DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 24, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the claim requires that the claimed variable “m” may be either 0 or 1, however the claim depends on claim 1 which, as amended, requires that “m” is 1. One having ordinary skill in the art would therefore be unable to determine if 0 is a valid value for “m.” For the sake of examination, “m” will be interpreted in claim 13 as being either 0 or 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klerks (WO 2016/202359) in view of Timberlake (EP 0,496,109 A2), Prasse (US 2010/0087576 A1) and Lacroix (US 2011/0259464 A1). Laferte (WO 2019/115952 A1, hereinafter referring to US 2020/0317962 A1 as the English version) is cited as an evidentiary reference. Wacker (GENIOSIL STP-E10 Datasheet) is cited as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 1, Klerks teaches a high strength and moisture-resistant adhesive (Abstract), comprising a silane-modified polyether component (p. 3, lines 5-6).
Klerks further teaches the incorporation of adhesion promoters (p. 4, lines 20-21) including acryloxy functionalized alkoxy silanes including inter alia 3-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane, 3-methacryloxypropylmethyldimethoxysilane, 3-methacryloxypropylmethyldiethoxysilane, and 3-methacryloxypropyltriethoxysilane (p. 6, lines 18-21) which read on the claimed “(iii) silicon compound containing a conjugated C=C group having the general formula (VIII)” because their structures are identical to the claimed “general formula (VIII)” when A2 is CH2=C(CH3)C(=O)OCH2CH2CH2-, R35 are each either a methyl or ethyl group, and k is 0 or 1.
As described above, Klerks teaches the incorporation of one or more adhesion promoters (p. 4, lines 20-21), which reads on the claimed “(c)”, “an adhesion promoter containing an alkoxysilyl group” because Klerks teaches specific adhesion promoters including 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (p. 4, lines 28-29), N-2-(aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (p. 4, lines 29-30), both of which include alkoxysilyl groups.
The adhesion promoter taught by Klerks reads on both the claimed component “(b)(iii)” and the claimed “adhesion promoter (c)” because Klerks teaches the incorporation of more than one adhesion promoter (p. 12, line 7), and because Klerks teaches adhesion promoters which satisfy the limitations of each of the claimed components.
Klerks further teaches the incorporation of a catalyst (p. 2, line 3), which reads on the claimed “curing catalyst”
As described above, Klerks teaches the incorporation of a modified polyether. However, Klerks differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the specific incorporation of the claimed alkoxysilyl-containing polymer.
In the same field of endeavor, Timberlake teaches a process for producing alkoxysilane-terminated polyethers (Abstract) suitable for use as adhesive materials (p. 2, lines 5-6). Timberlake teaches that the inventive process involves coupling allyl-started monols with an isocyanate and thereafter hydrosilylating the polyether with an alkoxysilane (p. 3, lines 34-36). Timberlake specifies that the first step described above results in a high molecular weight allyl-terminated polyether that has only one set of urethane linkages in the backbone, useful for obtaining a product which has no free isocyanate groups (and thus, the end-user is not exposed to free isocyanates, p. 4, lines 8-10).
The instant Specification specifically states that the alkoxysilyl-containing polymer within the purportedly-inventive polymer may be formed from the reaction of an allyl-containing poly(oxyalkylene) polymer with a hydridoalkoxysilane (see instant Specification at [0040], method (iv)). The instant Specification further states that useful hydrolysable hydridosilanes include trimethoxysilane, methyldimethoxysilane, triethoxysilane, and methyldiethoxysilane (see instant Specification at [0078]), which overlaps with that of Timberlake (p. 4, lines 31-33).
Timberlake further specifies the use of coupled polyethers having molecular weights in the range of 3,000 and 20,000 g/mol (p. 3, lines 39-41), and isocyanate coupling agents specifically including MDI (p. 4, line 15). An MDI-coupled allyl-started polyether of propylene oxide having a molecular weight ranging from 3,000 to 20,000 g/mol would comprise between about 45 and 338 total propylene oxide repeat units (total molecular weights, minus two allyl alcohol monomers and one MDI monomer, divided by the molecular weight of propylene oxide at 58.08 g/mol). Divided into two, the coupled polyether of Timberlake comprises two polyether segments with about 23 to about 169 repeat units, corresponding to the claimed “d” within the claimed “general formula (II).” This range of about 23 to about 169 falls within the claimed range of “20 to 400,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. The resulting silylated polymer reads on the claimed “alkoxysilyl-containing polymer” because it is identical to the claimed formulae wherein “A” is -O-, “R1” is methyl or ethyl, “R2” is methyl or ethyl, “R3” is a propyl group, “b” is zero, and “R5 is identical to the claimed “general formula (II)” wherein “R6-7” are all propyl groups, “c” is 2, “m” is 1, and “R0” is an arylene group of 13 carbons (MDI).
It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the silane-modified isocyanate-coupled polyether of Timberlake in place of the modified polyether of Klerks, as Timberlake recognizes it as a suitable modified polyether suitable for the formation of a silyl adhesive composition.
Klerks further teaches the incorporation of light stabilizers (p. 8, lines 8-10), and teaches the particular use of oxanilides (p. 8, line 1), but differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the incorporation of any particular oxanilide which overlaps the claimed structures.
In the same field of endeavor, Prasse teaches moisture-curable organosilicon compositions (Abstract) which are useful as adhesives ([0102]), which contains, among others, oxaldianilides ([0086] which are oxanilides), and teaches the preferable use of N,N'-diphenylethylenediamide ([0061]), among others, which reads on the claimed list. It is prima facie obvious to substitute known equivalents recognized in the art as suitable for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate N,N'-diphenylethylenediamide as the oxanilide within the formulation of Klerks as Prasse recognizes it as a suitable oxaldianiline for use within moisture-curable organosilicon adhesives.
Klerks teaches the incorporation of a hindered amine light stabilizer (p. 8, line 9), but differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the incorporation of any particular light stabilizer which overlaps with the claimed structures.
In the same field of endeavor, Lacroix teaches a crosslinkable silane-containing polyolefin composition (Abstract) which is formulated with a hindered amine light stabilizer ([0090]), and teaches that, among others, 3-(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-piperidin-4-yloxy)-propionic acid is a suitable hindered amine light stabilizer ([0102]), which reads on the claimed list. It is prima facie obvious to substitute known equivalents recognized in the art as suitable for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate 3-(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-piperidin-4-yloxy)-propionic acid as the hindered amine light stabilizer within the formulation of Klerks, as Lacroix recognizes it as a hindered amine light stabilizer useful for polymer formulations.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Klerks further teaches the that the aforementioned adhesion promoters may include inter alia 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (p. 4, lines 28-29) which reads on the claimed list of “adhesion promoter” ingredients and reads on the claimed “formula (XVI) because its structure is identical to the claimed “formula (XVI)” when n is zero, R37 are all methyl groups, R36 is a straight chain alkylene group of 3 carbons, and A3 is H2N-, and o is 1.
Regarding claim 4, Klerks teaches that the catalyst contains dibasic amines (p. 8, lines 24-25). Amines must, by definition, be primary, secondary, or tertiary. Therefore, the disclosure of dibasic amines by Klerks necessarily falls within the scope of the claimed “primary, secondary, or tertiary amines.”
Regarding claim 5, Klerks teaches that the catalyst contains titanate catalysts (p. 8, lines 24-25), but differs from claim 5 because it is silent with regard to the particular use of the claimed compounds. However, Prasse teaches a series of moisture-curing-promoting condensation catalysts which are titanium compounds ([0075]) including, among others, titanium (IV) bis(ethylacetoaceto)diisobutoxide, titanium (IV) bis(ethylacetoaceto) dimethoxide, titanium (IV) bis(ethylacetoaceto)diethoxide, and di-n-butyltin oxide ([0075]), all of which read on the claimed list. It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the catalysts taught by Prasse within the formulation of Klerks as Prasse teaches them as suitable for catalyzing moisture-curing.
Regarding claim 8, Klerks as modified by Prasse teaches the incorporation of N,N'-diphenylethylenediamide, which reads on the claimed list.
Regarding claim 9, Klerks as modified by Lacroix teaches the incorporation of 3-(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-piperidin-4-yloxy)-propionic acid, which reads on the claimed list.
Regarding claim 10, Klerks teaches the incorporation of, among others, phenyltriethoxysilane (p. 14, line 6), which reads on the claimed list.
Regarding claim 11, Klerks teaches the incorporation of, among others, phenyltrimethoxysilane (p. 14, line 6).
Regarding claim 12, Klerks teaches the incorporation of, among others, 3-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane (p. 6, lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 14, Prasse teaches that the oxaldianilides are included in amounts ranging from 0.5 to 10 parts per 100 parts of the main resin component ([0062]), which encompasses the claimed range of “about 0.5 to about 3 parts by weight,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 15, Lacroix teaches the incorporation of 0.01 to 2 weight percent of the sterically hindered amine light stabilizer alongside 90 to 99.95 weight percent of the main hydrolysable silyl group-containing polymer ([0031] and [0034]). Using weight percentage as a proxy for mass, the amount of hindered amine light stabilizer taught by Lacroix ranges from about 0.01 to about 2.22 parts per 100 parts of the hydrolysable silyl group-containing polymer, which encompasses the claimed range of “about 0.2 to about 1.5 parts,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 16, Klerks teaches the incorporation of between 0.3 and 15 wt% of the adhesion promoters (p. 7, lines 11-14),which reads on the claimed component “(b)(iii),” as described above, alongside a range of 25 to 75 wt% of the modified polyether (p. 3, lines 13-15). Using weight percentage as a proxy for mass, the amount of adhesion promoter taught by Klerks ranges from about 0.4 to 60 parts per 100 parts of the modified polyether, which encompasses the claimed range of “about 1.0 to about 5 parts,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 17, Klerks teaches the incorporation of between 0.3 and 15 wt% of the adhesion promoters (p. 7, lines 11-14),which reads on the claimed “adhesion promoter (c)” as described above, alongside a range of 25 to 75 wt% of the modified polyether (p. 3, lines 13-15). Using weight percentage as a proxy for mass, the amount of adhesion promoter taught by Klerks ranges from about 0.4 to 60 parts per 100 parts of the modified polyether, which encompasses the claimed range of “about 0.5 to about 5 parts,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
The adhesion promoter taught by Klerks reads on both the claimed component “(b)(iii)” and the claimed “adhesion promoter (c)” because Klerks teaches the incorporation of more than one adhesion promoter (p. 12, line 7), and because Klerks teaches adhesion promoters which satisfy the limitations of each of the claimed components.
Regarding claim 18, , Klerks teaches the incorporation of between 0.05 and 5 wt% of the catalyst (p. 12, line 22),which reads on the claimed “curing catalyst (d)” as described above, alongside a range of 25 to 75 wt% of the modified polyether (p. 3, lines 13-15). Using weight percentage as a proxy for mass, the amount of catalyst taught by Klerks ranges from about 0.07 to about 20 parts per 100 parts of the modified polyether, which encompasses the claimed range of “about 0.1 to about 3 parts,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 19, Klerks as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Klerks differs from claim 19 because it is silent with regard to the claimed “non-yellowing value.” Nevertheless, Klerks as modified and applied above results in a moisture-curable adhesive composition which is structurally identical to the claimed “moisture-curable silylated polymer composition,” containing all of the same components. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed “non-yellowing value” will therefore necessarily be present in Klerks as modified and as applied to claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 20, Klerks teaches that the composition is cured (p. 1, lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 21, Klerks teaches that the inventive composition is an adhesive (p.1, line 5), which reads on the claimed “sealant.”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klerks (WO 2016/202359) in view of Prasse (US 2010/0087576 A1) and Lacroix (US 2011/0259464 A1), and further in view of Ravichandran (US 2002/0115753 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Klerks as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Klerks teaches the incorporation of benzotriazole-based light stabilizers (p. 8, lines 8-10), but differs from claim 6 because it is silent with regard to the particular usage of compounds from the claimed list.
In the same field of endeavor, Ravichandran teaches the use of benzotriazole UV stabilizers which are useful additives for polymer compositions, especially organopolysiloxanes, which are stabilized by their presence ([0002]). Ravichandran teaches, among others, that 2-(2’-Hydroxyphenyl)-benzotriazole derivatives, including the 5’-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)- derivative, are useful UV absorbers/light stabilizers ([0214]). The 5’-(1,1,3,3,-tetramethylbutyl)- derivative reads on “2-(2'-hydroxy-5'-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)-phenyl)- benzotriazole” from the claimed list. It is prima facie obvious to substitute known equivalents recognized in the art as suitable for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate 2-(2'-hydroxy-5'-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)-phenyl)- benzotriazole as the benzotriazole-based light stabilizer within Klerks, as Ravichandran recognizes it as a suitable benzotriazole UV stabilizer for polymer compositions.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klerks (WO 2016/202359) in view of Prasse (US 2010/0087576 A1) and Lacroix (US 2011/0259464 A1), and further in view of BASF 213 (BASF Tinuvin 213 Technical Information Brochure).
Regarding claim 7, Klerks as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Klerks teaches the incorporation of benzotriazole-based light stabilizers (p. 8, lines 8-10), but differs from claim 7 because it is silent with regard to the particular usage of compounds from the claimed list.
Tinuvin 213 reads on poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(3-(3-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxyphenyl)-1-oxopropyl)-ω- hydroxy and poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(3-(3-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-5-(1,1- dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxyphenyl)-1-oxopropyl-ω-(3-(3-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl-5-(1,1- dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxyphenyl)-1-oxopropoxy) from the claimed list because the instant specification states that these two molecules are sold under the trade name of Tinuvin 213 by BASF (see instant Specification at [0137]). Tinuvin 213 is a commercially-available product which is known in the art as a benzenetriazole-based light stabilizer (see BASF 213, page 1, which shows that Tinuvin 213 is a benzenetriazole-based UV light absorber suitable for a variety of polymers including adhesives). Furthermore, Klerks teaches that its inventive composition is useful as an adhesive (Abstract). It is prima facie obvious to substitute known equivalents recognized in the art as suitable for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate Tinuvin 213 as the benzenetriazole-based light stabilizer within the formulation of Klerks, as it is recognized as BASF 213 recognizes it as a suitable UV light stabilizer for adhesive polymers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klerks (WO 2016/202359) in view of Prasse (US 2010/0087576 A1) and Lacroix (US 2011/0259464 A1), and further in view of Laferte (WO 2019/115952 A1, hereinafter referring to US 2020/0317962 A1 as the English version).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is directed towards a genus of polymers, which include the polymer of the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Re-created structure representing a valid structure falling under the purview of instant claim 13.
The structure presented above represents a species within the claimed genus wherein A is -O-, R1 is methyl, R2 is methyl, R3 is propylene, R4 is hydrogen, and R5 is the claimed structure wherein R6 is 1- or 2-methylethylene (propylene), m is 0 (and therefore R0 is unassigned), R7 and R8 are 1- or 2-methylethylene (propylene), b is 1, c is 2 (and therefore R8 and e are unassigned), and d is d (which is required to range between 20 and 400).
The structure presented above overlaps with the structure of GENIOSIL STP-E10 (presented above in the rejection of claim 1) because they both include a polypropylene oxide polyether main-chain portion which appears to have been endcapped with an isocyanate-containing silane. This analysis comports with the preferred preparation methods cited in the instant Specification, which states that the polymers may be formed by reacting a hydroxyl-containing poly(oxyalkylene) polymer with an isocyanate-containing silane bearing 2-3 alkoxy groups (c.f. instant Specification at [0040]). The two structures differ, however, in the identity of the isocyanate-containing silane endcapping agent which has been applied. In the case of GENIOSIL STP-E10, the endcapping agent is (isocyanatomethyl)dimethoxy(methyl)silane (also known as “CFS-S898”) whereas the re-created structure above contains 1-isocyanato-3-trimethoxysilyl propane as the endcapping agent.
Klerks teaches a composition which includes silane-modified polyethers comprising silane moieties coupled to polyether backbones (p. 3, lines 5-6), and teaches the preferable incorporation of GENIOSIL STP-E10, and further teaches the formation of moisture curable polyurethanes from isocyanates and polyols such as polyether polyols (p. 1, lines 19-21). Therefore, Klerks contemplates similar chemical reactivities (alcohol + isocyanate = urethane), and teaches a particularly preferred inventive polymer which may be formed from a substantially similar processes as the one contemplated by the instant specification. Klerks further teaches the incorporation of 3-(isocyanatopropyl)-trimethoxysilane as an adhesion promoter (p. 6, line 34), but differs from claim 13 because it is silent with regard to the particular incorporation of a polymer which meets all of the claimed limitations.
In the same field of endeavor, Laferte teaches a multicomponent adhesive composition comprising at least one silyl polymer comprising at least one hydrolysable alkoxysilane group (abstract) particularly including GENIOSIL STP-E10 as a suitable polymer ([0068]-[0069]). Laferte further teaches the incorporation of DESMOSEAL S XP 2636, produced by Bayer ([0073]), which has a substantially similar structure as the re-created structure presented above, differing perhaps in the number of polypropylene oxide repeat units, but nonetheless falling within the claimed range of “d.” Laferte also teaches that the inventive composition is moisture curable ([0410]), and therefore recognizes GENIOSIL STP-E10 and DESMOSEAL S XP 2636 as suitable equivalents for the purpose of forming adhesives based on silyl-modified polyethers.
It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of tiling to incorporate DESMOSEAL S XP 2636 as the silane-modified polyether within the formulation of Klerks as taught by Laferte, as Laferte recognizes it as a suitable silylated polyether for the formation of moisture-curable adhesives.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Klerks does not disclose the claimed combination of the specific light stabilizer combination “(b)(i)”-“(b)(iii);” however, as described in the previous Office Action, Klerks in view of Prasse and LaCroix renders obvious the inclusion of these materials. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to recognize the Applicant’s recognized benefit of improved yellowing, however the motivation or reason to combine the prior art references need not be the same as that of the Applicant’s. The reason to or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what is claimed, 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 the Applicant. See MPEP 2144(IV).
Applicant asserts that Timberlake does not teach the claimed polymer, but does not explain how the previous office action, which describes how the polymer of Timberlake reads on the claimed polymer, is incorrect.
Applicant next argues that Timberlake is not directed towards the same field of endeavor as the claims. However, The instant specification states that the application is directed towards alkoxysilyl-containing polymer compositions ([0002]). Likewise, Timberlake is directed towards a process for producing alkoxysilane-terminated polyethers useful for hydrosilylation reactions (Abstract). Timberlake is therefore plainly relevant to the same field of endeavor as the instant claims.
Applicant appeals towards the extensive listing of light stabilizer materials within the prior art to build an argument tantamount to a lack of disclosure with “sufficient specificity.” However, it is important to note that “sufficient specificity” is relevant to anticipation rejections, not obviousness rejections (See MPEP 2131.03.II.). The selection of the materials described within the previous Office Action would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art despite the relatively long listing of options.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are directed towards allegations of unexpected results. Whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d).
In this case, Examples 1-8 in the instant application provide data for a single polymer “(a),” whereas the claims are open to virtually any polymer fall within the claimed “general formula (I).” Furthermore, the components “(b)(i)” and “(b)(ii)” used therein each comprise two commercial blends of components, despite the claims being open to single components. For at least these reasons, the scope of the experimental data is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Applicant need not provide data for every possible combination of materials as claimed; however, the data provided is insufficient to rebut a prima facie determination of obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762