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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendments/remarks filed 11/26/2025.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-21 are currently pending, of which claims 8, 11, 13, and 19 are withdrawn. Claims 7, 10, 14-18, and 20-21 are currently under examination.
The rejection of claims 16, 17, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 14-18, 20 and 21 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 9-13, and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,306,231 B2 is withdrawn in view of the approved Terminal Disclaimer filed 11/26/2025.
The rejection of claims 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robin (US 2020/0230454 A1, hereinafter Robin) in view of Birkel (US 2013/0068849 A1, hereinafter Birkel), and “49 CFR § 173.306” (“49 CFR § 173.306 Limited quantities of compressed gases”, 2014, hereinafter “49 CFR § 173.306”) is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claims 7, 10, 14-18, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robin (US 2020/0230454 A1, hereinafter Robin) in view of Birkel (US 2013/0068849 A1, hereinafter Birkel), and “49 CFR § 173.306” (“49 CFR § 173.306 Limited quantities of compressed gases”, 2014, hereinafter “49 CFR § 173.306”) is maintained in view of the above amendments/remarks.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 7, 10, 14-18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robin (US 2020/0230454 A1, hereinafter Robin) in view of Birkel (US 2013/0068849 A1, hereinafter Birkel), and “49 CFR § 173.306” (“49 CFR § 173.306 Limited quantities of compressed gases”, 2014, hereinafter “49 CFR § 173.306”), as evidenced by “GWP Reference” (“Technology Transitions GWP Reference Table from US EPA”, 2025, hereinafter “GWP Reference”).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 15, the limitation “the first state of the sprayer” and “the second state of the sprayer” merely describe the sprayer/container is initially/filled with much of the composition (first state), and then the sprayer/container later contains less composition because it is used/sprayed/discharged (second state).
Robin teaches that a propellant composition comprises or consists essentially of Z-HCFO-1224yd (Z-1-chloro-2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene) and HFO-1234ze (1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene) (E and Z), wherein HFO-1234ze (E and Z) is most preferably in an amount of about 10 wt % to about 90 wt % (para [0027], Table 1, l. 1; para [0265]), and Z-HCFO-1224yd is in an amount of about 10 wt % to about 90 wt % (para [0265]).
Robin also teaches that the propellant composition comprises or consists essentially of Z-HCFO-1224yd and HFO-1234ze (E) (para [0267]). Thus, the propellant composition of Robin can consist essentially of Z-HCFO-1224yd and HFO-1234ze (E), wherein Z-HCFO-1224yd is in an amount of about 10 wt % to about 90 wt %, HFO-1234ze (E) is in an amount of about 10 wt % to about 90 wt %, which overlap with the claimed ranges of “30-50 mass%” of Z-HCFO-1224yd and “50-70 mass%” of HFO-1234ze (E).
Robin further teaches that the composition comprising Z-HCFO-1224yd can be non-azeotropic (para [0006]). Robin teaches that the aerosol products of Table 1 comprise liquefied gas propellants (para [0271]), which reads on the claimed propellant composition under pressure as a liquid and a gas.
Robin teaches that the composition as aerosol propellant can be packaged in a container, such as an aerosol type can (para [0220], [0227]), which reads on the claimed container.
Robin does not specifically teach a spray unit to spray the propellant composition out of the container.
However, Birkel teaches that aerosol product usually comprises a container, a nozzle, and a propellant, wherein the nozzle is aerosol-forming (para [0003]), which reads on the claimed spray unit to spray the propellant composition out of the container.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sprayer comprising the propellant composition and the container as taught by Robin, further comprising a nozzle as taught by Birkel, in order to spray the propellant out of the container with a reasonable expectation of success.
Robin does not specifically teach the first state of the sprayer: a first liquid volume of the propellant composition in the container is at most 90 vol% of a volume of the container at a first pressure; and
the second state of the sprayer: a second liquid volume of the propellant composition in the container is less than the first liquid volume at a second pressure, wherein the second pressure is atmospheric pressure;
and does not specifically teach that the pressure at the first state is up to 241 kPa.
However, “49 CFR § 173.306” teaches that aerosol product is contained in a container with a pressure not exceeding 970 kPa (141 psig) (p. 5, § (j) Aerosols and receptacles small, containing gas with a capacity of less than 50 mL), which overlaps with the claimed range of “up to 241 kPa”.
“49 CFR § 173.306” also teaches that the container is filled with a material that is not more than 90% of capacity of the container, then the container is charged with nonflammable, nonliquefied gas (p. 1, § § 173.306 Limited quantities of compressed gases (a)(2)), and the liquid content of the material and gas must not completely fill the container (p. 1, § § 173.306 Limited quantities of compressed gases (a)(3)(iii)), which overlaps with the claimed range of “at most 90 vol% of a volume of the container”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the propellant composition consisting essentially of Z-HCFO-1224yd in an amount of about 10-90 wt % and HFO-1234ze (E) in an amount of about 10-90 wt % as taught by Robin in a container with a pressure not exceeding 970 kPa as taught by “49 CFR § 173.306”, in order to make a safe container with aerosol product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the liquid volume of the propellant composition of Robin in the container at the initial filling pressure (i.e. the first pressure), in order to obtain a safe container with aerosol product via a routine optimization thereby obtaining the present invention with a reasonable expectation of success, because the material which is not gas in the container is not more than 90% of capacity of the container, and the liquid content of the material and gas must not completely fill the container as recognized by “49 CFR § 173.306”.
It is well established that optimization of a prior art range flows from the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known. see Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. If the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. Id. ('A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.'). See MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed first state of the sprayer (i.e. the initial filling state) and the claimed second state of the sprayer (i.e. the discharged state) would flow naturally from the teachings of the combination of Robin and “49 CFR § 173.306”, because the teaching of the combination of Robin and “49 CFR § 173.306” provides substantially the same sprayer comprising the same container, the same propellant composition consisting essentially of the same amount of the same Z-HCFO-1224yd and the same amount of the same HFO-1234ze (E), and the same pressure at the first state (i.e. the initial filling pressure) as claimed, and also because the material which is not gas in the container is not more than 90% of capacity of the container, and the liquid content of the material and gas must not completely fill the container as recognized by “49 CFR § 173.306”.
Furthermore, Robin teaches that the composition provided herein has a global warming potential (GWP) of not greater than about 50 (para [0024]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “less than 10”.
“GWP Reference” as an evidentiary reference shows that Z-HCFO-1224yd has a GWP (100 years) of 1 (p. 2), and HFO-1234ze (E) has a GWP (100 years) of 1 (p. 3).
Thus, the propellant composition consisting essentially of about 10-90 wt% Z-HCFO-1224yd and about 10-90 wt% HFO-1234ze (E) as taught by Robin, has a GWP (100 years) of 1, which reads on the claimed propellant composition satisfying the requirement (2) (i.e. GWP (100 years) in accordance with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fifth Assessment Report, less than 10) throughout an entire period over a first state of the sprayer and a second state of the sprayer.
Robin further teaches that the propellant composition consisting essentially of about 10-90 wt% Z-HCFO-1224yd and about 10-90 wt% HFO-1234ze (E) as defined in Table 1 is nonflammable ([0271]), and is effective to render a flammable fluid being non-flammable ([0289]-[0291]). Thus, the propellant composition consisting essentially of about 10-90 wt% Z-HCFO-1224yd and about 10-90 wt% HFO-1234ze (E) as taught by Robin, is nonflammable.
Robin does not specifically teach that the propellant composition satisfies the following requirement (1) throughout an entire period over a first state of the sprayer and a second state of the sprayer:
(1) a no combustibility combustion test result in a combustion test on a mixture of the propellant composition and air in a container controlled at 60ᵒC±3ᵒC under 101.3 kPa ± 0.7 kPa as specified in ASTM E-681-09, such that no combustibility corresponds with the combustion test result when the mixture has no combustibility in the entire range of a proportion of the propellant composition to the total volume of the mixture being higher than 0 vol% and up to 100 vol% and when, in a gaseous phase in the vicinity of the center of the container, a fire is made by discharge ignition under 15 kV at 30 mA for 0.4 second, spread of flame is visually confirmed, and when the angle of spread of the flame upward is less than 90 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed no combustibility combustion test result in a combustion test in ASTM E-681-09 throughout an entire period over a first state of the sprayer (i.e. the initial filling state) and a second state of the sprayer (i.e. the discharged state), would flow naturally from the teaching of the combination of Robin and “49 CFR § 173.306”, because the teaching of the combination of Robin and “49 CFR § 173.306” provides substantially the same sprayer comprising the same container, the same propellant composition consisting essentially of the same amount of the same Z-HCFO-1224yd and the same amount of the same HFO-1234ze (E), and the same pressure at the first state (i.e. the initial filling pressure) as claimed, and also because the propellant composition consisting essentially of about 10-90 wt% Z-HCFO-1224yd and about 10-90 wt% HFO-1234ze (E) as taught by Robin is nonflammable and is effective to render a flammable fluid being non-flammable as recognized by Robin. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed in claim 7 above, the propellant composition of Robin consists essentially of Z-HCFO-1224yd and HFO-1234ze (E), wherein Z-HCFO-1224yd is in an amount of about 10 wt % to about 90 wt %, HFO-1234ze (E) is in an amount of about 10 wt % to about 90 wt %, which overlap with the claimed range of “at least 20 mass% and less than 100 mass%” of Z-HCFO-1224yd.
Robin does not specifically teach that the proportion of (Z)-1-chloro-2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene is at least 20 mass% and less than 100 mass% to the total mass of (Z)-1-chloro-2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and (E)-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene in a gaseous phase portion in the container filled with the propellant composition so that the liquid phase portion is 90 vol%.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed proportion of Z-HCFO-1224yd to the total mass of Z-HCFO-1224yd and HFO-1234ze (E) in a gaseous phase portion in the container filled with the propellant composition so that the liquid phase portion is 90 vol%, would flow naturally from the teachings of the combination of Robin and “49 CFR § 173.306”, because the teaching of the combination of Robin and “49 CFR § 173.306” provides substantially the same sprayer comprising the same container, the same propellant composition consisting essentially of the same amount of the same Z-HCFO-1224yd and the same amount of the same HFO-1234ze (E), and the same pressure at the first state (i.e. the initial filling state) as claimed, and also because the material which is not gas in the container is not more than 90% of capacity of the container, and the liquid content of the material and gas must not completely fill the container as recognized by “49 CFR § 173.306”. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 16-18, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed portion of Z-HCFO-1224yd and HFO-1234ze (E) in a liquid state, the claimed portion of Z-HCFO-1224yd and HFO-1234ze (E) in a gaseous state inside the container, and the claimed portion of the propellant composition in the container at the second state when the pressure is atmospheric pressure, would flow naturally from the teaching of the combination of Robin and “49 CFR § 173.306”, because the teaching of the combination of Robin and “49 CFR § 173.306” provides substantially the same sprayer comprising the same container, the same propellant composition consisting essentially of the same amount of the same Z-HCFO-1224yd and the same amount of the same HFO-1234ze (E), and the same pressure at the first state (i.e. the initial filling state) as claimed, and also because the material which is not gas in the container is not more than 90% of capacity of the container, and the liquid content of the material and gas must not completely fill the container as recognized by “49 CFR § 173.306”.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the liquid volume of the propellant composition of Robin in the container at the initial filling pressure (i.e. the first pressure), in order to obtain a safe container with aerosol product via a routine optimization thereby obtaining the present invention with a reasonable expectation of success, because aerosol product is contained in a container with a pressure not exceeding 970 kPa as recognized by “49 CFR § 173.306”, and the material which is not gas in the container is not more than 90% of capacity of the container, and the liquid content of the material and gas must not completely fill the container as recognized by “49 CFR § 173.306”. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Robin teaches that the composition is an aerosol product and liquefied gas propellant (para [0271]), and the composition is a one component system and is packaged in a container, such as an aerosol type can (para [0220]), which reads on the claimed one-component sprayer containing the propellant composition as the only liquid phase in the sprayer.
Regarding claim 21, Robin teaches that the composition is a two component system (para [0098], [0266]), and the composition as an aerosol product can include inert ingredients, solvents, and other materials (para [0266]), which reads on the claimed two-component sprayer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed liquid phase of the propellant composition being 90 vol% based on a total volume of the container, would flow naturally from the teaching of the combination of Robin and “49 CFR § 173.306”, because the teaching of the combination of Robin and “49 CFR § 173.306” provides substantially the same sprayer comprising the same container, the same propellant composition consisting essentially of the same amount of the same Z-HCFO-1224yd and the same amount of the same HFO-1234ze (E), and the same pressure at the first state (i.e. the initial filling state) as claimed, and also because the material which is not gas in the container is not more than 90% of capacity of the container, and the liquid content of the material and gas must not completely fill the container as recognized by “49 CFR § 173.306”.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the liquid volume of the propellant composition of Robin in the container at the initial filling pressure (i.e. the first pressure), in order to obtain a safe container with aerosol product via a routine optimization thereby obtaining the present invention with a reasonable expectation of success, because aerosol product is contained in a container with a pressure not exceeding 970 kPa as recognized by “49 CFR § 173.306”, and the material which is not gas in the container is not more than 90% of capacity of the container, and the liquid content of the material and gas must not completely fill the container as recognized by “49 CFR § 173.306”. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1. Applicant argues that paragraph [0006] of Robin states generally that "[m]ixtures containing the compound Z-HCFO-1224yd can be azeotropic, azeotrope-like or non-azeotropic (zeotropic)"; however, Robin contains no further discussion of azeotropic or non-azeotropic mixtures, any properties of mixtures containing Z-HCFO-1224yd, or any rationale for selecting an azeotropic or non-azeotropic mixture (p. 10, 1st para).
Applicant also argues that Robin does not describe or suggest a sprayer that must meet the combustibility, GWP and compositional requirements of the present claims (p. 9, last para); Applicant's factual evidence demonstrates the criticality of using particular compositions to obtain a sprayer that is able to operate in a non-combustible regime throughout its entire period of use; prior art disclosure that merely describes admixtures of different fluorinated compounds is no recognition or suggestion of a sprayer that must contain materials that meet the composition and physical property requirements recited in the present claims during the entire time of use of a sprayer (p. 10, 2nd para).
Applicant also argues that Robin determines flash point according to ASTM-1310-86 titled "Flash point of liquids by tag Open-cup apparatus" (see paragraph [0272] of Robin); thus, Robin measures the flash point of a liquid composition; thus, Robin could not determine if a certain starting composition could remain non-combustible in both the liquid and gas phases throughout the entire use of the sprayer (p. 10, last para; p. 11, 1st para).
In response, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Firstly, as discussed in claim 7 above, “GWP Reference” as an evidentiary reference shows that Z-HCFO-1224yd has a GWP (100 years) of 1 (p. 2), and HFO-1234ze (E) has a GWP (100 years) of 1 (p. 3).
Thus, the propellant composition consisting essentially of about 10-90 wt% Z-HCFO-1224yd and about 10-90 wt% HFO-1234ze (E) as taught by Robin, has a GWP (100 years) of 1, which reads on the claimed propellant composition satisfying the requirement (2) (i.e. GWP (100 years) in accordance with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fifth Assessment Report, less than 10) throughout an entire period over a first state of the sprayer and a second state of the sprayer.
Secondly, the propellant composition of Robin consists essentially of Z-HCFO-1224yd and HFO-1234ze (E), wherein Z-HCFO-1224yd is in an amount of about 10 wt % to about 90 wt %, HFO-1234ze (E) is in an amount of about 10 wt % to about 90 wt %, which overlap with the claimed ranges of “30-50 mass%” of Z-HCFO-1224yd and “50-70 mass%” of HFO-1234ze (E).
Robin also teaches that the composition comprising Z-HCFO-1224yd can be non-azeotropic (para [0006]).
Robin also teaches that the propellant composition consisting essentially of about 10-90 wt% Z-HCFO-1224yd and about 10-90 wt% HFO-1234ze (E) as defined in Table 1 is nonflammable ([0271]), and is effective to render a flammable fluid being non-flammable ([0289]-[0291]).
The court has held that “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. See MPEP 2112.01 II. "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the properties of being non-azeotropic and being non-combustible in both the liquid and gas phases, would flow naturally from the teaching of Robin, because the teaching of Robin provides substantially the same propellant composition consisting essentially of the same amount of the same Z-HCFO-1224yd and the same amount of the same HFO-1234ze (E) as claimed, and also because this propellant composition is effective to render a flammable fluid being non-flammable as recognized by Robin.
Thirdly, as discussed in claim 7 above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed no combustibility combustion test result in a combustion test in ASTM E-681-09 throughout an entire period over a first state of the sprayer and a second state of the sprayer, would flow naturally from the teachings of the combination of Robin and “49 CFR § 173.306”, because the teaching of the combination of Robin and “49 CFR § 173.306” provides substantially the same sprayer comprising the same container, the same propellant composition consisting essentially of the same amount of the same Z-HCFO-1224yd and the same amount of the same HFO-1234ze (E), and the same pressure at the first state (i.e. the initial filling pressure) as claimed, and also because the propellant composition consisting essentially of about 10-90 wt% Z-HCFO-1224yd and about 10-90 wt% HFO-1234ze (E) as taught by Robin is nonflammable and is effective to render a flammable fluid being non-flammable as recognized by Robin. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
3. Applicant argues that the propellant compositions such that 1-chloro-2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene is present in an amount of 20 mass% or more and less than 100 mass% and the 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene is present in an amount of more than 0 mass% and less than 80 mass% avoids gas phase flammability that may otherwise pose a risk in the Robin compositions (p. 11, 1st para).
In response, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Firstly, claim 7 recites “the propellant composition comprising (Z)-1-chloro-2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and (E)-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene”, which is much broader than the ranges of “1-chloro-2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene in an amount of 20 mass% or more and less than 100 mass%” and “1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene in an amount of more than 0 mass% and less than 80 mass%” that are mentioned in Applicant’s argument.
Secondly, as discussed in claim 7 above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed no combustibility combustion test result in a combustion test in ASTM E-681-09 throughout an entire period over a first state of the sprayer and a second state of the sprayer, would flow naturally from the teachings of the combination of Robin and “49 CFR § 173.306”, because the teaching of the combination of Robin and “49 CFR § 173.306” provides substantially the same sprayer comprising the same container, the same propellant composition consisting essentially of the same amount of the same Z-HCFO-1224yd and the same amount of the same HFO-1234ze (E), and the same pressure at the first state (i.e. the initial filling pressure) as claimed, and also because the propellant composition consisting essentially of about 10-90 wt% Z-HCFO-1224yd and about 10-90 wt% HFO-1234ze (E) as taught by Robin is nonflammable and is effective to render a flammable fluid being non-flammable as recognized by Robin.
Thirdly, evidence of unexpected results must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. See MPEP § 716.01(c).
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 716.02 (d). Therefore, Applicant should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show an unexpected result over a claimed range.
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 JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761