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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed June 25, 2025. Claims 1-5 and 8-14 are pending in the application. Claims 1-5 and 8-14 have been amended. Claims 1-5 and 8-14 will be examined.
Status of the Claims
The rejection of claims 12 and 13-14 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of claims.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (WO 2013/154396) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment to the claims to add the limitations of the g/L of the total amount of component (i) and wherein the total amount of component (ii), as currently amended.
The rejection of claims 1 and 4-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian et al. (WO 2019/030098) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
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.
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendment filed June 25, 2025
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.
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, 3, 8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2013/154396) in view of Terrad’or™ Herbicide Global Technical Bulletin (2019, Terrad’or) and Liberty Herbicide EPA (2007, EPA, Liberty Herbicide). Kim et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS filed 10/10/2022.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a composition comprising (i) glufosinate, L-glufosinate or an agronomically acceptable salt thereof, and (ii) tiafenacil, wherein a ratio by weight of a total amount of component (i) is at least 40 times more than a total amount of component (ii) in case of (i) being glufosinate, and is at least 20 times more than the total amount of component (i) in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, wherein the total amount of component (i) is from 100 to 600 g/L based on the total amount of the composition; and wherein the total amount of the component (ii) is in the range of from 0.15 to 15 g/L, in case of (i) being glufosinate, and in the range of from 0.2 to 30 g/L, in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, in each case based on the total amount of the composition. Applicant claims a method for producing a composition as defined in claim 1. Applicant claims a method for controlling undesired plant growth, and/or controlling harmful plants, comprising applying a composition as defined in claim 1 onto the undesired plants or the harmful plants, on parts of the undesired plants or the harmful plants, or on the area where the undesired plants or the harmful plants grow.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Kim et al. teach in Table 5 compositions comprising Compound 36 and glufosinate. Compound 36 is tiafenacil. Kim et al. teach to test the herbicidal activities, (1) in the case of non-selective herbicidal compositions, weeds at the growth stage (30-40 cm) in fallow areas and orchards were treated with compositions containing the uracil compounds and herbicidally active compounds. In the case of paddy field farming, weeds in rice fields were treated with compositions containing the uracil compounds and herbicidally active compounds at 15 days after rice transplantation (page 25, paragraph 83).
PNG
media_image1.png
517
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, and 14, Kim et al. teach a composition comprising Compound 36 applied at 4 g/ha and Glufosinate at 300 g/ha to control Echinochloa crus, Digitaria sanguinalis, Abutilon theophrasti, Aeschynomene indica, and Xanthium spinosum. The weight ratio of Glufosinate to tiafenacil is 75:1, which is at least 40 times more than a total amount of component (ii) in case of (i) being glufosinate (page 29, Table 5). The weeds were in wheat and corn fields and rice fields. Wheat and corn fields are row crops, as claimed in claim 13. Rice is a specialty crop as claimed in claim 14.
Regarding claim 11, the mixture of Compound 36 (tiafenacil) and glufosinate reads on a method of producing a herbicidal combination.
Kim et al. teach the herbicidally active compound is contained in an amount of 0.02-500 parts by weight based on 1 part by weight of the uracil compound represented by formula I. 0.02-500 parts by weight based on 1 part by weight of the uracil compound is equivalent to 0.2-5000 g/L. Kim et al. further teach the herbicidally active compound is contained in an amount of 0.05-100 parts by weight based on 1 part by weight of the uracil compound represented by formula I. 0.05-100 parts by weight based on 1 part by weight of the uracil compound is equivalent to 0.5-1000 g/L.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Kim et al. do not specifically disclose the total amount of component (i) is from 100 to 600 g/L and the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of from 0.15 to 15 g/L in the case of (i) being glufosinate, as claimed in claim 1, or the total amount of component (i) is in the range of from 150 to 500 g/L and the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of 0.2 to 10 g/L in the case of (i) being glufosinate, as claimed in claim 8. It is for this reason the Terrad’or Herbicide Global Technical Bulletin and the Liberty Herbicide EPA Label are added as secondary references.
The Terrad’or™ Herbicide Global Technical Bulletin teaches a Premixture Suspension Concentrate (SC) comprising tiafenacil 0.8%, which is equivalent to 8 g/L and glufosinate 16%, which is equivalent to 160 g/L. Terrad’or Gold (Tiafenacil+Glufosinate SC) was launched in 2019 (page 6, Terrad’or Family Products).
The Liberty® Herbicide EPA Label teaches that glufosinate ammonium is the active ingredient, which is equivalent to 1.67 pounds of active ingredient per U.S. gallon. 1.67 pounds of active ingredient per U.S. gallon is equivalent to 200.11 g/L of the active ingredient (page 4 of 35, Active Ingredient).
Finding a prima facie obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim et al., the Terrad’or™ Herbicide Global Technical Bulletin, and the Liberty® Herbicide EPA Label to determine the amount of glufosinate (component (i)) and tiafenacil (component (ii)). Kim et al. teach a composition comprising Compound 36 applied at 4 g/ha and Glufosinate at 300 g/ha to control Echinochloa crus, Digitaria sanguinalis, Abutilon theophrasti, Aeschynomene indica, and Xanthium spinosum. The weight ratio of glufosinate to tiafenacil is 75:1, which is at least 40 times more than a total amount of component (ii) in case of (i) being glufosinate. Kim et al. also teach the herbicidally active compound is contained in an amount of 0.05-100 parts by weight based on 1 part by weight of the uracil compound represented by formula I, which is equivalent to 0.5-1000 g/L. The Terrad’or™ Herbicide Global Technical Bulletin teaches a Premixture Suspension Concentrate (SC) comprising tiafenacil 0.8%, which is equivalent to 8 g/L and glufosinate 16%, which is equivalent to 160 g/L. The Liberty® Herbicide EPA Label teaches that glufosinate ammonium contains 1.67 pounds of active ingredient per U.S. gallon, which is equivalent to 200.11 g/L of the active ingredient.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the teachings of the Terrad’or™ Herbicide Global Technical Bulletin and the Liberty® Herbicide EPA Label to determine the amount of L-glufosinate and tiafenacil used in the composition taught by Kim et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use well-known concentrations, such as those taught by the Terrad’or™ Herbicide Global Technical Bulletin and the Liberty® Herbicide EPA Label, to formulate effective herbicidal compositions with a reasonable expectation of success, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use experimentation and optimization to determine the optimal herbicidal effect. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of the arguments and the amendment to independent claim 1, filed June 25, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection, as indicated hereinabove.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian et al. (WO 2019/030098) in view of Deckwer et al. (WO 2019/020283) and Terrad’or™ Herbicide Global Technical Bulletin. Christian et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 10/10/2022.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a composition comprising (i) glufosinate, L-glufosinate or an agronomically acceptable salt thereof, and (ii) tiafenacil, wherein a ratio by weight of a total amount of component (i) is at least 40 times more than a total amount of component (ii) in case of (i) being glufosinate, and is at least 20 times more than the total amount of component (i) in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, wherein the total amount of component (i) is from 100 to 600 g/L based on the total amount of the composition; and wherein the total amount of the component (ii) is in the range of from 0.15 to 15 g/L, in case of (i) being glufosinate, and in the range of from 0.2 to 30 g/L, in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, in each case based on the total amount of the composition. Applicant claims a method for producing a composition as defined in claim 1. Applicant claims a method for controlling undesired plant growth, and/or controlling harmful plants, comprising applying a composition as defined in claim 1 onto the undesired plants or the harmful plants, on parts of the undesired plants or the harmful plants, or on the area where the undesired plants or the harmful plants grow.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claim 1, Christian et al. teach herbicidal mixtures comprising L-glufosinate or its salt and at least one protoporphyrinogen-IX-oxidase inhibitor (Abstract). Christian et al. teach it has been found that L-glufosinate (compound I) and at least one protoporphyrinogen-IX-oxidase inhibitor (compound II) show a higher activity in burndown programs, in industrial vegetation management and forestry, in vegetable and perennial crops and in turf and lawn (page 2, lines 34-37). Christian et al. teach tiafenacil is a preferred protoporphyrinogen-IX-oxidase inhibitor (page 3, line 9, page 5, lines 4 and 29; page 6, lines 11-14). Christian et al. teach in Table 1 tiafenacil (II-14) (page 6, Table 1) and in Table 2, mixture M-38 is L-glufosinate and tiafenacil, mixture M-48 is L-glufosinate and tiafenacil, and mixture M-58 is L-glufosinate and tiafenacil (page 7, Table 2).
Regarding claim 4 and 5, Christian et al. teach the mixtures have a weight ratio of compound I to compound II is preferably from 1000:1, 500:1, 200:1, most preferably 50:1 (page 4, lines 30-31).
Regarding claim 9, Christian et al. teach an herbicidal formulation which comprises a herbicidally active mixture and at least one carrier material, including liquid and/or solid carrier (page 12, lines 35-37).
Regarding claim 10, Christian et al. teach examples of mixture types are suspensions (e.g. SC, OD), and capsules (page 9, lines 1-5, page 11, line 10).
Regarding claim 11, Christian et al. teach the inventive mixtures can be converted into customary types of agrochemical mixtures, e.g. solutions, emulsions, suspensions (page 8, lines 24-25). Christian et al. teach preparations comprising 10-60 wt.% of an inventive mixture and 5-15 wt.% wetting agent are dissolved in water. The active substance dissolves upon dilution with water (page 10, lines 35-38).
Regarding claim 12, Christian et al. teach a method for burndown treatment of undesirable vegetation in crops, comprising applying an inventive mixture to a locus where crops will be planted or emergence of the crop.
Regarding claim 12, Christian et al. teach a method for controlling undesirable vegetation, which comprises applying an inventive mixture to a locus where undesirable vegetation is present or expected to be present, wherein application can be done before, during and/or after the emergence of the undesirable vegetation (page 13, lines 20-23).
Christian et al. teach the spray mixture is from 10 to 2000 l/ha, 50 to 1000 l/ha.
Christian et al. teach the application rate of the mixture is from 5 to 6000 g/ha, preferably 100 to 5000 g/ha, from 200 to 4000 g/ha, more preferable from 300 to 3000 g/ha of active ingredient (page 14, lines 21-27, page 31, lines 17-20).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Christian et al. teach the inventive mixtures are suitable for combating/controlling common harmful plant fields, where useful plants shall be planted. The inventive mixtures include grain crops, legumes such as soybeans and TNV-crops, such as grapes, citrus, pomefruit (page 20, lines 16-39). The crops taught by Christian et al. are row crops and specialty crops. Christian et al. teach the rate of application of L-glufosinate is usually from 50 g/h to 3000 g/ha, preferably in the range from 100 g/ha to 2000 g/ha or from 200 g/ha to 1500 g/ha. The application rate of the protoporphyrinogen-IX-oxidase inhibitor is from 1 g/ha to 2000 g/ha, more preferably from 25 g/ha to 900 g/ah of active substance (page 31, lines 28-32).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Christian et al. do not specifically disclose the total amount of component (i) is from 100 to 600 g/L and the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of from 0.2 to 30 g/L in the case of (i) being L-glufosinate, as claimed in claim 1, or the total amount of component (i) is in the range of from 150 to 500 g/L and the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of 0.4 to 20 g/L in the case of (i) being L-glufosinate, as claimed in claim 8. It is for this reason Deckwer et al. and the Terrad’or Herbicide Global Technical Bulletin are added as secondary references.
Deckwer et al. teach in preferred compositions the total amount of L-glufosinate and/or agronomically acceptable salts is equal to or less than 600 g/L (g/L= gram per liter)…even more preferably is equal to or less than 350 g/L, in each case based on the total amount of the composition (page 15, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 1, Deckwer et al. teach the total amount of L-glufosinate and/or agronomically acceptable salts in a composition is in the range of from 50 to 600 g/L, based on the total amount of the composition (page 15, lines 23-24).
Regarding claim 8, Deckwer et al. teach the total amount of L-glufosinate is more preferably in the range of from 150 to 350 g/L, in each case based on the total amount of the composition (page 15, line 25).
The Terrad’or™ Herbicide Global Technical Bulletin teaches a Premixture Suspension Concentrate (SC) comprising tiafenacil 0.8%, which is equivalent to 8 g/L and glufosinate 16%, which is equivalent to 160 g/L. Terrad’or Gold (Tiafenacil+Glufosinate SC) was launched in 2019 (page 6, Terrad’or Family Products).
Finding a prima facie obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Christian et al., Deckwer et al., and the Terrad’or™ Herbicide Global Technical Bulletin to determine the amount of L-glufosinate (component (i)) and tiafenacil (component (ii)). Christian et al. teach mixture M-38 is L-glufosinate and tiafenacil, mixture M-48 is L-glufosinate and tiafenacil, and mixture M-58 is L-glufosinate and tiafenacil. The ratio of compound I to compound II is preferably from 1000:1, 500:1, 200:1, most preferably 50:1. Christian et al. teach the spray mixture is from 10 to 2000 l/ha, 50 to 1000 l/ha. Deckwer et al. teach the total amount of L-glufosinate is more preferably in the range of from 150 to 350 g/L, in each case based on the total amount of the composition. The Terrad’or™ Herbicide Global Technical Bulletin teaches a Premixture Suspension Concentrate (SC) comprising tiafenacil 0.8%, which is equivalent to 8 g/L and glufosinate 16%, which is equivalent to 160 g/L.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the teachings of Deckwer et al. and the Terrad’or™ Herbicide Global Technical Bulletin to determine the amount of L-glufosinate and tiafenacil used in the composition taught by Christian et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use well-known concentrations to formulate effective herbicidal compositions with a reasonable expectation of success, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use experimentation and optimization to determine the optimal herbicidal effect. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, and Applicant’s amendment, filed June 25, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 4-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection as indicated hereinabove.
Applicant argues that WO ‘098 does not teach or suggest the total amounts in combination with the weight ratios of components (i) and (ii) as claimed in amended claim 1. In response to Applicant’s argument, as indicated in the new rejection of record, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the teachings of Deckwer et al. and the Terrad’or™ Herbicide Global Technical Bulletin to determine the amount of L-glufosinate and tiafenacil used in the composition taught by Christian et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use well-known concentrations to formulate effective herbicidal compositions with a reasonable expectation of success, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use experimentation and optimization to determine the optimal herbicidal effect. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results, as indicated in the new rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Applicant argues that the synergy provided by the claimed herbicidal mixture is clearly demonstrated in the specification. Applicant argues that the synergistic effects demonstrated by the claimed invention could not have been predicted. Applicant argues that it was found that the herbicidal effects of a claimed composition was increased significantly and synergistically. In response to Applicant’s argument, evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter. The data provided in the original specification in Table 2 glufosinate (150 g/L) and tiafenacil (50 g/L) applied at 50 g ai/ha and 1.5 g ai/ha, respectively, at a weight ratio of 66.6:1 demonstrates unexpected herbicidal activity. The data provided in the original specification in Table 3 glufosinate (150 g/L) and tiafenacil (50 g/L) applied at 50 g ai/ha and 0.5 g ai/ha, at a weight ratio of 100:1 demonstrates unexpected herbicidal activity. Likewise, the data in Table 6 glufosinate (150 g/L) and tiafenacil (50 g/L) applied at 100 g ai/ha and 0.5 g ai/ha, respectively, at a weight ratio of 200:1 demonstrates unexpected herbicidal activity. While this data is unexpected, compared to the application of the herbicides alone, it is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Applicant claims a composition comprising (i) glufosinate, L-glufosinate or an agronomically acceptable salt thereof, and (ii) tiafenacil, wherein a ratio by weight of a total amount of component (i) is at least 40 times more than a total amount of component (ii) in case of (i) being glufosinate, and is at least 20 times more than the total amount of component (i) in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, wherein the total amount of component (i) is from 100 to 600 g/L based on the total amount of the composition; and wherein the total amount of the component (ii) is in the range of from 0.15 to 15 g/L, in case of (i) being glufosinate, and in the range of from 0.2 to 30 g/L, in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, in each case based on the total amount of the composition.
All of the data presented is directed to glufosinate and tiafenacil. The claims are also directed to compositions comprising L-glufosinate and tiafenacil, wherein the weight ratios and perimeters for L-glufosinate and tiafenacil claimed are different from those compositions comprising glufosinate and tiafenacil. Since Applicant has claims directed specifically to L-glufosinate and tiafenacil, one would expect to obtain different results. See claims 1, 4 and 5. As such, the data is not representative of the full scope of the claims, specifically to compositions comprising L-glufosinate and tiafenacil. In addition, the total amount of glufosinate tested is 150 g/L. It cannot be determined if the results demonstrated using 150 g/L of glufosinate is indicative of the use of 100 to 600 g/L of glufosinate or L-glufosinate, currently claimed. In addition, 50 g/L of tiafenacil is above the range of 0.15 to 15 g/L if (i) is glufosinate and 0.2 to 30 g/L if (i) is L-glufosinate. As such, it cannot be determined if the results demonstrated using 50 g/L, which is much higher than the claimed ranges for glufosinate and L-glufosinate, is indicative of the use of 0.15 to 15 g/L when (i) is glufosinate or 0.2 to 30 g/L when (i) is L-glufosinate. Applicant has not established nonobvious evidence that is commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Andriae M Holt whose telephone number is (571)272-9328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-4:30 pm 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, Ali Soroush can be reached on 571-272-9925. 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.
/ANDRIAE M HOLT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614