-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 .
Applicant’s response dated August 28, 2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
This application is a continuation of 16/508,637 field on 07/11/2019, and claims benefit in provisional application 62/696,359 filed on 07/11/2018.
Claim Status
Claims 1-12 are pending and examined. Claims 2-12 were newly added and read on the invention originally presented.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on August 28, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent 11,344,506 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Withdrawn Double Patenting Rejections
Double patenting rejections of claim 1 over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,344,506 B2 and further in view of Speier is withdrawn because applicant filed a terminal disclaimer on August 28, 2025, which was approved on September 7, 2025.
New Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 112
Necessitated by Amendment
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 does not further limit claim 1 because claim 1 already requires the oral dissolvable film to have a moisture content of less than 8 wt. %.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Maintained and New Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 103
Necessitated by Amendment
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 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speier (US 2015/0297654 A1 Date of Patent October 22, 2015) and Funke (WO 2009/100871 A2 Published August 20, 2009).
The claim encompasses an oral dissolvable film comprising the claimed elements.
The teachings of Speier are related to a pharmaceutical dosage form in the form of an oral thin film that includes the concentrate or extract of Cannabis (Abstract). The manufacture of an oral thin film includes the casting and drying of a viscous liquid (paragraph 0035). The term film includes thin films and sheet. The composition in its dried film form can effectively maintain a relatively uniform distribution of components through the application of controlled drying of the film (paragraph 0134). The Cannabis concentrate can be enriched in cannabidiol (paragraph 0193). In some embodiments, the concentrate includes a therapeutically effective amount of cannabidiol (paragraphs 0194 and 0199). The OTF includes a Cannabis concentrate. Formulation of oral thin films involves the application of both aesthetic and performance characteristics, such as, e.g., strip-forming polymers, plasticizers, active pharmaceutical ingredient, sweetening agents, saliva stimulating agent, flavoring agents, coloring agents, stabilizing and thickening agents. From the regulatory perspectives, all excipients used in the formulation of oral drug strips should be approved for use in oral pharmaceutical dosage forms (paragraph 0274). The substances can be selected in an amount such that a desired dissolution rate can be targeted. Upon contact with mucosal tissue (including, e.g., oral mucosa) the TF will completely dissolve within the desired period of time. The period of time will vary but in reference to the oral cavity, the period of time will typically be within about 30-300 seconds (paragraph 0275). The thin film described herein can include a mucoadhesive agent (paragraph 0279), which include hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol, and polyethylene glycol (paragraph 0280).
Speier does not teach PVA-PEG copolymer.
The teachings of Funke are related to a drug delivery system with stabilizing effect. The system is in the form a unit dosage form comprising a thin water-soluble film matrix comprising a PVA-PEG copolymer and an active ingredient (Abstract). The water soluble matrix comprises PVA-PEG copolymers, and other water-soluble matrix polymers such as hydroxypropyl methyl] cellulose (page 14 lines 1-35). The film may be applied under the tongue, the film is rapidly hydrated and adheres to the site of application, and then rapidly disintegrates and dissolves (page 22 lines 4-7). The water-soluble film forming matrix is formed into a dry film (page 22 lines 12- 16). Page 30 teaches a method of making the film, where a dry film is obtained using a drying temperature of 40-120°C. The disintegration time for unit dosage forms is preferably between about 15 seconds and 25 seconds (page 55 lines 1-3).
The teachings of Speier and Funke are related to an active agent delivery system in the form of a thin film oral dosage form that rapidly disintegrates in the oral cavity, and it would have been obvious to have combined their teachings because they are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have form an oral dissolvable film comprising cannabidiol and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, wherein the film disintegrates within 30-300 seconds, with a reasonable expectation of success because Speier teaches an oral thin film comprising a polymer selected form hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and a Cannabis concentrate enriched in cannabidiol, wherein the film disintegrates in the oral cavity within about 30-300 seconds.
Speier teaches that the thin film may be formed from polyvinyl alcohol and polyethylene glycols, but does not specifically teach copolymers of PVA and PEG. It would have been
obvious to have formed Speier’s thin film using a combination of HPMC and a PVA-PEG copolymer, with a reasonable expectation of success because Funke teaches that a drug delivery dosage form in the form of a thin film that rapidly dissolves in the oral cavity may be formed from a combination of HPMC and PVA-PEG copolymer. Replacing HMPC with a combination of HPMC and PVA-PEG copolymer would have been obvious because both produce rapidly disintegrating films, and replacing one equivalent with another to obtain predictable results supports obviousness. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports obviousness and combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain a predictable result supports obviousness. It would have been reasonable to expect copolymers of PVA and PEG to be suitable for making Speier’s thin film for delivering cannabidiol enriched Cannabis extract.
Regarding the moisture content limitation in claims 1 and 2, the references do not state the moisture content of the film, however it would have been obvious to have formed the film as a dry film because both references teach a dry film and specifically teach drying conditions. It would have been reasonable to expect the prior art film to be free of moisture or have a moisture content that is at least close enough to the claimed range that a person skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
The claimed disintegration time period is obvious because Speier teaches disintegration within 30-300 seconds, which overlaps with within 30 seconds; and Funke teaches disintegration time of 15-25 seconds which overlaps with within 30 seconds. The specification was reviewed and there is no evidence that claimed moisture content and disintegrate times are critical.
Regarding claim 3, prior art film meets all of the structural requirements of the claimed film and it would have been reasonable to expect the prior art film to have the same properties as claimed film when placed under identical conditions, including properties of instant claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed Speier’s film having the size and dimensions that are suitable for application of the film to the oral cavity because Speier teaches that the film has a shape and size that makes the film suitable for application to the oral cavity. The skilled artisan would have been motived to use the teachings of Funke to make Speier’s film because Funke teaches shapes and sizes of films suitable for application to the oral cavity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed Speier’s film having a rectangular shape, a weight of 5-200 mg, a thickness of less than 300 microns, and a surface area of 2-10 cm2 because Funke teaches said shape, weight, and dimensions as suitable for thin film intended for application to the oral cavity (page 22).
The claimed range of masses 200±50 mg is obvious because it overlaps with 5-200 mg.
The claimed thickness 0.12±0.02 mm is obvious because overlaps with less than 300 microns (equivalent to less than 0.3 mm).
A rectangle having a surface area of 2-10 cm2 would have had a range of lengths and widths that overlap with the claimed ranges of lengths and widths. For example, a rectangle having a length of 5 cm and width of 2 cm would have had a surface area of one side of 10 cm2, which falls in the claimed ranges of lengths and widths. Furthermore, the skilled artisan would have been capable of varying the shape and dimensions of the film within the parameters of the prior art in order to arrive at a film suitable for application to the oral cavity. The specification was reviewed and there is no evidence that claimed ranges are critical.
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to have modified Speier’s film by embedding the active ingredient in a protective agent in order to obtain a composition that releases the active ingredient into the intestines and/or the stomach, with a reasonable expectation of success because Funke teaches embedding the active ingredient in a protective agent where as little active ingredient as possible is released in the mouth and as much of active ingredient as possible is released in the stomach and/or intestines (paragraph bridging pages 19-20). It would have been obvious to have selected a cationic polymethacrylate as the protective ingredient because Funke teaches a cationic polymethacrylate as the preferred protective agent. It would have been obvious to have selected a cationic polymethacrylate copolymer based on di-C1-4-alkyl-amino-C1-4-alkyl methacrylate and neutral methacrylic acid C1-6 alkyl esters as the protective agent because Funke teaches said copolymer as a suitable protective agent (first paragraph on page 19). Combining prior art elements according to known method to obtain predictable results supports obviousness, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose supports obviousness. According to example 7i, protective agent is present in a concentration of about 24 wt. %, and according to example 7k, the protective agent is used in a concentration of 6 wt. % (page 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed Speier’s film to comprise the protective agent in a concentration from 6 wt. % to 24 wt. % because Funke teaches 6 wt. % and 24 wt. % as suitable concentrations of the protective agent in the composition. The claimed range is obvious because it overlaps with the prior art range.
Regarding claim 6, Speier does not teach suitable amounts ingredients in the film.
Funke teaches that the water-soluble polymer constitutes from 50 to 99% by weight of the water-soluble matrix. The water-soluble matrix comprises PVA-PEG in a concentration of at least 50, or 60%, or 70%, or 80, or 90% by weight of the water-soluble film matrix. The water-soluble matrix polymer can further comprise other water-soluble matrix polymers including a cellulosic material and synthetic polymer, wherein said other water-soluble matrix polymers constitute less than 40%, or 30%, or 20%, or 10% of the water-soluble film matrix. Cellulosic materials include HPMC (page 14).
It would have been obvious the skilled artisan to have formed Speier’s film comprising PVA, PVA-PEG, and HPMC to contain PVA-PEG in a concentration of at least 50 wt. %, and the combined concentration of PVA and HPMC in a concentration of less than 40 wt. %, with a reasonable expectation of success because Funke teaches that the water-soluble matrix film comprises polymers in a concentration of 50-99 wt. %, where PVA-PEG is present in a concentration of at least 50 wt. %, and other water-soluble matrix polymers such as cellulosic materials and synthetic polymers are present in a concentration of less than 40 wt. % of the water-soluble film matrix. Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) is a synthetic water-soluble polymer. It would have been obvious to have varied the concentration of HPMC and PVA in a range of concentrations from smallest measurable amount and up to 40 wt. % as long as the combined amount of HMPC and PVA does not exceed 40 wt. %.
The combined concentration of PVA and PVA-PEG is obvious because it overlaps with the prior art concentration range. PVA-PEG is present in a range of concentrations of from 50 wt. % and greater and PVA is present in a range of concentrations from smallest measurable amount and up to 40 wt. %.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed concentration of HMPC is obvious because it overlaps with a concentration that ranges from the smallest measurable amount to up to 40 wt. %. As detailed above, HPMC and PVA would have been present in a combined concentration of 40 wt. % and less where it would have been obvious to vary each of HMPC and PVA from smallest amount measurable and up to 40 wt. % as long as the combined concentration of the two is 40 wt. % and less.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to have formed Speier’s film modified in view of Funke to have the composition in its dried film form in a relatively uniform distribution of components through the application of controlled drying of the film, where the film can have no more than 1% variance of the active ingredient per unit area of the film, with a reasonable expectation of success because Speier teaches said uniform distribution of components (paragraph 0134). Speier does not teach content uniformity as for the active ingredient as expressed by the claim. It is the examiner’s position that prior art film would have had a content uniformity that falls in the claimed range or is at least close enough that the skilled artisan would have expected them to have the same properties. The Office does not have the means to test prior art product properties according to applicant’s claim in order to determine whether or not prior art product has the same properties as claimed product.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have form an oral dissolvable film comprising cannabidiol and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, wherein the film disintegrates within 30-300 seconds, with a reasonable expectation of success because Speier teaches an oral thin film comprising a polymer selected form hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and a Cannabis concentrate enriched in cannabidiol, wherein the film disintegrates in the oral cavity within about 30-300 seconds.
Speier teaches that the thin film may be formed from polyvinyl alcohol and polyethylene glycols, but does not specifically teach copolymers of PVA and PEG. It would have been
obvious to have formed Speier’s thin film using a combination of HPMC and a PVA-PEG copolymer, with a reasonable expectation of success because Funke teaches that a drug delivery dosage form in the form of a thin film that rapidly dissolves in the oral cavity may be formed from a combination of HPMC and PVA-PEG copolymer. Replacing HMPC with a combination of HPMC and PVA-PEG copolymer would have been obvious because both produce rapidly disintegrating films, and replacing one equivalent with another to obtain predictable results supports obviousness. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports obviousness and combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain a predictable result supports obviousness. It would have been reasonable to expect copolymers of PVA and PEG to be suitable for making Speier’s thin film for delivering cannabidiol enriched Cannabis extract.
Regarding the moisture content limitation, the references do not state the moisture content of the film, however it would have been obvious to have formed the film as a dry film because both references teach a dry film and specifically teach drying conditions. It would have been reasonable to expect the prior art film to be free of moisture or have a moisture content that is at least close enough to the claimed range that a person skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
The claimed disintegration time period is obvious because Speier teaches disintegration within 30-300 seconds, which overlaps with within 30 seconds; and Funke teaches disintegration time of 15-25 seconds which overlaps with within 30 seconds. The specification was reviewed and there is no evidence that claimed moisture content and disintegrate times are critical.
Speier does not teach suitable amounts ingredients in the film.
Funke teaches that the water-soluble polymer constitutes from 50 to 99% by weight of the water-soluble matrix. The water-soluble matrix comprises PVA-PEG in a concentration of at least 50, or 60%, or 70%, or 80, or 90% by weight of the water-soluble film matrix. The water-soluble matrix polymer can further comprise other water-soluble matrix polymers including a cellulosic material and synthetic polymer, wherein said other water-soluble matrix polymers constitute less than 40%, or 30%, or 20%, or 10% of the water-soluble film matrix. Cellulosic materials include HPMC (page 14).
It would have been obvious the skilled artisan to have formed Speier’s film comprising PVA, PVA-PEG, and HPMC to contain PVA-PEG in a concentration of at least 50 wt. %, and the combined concentration of PVA and HPMC in a concentration of less than 40 wt. %, with a reasonable expectation of success because Funke teaches that the water-soluble matrix film comprises polymers in a concentration of 50-99 wt. %, where PVA-PEG is present in a concentration of at least 50 wt. %, and other water-soluble matrix polymers such as cellulosic materials and synthetic polymers are present in a concentration of less than 40 wt. % of the water-soluble film matrix. Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) is a synthetic water-soluble polymer. It would have been obvious to have varied the concentration of HPMC and PVA in a range of concentrations from smallest measurable amount and up to 40 wt. % as long as the combined amount of HMPC and PVA does not exceed 40 wt. %.
The combined concentration of PVA and PVA-PEG is obvious because it overlaps with the prior art concentration range. PVA-PEG is present in a range of concentrations of from 50 wt. % and greater and PVA is present in a range of concentrations from smallest measurable amount and up to 40 wt. %.
The claimed concentration of HMPC is obvious because it overlaps with a concentration that ranges from the smallest measurable amount to up to 40 wt. %. As detailed above, HPMC and PVA would have been present in a combined concentration of 40 wt. % and less where it would have been obvious to vary each of HMPC and PVA from smallest amount measurable and up to 40 wt. % as long as the combined concentration of the two is 40 wt. % and less.
It would have been obvious to have modified Speier’s film by embedding the active ingredient in a protective agent in order to obtain a composition that releases the active ingredient into the intestines and/or the stomach, with a reasonable expectation of success because Funke teaches embedding the active ingredient in a protective agent where as little active ingredient as possible is released in the mouth and as much of active ingredient as possible is released in the stomach and/or intestines (paragraph bridging pages 19-20). It would have been obvious to have selected a cationic polymethacrylate as the protective ingredient because Funke teaches a cationic polymethacrylate as the preferred protective agent. It would have been obvious to have selected a cationic polymethacrylate copolymer based on di-C1-4-alkyl-amino-C1-4-alkyl methacrylate and neutral methacrylic acid C1-6 alkyl esters as the protective agent because Funke teaches said copolymer as a suitable protective agent (first paragraph on page 19). Combining prior art elements according to known method to obtain predictable results supports obviousness, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose supports obviousness. According to example 7i, protective agent is present in a concentration of about 24 wt. %, and according to example 7k, the protective agent is used in a concentration of 6 wt. % (page 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed Speier’s film to comprise the protective agent in a concentration from 6 wt. % to 24 wt. % because Funke teaches 6 wt. % and 24 wt. % as suitable concentrations of the protective agent in the composition. The claimed range is obvious because it overlaps with the prior art range.
Regarding claim 10, prior art film meets all of the structural requirements of the claimed film and it would have been reasonable to expect the prior art film to have the same properties as claimed film when placed under identical conditions, including properties of instant claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed Speier’s film having the size and dimensions that are suitable for application of the film to the oral cavity because Speier teaches that the film has a shape and size that makes the film suitable for application to the oral cavity. The skilled artisan would have been motived to use the teachings of Funke to make Speier’s film because Funke teaches shapes and sizes of films suitable for application to the oral cavity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed Speier’s film having a rectangular shape, a weight of 5-200 mg, a thickness of less than 300 microns, and a surface area of 2-10 cm2 because Funke teaches said shape, weight, and dimensions as suitable for thin film intended for application to the oral cavity (page 22).
The claimed range of masses 200±50 mg is obvious because it overlaps with 5-200 mg.
The claimed thickness 0.12±0.02 mm is obvious because overlaps with less than 300 microns (equivalent to less than 0.3 mm).
A rectangle having a surface area of 2-10 cm2 would have had a range of lengths and widths that overlap with the claimed ranges of lengths and widths. For example, a rectangle having a length of 5 cm and width of 2 cm would have had a surface area of one side of 10 cm2, which falls in the claimed ranges of lengths and widths. Furthermore, the skilled artisan would have been capable of varying the shape and dimensions of the film within the parameters of the prior art in order to arrive at a film suitable for application to the oral cavity. The specification was reviewed and there is no evidence that claimed ranges are critical.
Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to have formed Speier’s film modified in view of Funke to have the composition in its dried film form in a relatively uniform distribution of components through the application of controlled drying of the film, where the film can have no more than 1% variance of the active ingredient per unit area of the film, with a reasonable expectation of success because Speier teaches said uniform distribution of components (paragraph 0134). Speier does not teach content uniformity as for the active ingredient as expressed by the claim. It is the examiner’s position that prior art film would have had a content uniformity that falls in the claimed range or is at least close enough that the skilled artisan would have expected them to have the same properties. The Office does not have the means to test prior art product properties according to applicant’s claim in order to determine whether or not prior art product has the same properties as claimed product.
The claimed invention is prima facie obvious over the cited references. The specification was reviewed and there is no evidence of unexpected results nor criticality of claimed numerical ranges and combination of claimed elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted in the remarks dated August 28, 2025, were fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Funke’s teachings are not limited by exemplified and preferred embodiments. Funke’s broadest teachings encompass a water-soluble matrix comprising PVA-PEG in a concentration of at least 50 wt. %, and less than 40 wt. % of other water-soluble matrix polymers including HPMC and synthetic polymers. This teaching provides sufficient motivation to the skilled artisan to form a matrix film comprising PVA-PEG in combination with other water-soluble matrix polymers. It is also apparent from Funke’s claim 17 that Funke’s intended for a combination of PVA-PEG and at least further water-soluble matrix polymers selected from cellulosic material and a synthetic polymer to be a part of Funke’s invention. HMPC was not merely intended to be used for comparative examples as argued by applicant. Therefore, a combination of PVA-PEG, PVA, and HPMC would have been obvious.
Applicant’s argument regarding the lack of a teaching of synergistic or complementary effects of the combination of PVA-PEG and HPMC, is not persuasive because it is not a claimed limitation. Instant specification was reviewed and there is no evidence that the claimed composition has unexpected properties.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 Alma - Pipic whose telephone number is (571)270-7459. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Michael Hartley can be reached on 571-272-0616. 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.
/ALMA PIPIC/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617