DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Receipt and consideration of Applicant’s amended claim set and Applicant’s arguments/remarks submitted on December 23,2025 and Applicant’s amended claim set, arguments/remarks, and Declaration all submitted January 20, 2026 are acknowledged.
All rejections/objections not explicitly maintained in the instant office action have been withdrawn per Applicant’s claim amendments and/or persuasive arguments. Applicant’s claim amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejections set forth below.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-18, and 20-23 are pending and under consideration in this action. Claims 5 and 19 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 are newly added.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 23, 2025 has been entered.
Change in Examiner
The examiner for your application in the USPTO has changed. Examiner Monica Shin can be reached at 571-272-7138.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: the close parentheses at the end of line 2 should be removed. 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 8-11 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.
Claims 8-11 recite “lower alcohols”. The term “lower” is a subjective term, and the instant specification does not appear to define what specific alcohols are encompassed with the term “lower” alcohols or what the boundaries are for the term “lower”. While the specification notes that ethanol and isopropanol are suitable “lower alcohols” (P.G. Pub., Spec., para.0028), those are merely exemplary and do not set forth a set metes and bounds for the term. Thus, it is unclear what other alcohols would and would not be encompassed by the term (e.g., butanol).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-18, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi et al. (Konishi) (WO 2017/163854 A1; of record; citations from English equivalent: US 2019/0099333 A1), Konishi et al. (Konishi 2018) (JP 2018123071A; of record; citations from EPO English machine translation submitted 05/11/2022), and Sato et al. (Sato) (US 2019/0321282 A1; priority date: 12/13/2017), and evidenced by “PEG-32.” (n.d.) Ataman Kimya, www.atamanchemicals.com/peg-32_u27234/. (of record) and Wang, X. et al. (2022) “Overview of the development of slippery surfaces: Lubricants from presence to absence” Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 301, 102602 (of record).
With regards to Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 13-18, 20, 22, and 23, Konishi discloses a stick-shaped cosmetic product including (a) 0.1 to 4 weight % of at least one selected from a partially cross-linked polyether modified silicone and a partially cross-linked polyglycerin-modified silicone, (b) 1 to 10 weight % of wax, and (c) 30 weight % or more of an aqueous component (Konish Claim 1).
Konishi exemplifies a water-in-oil base stick comprising the following ingredients in percent by weight (para. 0055; “Example 14” para.0080-0082):
3.5 wt % Alkyl-modified / partially cross-linked polyether-modified silicone composition KSG-310, (as evidenced by the instant Specification, Table 2, KSG-310 is PEG-15/lauryl dimethicone crosspolymer; reading on the alkyl-modified, partially crosslinked polyether-modified silicone of component (a) of Claims 1 and 9);
3 wt % Alkyl-modified / partially cross-linked dimethylpolysiloxane composition, (reading on Claim 2);
0.5 wt % Lauryl PEG-9 polydimethylsiloxyethyl dimethicone KF-6038. As evidenced by “Polyether-modified silicones,” KF-6038 is a polyether/alkyl co-modified, branched silicone emulsifier (“Polyether-Modified Silicones [Branched Type] Alkyl Co-Modified Type”). Thus, KF-6038 and its concentration reading on the limitations of the non-crosslinked alkyl-branched polyether-modified silicone of component (b) of Claims 1 and 9;
10 wt % Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane KF-995;
5 wt % Diphenylsiloxyphenyl trimethicone KF-56A;
1 wt % Ethyl hexyl methoxycinnamate;
2 wt % Silicone composite powder (KSP-105);
1 wt % Acrylic-silicone graft copolymer (KP-545);
3 wt % Polyethylene;
3 wt % Paraffin;
1.8 wt % Isotridecyl isononanoate;
0.2 wt % Silicone branched polyglycerin-modified silicone (KF-6106);
1.7, 0.2, 0.08, and 0.02 wt %, respectively, of silicone-treated titanium, yellow, red and black iron oxide;
8 wt % butylene glycol (reading on humectant);
4 wt % PEG-32;
1 wt % sodium chloride (reading on inorganic water-soluble salt);
0.2 wt % sodium citrate (reading on inorganic water-soluble salt);
0.2 wt % methylparaben;
water balance, to a total of 100% by weight (reading on the water being present in an amount of about 50.6 wt.%).
As defined by the instant claims, butylene glycol, sodium chloride, and sodium citrate are soluble in water at 25 ºC and form a water phase in the W/O cosmetic composition (Claims 9 and 12). As evidenced by “PEG-32,” PEG-32 has unlimited solubility in water (p. 3 “Other applications of PEG-32”). Therefore, the combination of all water or water-soluble ingredients (butylene glycol, PEG-32, sodium chloride, sodium citrate, and water) reads on an “aqueous component” which is calculated to be 63.8% (8 + 4 + 1 + 0.2 + 0.2 + 50.6) by weight of the water-in-oil composition. Thus, the total content of the “aqueous component” of the water-in-oil composition reads on the limitations surrounding the aqueous component and amounts of “component (c)” as recited in Claim 1(c), 7, 8, 9(c,) and 13-18.
Furthermore, in the above Example 14 of Konishi, the amount of water in the aqueous component of the water-in-oil base stick to be 79.3 wt % of the aqueous component ((50.6 / 63.8) × 100 = 79.3%); therefore, the amount of water present reads on the amount ranges for the content of water within component (c) as recited in Claims 1 and 9.
Furthermore, the water may be purified water (para.0021).
Further regarding the concentration of component (a) in Claims 1 and 9, Konishi teaches that component (a) is 0.1 to 4% by weight of the total weight of the stick-shaped cosmetic composition; less than 0.1 % by weight of component (a) may result in a cosmetic composition with low emulsion stability whereas more than 4% by weight of component (a) may interfere with freshness and impair a feeling on use upon rubbing ([0015]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Konishi discloses that the composition may further include component (d), a partially crosslinked organopolysiloxane having an alkyl branched chain in its backbone, which is preferably blended form the standpoints of formulation stability during storage and ease of filling in a stick container. Among the suitable component (d) include KSG-44 (para.0025). As evidenced by the instant Specification’s Table 3, KSG-44 is vinyl dimethicone/lauryl dimethicone.
With regards to Claim 4, Konishi teaches that KSG-310 is a cross-linked polyether-modified silicone that is commercially available as a swollen product in oil, and is specifically defined as 25-35% cross-linked portion in 65-75% mineral oil (para.0013; p. 8 R. Col. 9-8 lines from the bottom). The instant specification states that mineral oil is a hydrocarbon oil (see instant specification [0025]). Therefore, the implication that the cross-linked polyether-modified silicone is swollen in mineral oil to generate the product KSG-310 reads on the limitation.
With regards to Claims 10-12, Konishi teaches that component (c) is an aqueous component which can be formulated to include water, moisturizers and humectants used either alone or in admixture of two or more ([0020]). Konishi teaches suitable moisturizers include lower alcohols such as ethanol and isopropanol ([0022]).
Konishi teaches a water-in-oil body stick similar to the “Example 14” base stick discussed above; this body stick includes 4 % wt ethanol by weight of the composition, in combination with at least dipropylene glycol, sodium chloride, sodium citrate and water making up the composition’s component (c), and the resulting stick is good in feeling on use, has good moisturizing effect, emollient effect, spread, and formulation stability (“Example 13” [0077]-[0079]).
Konishi teaches that components used in ordinary cosmetic compositions may be blended as long as the benefits of the invention are not impaired, such components including oil ([0034]). Konishi teaches these oils may be solid, semi-solid or liquid at room temperature, with examples including silicone oils, natural animal and vegetable oils and fats, semi-synthetic oils and fats, hydrocarbon oils, higher alcohols, fatty acids, ester oils, and fluorochemical oils; when used, the amount of the oil blended is more preferably 15-40% by weight of the total weight of the stick-shaped cosmetic composition (para.0035, 0039).
Konishi further teaches that, in the stick-shaped cosmetic composition, (e) a non-crosslinked silicone active agent is preferably blended from the standpoint of formulation stability during storage; specific examples include KF-6011, 6013, 6043, 6017, 6028, 6038 (used in the example above), 6048, 6100, 6104, 6105, and 6106 ([0027]). According to the instant specification, KF-6048 is the tradename of cetyl PEG/PPG-10/1 dimethicone (see instant specification [0014] final sentence).
Konishi does not appear to exemplify the presence of 5 to 30% by weight of an oil component exclusive of silicone oil (Claims 1(d), 6, and 9(d)).
Konishi also does not appear to exemplify the use of cetyl PEG/PPG-10/1 dimethicone as component (b) (Claims 1(b), 22, and 23).
Konishi does not appear to disclose wherein the water-in-oil cosmetic composition is “water-breaking” (Claims 1 and 9).
Konishi does not appear to explicitly disclose the inclusion of squalene (Claims 22 and 23).
Konishi 2018 and Sato are relied upon for these disclosures. Their teachings are set forth herein below.
Konishi 2018 teaches a warm cake which utilizes 3 % by mass of the composition KSG-310 (alkyl-modified, partially crosslinked polyether-modified silicone), as well as alkyl-modified, partially crosslinked dimethylpolysiloxane, and mineral oil at 12.5% by mass of the composition, and the resulting warm cake had good usability, warm feeling and elongation, and was excellent in storage stability (“Example 13”). As evidenced by the instant specification, mineral oil is liquid at 25 ºC (instant specification [0025]). Additionally, as evidenced by Wang, mineral oil is not able to be soluble in water (p. 5 “2.5.1. Mineral oils”). Thus, it is inferred that when mineral oil is liquid at 25 ºC and not soluble in water, the liquid oil is also not soluble in water at 25 ºC.
Sato discloses water-in-oil cosmetic emulsions that give a smooth use feeling, lightly spreads when applied, and has excellent dispersed-powder stability (abstract). Sato discloses that a preferable example of a polyoxyalkylene/alkyl co-modified silicone is cetyl dimethicone copolyol (cetyl PEG/PPG-10/1 dimethicone. A commercially available example is KF-6048. Sato discloses that KF-6048 is particularly preferred for providing extraordinarily excellent effects in terms of smoothness (para.0024).
Sato also discloses the inclusion of hydrocarbon oil in their water-in-oil emulsion cosmetics. Sato discloses that such a hydrocarbon oil is generally known as a non-polar oil or a less -polar oil. Among the suitable examples include squalane and squalene (para.0021).
With regards to Claims 1(d), 6, and 9(d), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Konishi and Konishi 2018, and add mineral oil (which is liquid at 25 ºC and doesn’t dissolve in water) to Konishi’s stick composition, blended anywhere between 15-40% by weight of the total weight of the stick-shaped cosmetic composition. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated by Konishi’s express teaching that hydrocarbon oils which are liquid at room temperature may be blended in the composition, preferably within the concentration range of 15-40% by weight of the total weight of the stick-shaped cosmetic composition, so long as the benefits of the invention are not impaired. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been further motivated upon noting the benefits of the warm cake taught by Konishi 2018, which includes similar ingredients to the stick of Konishi (including KSG-310) as well as mineral oil at a concentration close to the preferred concentration for oils taught by Konishi, and results in a warm feeling cake which has good usability, warm feeling and elongation, and was excellent in storage stability. Thus, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have sought to include mineral oil into the stick composition of Konishi in order to both satisfy Konishi’s suggestion of adding a hydrocarbon oil, and to further impart benefits of usability, warm feeling and elongation, and excellent storage stability as shown in the warm cake of Konishi 2018. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success adding mineral oil in the concentration range suggested by Konishi to the stick composition of Konishi because Konishi teaches hydrocarbon oils to be an appropriate ingredient in the stick formulation in this concentration range, and Konishi 2018 teaches a similar formulation which utilizes the hydrocarbon oil mineral oil at a close concentration to the range taught by Konishi, with desirable results.
With regards to Claim 1(b), 22, and 23, although Konishi’s Example 14 incorporates KF-6038, Konishi discloses that KF-6048 is also suitable for component (e) of the composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing of the instant invention to further combine the teachings of Konishi and Konishi 2018 with the teachings of Sato and specifically select KF-6048 as component (e) for the w/o cosmetic of the combined teachings of Konishi and Konishi 2018. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain the advantage of providing extraordinarily excellent effects in terms of smoothness for the composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as Konishi explicitly discloses that KF-6048 is suitable for use in their w/o compositions.
With regards to Claims 10-12, 15-18 and 20, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add 4 weight % ethanol, based on the total weight of the composition, to the list of water-soluble ingredients in the base stick of Konishi, and arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to add ethanol because Konishi teaches its aqueous component can be formulated to include water, moisturizers and humectants used either alone or in admixture, and teaches ethanol to be a suitable lower alcohol moisturizer. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to add 4 weight % ethanol to the composition because Konishi teaches formulation of a body stick which is similar to the base stick and includes 4 % wt ethanol by weight of the composition, and the resulting stick is good in feeling on use and has good moisturizing effect; thus, the ordinarily skilled artisan would seek to incorporate the same amount of moisturizer used in this effective stick into the base stick of Konishi in order to obtain similar moisturizing results. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success of adding 4 weight % ethanol to the base stick of Konishi based on the success of adding 4 weight % ethanol to the comparable body stick in Konishi. After adding 4 weight % of ethanol by weight of the composition, the total amount of “aqueous component” (combining butylene glycol, PEG-32, sodium chloride, sodium citrate, water, and now ethanol) in the resulting base stick would be 67.8% (8 + 4 + 1 + 0.2 + 0.2 + 50.6 + 4) by weight of the water-in-oil composition. Thus, the total content of the “aqueous component” of the water-in-oil composition would satisfy component (c)’s limitations surrounding both the specific ingredients and their amounts as recited in claims 10-12 and 15-18, and the Examiner calculates that the amount of humectant (butylene glycol) in relation to the new aqueous component would be 11.8 wt % of the aqueous component ((8 / 67.8) × 100 = 11.8 %); therefore, the amount of humectant present reads on the limitation of instant claim 20.
With regards to Claim 1 and 9’s recitation of the composition being “water-breaking,” per 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). Additionally, "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot 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. Because the claimed water-in-oil composition is substantially identical in structure and composition to the water-in-oil composition rendered obvious by the prior art teachings of Konishi, Konishi 2018, and Sato, these compositions are presumed to have the same inherent properties when applied topically to skin, specifically a “water-breaking” effect upon application to the skin.
With regards to the inclusion of squalene (Claims 22 and 23), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Konishi, Konishi 2018, and Sato, and further include squalene in the w/o cosmetic of the combined teachings of Konishi, Konishi 2018, and Sato discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as Konishi discloses that hydrocarbon oils, such as squalane and paraffin may be incorporated in their w/o cosmetics, and Konishi 2018 discloses that squalene is a hydrocarbon oil also known to be used in w/o cosmetics.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi et al. (Konishi) (WO 2017/163854 A1; of record; citations from English equivalent: US 2019/0099333 A1), Konishi et al. (Konishi 2018) (JP 2018123071A; of record; citations from EPO English machine translation submitted 05/11/2022), and Sato et al. (Sato) (US 2019/0321282 A1; priority date: 12/13/2017), and evidenced by “PEG-32.” (n.d.) Ataman Kimya, www.atamanchemicals.com/peg-32_u27234/. (of record) and Wang, X. et al. (2022) “Overview of the development of slippery surfaces: Lubricants from presence to absence” Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 301, 102602 (of record) as applied to Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-18, 20, 22, and 23 set forth above, further in view of Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd. (Shin-Etsu) (“KSG-310 Emulsifying Silicone Elastomer.” version 2017/11/7, https://www.shinetsusilicone-global.com/products/personalcare/pdf/KSG/KSG-310.pdf) (of record).
The teachings of Konishi, Konishi 2018, and Sato, and the motivation for their combination as they apply to Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-18, 20, 22, and 23 are set forth above and incorporated herein.
The combined teachings of Konishi, Konishi 2018, and Sato do not appear to explicitly disclose the inclusion of hydrocarbon oil and a low polar ester oil in an amount of at least 90% by weight of component (d). Shin-Etsu is relied upon for this disclosure. The teachings of Shin-Etsu are set forth herein below.
Shin-Etsu teaches KSG-310 is a silicone emulsifier that must be pre-dispersed in an adequate silicone or oil phase (“Processing (How to use)”). Shin-Etsu further teaches that KSG-310 is soluble in, and compatible with, its base oil mineral oil, and an optional amount of isotridecyl isononanoate (“Solubility/compatibility”). The instant specification teaches that isotridecyl isononanoate is a low polar ester oil with an IOB of 0.16 (see instant specification [0026]).
With regards to Claims 3 and 21, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to arrive at the invention of instant claim 3 by substituting some of the mineral oil in the KSG-310-containing base stick composition rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Konishi and Konishi 2018 with an ester oil, particularly isotridecyl isononanoate, because Konishi suggests using a combination of ingredients including mineral oils and ester oils in its composition which contains KSG-310, and Shin-Etsu teaches the low polar ester oil isotridecyl isononanoate is compatible with KSG-310. In substituting some of the mineral oil with isotridecyl isononanoate, the weight % limitation of claim 3 is met because the hydrocarbon oil and low polar ester oil present make up 100% of the oil component of the composition. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have substituted some of the amount of mineral oil used in Konishi with a known amount of isotridecyl isononanoate with a reasonable expectation of success based on Shin-Etsu’s teaching that isotridecyl isononanoate is compatible with KSG-310 and Konishi’s teaching that ester oils are known ingredients in ordinary cosmetic compositions that may be incorporated at known amounts into its formulation. Obviousness exists with the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – see MPEP 2143 (I(B)).
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 and January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1) Applicant argues that their Declaration submitted January 20, 2026 further support the patentability of the present application and to address the issues raised in the recent Advisory Action.
With regards to Applicant’s argument (1), the traversal argument is not found persuasive. Applicant’s Declaration submitted January 20, 2026 provides a comparison between Example 2 (KF-6048) of the present application and Comparative Example 4 (KF-6038). The Declaration notes that Example 2 demonstrated excellent stability (a change of 0% to less than 25% change in viscosity, whereas Comparative Example 4, which only differs by using KF-6038 in lieu of KF-6048, had poor stability (a change of 50% or more or separated).
In the new rejection set forth above, Sato is newly cited to provide motivation to specifically select KF-6048 from the list of 11 non-crosslinked silicone active agents. As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain the advantage of providing extraordinarily excellent effects in terms of smoothness as disclosed by Sato.
Although Sato provides a different motivation than Applicant’s Declaration, Note MPEP 2144(IV): “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).”
Conclusion
Claims 1-4, 6-18, and 20-23 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00AM-5:00PM EST).
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, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/MONICA A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights