to plant foliage.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 39-42, 44 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, JR. et al. (US20190090476) in view of Smiling Gardener (https ://web.archive.org/web/20140320064011 /https://www.smilinggardener.com/sale/seaminerals-fertilizer/), Abrao et al. (“Copaifera langsdorffii oleoresin and its isolated compounds: antibacterial effect and antiproliferative activity in cancer cell lines”, BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine (2015) 15:443), Dean (US8076266), Yananton (US8173857) and Man et al. (US20050192197), as applied for the above 103 rejections for claims 29-31, 38, 43, 46 and 48-49, further in view of Sebestyen et al. (WO2016181176), Perez et al. (“Antimicrobial Action of Compounds from Marine Seaweed”, Mar. Drugs 2016, 14, 52, 1-38), Olson et al. (US20130145805), Muir (US4952229) and Paldi et al. (WO2015170325).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Smith, JR. et al., Smiling Gardener, Abrao et al., Dean, Yananton and Man et al. teaching s have already been discussed in the above 103 rejections and are incorporated herein by reference.
Sebestyen et al. teaches the use of hydrolysate of alginite and hydrolysate of vermicompost or derivatives thereof as fertilizer and/or plant conditioner. According to advantageous embodiment the hydrolysates together or separately are absorbed onto a solid carrier and the thus obtained solid particles are granulated or formed into suspension or suspoemulsion (abstract). The suspension can contain preferably alginite, gafsaphosphate, urea, dried seaweed as nutrient (page 36, line 15-20). In one example, dried seaweed is included at 5% (page 55, line 15-20).
Perez et al. teaches antimicrobial action of seaweed including green, brown and red seaweed (abstract).
Olson et al. teaches soil improver (abstract). The soil improver includes 1-10% of chelator (claims 1-2 and 8). The chelator can comprise many different ingredients such as humic acid, fulvic acid. The humic acid or other chelator stimulates the plant into being ready to absorb nutrients, and in one embodiment the humic acid is water soluble. In one embodiment, the chelator acts as a micronutrient source for the microbes (page 2, [0018]). In one embodiment, the soil improver is wet state such as slurry includes chelator 1-30% of humic acid, 0-20% of fulvic acid; and 1-30% of seaweed as nutrient. In one embodiment the Solid soil improver is dissolved into a solution and applied. In one embodiment the solution is water. The soil improver can be applied via drip, sprinkler, food or furrow irrigation (page 5, [0052-0053]).
Muir teaches A soil and foliar supplement for application to plants to improve plant growth and quality. A method for increasing plant productivity and quality also is disclosed. The supplement includes a quantity of specific microbes and an organic acid, such as humic acid, fulvic acid, and ulvic acid (abstract). The humic, fulvic, and ulvic acids are organic acids which have the ability to stimulate native soil microorganisms and thus significantly raise organic content levels. The organic acids contribute to increasing availability of the less readily available minerals to the plants' root system (column 2, line 40-50). This component has been found to contain a mixture of humic acid, fulvic acid and ulvic acid in range of about three percent (3%) to twenty percent (20%) (column 5, line 36-45). The composition is liquid suspension in one embodiment (column 7, line 15-30).
Paldi et al. teaches a method of treating citrus greening by applying a composition by spraying or irrigation (claims 1-2,9, 16,18 and 20).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the instant application and Smith, JR. et al. is that Smith, JR. et al. do not expressly teach growth stimulant, sea weed. This deficiency in Smith, JR. et al. is cured by the teachings of Sebestyen et al., Perez et al., Olson et al., Muir and Paldi et al.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Smith, JR. et al., as suggested by Sebestyen et al., Perez et al., Olson et al., Muir and Paldi et al., and produce the instant invention.
Regarding claim 39, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include growth stimulant in the plant treating composition because they are suitable ingredient in the plant treating composition. MPEP 2144.07. Under guidance from Smith, JR. et al. teaching plant accelerants (stimulant), Muir teaching a mixture of humic acid, fulvic acid and ulvic acid in range of about three percent (3%) to twenty percent (20%) for improving plant growth, Olson et al. teaching the soil improver 1-30% of humic acid, 0-20% of fulvic acid; it is obvious to include growth stimulant such as a mixture of humic acid and fulvic acid at 1-50% (1-20%) and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 40 and 42, One of ordinary still in the art would have been motivated to include seaweed from 0.01 to 70% because seaweed is a suitable nutrient in the plant treating composition. MPEP 2144.07. Under guidance from Smith, JR. et al. teaching nutrient, Sebestyen et al. teaching dried seaweed as nutrient at 5% in plant treating composition, it is obvious to include seaweed from 0.01 to 70% and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 41, Perez et al. teaches seaweed including green, brown and red seaweed, and it is obvious to use common seaweed such as brown seaweed.
Regarding claim 52, under guidance from Paldi et al. teaches a method of treating citrus greening by applying a composition by spraying or irrigation, thus, it is obvious to use conventional applying procedure such as irrigation.
Regarding the dilution, 5-200 milliliters concentrate per gallon of water = 0.005-0.2 liter/3.78541 liter = 0.13%-5.28%, and Smith, JR. et al. teaches concentrate about 0.01 wt % to about 5 wt % in the diluted aqueous composition.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to argument:
Applicants argue that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established for the amended claims.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. As discussed in the above 103 rejection, the combination of prior art teaches each limitation of applicant’s claimed invention, either expressly or inherently.
Applicants argued that pine oil with antimicrobial activity and all related arguments are incorporated herein by reference.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. As long as prior art teaches a process of applying a composition comprising pine oil (even as optional or adjuvant), the limitation of claimed invention is met. There is no requirement that pine oil is recognized as active agent. Therefore, the 103 rejection is still proper.
Applicants argue that there is no motivation to combine with other prior art references relied on by examiner. All related arguments are incorporated herein by reference.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. It appears that applicants misinterpreted prior art teaching. Smith, JR. et al. expressly teaches that the microemulsions may be combined with one or more AACs at the manufacturing facility. In some embodiments, the AAC is included in the microemulsion (e.g., comprising a solvent, at least one surfactant, and a first aqueous phase), when manufactured, followed by dilution of the microemulsion with a second aqueous phase to form a nanodroplet dispersion ([0115]). Since Smith, JR. et al. teaches fertilizer and bactericide are recognized as AAC, salt water is recognized as fertilizer and gum rosin is recognized with antibacterial activity and a suitable ingredient in the fertilizer and fungicide composition, it is obvious to include gum rosin in the plant treating composition and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Regarding Website for Sea-Crop, since no copy of this no patent literature is provided, the examiner can not consider it because it is unclear whether the website prohibit the fertilizer from being applied together with fungicide in a single composition. Therefore, the 103 rejection is still proper.
MPEP 2141 III states: “The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts.” Respectfully, after weighing all the evidence, the Examiner has reached a determination that the instant claims are not patentable in view of the preponderance of evidence and consideration of all the facts which is more convincing than the evidence which has been offered in opposition to it.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 29-31, 38-44, 46, 48-49 and 52 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-12, 15 of copending Application No. 16250332 in view of Smith, JR. et al. (US20190090476), Abrao et al. (“Copaifera langsdorffii oleoresin and its isolated compounds: antibacterial effect and antiproliferative activity in cancer cell lines”, BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine (2015) 15:443), Dean (US8076266), Yananton (US8173857) and Man et al. (US20050192197).The copending application teaches a method of treating plant bacterial disease by treating a composition comprising pine oil and salt water except gum rosin, in view of Smith, JR. et al, Abrao et al., Dean, Yananton and Man et al. teaching gum rosin as discussed in the above 103 rejection, it is obvious to include gum rosin and produce applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Argument:
Applicants argue that gum rosin is not obvious to be included.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. For the same rational as the above 103 rejection, Smith, JR. et al teaches bactericide in the composition comprising pine oil for treating plant bacterial disease Abrao et al., Dean, Yananton and Man et al. teaching gum rosin having antibacterial activity and a suitable ingredient in fungicide composition, it is obvious to include gum rosin and produce applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANFENG SONG. Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/JIANFENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613