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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, and 4-14 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the specification in at least Pg. 14, lines 8-12 of the instant specification.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the Claim Objection previously set forth in the office action mailed 02/24/2026 and is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 6-7 that the prior art Ichiyanagi teaches away from the closed list of adhesives in claim 1 on the basis that the lubricant teachings of talc are cited as being critical on PVA (polyvinyl alcohol) and EVA (ethylene vinyl acetate) as adhesives to be used. Applicant cites a passage in Ichiyanagi that describes an advantageous effect of having both PVA and EVA present in the composite. Applicant argues the prior art Ichiyanagi teaches away from the closed list of adhesives now recited in claim 1 of the amended claims 05/26/2026.
However, Ichiyanagi is not relied on to teach the adhesives but rather the prior art Omont is. Omont teaches the dispersion additionally comprises a binding agent selected from polyvinyl alcohols (PVOH), polyvinyl acetates (PVAc), polyacrylamides, polyacrylates, polymethacrylates, acrylamide/acrylate copolymers, acrylamide/methacrylate copolymers, polyvinylpyrrolidones (PVP), vinylpyrrolidone/dimethylaminoethylmethacrylate copolymers, vinylpyrrolidone/styrene copolymers, vinylpyrrolidone/vinylacetate copolymers, cellulose derivatives, natural gums, clays, graphite, talc, la silica and film-forming or film-coating agents selected from polyvinylpyrrolidones (PVP), vinylpyrrolidone/styrene copolymers, vinylpyrrolidone/vinylacetate copolymers, vinylpyrrolidone/dimethylaminoethylmethacrylate copolymers, polyacrylamides, acrylamide/acrylate copolymers, acrylamide/methacrylate copolymers, methylvinylether/maleic anhydride copolymers, polyurethanes, polyvinyl alcohols, polyvinyl acetates, cellulose derivatives, alginates, natural gums (Claim 10). Omont teaching cellulose derivatives meets the limitation “adhesives” and “..for improving flow properties of seeds,” as Applicant defines adhesives as including cellulose derivatives in at least instant claim 3 and Pg. 14, lines 8-22 of the instant specification and Omont using the same materials would result in the same properties naturally flowing therefrom.
Further, while Ichiyanagi teaches an advantageous effect of combining the lubricant additive talc with adhesives comprising PVA and EVA as cited by Applicant, Ichiyanagi further teaches the addition of 10 to 30 wt.% talc provides for a coating composition comprising talc in this concentration provides for coated seeds with good storage durability and excellent dispersibility (Pg. 2, par. 4-8). This advantage was cited in the previous office action dated 02/24/2026. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would be motivated to use 10 to 30 wt.% talc in the composite of Omont in order to improve storage durability and dispersibility.
Applicant argues on Pg. 8-9 that the secondary references fail to cure the noted deficiencies of Omont.
However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The prior art Zheng, Zuzi, and Rosa are not relied on to teach the adhesives of claim 1, but rather Omont is.
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 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 factual inquiries 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.
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 1-2, 4, 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omont et al. (US20190000075A1; IDS Document filed 3 October 2023) in view of Zuzi et al. (SK501102016U1; English Machine Translation of Record; IDS Document filed 3 October 2023), Evans (WO1985001736A1; cited in IDS dated 04/01/2022, 10/03/023, 08/08/2022), Wieser et al. (EP0010630B1), and Ichiyanagi (JP6379314B1 English).
Regarding claim 1, Omont teaches a seed treatment method that provides a seed coating that uses an aqueous dispersion of at least one water-swellable polymer (Abstract; Title) that is considered a superadsorbent polymer ([0023]). Omont teaches the superadsorbent polymers are excellent water-retainers and therefore are able to absorb water for coated seeds in the agricultural sector ([0004]). Omont teaching a seed coating superadsorbent polymer that performs water-retention for applications in supply water and other additives to seeds for the agricultural sector meets the limitation “suitable for hydrostimulatory coating of seeds,” being consistent with descriptions in the instant specification in at least Pg. 13, lines 8-15 and Pg. 12, lines 9-17.
Omont further teaches the superadsorbent polymer is present in the aqueous dispersion at 5 to 60% by weight and that the superadsorbent polymer can be a copolymer formed from at least one non-ionic monomer and at least one anionic member, with nonionic monomers including acrylamides and anionic monomers include acrylates and salts thereof ([0026]-[[0046]). Omont teaches the cations for the additives can include potassium (Claim 6).
Omont further teaches natural polymers, including cellulose derivatives, can be included in the dispersion from 5 to 60% by weight ([0045]-[0047]). Omont teaches the dispersion additionally comprises a binding agent selected from polyvinyl alcohols (PVOH), polyvinyl acetates (PVAc), polyacrylamides, polyacrylates, polymethacrylates, acrylamide/acrylate copolymers, acrylamide/methacrylate copolymers, polyvinylpyrrolidones (PVP), vinylpyrrolidone/dimethylaminoethylmethacrylate copolymers, vinylpyrrolidone/styrene copolymers, vinylpyrrolidone/vinylacetate copolymers, cellulose derivatives, natural gums, clays, graphite, talc, la silica and film-forming or film-coating agents selected from polyvinylpyrrolidones (PVP), vinylpyrrolidone/styrene copolymers, vinylpyrrolidone/vinylacetate copolymers, vinylpyrrolidone/dimethylaminoethylmethacrylate copolymers, polyacrylamides, acrylamide/acrylate copolymers, acrylamide/methacrylate copolymers, methylvinylether/maleic anhydride copolymers, polyurethanes, polyvinyl alcohols, polyvinyl acetates, cellulose derivatives, alginates, natural gums (Claim 10). Omont teaching cellulose derivatives meets the limitation “adhesives” and “..for improving flow properties of seeds,” as Applicant defines adhesives as including cellulose derivatives in at least instant claim 3 and Pg. 14, lines 8-22 of the instant specification and Omont using the same materials would result in the same properties naturally flowing therefrom.
Omont further teaches an additives such as graphite and talc can be added to the aqueous dispersion ([0077]), which meet the limitation “lubricant additive” as defined in the instant specification in at least Pg. 14, lines 24-28 and in claim 4.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Omont (copolymer present at 5 to 60% by weight in the dispersion; cellulose derivative present at 5 to 60% by weight in the dispersion) overlaps with the claimed range (wherein the suspension comprises the superadsorbent polymer in the range of 25 to 40 wt.%; wherein the suspension comprises the adhesives in the range of 1 to 10 wt.%). Therefore, the range in Omont renders obvious the claimed range.
The claim further requires “the dispersion or solution of the adhesives comprising water in the range of 0.1 to 8 wt.% of the suspension” and “wherein the suspension further comprises an antistatic additive in the range of 0.35 to 1.5 wt.% of the suspension,” to which Omont is silent.
Zuzi teaches a combination of ingredients containing a superadsorbent for seed coating applications where a dispersion is prepared that comprises water in a range of 10% to 50% by weight, ethanol in the range of 20% to 40% by weight, and further auxiliary substances with the function to improve flow properties of the coated seeds, selected from graphite, talc, molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), calcium carbonate, sodium sulfate, mica, magnesium sulfate, wood flour, or silica, or mixtures thereof which are present in a range of 0.01% to 2.0% by weight ([0050]-[0052]; [0003]). Zuzi teaching further auxiliary substances comprising graphite, talc, molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), calcium carbonate, sodium sulfate, mica, magnesium sulfate, wood flour, or silica, or mixtures thereof are present in a range of 0.01% to 2.0% by weight meets the limitation “wherein the suspension further comprises an antistatic additive in the range of 0.1 to 5 wt.% of the suspension.” Zuzi teaching including “a mixture thereof” of further additives including graphite, talc, molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), calcium carbonate, sodium sulfate, mica, magnesium sulfate, wood flour, or silica present in a range of 0.01% to 2.0% by weight in the dispersion directs a skilled artisan to add one or more of the additives, which overlaps the antistatic additive required by the claim. An antistatic additive includes flake graphite, as outlined in at least Pg. 15, lines 1-3 of the instant specification.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Zuzi (water in a range of 10% to 50% by weight; ethanol in the range of 20% to 40% by weight; further additives selected from graphite, talc, molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), calcium carbonate, sodium sulfate, mica, magnesium sulfate, wood flour, or silica, or mixtures thereof which are present in a range of 0.01% to 2.0% by weight) overlaps with the claimed ranges (the dispersion or solution of the adhesives comprising water in the range of 0.1 to 8 wt.% of the suspension-ethanol, isopropanol, or a combination thereof is in the range of 40 to 70 wt.% of the suspension,” and “wherein the suspension further comprises an antistatic additive in the range of 0.35 to 1.5 wt.% of the suspension). Therefore, the range in Zuzi renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, the dispersion of Zuzi results in higher germination and emergence of crops compared to untreated seeds, with additional benefits including higher hectare yield, higher biomass production, plant resistance to pests, and high survival rates for young plants ([0039]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a dispersion including water in a range of 10% to 50% by weight, ethanol in the range of 20% to 40% by weight, and further additives which function to improve flow properties of the coated seeds, selected from graphite, talc, molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), calcium carbonate, sodium sulfate, mica, magnesium sulfate, wood flour, or silica, or mixtures thereof which are present in a range of 0.01% to 2.0% by weight in the seed coating dispersion of Omont in order to produce coated seeds with higher germination and emergence of crops compared to untreated seeds, with additional benefits including higher hectare yield, higher biomass production, plant resistance to pests, and high survival rates for young plants, as taught by Zuzi.
The claim further requires “a number ratio of the acrylate: the acrylamide in the range of 25:75 to 75:25” to which Omont and Zuzi are silent. As noted above, Omont teaches an acrylate/acrylamide copolymer can be used, however is silent regarding the ratio of the two.
Evans teaches a superadsorbent coating composition that comprises 33.3% of polyacrylate and 33.4% (16.0 + 17.4%) polyacrylamide (Pg. 5, lines 10-21), for an effective taught ratio of about 50:50. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Evans (about 50:50 ratio) overlaps with the claimed ranges (25:75 to 75:25 acrylate: acrylamide). Therefore, the range in Evans renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, a seed coating composition comprising acrylate and acrylamide in the ratio taught by Evans provides a surprisingly effective hygroscopic coating composition that attracts moisture required for seed germination (Pg. 2, lines 19-26).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an approximately 50:50 ratio of acrylate and acrylamide in the coating composition in the seed coating dispersion of Omont in order to produce a coating that is effective at attracting moisture required for seed germination, as taught by Evans.
The claim further requires “ethanol, isopropanol, or a combination thereof is present in a range of 46.4 to 70 wt.% of the suspension,” to which Omont, Zuzi, and Evans are silent.
Weiser teaches a coating for plant seeds that is achieved by preparing a non-aqueous coating solution that comprises 67.0 to 87.0% by weight of a binder solvent, where the binder solvent is a lower alcohol, including ethanol (Pg. 4, line 63-Pg. 6, line 10, Example 3; Pg. 2, lines 30-62). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Weiser (67 to 87% by weight of a low boiling alcohol, such as ethanol) overlaps with the claimed ranges (46.4% to 70 wt.%). Therefore, the range in Weiser renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, preparing a nonaqueous suspension comprising an alcohol such as ethanol facilitates easy elimination of the solvent due to the relatively low boiling points (Pg. 2, lines 60-62).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a suspension comprising 67 to 87% by weight of a low boiling alcohol, such as ethanol, in the composition of Omont in order to achieve the advantageous effect of facile solvent removal due to the low boiling points of the solvent, as taught by Weiser.
The claim further requires “the lubricant additives are present in the range of 7 to 11 wt.%” to which Omont, Zuzi, Evans, and Weiser are silent.
Ichiyanagi teaches a glossy coating for seeds where the coating composition contains talc in 10% by mass or more and 30% by mass or less (Abstract; Pg. 2, par. 2) that includes teaching an example where the coating composition includes 10 parts by weight of talc relative to a total of 100 parts of the coating suspension, effectively teaching a weight percent of 10 wt.% for the talc component (Pg. 3, Example 1). Talc is listed as a lubricant additive in the instant specification and accordingly the teaching of Ichiyanagi of adding talc at 10 wt.% meets the limitation of including “the lubricant additives in a range of 7 to 11 wt.%”. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Ichiyanagi (10 to 30 wt.% talc) overlaps with the claimed ranges (7 to 11 wt.%). Therefore, the range in Ichiyanagi renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, a coating composition comprising talc in this concentration provides for coated seeds with good storage durability and excellent dispersibility (Pg. 2, par. 4-8).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a suspension comprising 10 to 30 wt.% talc in the composition of Omont in order to achieve provide a coated seed with good storage durability and excellent dispersibility, as taught by Ichiyanagi.
Regarding claim 2, Omont in view of Zuzi, Evans, Weiser, and Ichiyanagi teach the suspension according to claim 1.
Omont further teaches the superadsorbent polymer is present in the aqueous dispersion at 5 to 60% by weight and that the superadsorbent polymer can be a copolymer formed from at least one non-ionic monomer and at least one anionic member, with nonionic monomers including acrylamides and anionic monomers include acrylates and salts thereof ([0026]-[[0046]). Omont teaches the cations for the additives can include potassium (Claim 6). From the disclosure of Omont teaching “acrylates and salts thereof,” a skilled artisan could readily selected potassium acrylate as the acrylate salt.
Regarding claim 4, Omont in view of Zuzi, Evans, Weiser, and Ichiyanagi teach the suspension according to claim 1.
Omont further teaches an additive including graphite and talc can be added to the aqueous dispersion ([0077]).
Regarding claim 6, Omont in view of Zuzi, Evans, Weiser, and Ichiyanagi teach the suspension according to claim 1.
Omont further teaches the aqueous dispersion may also comprise at least one substance of agronomic interest which allows for improved development or growth of the plant, preferably selected from fertilizers, hormones, micro-organisms, mycorrhizas, growth stimulators, growth regulators, phytosanitary products, e.g. fungicides, insecticides, and safeners ([0075]-[0076]). Active substances are defined in the instant specification on Pg. 19, line 28-Pg. 20, line 3 as including “nutrients, fertilizers, vitamins, micronutrients, macronutrients, minerals, inoculants, humectants, pesticides such as insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, biocides and biopesticides, biofertilizers, growth regulators or biostimulants and the like”. Accordingly, Omont teaches the presence of “active substances.”
Regarding claim 8, Omont in view of Zuzi, Evans, Weiser, and Ichiyanagi teach the suspension according to claim 1 and 6.
Omont further teaches the aqueous dispersion may also comprise at least one substance of agronomic interest which allows for improved development or growth of the plant, preferably selected from fertilizers, hormones, micro-organisms, mycorrhizas, growth stimulators, growth regulators, phytosanitary products, e.g. fungicides, insecticides, and safeners ([0075]-[0076]).
Regarding claim 9, Omont in view of Zuzi, Evans, Weiser, and Ichiyanagi teach the suspension according to claim 1.
Omont further teaches the dispersion is used to coat plant material for propagation or a plant material for reproduction, particularly plant material selected from among seeds, cuttings, seedlings, shoots, roots, rootlets, bulbs, rhizomes, tubers, branches, stems,
calluses, buds, fruit and parts or partial elements of these plant materials as well as corresponding genetically modified organisms, where seeds are the particularly preferred plant
material ([0021]). Omont further teaches examples where the seeds are wheat seeds ([0090]; [0095]; [0099]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omont et al. (US20190000075A1; IDS Document filed 3 October 2023) in view of Zuzi et al. (SK501102016U1; English Machine Translation of Record; IDS Document filed 3 October 2023), Evans (WO1985001736A1; cited in IDS dated 04/01/2022, 10/03/023, 08/08/2022), Wieser et al. (EP0010630B1), and Ichiyanagi (JP6379314B1 English) and in further in view of Zheng et al. (CN106366423A English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 5, Omont in view of Zuzi, Evans, Weiser, and Ichiyanagi teach the suspension according to claim 1. Omont teaches an additive including graphite and talc can be added to the aqueous dispersion ([0077]). The claim further requires the graphite is “flake graphite,” to which Omont, Zuzi, Evans, Weiser, and Ichiyanagi are silent.
Zheng teaches a copolymer based coating for a carbon material that comprises an antistatic additive in 1-10 weight portions where the antistatic additive is flake graphite (Abstract; Claims 1-2; Pg. 3, par. 4).
Advantageously, flake graphite is a natural solid lubricant that can reduce coefficients of friction to suppress or minimize electrostatics while simultaneously benefiting dispersion (Pg. 3, par. 4).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use flake graphite as a solid lubricant in the dispersion of Omont in order to minimize or suppress electrostatics and benefit dispersibility as taught by Zheng.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omont et al. (US20190000075A1; IDS Document filed 3 October 2023) in view of Zuzi et al. (SK501102016U1; English Machine Translation of Record; IDS Document filed 3 October 2023), Evans (WO1985001736A1; cited in IDS dated 04/01/2022, 10/03/023, 08/08/2022), Wieser et al. (EP0010630B1), and Ichiyanagi (JP6379314B1 English) and in further in view of Rosa et al. (US20070207927A1).
Regarding claim 7, Omont in view of Zuzi, Evans, Weiser, and Ichiyanagi teach the suspension according to claim 1.
Omont further teaches the aqueous dispersion may also comprise at least one substance of agronomic interest which allows for improved development or growth of the plant, preferably selected from fertilizers, hormones, micro-organisms, mycorrhizas, growth stimulators, growth regulators, phytosanitary products, e.g. fungicides, insecticides, and safeners ([0075]-[0076]). The claim further requires “the active substance are present in the range of 0.1 to 10 wt.% of the suspension,” to which Omont, Zuzi, Evans, Weiser, and Ichiyanagi are silent.
Rosa teaches a polymer based seed coating suspension including a bioactive ingredient such as an insecticide or fungicide (Abstract; Title) or a humectant ([0014]) and a binder, where the binder is an aqueous solution of polymers including vinyl acetate-ethylene copolymer, vinyl
acetate homopolymer, vinyl acetate-acrylic copolymer, vinylacrylic, acrylic, ethylene-vinyl chloride, vinyl ether maleic anhydride, or butadiene styrene ([0011]; [0017]-[0018]) where the humectant can vary from 2.4 to 4.9% by total weight of the binder suspension and the biocide can be added in the range of 0.1 to 0.2% by the total weight of the binder suspension ([0018). Rosa further teaches those skilled in the art can appreciate exact amount of coating will vary depending on the size of the seed to be coated ([0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Rosa (humectant, and/or biocide in 2.4 to 4.9% or 0.1 to 0.2% by total weight of the binder suspension, respectively) overlaps with the claimed range (active substance…is in the range of 0.1 to 10 wt.% of the suspension). Therefore, the range in Rosa renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, seeds treated with one or more bioactive ingredients such as insecticides or fungicides can be lubricated, which is critical to ensuring enough seeds are planted per acre during sowing in order to farmers to maximize their yield ([0009]; Abstract).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a humectant, and/or biocide in 2.4 to 4.9% or 0.1 to 0.2% by total weight of the binder suspension, respectively, in the dispersion of Omont in order to ensure the seeds can be lubricated in order to improve seeding per acre and maximize farmers yields, as taught by Rosa.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights