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/Response to Amendment
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/9/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment filed 1/12/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-12 remain pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 6, line 5, “a conformation device provided with” should instead be “a conformation device provided with:”.
-Claim 12, lines 2-3, “a first shaping station configured to make available a first sheet made of biodegradable material with gas barrier properties provided with at least one first concave portion” would be better recited as “a first shaping station configured to form at least one first concave portion in a first sheet made of biodegradable material with gas barrier properties”.
-Claim 12, lines 9-10, “a second shaping station configured to make available a second sheet made of biodegradable material with gas barrier properties provided with at least one second concave portion” would be better recited as “a second shaping station configured to form at least one second concave portion in a second sheet made of biodegradable material with gas barrier properties”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, lines 8-11 recite “folding said first and second sheets at said peripheral annular portions to form respective stiffening annular portions extending on a plane transverse to the peripheral annular portion”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to how the peripheral annular portions can be folded to form stiffening annular portions and the stiffening portions formed can also extend on a plane transverse to the peripheral annular portion. In other words if the stiffening annular portions are formed from the peripheral annular portions, it is unclear how they can also extend transverse to the peripheral annular portions. It would appear to be extending transverse to an unfolded portion of the peripheral annular portions but this is not clear.
Regarding Claim 6, lines 11-15 recite “a folding element configured to be placed outside the peripheral edge of the die to make the fold in the at least one sheet at said peripheral annular portion to form at least one stiffening annular portion extending on a plane ”. Similar to the reasoning for Claim 1, this limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to how the peripheral annular portion can be folded to form a stiffening portion and that stiffening portion extend transverse to the peripheral annular portion if it is a portion of the peripheral annular portion. Further, regarding this limitation, “the fold” lacks antecedent basis within the claim and therefore renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 12, lines 5-8 recite “a first folding element configured to make a fold in the first sheet at a peripheral annular portion to form a stiffening annular portion extending on a transverse plane in relation transverse to the peripheral annular portion” and lines 11-15 recite “a second folding element configured to make a fold in the second sheet at a peripheral annular portion to form a stiffening annular portion”. These limitations render the claim indefinite for similar reasonings as outlined in the rejections of Claim 1 and 6 above.
Claims 2-5 and 7-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binacchi (EP 1705122A1-cited in IDS), in view of Vanni (US Patent 9,422,104), and in further view of Delhaye (US Patent 11,021,279), and alternatively Kawashima (US Patent 7,165,376).
Regarding Claim 1, Binacchi discloses a method for manufacturing a pod (100; Figure 1) for brewing products (coffee powder), the method comprising the following steps:
arranging a first sheet (6) and a second sheet (18 mislabeled as 17, hereinafter referred to as 17/18);
shaping (via preforming means 20 and sealing means 15; Para. 0039-0040) said first and second sheets (6, 17/18) to make at least one first concave portion on said first sheet (6) and at least one second concave portion on said second sheet (17/18) delimited by respective peripheral annular portions (shown in Figure 4);
filling the at least one first concave portion (of 6 within 3) with a predetermined quantity of a brewing product comprising coffee (via 9; Para. 0024, 0034); and
coupling (at 15) the first and second sheets (6, 17/18) at the peripheral annular portions so that respective concavities of the first and second concave portions (of 6 and 17/18) are opposite each other and define a housing volume of said brewing product comprising coffee (see Figure 4; Para. 0046).
However, Binacchi fails to explicitly disclose (1) the pod being compostable and the first and second sheets being made of biodegradable material with gas barrier properties and fails to disclose (2) folding said first and second sheets at said peripheral annular portions to form respective stiffening annular portions extending on a plane transverse to the peripheral annular portion.
First, attention is brought to the teachings of Vanni which includes a method of manufacturing a compostable pod (10; Figure 1) comprising a dose of coffee product (12) disposed between two sheets (14, 16) of biodegradable material with gas barrier properties (Col 4, lines 39-45, “cellulose paper, or else by a nonwoven fabric, for example a cellulose-fibre-based fabric”; see also Col 6, lines 46-60 which outline such materials consistent with Applicants materials disclosed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the material of the sheets of Binacchi to comprise biodegradable material with gas barrier properties as taught by Vanni as such a modification allows for the pods to be recovered by composting and biodegration and thereby beneficial to the environment as outlined by Vanni (Col 3, lines 8-11 and Col 2, lines 40-43).
Second, attention can be brought to the teachings of Delhaye which outlines another method of manufacturing a pod-like packaging (capsule; Figure 5) wherein the pod-like packaging/capsule is manufacturing by shaping a cavity in each of a first and second biodegradable sheet (1, 2; Figure 1; Col 4, lines 42-45), and further shaping/folding said first and second sheets (1, 2) at corresponding peripheral annular portions (102, 202) to form respective stiffening annular portions (31, 32) extending on a plane transverse to the peripheral annular portion (Col 4, lines 50-65; see “Annotated View of Figure 4” below; the vertical wall formation of the basins will readily provide a stiffening effect).
PNG
media_image1.png
171
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated View of Figure 4
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Binacchi to include a folding step to form stiffening annular portions as taught by Delhaye. By modifying Binacchi in this manner, the opposing formed sheets can be readily aligned and retained with one another as taught by Delhaye (Col 5, lines 13-16).
Assuming arguendo that the annular portions (31, 32) of Delhaye cannot be viewed as stiffened portions, in which the Examiner does not concede to, attention is brought to Kawashima which teaches forming of another packaging (10, 20; Figure 2) including shaping/folding a annular portion (flanges 11, 21) to include a stiffening annular portion (17, 27; Figure 3b) in corresponding portions (10, 20) of the packaging (Col 8, lines 32-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Binacchi to include a folding step to form annular portions as taught by Delhaye (which readily provide stiffening as taught by Kawashima). By modifying Binacchi in this manner, the flanges can be strengthened as taught by Kawashima (Col 8, lines 32-35) and opposing formed sheets can be readily aligned and retained with one another as taught by Delhaye (Col 5, lines 13-16).
Regarding Claim 3, Binacchi, as modified, discloses a cutting step (at 16) comprising cutting the peripheral annular portions (into 100; Figure 1), following the coupling step (at 15; Para. 0046), along respective cutting lines between (i) the first and second concave portions and (ii) the stiffening annular portions (31, 32 of Delhaye; see Col. 5, line 65-67 which outline removal of the ring portions which include the basins).
Regarding Claim 4, Binacchi, as modified, specifically Vanni discloses said first sheet or said second sheet (6, 17/18 of Binacchi as modified by Vanni) made of biodegradable material with gas barrier properties is a composite having a cellulose component and a biopolymer or bioplastic component (i.e. cellulose acetate; Col 6, lines 46-60; see also Col 4, lines 39-45, “cellulose paper, or else by a nonwoven fabric, for example a cellulose-fibre-based fabric”).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binacchi (EP 1705122A1), in view of Vanni (US Patent 9,422,104), Delhaye (US Patent 11,021,279), and alternatively Kawashima (US Patent 7,165,376), as applied to Claim 1, and in further view of Littlejohn (US Patent 8,584,929).
Regarding Claim 2, Binacchi, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose a shaping step and said folding step are carried out simultaneously. Note while Delhaye does disclose formation of cavities and the annular portions occurring in a same step (Figures 1 to 2; see Col 4, lines 50-65) it is not disclosed as simultaneously.
Attention is brought to Littlejohn which outlines a method of manufacturing a container (i.e. 10; Figure 9) from of biodegradable sheet material (paperboard), wherein the container is formed by shaping a cavity (inner region 12, sidewall 111) and folding a portion of an annular peripheral portion (118) to form stiffened annular regions (126, 60; Note Col 4, lines 52-64 outline the transitions shown increase the rigidity) wherein the shaping and the folding occur simultaneously within a die set (330; Figures 21-25; Col 31, lines 33-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Binacchi to have performed the shaping simultaneously with the folding (taught by Delhaye) as taught by Littlejohn in order to increase the throughput of the process as such would not require separate steps and machinery for the folding and shaping.
Regarding Claim 5, Binacchi, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose said shaping steps for the first sheet and the second sheet involve: moistening at least one first portion of said first sheet and a second portion of said second sheet; conforming said first portion and said second portion to make said first concave portion and said second concave portion; and drying said first concave portion and said second concave portion.
Attention can again be brought to Littlejohn which outlines a method of manufacturing a container (i.e. 10; Figure 9) from of biodegradable sheet material (paperboard), wherein the container is formed by shaping a cavity (inner region 12, sidewall 111) but prior shaping/conforming, the material is moistened (Col. 25, lines 55-66 and Col 27, lines 33-37), and further dried once formed (note Col 27 lines 26-37 outline obtaining a certain moisture content for forming which therefore will reduce over time due to exposure to air/heat).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Binacchi to have a moistening step prior to shaping/conforming as taught by Littlejohn such that the material comprises sufficient moisture to deform but not excessive moisture that would interfere with forming as taught by Littlejohn (Col 27, lines 26-33).
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binacchi (EP 1705122A1), in view of Delhaye (US Patent 11,021,279), and in further view of Littlejohn (US Patent 8,584,929).
Regarding Claim 6, Binacchi discloses a shaping station (formed by unwinding roller 7, preforming means 20, actuator 17, plates 2, recesses 3; Figure 1) for a compostable pod-making machine for brewing products (coffee powder; note that although Binacchi does not readily disclose compostable material, the station/machine is clearly capable of handling such materials), the shaping station (2, 3, 7, 20, 17) comprising:
(a) a feeding unit (7) configured to feed at least one sheet (6) made of biodegradable material with gas barrier properties (Para. 0022; again it is noted that the sheet itself is not positively claimed as part of the station and therefore it is noted the feeding unit 7 is capable of providing such material); and
(b) a conformation device (2, 3, 20) provided with
(i) a shaping device (2, 3, 20) comprising at least one mobile punch (20, the at least one mobile punch (20) configured for approaching and moving away from a die (2; Para. 0041) provided with a concavity (3) delimited around an edge of the concavity by a peripheral edge of the die (of 2), said shaping device (2, 3, 20) configured to shape at least one concave portion and a corresponding peripheral annular portion (see Figure 4) on said at least one sheet (6; Para. 0040-0041),
wherein the conformation device is upstream of a filling station (21) configured to fill the at least one concave portion with a predetermined quantity of a brewing product comprising coffee (Para. 0024, abstract).
However, Binacchi not readily disclose a folding element configured to be placed outside the peripheral edge of the die to make the fold in the at least one sheet at said peripheral annular portion to form at least one stiffening annular portion extending on a plane
Attention is brought to the teachings of Delhaye which outlines another manufacturing a pod-like packaging (capsule; Figure 5) wherein the pod-like packaging/capsule is manufactured using a conformation device including a punch against dies (Col 4, lines 46-62) to form (see Figure 1 to Figure 2) a concavity (101, 201; Figure 4), an annular peripheral portion (102, 202) and respective stiffening annular portions (31, 32) extending on a plane transverse to the peripheral annular portion (see Figure 4) in each sheet (1, 2; Col 4, lines 46-65).
Note, while it can be readily implied that Delhaye comprises a folding element in the manner as claimed in order to form the stiffening annular portions, further attention can be brought to Littlejohn which outlines another conformation device (330; Figures 21-25) for manufacturing a container (i.e. 10; Figure 9) from of biodegradable sheet material (paperboard), wherein the shaping device (330) comprises a shaping device (332, 338) comprising a die (338) and punch (332) for shaping a cavity (inner region 12, sidewall 111) and a folding element (336, 342) configured to be placed outside a peripheral edge of the die (338 as shown) to make a fold in the at least one sheet at a peripheral annular portion (118) to form at least one stiffening annular portion (126, 60; Note Col 4, lines 52-64 outline the transitions shown increase the rigidity; Figures 21-25; Col 31, lines 24-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the conformation device of Binacchi to include a folding element (as exemplified by Littlejohn) to form stiffening annular portions as taught by Delhaye. By modifying Binacchi in this manner, the opposing formed sheets can be readily aligned and retained with one another as taught by Delhaye (Col 5, lines 13-16).
Regarding Claim 7, Binacchi, as modified, specifically Littlejohn discloses said folding element (336) is mobile and configured for approaching and moving away from an abutment portion (342) that is placed outside the peripheral edge of the die (338) and that is configured to receive said folding element (336) against the abutment portion (342) in order to make said fold in the at least one sheet (see Col 31, lines 33-45).
Regarding Claim 8, Binacchi, as modified, specifically Littlejohn discloses said abutment portion (342) with reference to a reciprocal movement direction between the mobile punch (332) and the die (338), is interposed between said peripheral edge of the die (338) and a bottom portion of the concavity (of 12, 111; Note given the sloping configuration of 342 shown in Figure 23 of Littlejohn, when pressed the edge thereof would be readily disposed between the die peripheral edge and the bottom of the concavity; also note the abutment portion 342 extends downward such that a significant portion thereof is in a vertical position as claimed). Further note, given the configuration of the basins/stiffening annular portions (31, 32) of Delhaye, the abutment portion would have to be positioned as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, Binacchi, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose wherein a distance, measured along the reciprocal movement direction between the mobile punch (332 of Littlejohn) and the die (338 of Littlejohn), between the peripheral edge (of 338) and the abutment portion (342 of Littlejohn ranges between 0.5 mm and 2 mm; and wherein a distance, measured along the reciprocal movement direction between the mobile punch (332 of Littlejohn) and the die (338 of Littlejohn), between the peripheral edge and the bottom portion ranges between 3 mm and 7 mm.
The examiner notes that range of motion of the punch and die relative to one can be dictated by the thickness of the material, the type of material and the degree of desired deformation of the material, wherein the range of the motion require for each cited limitation would require a degree of experimentation to determine the optimal range of motion of punch and die relative to one another and movement of the abutment portion to achieve the desired result. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the range of reciprocal motion of the punch and die relative to one another limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 10, Binacchi, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose a moistening device configured for moistening of at least one portion of said sheet, and wherein said conformation device comprises heating means configured to dry said at least one concave portion allowing maintenance of a concave conformation of the least one concave portion.
Attention can again be brought to Littlejohn which outlines manufacturing a container (i.e. 10; Figure 9) from of biodegradable sheet material (paperboard), wherein the container is formed by shaping a cavity (inner region 12, sidewall 111) but prior shaping/conforming, the material is moistened in a moistening device (Col. 25, lines 55-66 and Col 27, lines 33-37), and further dried once formed (note Col 27 lines 26-37 outline obtaining a certain moisture content for forming which therefore will reduce over time due to exposure to air/heat and thermoforming).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Binacchi to have a moistening step prior to shaping/conforming as taught by Littlejohn such that the material comprises sufficient moisture to deform but not excessive moisture that would interfere with forming as taught by Littlejohn (Col 27, lines 26-33).
Regarding Claim 11, Binacchi, as modified, specifically Littlejohn discloses said heating means comprising a heating device joined to said mobile punch (332 of Littlejohn) and/or to said die (338 of Littlejohn) and configured to dry the portion of the sheet during formation of the concave conformation (See Col 28, line 61 through Col 29, line 15).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binacchi (EP 1705122A1), in view of Ehrmann (US Patent 10,407,197), and in further view of Delhaye (US Patent 11,021,279) and Littlejohn (US Patent 8,584,929).
Regarding Claim 12, Binacchi discloses a compostable pod (100) making machine (Figure 1) for brewing products (note although not disclosed as compostable, the machine is clearly capable of making such compostable pods), the machine comprising:
a first shaping station (preforming means 20) configured to make available a first sheet (6) made of biodegradable material with gas barrier properties provided with at least one first concave portion (Para. 0040-0041; as shown in Figure 4; note although the film 6 is not disclosed as a biodegradable material with gas barrier properties, the shaping station is clearly capable of use with such material);
a filling station (21) operationally arranged downstream of said first shaping station (20) and configured to fill said first concave portion (of 6) with a predetermined quantity of a brewing product comprising coffee (Para. 0024); and
a coupling station (15) operationally arranged downstream of said filling station (21) and configured to couple the first and second sheets (6, 17/18) at the peripheral annular portions (see Figure 4) so that respective concavities of the first and second concave portions are opposite each other and define a housing volume of said brewing product comprising coffee (as shown in Figure 4; Para. 0038-0039).
However, Binacchi fails to explicitly disclose:
(1) the first shaping station comprising a first folding element configured to make a fold in the first sheet at a peripheral annular portion to form a stiffening annular portion extending on a transverse plane in relation transverse to the peripheral annular portion
(2) a second shaping station, separate from the coupling station, configured to make available a second sheet made of biodegradable material with gas barrier properties provided with at least one second concave portion; and
(3) the second shaping station comprising a second folding element configured to make a fold in the second sheet at a peripheral annular portion to form a stiffening annular portion extending on a plane transverse to the peripheral annular portion.
First, attention can be brought to the teachings of Ehrmann which includes another packaging machine (1; Figure 1) comprising a first shaping station (4) configured to form at least one first concave portion (tray 5) in a first sheet (6) and a second shaping station (8) configured to form at least one second concave portion (lid 9) in a second sheet (10; Col 3, lines 46-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized two shaping stations, including a shaping station for the second/upper sheet, as taught by Ehrmann in the machine of Binacchi as such a modification allows for production of a rigid lid with products that extend above the lower portion of the package as taught by Ehrmann (Col. 2, lines 13-15). Note further, by shaping the upper/second sheet separate from the coupling of the sheets, discrepancies of the upper sheet forming can be reduced as it will not be reliant on the shaping of the material upstream (at 14) being accurate.
Further, with respect to the folding elements, attention is brought to the teachings of Delhaye which outlines another manufacturing a pod-like packaging (capsule; Figure 5) wherein the pod-like packaging/capsule is manufactured using shaping devices including a punch against dies (Col 4, lines 46-62) to form (see Figure 1 to Figure 2) a concavities (101, 201; Figure 4), annular peripheral portions (102, 202) and respective stiffening annular portions (31, 32) extending on a plane transverse to the peripheral annular portion (see Figure 4) in each sheet (1, 2; Col 4, lines 46-65).
Note, while it can be readily implied that Delhaye comprises a folding element in the manner as claimed in order to form the stiffening annular portions, further attention can be brought to Littlejohn which outlines another conformation device (330; Figures 21-25) for manufacturing a container (i.e. 10; Figure 9) from of biodegradable sheet material (paperboard), wherein the shaping device (330) comprises a shaping device (332, 338) comprising a die (338) and punch (332) for shaping a cavity (inner region 12, sidewall 111) and a folding element (336, 342) configured to be placed outside a peripheral edge of the die (338 as shown) to make a fold in the at least one sheet at a peripheral annular portion (118) to form at least one stiffening annular portion (126, 60; Note Col 4, lines 52-64 outline the transitions shown increase the rigidity; Figures 21-25; Col 31, lines 24-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the shaping devices of Binacchi, as modified by Ehrmann, to include a folding element (as exemplified by Littlejohn) to form stiffening annular portions as taught by Delhaye. By modifying Binacchi in this manner, the opposing formed sheets can be readily aligned and retained with one another as taught by Delhaye (Col 5, lines 13-16).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that if Applicant was to incorporate Claims 3 and 5 into Claim 1, such an amendment would appear to render the claim allowable over the prior art. While the features, individually may be disclosed and/or rendered obvious, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated all such features in combination into the method of Binacchi without improper hindsight.
With respect to Claim 12, if Applicant was positively claim “a supply of a first sheet made of biodegradable material with gas barrier properties” and “a supply of a second sheet made of biodegradable material with gas barrier properties” to positively claim the material being used and further incorporate moistening devices comprised in each of the claimed shaping stations, the combination of features would appear to render the claim allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
Note with respect to Claim 6, not relied upon but Feisel (US PGPUB 2010/0024359) discloses a shaping station (2 and unwinding mechanism of 8; Figure 1) comprising (a) a feeding unit (roll and feeding mechanism of 8) and (b) a conformation device (2) provided with (i) a shaping device (17, 4; Figures 2a-2b) comprising at least one mobile punch (17) and a die (4) and (ii) a folding element (12 which appears to be mislabeled and should instead be “20” per Para. 0018-0019) configured to be placed outside the peripheral edge of the die (4 as shown) to make the fold (forming 9) as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 3/11/2026