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 .
The amendment filed 6/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-22, and 24-31 have been canceled. Claims 2-3, 23, and 32 are pending in the application. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-3, 23, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labeque (US2017/0298308A1), for the reasons recited in the prior office action and restated below, wherein the Examiner again notes that Labeque teaches that a household care composition such as bleach can be completely enclosed within the water-soluble pouches, and given that bleach, in general, is a pesticide (particularly a pesticide that is classified as such under U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines, see for example, the attached Google Search notes and/or the U.S. EPA flyer entitled “Pesticide Poison Prevention Checklist”, or refer to the EPA website at https://www.epa.gov), the Examiner maintains her position that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the teachings of Labeque for the reasons restated below with respect to the amended claims.
As discussed in the prior office action, Labeque teaches a container system with water-soluble pouches wherein the container may be a flexible bag (1100) made from a film-forming plastic such as polyethylene (e.g., as in alternative (1) of instant claim 3 with respect to the “sealing bag”), provided in the form of a re-closeable bag as shown in Fig. 1 or as a flow-wrapped bag as shown in Fig. 2; or may be a rigid tub (1200) as shown in Fig. 3 or Fig. 4; with an interior space having any volume that is suitable for containing one or more water-soluble pouches therein (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Paragraphs 0027-0034). Labeque teaches that the water-soluble pouch includes a water-soluble film prepared from a polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) blend (as in alternative (2) of instant claim 3 with respect to “the chamber prepared from a polymer comprising polyvinyl alcohol”), and a household care composition such as a detergent composition, bleach, bleaching composition, etc. (reading upon the claimed “at least one agricultural material” and “the at least one agricultural material is a pesticide” given that bleach is a pesticide), completely enclosed within a compartment (e.g., “chamber”) formed by the water-soluble film, wherein the film can have any suitable thickness, such as for example, a thickness in a range of about 5 to about 200 µm (fully encompassing the claimed thickness range), or about 20 to about 100 µm (fully encompassing the claimed thickness range), or about 40 to about 85µm (falling within the claimed thickness range), for example 76 µm (falling squarely within the claimed thickness range), with test samples having a film thickness of 3.0±0.10 mil (or 76.2±2.5µm) or 3.0±0.15 mil (or 76.2±3.8µm) falling within the claimed thickness range (Abstract, Paragraphs 0001-0002, 0004, 0007-0008, 0036-0037, 0122, 0242, and 0247). Labeque also teaches that water-soluble polymeric films based on PVOH can be subject to changes in solubility characteristics, such as by exposure of a PVOH homopolymer resin to an alkaline environment “can transform the resin from one which dissolves rapidly and entirely in a given aqueous environment (e.g., a cold water medium) to one which dissolves slowly and/or incompletely in the aqueous environment”, which is “an inherent weakness in the application of films based on just the vinyl acetate/alcohol co-polymer typified by commercial PVOH homopolymer resins” (Paragraph 0061), but that such problems “can be addressed by providing pouches that include films having a carefully selected PVOH resin blend” (Paragraph 0063), wherein the degree of hydrolysis of the PVOH polymers included in the water-soluble films can be chosen such that the water-solubility of the polymer is temperature dependent (Paragraphs 0059-0080). Labeque teaches that “as the degree of hydrolysis is reduced, a film made from the resin will have reduced mechanical strength but faster solubility at temperatures below about 20° C,” while “[a]s the degree of hydrolysis increases, a film made from the polymer will tend to be mechanically stronger, and the thermoformability and/or dissolution, especially at colder wash temperatures, will tend to decrease” (Paragraph 0065); wherein in one option, the film is cold water-soluble such that the film is soluble in water at a temperature less than 10°C (Paragraph 0066), and although Labeque only tests sample films utilizing a Dissolution Chamber Residue Test as described in Paragraphs 0236-0256, wherein the sample films are immersed in water for a time of 5 minutes, Labeque provides a clear teaching and/or suggestion that the PVOH blend utilized to produce the films for the water-soluble pouches that enclose the detergent, bleach or other household composition may be designed to rapidly dissolve in cold water at a temperature less than 10°C such that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed “dissolution time” and “change in the dissolution time of the water soluble film” as recited in instant claim 2 would have been obvious over the teachings of Labeque, particularly when determined by some arbitrary simulation process and under some arbitrary storage conditions. Further, given that Labeque clearly teaches that the interior space of the container for packaging the one or more water-soluble pouches may have any volume that is suitable for containing the one or more pouches, wherein the “size of the container can be selected by one of ordinary skill to adequately fit the desired number and/or size of pouches” and that the container may be in the form of a flexible such as a flow-wrapped bag (reading upon the claimed “sealing bag”), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to provide the container or “sealing bag” taught by Labeque with an interior volume that minimizes the amount of extra or excess material (e.g., free space or free volume) needed utilized to form the container for a given number of water-soluble pouches as is typical in the art, such that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed “sealing bag has air in an amount of less than 5% by volume based on a total volume of the sealing bag” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based upon the teachings of Labeque.
Hence, with respect to instant claims 2-3, Labeque clearly teaches a packaging comprising a chamber (pouch) packaged in a sealing bag (container), wherein the chamber (pouch) is prepared from a water-soluble film having a thickness of between 30 and 100 microns and comprises at least one “agricultural material” that “is a pesticide” (e.g., bleach), and given the above discussion with respect to the obviousness of the amount of air in the sealing bag/container and the dissolution properties of the water-soluble film, the Examiner maintains her position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 2-3 (as amended) would have been obvious over the teachings of Labeque, particularly given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to instant claims 23 and 32, Labeque clearly teaches that the water-soluble pouches (“chamber”) comprising the detergent, bleach, etc., as the claimed “at least one agricultural material” is first formed or “prepared” as in instant claim 32, wherein vacuum may be used to form the pouches, and then one or more of said pouches may be placed and sealed within a container or flexible bag (“sealing bag”) as in instant claim 23 (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0027-0029, 0042, 0051-0055, Examples), such that the difference between the teachings of Labeque and the claimed invention as in instant claim 23 is that Labeque does not teach that sealing of the flexible bag is conducted at a vacuum equal to or less than 600 mmHg by pumping as instantly claimed. However, given that vacuum sealing is an obvious packaging method in the art as established on the record (as evidenced by Simonsen), the Examiner maintains her position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 23 and 32 would have been obvious over the teachings of Labeque.
Claims 2-3, 23, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raynal (WO2014/091095A1, please refer to the machine translation for the below cited sections) in view of Simonsen (US2017/0152093A1), for generally the reasons recited in the prior office action and restated below.
As discussed in detail in the prior office action, Raynal teaches “a protected solid-form plant treatment with ultra-fast dissolution allowing the preparation of pre-dosed aqueous solutions while eliminating user contact with the active ingredients” (Paragraph 0002), wherein the fast-dissolving plant treatment is provided as a compressed solid object containing one or more active, phytosanitary and/or nutritive or fertilizing substances (“at least one agricultural material”, Paragraph 0085), such as contact fungicides like captan (Paragraph 0066; a pesticide as in amended claim 2, and as in alternative (3) of instant claim 3 with respect to the “agricultural material is a composition of captan”) wrapped in a water-soluble film (Paragraph 0085), and that it is possible to obtain complete dissolution of the object in less than 5 minutes and in some cases less than 1 minute, known as ultrafast, while exhibiting low friability even in the presence of a water-soluble film (Paragraph 0012). Raynal teaches that the solid form is presented enveloped and protected in a water-soluble film (Paragraph 0012), preferably a water-soluble film of polyvinyl alcohol (as in alternative (2) of instant claim 3 with respect to the “chamber is prepared from a polymer comprising polyvinyl alcohol”) or methylcellulose (Paragraph 0086), and can be contained in a hermetically sealed unit dispensing system, preventing any contact with the user, or even in a blister system (Paragraphs 0025 and 0085). Raynal specifically teaches a working example, Example 3, wherein tablets for plant fertilization are coated or covered with a 60 micron thick thermoplastic polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) film by processing in a unitary flowpack type bagging machine (e.g., a horizontal form-fill-seal machine; Example 3), and then utilized in Example 4 to prepare an aqueous fertilizer solution by adding a protected tablet obtained in Example 3 to one liter of water in a 2-liter watering can, wherein the 60 micron thick water-soluble PVOH film disintegrates and releases the tablet in less than 10 seconds, and the tablet disintegrates under the action of water and the dispersion of the constituents is complete in less than 45 seconds, providing an aqueous fertilizer solution ready for use (Example 4).
Hence, with respect to the claimed invention, Raynal clearly teaches a “chamber” (e.g., unitary flowpack bag) that is prepared from a water-soluble film, particularly a water-soluble PVOH film as in instant claim 3, having a thickness of between 30 and 100 microns and comprises at least one agricultural material such as a composition of captan, a pesticide, as in instant claims 2-3; and although Raynal clearly teaches that the water-soluble PVOH film has a water dissolution time of 2 minutes or less as in instant claim 2, and that the protected agricultural material enveloped and protected within the water-soluble film may be prepared and further packaged in a hermetically sealed dispensing system or blister packaging system (e.g., as in instant claims 23 and 32), Raynal does not specifically teach that the water temperature for the ultra-fast dissolution time is 5°C and “in a field/tank sprayer simulation” as instantly claimed, and that a change in dissolution time of the water-soluble film after 8 weeks of storage at a temperature of 40 ± 2 °C is no more than 10% as instantly claimed, nor that the further packaging is a “sealing bag” that has air in an amount of less than 5% by volume based on a total volume of the sealing bag as recited in instant claim 2, and particularly which is sealed at a vacuum as in instant claim 23.
However, with respect to the claimed dissolution properties of the water-soluble film, given that Raynal specifically teaches a water-soluble PVOH film (e.g., as utilized in the instant invention) having a thickness as instantly claimed that can be dissolved in water in less than 10 seconds as in Example 4, wherein given the absence of any specific water temperature utilized in Example 4, one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected the water temperature to be ambient (~20°C) or to utilize cold water (~10°C) as is typical in the art, such that a dissolution time of 2 minutes or less when at 5°C as in the claimed invention would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein similar stability properties of the PVOH film as in the instant invention would have also been obvious when stored under some arbitrary storage conditions at 40°C for 8 weeks as in the claimed invention. Alternatively, given that it is well established in the art the PVOH films can be tailored to provide desired dissolution properties for a particular end use, including rapid dissolution in cold water, e.g., less than 10°C (as evidenced by Labeque above) and are known to provide stable shelf-life packaging, the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum water-soluble film or PVOH film to provide the desired dissolution properties for a particular end use of the fast-dissolving plant treatment taught by Raynal including rapid cold water dissolution and stable shelf life, given the reasonable expectation of success.
Further, with respect to the claimed “sealing bag”, as discussed in prior office actions, Simonsen teaches a package system for packaging and administering controlled dosages of chemical agents such as antimicrobial agents, wood preservatives, and particularly pesticides (as in Raynal), into a particular environment, wherein the “package system includes an outer package that is generally gas and liquid impermeable” and “an inner package made from a degradable material, such as a material that is water degradable” (as in Raynal; Simonsen: Abstract, Paragraphs 0028, 0058, and 0061; Claims 1-2). Simonsen teaches that the inner package (12), which is contained and sealed within the outer package (10) which may be in the form of a bag or pouch as shown in the figures (reading upon the claimed “sealing bag”), contains a measured amount of the chemical agent (14) (e.g. “at least one agricultural material”), and that a single inner package (12) or a plurality of said inner packages (12), each containing a measured amount of the chemical agent (14), may be contained within the outer package (10) (Abstract, Paragraphs 0057, Claim 12). Simonsen teaches that the inner package (12) can be made from a polymer film that degrades when exposed to a degrading agent, for instance, when contacted with a gas or liquid such as water, e.g., as in Raynal (Simonsen: Paragraph 0055), with Simonsen specifically teaching an embodiment wherein the inner package (12) is made from a water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol film(s) (e.g., as in Raynal and reading upon the claimed “chamber is prepared from a polymer comprising polyvinyl alcohol” as in instant claim 3) that is/are sealed together (Paragraph 0056), wherein the polyvinyl alcohol degrades in an aqueous environment, such as in less than about 30 minutes, such as less than about 20 minutes, such as less than about 10 minutes, or even less than about 5 minutes releasing the chemical agent (e.g., as in Raynal; Simonsen: Paragraph 0062; reading upon the claimed “chamber packaged in a sealing bag, wherein the chamber is prepared from a water-soluble film” as in instant claim 2).
Simonsen teaches that the outer package (10) is formed from a first film (18) and a second film (20) that may be portions of a singular sheet of flexible polymer film or separate sheets of flexible polymer films, and that are sealed along a periphery to form a compartment area with an interior volume in which the inner package (12) is contained and sealed, wherein the films (18, 20) may be made from any suitable polymer, for instance, polyolefins such as polyethylene (reading upon the claimed “sealing bag is prepared from a polymer comprising polyethylene” as in instant claim 3), and can each comprise a single layer of material or can comprise multiple layers such as a core layer of polymeric material coated on one or both sides with other functional polymers as described in Paragraph 0038 (reading upon “a single layer, double layers, triple layers” as in instant claim 3; Paragraphs 0008, 0011-0012, and 0032-0038; Claim 3). Simonsen also teaches that the “outer package 10 of the package system is constructed such that the chemical agent 14 contained in the inner package 12 is contained in a positive internal atmosphere” and “also protects the inner package 12 and the chemical agent 14 from external elements such as oxygen, moisture, heat and the like,” wherein the “outer package 10 minimizes gas transference and aroma development” and “the interior volume of the outer package 10 may have a controlled atmosphere” such as an interior volume that “may contain an inert gas at a desired pressure in order to further protect the inner package 12 and the chemical agent” (Paragraphs 0053-0054). Simonsen specifically teaches that the “inert gas may comprise, for instance, nitrogen, a noble gas, or may comprise a gas mixture that is low in oxygen content”, and given that Simonsen further teaches that oxygen may be present within the outer package at levels of less than 5% by volume, such as less than 2% by volume, or such as less than 1% by volume, and that in one embodiment, the package can be vacuum sealed (e.g., “sealing the sealing bag at a vacuum equal to or less than 600 mmHg by pumping” as in instant claim 23; Paragraphs 0053-0055 and 0068), Simonsen provides a clear teaching and/or suggestion that the “sealing bag has air in an amount of less than 5% by volume based on a total volume of the sealing bag” as recited in instant claim 2, and may be sealed at a vacuum as in instant claim 23 after placing the inner packages therein. Hence, given that Simonsen is of the same field of endeavor as Raynal, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Simonsen with respect to the outer package or “sealing bag” with the teachings of Raynal to package the protected plant treatment material taught by Raynal that is enveloped and protected in a water-soluble PVOH film, thereby rending the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1, 3, 23, and 32 obvious over the teachings of Raynal in view of Simonsen given that it is prima facie obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. With respect to the obviousness rejection over Labeque, the Applicant acknowledges that Labeque’s teaching of a household care composition, such as a detergent composition, bleach, and bleaching composition, was equated by the Examiner to the claimed “at least one agricultural material” (given the interpretation recited in Paragraph 8 of the prior office action), and argues that claim 2 has been amended “to include that the at least one agricultural material is a pesticide, which [allegedly] is not taught in Labeque as a household care composition” (see page 5, lines 4-9, of the response). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and again notes, as discussed in detail above, that bleach is a known “pesticide” as the term is defined by the instant specification at page 5, lines 16-21, of the specification as filed, and hence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the Examiner maintains her position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1, 3, 23, and 32 would have been obvious over the teachings of Labeque
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Raynal in view of Simonsen, the Applicant argues that “as admitted, Raynal is silent about packaging of the water-soluble film in an external sealing bag and the use of evacuation of air” and that “[t]hus, the dissolution of the water-soluble film taught in Raynal, which is not packaged in an external sealing bag and the use of evacuation of air, [allegedly] cannot be used to refer to the dissolution of the chamber in an external sealing bag, which is substantially free of air with the air amount being less than 5% by volume based on the total volume of the sealing bag as claimed” (see paragraph bridging pages 5-6). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Raynal clearly teaches and/or suggests that the protected solid-form plant treatment composition wrapped in the water-soluble film may be further packaged in a hermetically sealed dispensing system or blister packaging system, such that the dissolution properties taught by Raynal with respect to the water-soluble film may be similarly applicable to the water-soluble film when further packaged, especially when combined with the teachings of Simonsen as presented in the obviousness rejection. The Applicant then argues that “[a]s previously discussed, Simonsen teaches adding inert gas in the interior volume of the outer package 10 (allegedly the sealing bag as claimed) in order to further protect the inner package 12 (allegedly the chamber as claimed) and the chemical agent 14 (Simonsen ¶ [0054]),” arguing that “[t]hus, one of ordinary skill in the art [allegedly] would NOT have been motivated to vacuum in arriving at the residual air in less than 5% by volume as doing so would be opposite to the purpose of adding inert gas in the interior of the outer package to protect the inner package,” and that although “[i]t is noted that Simonsen broadly mentions that the package can be using vacuum sealed,” Simonsen does not provide any details about the degree of vacuuming. The Applicant also argues (see second full paragraph on page 6 of the response):
PNG
media_image1.png
243
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicant further argues that “[m]oreover, evacuation of air from a sealing bag which contains at least one chamber prepared from a water soluble film and comprising at least one agricultural material, such that the air amount in said sealing bag will be less than 5% by volume based on the total volume of the sealing bag, wherein said film has a thickness of 30-100 microns, [allegedly] is not straightforward and hence [allegedly] not obvious since such thin films may rapture [sic]” (see third full paragraph of page 6), arguing that accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness is allegedly not established and that the rejection should be withdrawn. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and first notes that the packaging of instant claim 2 does not require air to be evacuated utilizing a vacuum less than 600 mmHg as argued by the Applicant, and given that Simonsen specifically teaches an embodiment wherein the interior volume of the outer package (10) has a controlled atmosphere such that the interior volume of the compartment of the outer packaging (10) may contain an inert gas such as nitrogen, a noble gas, or a gas mixture that is low in oxygen content, particularly with oxygen present within the outer package at “levels less than 5% by volume, such as less than 2% by volume, such as less than 1% by volume” (Paragraph 0054), the Examiner maintains her position that Simonsen provides a clear teaching and/or suggestion of an outer packaging (10) as the claimed “sealing bag” that has “air in an amount of less than 5% by volume based on a total volume of the sealing bag” given that for example, a noble gas environment containing less than 5% by volume of oxygen or more particularly less than 1% by volume of oxygen as taught by Simonsen would read upon the claimed “sealing bag has air in an amount of less than 5% by volume based on a total volume of the sealing bag” as recited in instant claim 1; or similarly, an atmosphere of nitrogen with less than 1% by volume of oxygen would also read upon the claimed “air in an amount of less than 5% by volume based on a total volume of the sealing bag” given that dry “air” contains about 20.95% oxygen, about 78.08% nitrogen, about 0.93% argon, and the remaining being carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Hence, Applicant’s arguments over the teachings of Raynal in view of Simonsen are not persuasive with respect instant claims 2-3 given that instant claims 2-3 do not require a vacuuming of air to provide the less than 5% by volume air content.
The Examiner further notes that with respect to instant claims 23 and 32, which do require a step of sealing the sealing bag at a vacuum equal to or less than 600 mmHg, Applicant’s arguments that “one of ordinary skill in the art [allegedly] would NOT have been motivated to vacuum in arriving at the residual air in less than 5% by volume as doing so would be opposite to the purpose of adding inert gas in the interior of the outer package to protect the inner package” are not persuasive given that Simonsen clearly teaches that adding of an inert gas to provide a controlled atmosphere within the interior volume of the outer package (10) is but “one embodiment” of the invention as clearly recited in Paragraph 0054, with Paragraph 0068 further reciting that “[i]n addition to the packages shown and described previously, it should be understood that the outer packaging and the inner package can have various forms and shapes,” wherein Simonsen also specifically recites, “For instance, in one embodiment, the package can be vacuum sealed” (Paragraph 0068). Hence, given that vacuum packaging requires vacuuming at a pressure less than atmospheric pressure, i.e., less than 760 mmHg encompassing and/or rendering obvious the claimed equal to or less than 600 mmHg, Applicant’s arguments that the one non-limiting embodiment of Simonsen to the inert gas atmosphere allegedly would not motivated one of ordinary skill to vacuum the package (e.g., at a vacuuming pressure) as in another non-limiting embodiment of Simonsen are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments of “comparative data” as presented in the copied excerpt above, the Examiner first notes that the data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention given that Example 1 utilizes a specific water-soluble film and a specific three-layer sealing bag structure that provides both oxygen and moisture barrier properties such that one skilled in the art could not reasonably extend the probative value of Applicant’s data to any water-soluble film and/or any sealing bag of single layer, double layer, and/or ternary layers of any materials. It is also noted that a direct comparison and conclusions with respect to the vacuum state cannot be made between Examples 1 and 2 given that more than just sealing of the sealing bag under vacuum conditions is different between the examples. More particularly, the water-soluble unit of Example 1 was packaged into a tri-layered laminated foil of polyethylene/aluminum/polyethylene terephthalate, while the water-soluble unit of Example 2 was packaged in a cross linked polyethylene Ziploc bag, i.e., a structure substantially different in gas barrier and moisture barrier properties from the tri-layered foil utilized in Example 1. Hence, it cannot be said that the differences in the results are necessarily due to the vacuum in the sealing bag of less than 600 mmHg as argued by the Applicant, especially given that the Applicant provides no examples vacuumed at a different vacuum pressure, and therefore, Applicant’s data and arguments are not persuasive and the Examiner maintains her position that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the teachings of Raynal in view of Simonsen.
Any objection or rejection from the prior office action not restated above has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 6/17/2026.
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 MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights