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 .
In light of the amendments to the claims filed 01/20/2026 in which claims 46-47 were amended, claims 1, 3, 5, 7-13, 16-17, 21, 24, 38, 43, and 45-48 are pending in the instant application.
In light of the response to the restriction requirement filed 09/03/2024 in which claims 13-14, 16-17, 20-21, 24-25, 28, and 38-39 were withdrawn and the election by original presentation set forth in the Office Action filed 05/02/2025 in which claim 45 was withdrawn, claims 1, 3, 5, 7-12, 43, and 46-48 are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/IB2020/058692 filed 09/18/2020 which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Applications 62/902,038 and 62/902,051 filed on 09/18/2019.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-13, 16-17, 21, 24, 38, 43, and 45-48 receive priority to the prior-filed application, filed on 09/18/2019.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Claims
The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims filed 01/20/2026.
Rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant asserts on pg. 7-8 that the prior art to Hopkins fails to remedy the deficiencies of Dutkiewicz and Guidotti.
In response to the applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant asserts that the teachings of optimization in Hopkins in regards to the amount of superabsorbent in the absorbent core are only relevant to absorbent cores having at least “75 wt% or more” of superabsorbent polymer. The applicant further asserts that to the extent that Hopkins teaches the use of a superabsorbent polymer in an amount above or below 75 wt% as a result-effective variable, such a teaching would not obviously lead one of ordinary skill in the art to use no more than 10 gsm or 5.7 wt% of superabsorbent polymer in a multi-layer nonwoven material and that Hopkins does not teach the benefits of using a low amount of superabsorbent polymer in a multi-layer nonwoven material.
In the previous Office Action filed 09/17/2025, the examiner cited to Hopkins para. 0043-0047. Hopkins (para. 0045) which the applicant is referring to states, “The amount of superabsorbent material in a selected layer or other component (e.g., the absorbent core 30) can be at least a minimum of about 1 wt %. The amount of superabsorbent material can alternatively be at least about 5 wt %, and can optionally be at least about 8 wt % to provide improved performance. In other aspects, the amount of superabsorbent material can be up to a maximum of about 75 wt %, or more. The amount of superabsorbent material can alternatively be up to about 35 wt %, and can optionally be up to about 20 wt % to provide improved effectiveness.” While Hopkins discloses an embodiment wherein the superabsorbent material can be up to 75 wt% or more, Hopkins provides multiple other embodiments of the maximum amount of superabsorbent material. Further, while the language of the claim recites that the nonwoven material has no more than 10 gsm of superabsorbent polymer, the percentage of superabsorbent polymer is not claimed.
To support a rejection under routine optimization as noted in MPEP 2144.05(II)(B), an examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. Hopkins in the previous rejection of the claim had been used as a teaching reference to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the amount of superabsorbent polymer within an absorbent core is a result-effective variable, affecting the absorbency of the core when the value is too low or too high or containability of the superabsorbent polymer when the value is too high. The amount of superabsorbent polymer within an absorbent core is considered to be a result-effective variable, and it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention in view of said disclosure.
Further regarding claim 1, applicant asserts on pg. 8-10 that the provision of no more than 10 gsm of superabsorbent polymer in the multi-layer nonwoven material of the invention provides unexpected results.
In response to the applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully notes that the applicant’s arguments cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP 716.01(c)(I-II) states, “Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results…Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results…”. The applicant’s arguments, nor the comparative data in the specification are enough to show that the results are truly unexpected and significant.
Further, MPEP 716.02(c)(I) states, “Evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness in making a final determination of the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978)”. The claim is currently rejected as being prima facie obvious, and the applicant has failed to show evidence of criticality of the range claimed.
Further, MPEP 716.02 states “Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”. While the applicant has shown tested structures that show better acquisition performance, acquisition times, and longer wicking distances than other tested structures, the applicant has not met the burden of proof for unexpected results. MPEP 716.02(b)(I) states that “[t]he evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) “. There is no showing that these results are unexpected, unobvious, and of both statistical and practical significance.
The rejections of the claims are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-12, and 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO/2016/115181 A1 to Dutkiewicz in view of U.S. Patent 5,741,241 A to Guidotti and US/2014/0066875 A1 to Hopkins.
Regarding claim 1, Dutkiewicz discloses a multi-layer nonwoven material (“Absorbent Cores”; pg. 23-24 ln. 17-34 and 1-12) comprising:
a first layer comprising a blend of cellulose fibers and bicomponent fibers (pg. 9-12 “Cellulose Fibers”; pg. 12-17 “Synthetic Fibers”; pg. 23 ln. 23-24 and 27-29, first layer considered first sub-layer), wherein the cellulose fibers are present in the first layer in an amount ranging from 5-100 gsm (pg. 23 ln. 27-29); and
a second layer comprising a blend of fine hardwood cellulose fibers and bicomponent fibers (pg. 9-12 “Cellulose Fibers”; pg. 12-17 “Synthetic Fibers”; pg. 23 ln. 23-24; pg. 24 ln. 1-4, second layer considered fifth sub-layer),
at least a portion of the first layer or at least a portion of the second layer is coated with a binder (pg. 4 ln. 20-21, fifth sub-layer coated with binder; pg. 19 ln. 10-14),
the multi-layer nonwoven material comprises superabsorbent polymer (pg. 23 ln. 20-23),
the first layer is the top layer of the multi-layer nonwoven material (while not explicitly shown it can be extrapolated and understood from the figures that the lowest number layer is the top layer and the highest number layer is the bottom layer with the layers between in increasing number order).
Dutkiewicz differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Dutkiewicz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the cellulose fibers are present in the first layer in an amount ranging from 20-70 gsm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of cellulose fibers in the first layer from between 5-100 gsm to between 20-70 gsm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (specification para. 0100 indicating the amount can be simply within the claimed range).
Further, Dutkiewicz differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Dutkiewicz fails to disclose that the fine hardwood cellulose fibers of the second layer are finer than the cellulose fibers of the first layer.
Guidotti discloses an absorbent comprising fine cellulose fibers in a second layer that are finer than the cellulose fibers of the first layer (col. 4 ln. 31-64; col. 5 ln. 35-54; col. 6 ln. 3-5; Fig. 2, first layer 16 and second layer 17(a,b)), this arrangement of fineness allowing for liquid to be transported from the coarser capillaries to the finer capillaries (col. 5 ln. 36-65).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the fiber layers of Dutkiewicz to have increased fineness from an upper to a lower layer as taught by Guidotti, because Guidotti discloses that fibers with increased fineness provide a denser structure with finer capillaries than coarse fibers, and that this arrangement of fineness allows for liquid to be transported from the coarser capillaries to the finer capillaries which counteracts rewet of the skin (col. 5 ln. 36-65) in that capillary transport does not occur from finer to coarser capillaries.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the fine cellulose fibers comprise a pulp fiber coarseness ranging from 4.2 mg/100m to 14.08 mg/100m”, as Dutkiewicz discloses the use of eucalyptus pulp (pg. 9-12 “Cellulose Fibers”; pg. 24 ln. 1-4), Dutkiewicz discloses substantially identical structure to the claimed invention, such that the claimed property is considered to be inherent. As supported in MPEP 2112.01, “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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
Further, Dutkiewicz differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Dutkiewicz fails to disclose wherein the multi-layer nonwoven material has no more than 10 gsm of superabsorbent polymer.
Hopkins teaches an absorbent core comprising superabsorbent polymer (para. 0043-0047). Hopkins teaches that if the amount of superabsorbent in the absorbent core is outside the desired value, there can be excessive leakage from the core, and that if the amount of superabsorbent in the absorbent core is too high, there can be poor containment of the superabsorbent (para. 0043-0047). Hopkins further teaches that too much superabsorbent can inhibit the transfer of liquid within the core, provide an inadequate rate of liquid intake which could cause leakage and excessive wetness, and cause manufacturing costs to be excessive (para. 0043-0047). According to the teachings of Hopkins, the amount of superabsorbent polymer within the absorbent core is a result effective variable in that changing the amount of superabsorbent polymer changes the ability of the absorbent core to intake, retain, and transfer liquid. It further changes the amount of superabsorbent that may pass out of the absorbent core and the total cost of manufacturing the absorbent core. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Dutkiewicz device to have an amount of superabsorbent polymer within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dutkiewicz by making the amount of superabsorbent polymer be less than 10 gsm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1.
The combination of the cited prior art suggests all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the nonwoven material having an effective acquisition time of about 15 seconds or less. While the combination of the cited prior art does not suggest an effective acquisition time with respect to the embodiment relied upon in the rejection, Dutkiewicz teaches that acquisition time is a desired property in a nonwoven material (pg. 25 ln. 17-26; pg. 31 ln. 24-34). Acquisition time is concerned with improving absorption ability, and it is known in the art to improve absorption ability.
It would therefore have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide the nonwoven material of the cited prior art with an effective acquisition time of about 15 seconds or less to achieve the predictable result of improving the intake time of the article to reduce leakage and to allow for longer use of the article.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1.
The combination of the cited prior art suggests all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the nonwoven material having a rewet value of about 0.05 g. or less. While the combination of the cited prior art does not suggest a rewet value with respect to the embodiment relied upon in the rejection, Dutkiewicz teaches that rewet value is a desired property in a nonwoven material (pg. 25 ln. 27-34 and pg. 26 ln. 1-5; pg. 37 ln. 32-34 and pg. 38 ln. 1-9). Rewet value is concerned with improving fluid retention, and it is known in the art to improve fluid retention.
It would therefore have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide the nonwoven material of the cited prior art with a rewet value of about 0.05 g. or less to achieve the predictable result of improving the rewet value to make the top of the article feel dryer and more comfortable to the wearer.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Dutkiewicz further discloses: wherein the fine cellulose fibers include eucalyptus pulp (pg. 9-12 “Cellulose Fibers”; pg. 24 ln. 1-4).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Dutkiewicz further discloses: wherein the superabsorbent polymer is in a first intermediate layer disposed between the first layer and the second layer (pg. 23 ln. 20-23, second-fourth sub-layers considered first intermediate layer as being disposed between the first and fifth sub-layers; while not explicitly shown it can be extrapolated and understood from the figures that the lowest number layer is the top layer and the highest number layer is the bottom layer with the layers between in increasing number order).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10; however, the combination of the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that they fail to disclose a second intermediate layer disposed between the first layer and the first intermediate layer, the second intermediate layer comprising a blend of cellulose fibers and bicomponent fibers.
Dutkiewicz discloses that the multi-layer nonwoven structure of their invention may comprise at least five layers, which indicates that more layers are contemplated (pg. 23 ln. 19-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have duplicated the first sub-layer of Dutkiewicz, such that the multi-layer nonwoven comprises a sub-layer comprising a blend of cellulose and bicomponent fibers between the first sub-layer and the first intermediate layer since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Dutkiewicz further discloses: an absorbent article comprising the multi-layer nonwoven material of claim 1 (pg. 7 ln. 33-34; pg. 27 ln. 23-28).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Dutkiewicz further discloses: wherein the bicomponent fibers of the first layer comprise synthetic fibers and the synthetic fibers are present in the first layer in an amount ranging from 1-30 gsm or 10-50 gsm (pg. 12-17 “Synthetic Fibers”; pg. 23 ln. 20-24); however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to explicitly disclose wherein the synthetic fibers are present in the second layer in an amount ranging from 15-40 gsm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of synthetic fibers in the first layer of Dutkiewicz from between 1-30 or 10-50 gsm to between 15-40 gsm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see specification para. 0100 indicating the amount can be simply within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Dutkiewicz further discloses: wherein the bicomponent fibers of the second layer comprise synthetic fibers and the synthetic fibers are present in the second layer in an amount ranging from 1-30 gsm or 10-50 gsm (pg. 12-17 “Synthetic Fibers”; pg. 23 ln. 20-24); however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to explicitly disclose wherein the synthetic fibers are present in the second layer in an amount ranging from 15-40 gsm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of synthetic fibers in the second layer of Dutkiewicz from between 1-30 or 10-50 gsm to between 15-40 gsm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see specification para. 0102 indicating the amount can be simply within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 48, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differ from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fine hardwood cellulose fibers comprise a pulp fiber coarseness of 12.38 mg/100 m, 13.08 mg/100 m, 13.10 mg/100 m, or 14.08 mg/100 m.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the hardwood cellulose fiber to one having any of the pulp fiber coarseness values claimed would result in a difference in function of the device of the combination of the cited prior art. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the hardwood cellulose fiber, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended utilizing a different hardwood cellulose fiber (Dutkiewicz: pg. 9-12 “Cellulose Fibers”). Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed values solve any stated problem, indicating that the pulp fiber coarseness can be simply within the claimed values, and offering other acceptable values (specification para. 0056) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the values as claimed such that they produce unexpected results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fine hardwood cellulose fibers to be fibers that comprise any of the pulp fiber coarseness values as claimed as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutkiewicz, Guidotti, and Hopkins as applied above, and further in view of US/2006/047257 A1 to Raidel.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1.
The combination of the cited prior art suggests all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the nonwoven material having a wicking distance of at least 140 mm.
While the combination of the cited prior art does not suggest a wicking distance with respect to the embodiment relied upon in the rejection, Raidel teaches that wicking distance is a desired property in a nonwoven absorbent (para. 0093-0094). Wicking distance is concerned with improving liquid transportation, and it is known in the art to improve liquid transportation.
It would therefore have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application in view of Raidel to provide the nonwoven material of the combination of the cited prior art with a wicking distance of at least 140 mm. to achieve the predictable result of improving the wicking distance to improve liquid transportation and to allow for longer use of the article.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutkiewicz, Guidotti, and Hopkins as applied above, and further in view of US/2015/065974 A1 to Michiels.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1.
The combination of the cited prior art suggests all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the nonwoven material having a retention before leak of at least 3.0 g.
While the combination of the cited prior art does not suggest a retention before leak with respect to the embodiment relied upon in the rejection, Michiels teaches that retention before leak is a desired property in a nonwoven absorbent (para. 0008 ln. 3-6; para. 0017 ln. 1-3; para. 0165-0175). Retention before leak is concerned with improved liquid retention, and it is known in the art to improve liquid retention.
It would therefore have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application in view of Michiels to provide the nonwoven material of the combination of the cited prior art with a retention before leak of 3.0 g. to achieve the predictable result of improving the retention to provide increased usage time of the article without a user having to deal with leakage.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutkiewicz, Guidotti, and Hopkins as applied above, and further in view of US/2002/0177831 A1 to Daley.
Regarding claim 43, the combination of the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Dutkiewicz further discloses: wherein at least a portion of the second layer is coated with the binder (pg. 4 ln. 20-21, fifth sub-layer coated with binder; pg. 19 ln. 10-14); however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein at least a portion of the first layer is coated with the binder.
Daley discloses an absorbent comprising a first layer comprising a binder coating below the target area (para. 0047).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the first layer of the combination of the cited prior art to be coated with a binder at the target area as taught by Daley, because Daley discloses that providing a soluble binder at the target area of an absorbent article restricts penetration of fluid directly into the target area of the absorbent which allows for good distribution of fluid to areas of the absorbent outside of the target area (para. 0010; para. 0047).
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 Linnae Raymond whose telephone number is (571)272-6894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached on (571)272-7159. 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.
/Linnae E. Raymond/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/LESLIE R DEAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
27 March 2026
Prosecution Insights