CTFR 17/851,563 CTFR 97290 DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendments In response to the amendment received on 02/09/2026: • Claims 1 and 4-17 are currently pending. Claims 2-3 are canceled. Claims 16-17 are withdrawn for being directed to a non-elected invention(s). The objections to claims 12 and 15 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. The rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 4, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (WO-2018190229-A1), with reference to the previously included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Kawakami”), in view of Ono (JP-2001172535-A), with reference to the previously included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Ono”), and Ogura et al. (US-20210371686-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Ogura”) . Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, Kawakami teaches a thermochromic aqueous inkjet printer ink composition (see Kawakami at pg. 1, para. 1, teaching a thermoresponsive composition; also see Kawakami at pg. 9, para. 4, teaching the thermosresponsive composition may be used as an ink for ink jet recording; also see Kawakami at pg. 14, para. 9, teaching the composition may contain an aqueous solvent), comprising: • a thermochromic microcapsule pigment containing microcapsules in which a reversibly thermochromic composition containing: (A) an electron-donative coloring organic compound, (B) an electron-accepting compound, and (C) a reaction medium for causing an electron transfer reaction between the components (A) and (B) in a specific temperature range is enclosed with a membrane (see Kawakami at pg. 3, para. 1 and 4-5, teaching the composition may include microcapsule pigments, which include an electron-donating compound and an electron-accepting compound; also see Kawakami at pg. 5, para. 3, teaching the microcapsule as further containing a color change temperature adjusting agent, which corresponds to the claimed “reaction medium”); • water (see Kawakami at pg. 14, para. 9, teaching the composition as containing water); • wherein said microcapsules have a volume-based mean particle size (X) of 0.1 to 2 µm (see Kawakami at pg. 9, para. 4, teaching the volume standard median diameter of the microcapsules as preferably ranging from 0.1 to 2 µm, which is equivalent to the claimed range; also see Applicant’s specification at para. 0075, equating the phrases “median diameter” and “mean diameter”); and • a mean cross-sectional membrane thickness (Y) of 0.02 to 0.4 µm, provided that said mean cross-sectional membrane thickness is defined by the steps of observing cross-sections of said microcapsules in the frozen state with a transmission electron microscope, calculating cross-sectional membrane thicknesses of all the microcapsules in the observation field according to the following formula: cross-sectional membrane thickness = (outer section diameter - inner section diameter)/2 in which the outer and inner section diameters of each microcapsule are circle conversion diameters calculated from areas surrounded by the outer and inner circumferences, respectively, and averaging the calculated thicknesses to determine the mean cross-sectional membrane thickness (see Kawakami at pg. 8, para. 12-13, teaching the number average wall thickness of the microcapsules to preferably range from 20 to 50 nm, or 0.02 to 0.05 µm; this range falls within the claimed range; also see Kawakami at pg. 8, para. 13 and pg. 9, para. 1, teaching the number average wall thickness as being obtained through the averaging of cross-sectional measurements of the microcapsules; thus, the thickness taught by Kawakami is necessarily a “mean cross-sectional membrane thickness”; it is noted that while Kawakami does not teach the exact method of determining the cross-sectional membrane thickness like that claimed, it follows that the resulting cross-sectional thickness average would necessarily be static/equivalent, regardless of the exact method of measurement of obtaining it; further, the method of measuring the cross-sectional thickness does not impart a distinct structural characteristic to the microcapsules, and thus, the method of measuring the cross-sectional thickness is not a positively recited element of the composition; see MPEP § 2113; accordingly, since Kawakami teaches a cross-sectional membrane thickness that falls within the claimed range, Kawakami necessarily reads on the limitation; also see the “Response to Arguments” section below, detailing Kawakami as necessarily teaching a “mean cross-sectional membrane thickness” like that claimed); • wherein said mean particle size (X) and said mean cross-sectional membrane thickness (Y) satisfy the condition represented by the following formulae: (1) Y/X < 0.3 and (2) 0.02 < Y/X (see Kawakami at pg. 9, para. 4, teaching the volume standard median diameter of the microcapsules as preferably ranging from 0.1 to 2 µm; also see Kawakami at pg. 8, para. 12, teaching the number average wall thickness of the microcapsules to preferably range from 20 to 50 nm, or 0.02 to 0.05 µm; thus, the values of Y/X in the composition of Kawakami ranges from 0.01 to 0.5 (0.02 thickness minimum/2 diameter maximum = 0.01 ratio minimum; 0.05 thickness maximum/0.1 diameter minimum = 0.5 ratio maximum); this range of 0.01 to 0.5 overlaps values that satisfy the claimed formulae (e.g., 0.2), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05). It is noted that Kawakami fails to explicitly teach their composition as being “reversibly” thermochromic. However, the “reversibility” of a thermochromic composition is notably a property of that composition. Since Kawakami teaches the same microcapsule pigment as that claimed, including the same electron-donative compound, e.g., 2-anilino-6-diethylamino-3-methylfluorane (see Kawakami at pg. 3, para. 9 and see Applicant’s specification at para. 0020), the same electron-accepting compound, e.g., 2,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane (see Kawakami at pg. 3, para. 11 and Applicant’s specification at para. 0028), and the same reaction medium, e.g., ethyl caprylate (see Kawakami at pg. 6, para. 6 and Applicant’s specification at para. 0038), it necessarily follows that the thermochromic composition is “reversible” as claimed; products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, see MPEP § 2112.01(II). While Kawakami teaches the composition outlined above, Kawakami fails to explicitly teach the composition as including a polyalcohol organic solvent, wherein said polyalcohol organic solvent is glycerin (regarding claim 8), and wherein the content ratio of the polyalcohol organic solvent is 5 to 60 mass% (regarding claim 9). However, Ono teaches a thermochromic ink jet ink composition containing a microcapsule pigment (see Ono at pg. 1, para. 1 and pg. 2, para. 3). Ono further teaches the ink to include a hydrophilic organic solvent, such as glycerin, and that the solvent is effective in adjusting the drying of the ink (wetting agent) and in preventing nozzle clogging (see Ono at pg. 6, para. 3). Moreover, Ono teaches the content of the organic solvent is effective in a range of 1 to 40% in the ink (see Ono at pg. 5, para. 12 and pg. 6, para. 1). Additionally, the use of solvents, including glycerin, in thermochromic microcapsule compositions are well-known in the art (see Ogura at para. 0004, 0036 and 0047). Kawakami teaches their ink may include an alcohol/an additive (see Kawakami at pg. 14, para. 10 and pg. 15, para. 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use glycerin as an additional solvent in the composition of Kawakami in an amount ranging from 1 to 40 wt%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to adjust the drying of the ink (wetting agent) and to prevent nozzle clogging (see Ono at pg. 6, para. 3). Moreover, combining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. The range of 1 to 40 wt% overlaps the claimed range of 5 to 60 mass%, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claim 4 , Kawakami as modified by Ono and Ogura teaches the ink composition according to claim 1 outlined above, wherein said mean particle size (X) is in the range of 0.3 to 1.5 µm (see Kawakami at pg. 9, para. 4, teaching the volume standard median diameter of the microcapsules as preferably ranging from 0.1 to 2 µm; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05). Regarding claim 5 , Kawakami as modified by Ono and Ogura teaches the ink composition according to claim 1 outlined above, wherein said microcapsules have said mean cross-sectional membrane thickness (Y) of 0.02 to 0.3 µm (see Kawakami at pg. 8, para. 12, teaching the number average wall thickness of the microcapsules (i.e., the cross-sectional membrane thickness) to preferably range from 20 to 50 nm, or 0.02 to 0.05 µm; this range falls completely within the claimed range). Regarding claim 7 , while Kawakami as modified by Ono and Ogura teaches the ink composition according to claim 1 outlined above, modified Kawakami fails to explicitly teach the blending ratio of the microcapsule pigment to range from 3 to 20 mass% based on the total mass of the ink. However, Ono teaches a similar microcapsule thermochromic composition as Kawakami (see Ono at pg. 1, para. 1 and pg. 2, para. 3). Ono further teaches the content of the microcapsules to preferably range from 1 to 40 wt% in the ink, and that when it is less than 1 wt%, no clear thermochromic property is exhibited, and that when it exceeds 40 wt%, color residue tends to occur at the time of decoloring, the solid content is large, and clogging of the nozzle tends to occur (see Ono at pg. 5, para. 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the content of the microcapsules of modified Kawakami to range from 1 to 40 wt% in the ink. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain a clear thermochromic property and prevent nozzle clogging (see Ono at pg. 5, para. 11). This range of 1 to 40 wt% overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Ono and Ogura , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujita et al. (JP-2009227956-A), with reference to the previously included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Fujita”), and Kakimi et al. (JP-2000034430-A), with reference to the previously included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Kakimi”) . Regarding claim 6, while modified Kawakami teaches the ink according to claim 1 outlined above, modified Kawakami fails to explicitly teach the microcapsules having diameters of 5 µm or more as being contained in an amount of 1 volume% or less based on the total volume of the microcapsules in said microcapsule pigment. However, it is well-known that in microcapsule inks, including thermochromic microcapsule inks, that microcapsules having a diameter of greater than 5 µm are undesirable, as they lead to inkjet nozzle clogging (see Fujita at pg. 6, para. 3 and Kakimi at pg. 8, para. 9). Kawakami teaches their ink as being used in an inkjet process (see Kawakami at pg. 9, para. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the presence of microcapsules having a diameter of greater than 5 µm in the ink of modified Kawakami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent inkjet nozzle clogging (see Fujita at pg. 6, para. 3 and Kakimi at pg. 8, para. 9). Following the above modification, the composition of modified Kawakami contains 0 vol% of microcapsules having diameter of 5 µm or more, which falls within the claimed range . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Ono and Ogura , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ichikawa (JP-2018141059-A), with reference to the previously included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Ichikawa”) . Regarding claims 10 and 12, while modified Kawakami teaches the ink according to claim 1 outlined above, modified Kawakami fails to explicitly teach the ink as further containing a polyether phosphate ester, wherein the content ratio of said polyether phosphate ester is 1 to 10 mass%. However, Ichikawa teaches a microcapsule thermochromic ink composition (see Ichikawa at pg. 2, para. 3). Ichikawa further teaches the ink may include a surfactant from the viewpoint of improving the penetrability of the ink and improving the dispersibility of the thermochromic microcapsule pigment (see Ichikawa at pg. 5, para. 7). Moreover, Ichikawa teaches the surfactant may include a polyoxyethylene alkyl phosphate ester in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 5% in the ink (see Ichikawa at pg. 5, para. 9 and 15 and pg. 6, para. 1). Kawakami teaches their composition may include various additives, which are not restricted (see Kawakami at pg. 15, para. 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a polyoxyethylene alkyl phosphate ester in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 5% to the ink of modified Kawakami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the penetrability of the ink and improve the dispersibility of the thermochromic microcapsule pigment (see Ichikawa at pg. 5, para. 7). Polyoxyethylene alkyl phosphate ester are polyether phosphate esters (the polyoxyethylene moiety provides the polyether component). Further, the range of 0.1 to 5% overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Ono, Ogura, and Ichikawa , as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Nakamura (JP-2009209249-A), with reference to the previously included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Nakamura”) . Regarding claim 11, while modified Kawakami teaches the ink according to claim 10 outlined above, modified Kawakami fails to explicitly teach the polyether phosphate as being an alkali metal salt, an ammonium salt, or an alkanolamine salt. However, it is well-known that polyoxyethylene alkyl phosphate esters used as surfactants in an ink composition may be in the form of an alkali metal salt, an ammonium salt, or an alkanolamine salt (see Nakamura at pg. 4, para. 6). In this case, the use of polyoxyethylene alkyl phosphate ester surfactants as alkali metal salts, ammonium salts, or alkanolamine salts is known in the art (as exemplified by Nakamura at pg. 4, para. 6), and thus the use of such salts in the ink of modified Kawakami would yield a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polyoxyethylene alkyl phosphate ester of modified Kawakami as an alkali metal salt, an ammonium salt, or an alkanolamine salt, as it is known to use such salts in a polyoxyethylene alkyl phosphate ester surfactant in an ink composition (see Nakamura at pg. 4, para. 6). Combining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Ono and Ogura , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kagata (US-20180291217-A) (hereinafter referred to as “Kagata”) . Regarding claims 13-14, while modified Kawakami teaches the ink according to claim 1 outlined above, modified Kawakami fails to explicitly teach said ink composition as having a viscosity of 2 to 30 mPa-s at 20 °C and a surface tension of 20 to 50 mN/m at 20 °C. However, Kagata teaches an aqueous inkjet ink composition (see Kagata at para. 0007). Kagata further teaches the surface tension of the ink composition at 20 °C to range from 20 to 40 mN/m from the viewpoint of the balance between the image quality and the reliability as an ink jet recording ink (see Kagata at para. 0121). Moreover, Kagata teaches the viscosity of the ink composition at 20 °C to range from 3 to 10 mPa-s from the same viewpoint (see Kagata at para. 0122). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the viscosity of the ink of modified Kawakami to range from 3 to 10 mPa-s and the surface tension to range of the ink of modified Kawakami to range from 20 to 40 mN/m at 20 °C. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so from the viewpoint of the balance between the image quality and the reliability as an ink jet recording ink (see Kagata at para. 0121-0122). Both ranges fall completely within the claims 13-14 ranges . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Ono and Ogura , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohta (US-20130213440-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Ohta”) . Regarding claim 15, while modified Kawakami teaches the ink according to claim 1 outlined above, modified Kawakami fails to explicitly teach the ink composition as having a pH value of 4 to 8 at 20 °C. However, Ohta teaches an ink jet recording ink (see Ohta at para. 0030). Ohta further teaches the pH of the ink composition for recording is preferably within the range of 7 to 10 at a temperature of 20 °C, and that by setting the pH within the above range, the storage stability and dispersion stability of the ink composition becomes favorable and it is further possible to suppress corrosion in the case where metal components are used in an ink jet recording apparatus (see Ohta at para. 0068). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the pH of the ink of modified Kawakami at a temperature of 20 °C to range from 7 to 10. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve storage and dispersion stability, as well as to suppress corrosion of metal components within an inkjet apparatus (see Ohta at para. 0068). This pH range of 7 to 10 overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05 . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the reasons set forth below . First, Applicants argue the claimed “mean cross-sectional membrane thickness (Y)” to be different from a measured “typical membrane thickness,” where the former includes cross-sections that do not pass through the center of the sphere, and the latter includes only cross-sections that pass through the center of the sphere (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 6-8). Applicants then argue that Kawakami does not account for the claimed subject matter (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 6). The Examiner appreciates the detailed description and drawing provided by Applicants in their Remarks. However, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive and so the Examiner must respectfully disagree for the following reasons. Applicants have not sufficiently distinguished their claimed “mean cross-sectional membrane thickness (Y)” from the thickness values taught by Kawakami. Kawakami teaches the following (see Kawakami at pg. 8, para. 13 and pg. 9, para. 1): The number average wall thickness of microcapsules refers to the thickness (nm) of a resin film (so-called capsule wall) that forms capsule particles of microcapsules, and the number average wall thickness refers to the individual capsule walls of five microcapsules. The thickness (nm) is obtained by a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and averaged. Specifically, the microcapsule solution is first applied on an arbitrary support and dried to form a coating film. A cross section of the obtained coating film is formed , the formed cross section is observed using an SEM, an arbitrary five microcapsules are selected, and the cross section of each selected microcapsule is observed to form a capsule wall. The average value is calculated (emphasis added by Examiner). The claims claim the mean cross-sectional membrane thickness (Y) to be defined by a step of “ observing cross-sections of said microcapsules ” (see claim 1). Cross-sections necessarily include cross sections that pass through the center and cross-sections that do not pass through the center. In other words, a measurement that contains only cross-sections that pass through the center would still read on the claims, given cross-sections through the center are still “cross-sections” by nature. Nothing in the claims distinguishes cross-sections through the center and cross-sections not through the center. Accordingly, since Kawakami teaches “cross-sections” being formed, Kawakami necessarily reads on the claimed mean cross-sectional membrane thickness (Y), regardless of whether Kawakami teaches cross-sections through the center or not. Furthermore, even if the claims preclude a “typical membrane thickness” measurement, nothing in Kawakami suggests Kawakami’s thickness value to correspond to a “typical membrane thickness” (i.e., cross-sections only through the center of the sphere). In fact, Kawakami necessarily indicates their thickness to be the mean cross-sectional membrane thickness like that claimed. To elaborate, Kawakami does not teach any specialized steps to obtain cuts precisely through the center of each sphere (e.g., measuring the “smallest” thicknesses or the “largest” diameters only, using specialized technology, etc.). In fact, Kawakami explicitly teaches a dried film on a PET surface to simply be “cut” to form a cross-section, followed by an “arbitrary” selection of spheres for measurement (see Kawakami at pg. 9, para. 1 and pg. 16, last paragraph). One of ordinary skill would readily recognize a “cut” of a dried film (followed by “arbitrary” selection) to refer to a cross-section through the sphere at random latitudes rather than through the center of each sphere, given the virtually impossible probability of a blade passing exactly through the center of each sphere in a single cut and further given the lack of purposeful selection towards specific spheres. Consequently, the “wall thickness” of Kawakami necessarily corresponds to a mean cross-sectional membrane thickness like that claimed rather than a “typical membrane thickness” alleged by Applicants. Next, Applicants argue their specifically claimed ranges for (X), (Y), and Y/X, lead to unexpected results, and point to the examples in the specification to demonstrate such unexpected results (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 8-9). However, this is not found to be persuasive and so the Examiner must respectfully disagree for the following reasons. First, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP § 716.02(d)(II). Applicants fail to provide any comparative examples where (X) is below the claimed lower limit of 0.1 µm. Furthermore, Applicants fail to provide any comparative examples where (Y) is above the claimed upper limit of 0.4 µm. Moreover, Applicants only provide a single comparative value for Y/X above 0.3 (0.31 in Example 14) and a single comparative value for Y/X below 0.02 (0.01 in Comp. Ex. 1). Only a single comparative test above and a single comparative test below raises doubt as to the criticality of the claimed Y/X range. Consequently, doubts are raised as to the criticality of the claimed ranges. Additionally, the Examples in Applicant’s specification are not fully commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See MPEP § 716.02(d). The examples and comparative examples in Table 1 only use 7-[2-(acetylamino)-4-(diethylamino)phenyl]-7-(2-methyl-1- propyl-1H-indole-3-yl)flo[3,4-b] pyridine-5(7H)-one as the component (A), 1,1’-bis(4’-hydroxyphenyl) n-nonane as the component (B), and 4-benzyloxyphenylethyl caprate as the component (C), despite the claims allowing for a wide variety of suitable compounds (see Applicant’s specification at pg. 6-44, for example; also see Applicant’s specification at para. 0124). As such, it is unclear whether Applicants alleged showing of unexpected results applies to the varying embodiments for the ink included in claim 1. Examiner’s Suggestions In the interest of expedited prosecution, the Examiner proposes a potential amendment to overcome the current grounds of rejection. It is noted that this amendment is suggested following a brief, cursory glance of the specification and the prior art, and there is no guarantee such amendment won’t read on the current references upon a more detailed review. Moreover, further search and consideration would be required if such amendment is added (i.e., allowability is NOT guaranteed following the incorporation of such amendment). Lastly, Applicants may use all or none of such suggestion – it is merely intended as a helpful starting point for potential future amendments, if desired. If Applicants wish to clarify or discuss the below suggested amendment further, the Examiner invites Applicants to telephone for an interview. Amendment Suggestion 1 (support found at Table 1, Example 11 of Applicant’s specification): “…said microcapsules have a…mean cross-sectional membrane thickness (Y) of [[0.02]] 0.26 to 0.4 µm…” Examiner Note: Kawakami teaches a thickness range of 10 to 200 nm, or 0.01 to 0.2 µm (see Kawakami at pg. 8, para. 10-13); amending the claimed range to range from 0.26 to 0.4 µm would appear to fall outside the thickness range taught by Kawakami and would appear to overcome Kawakami . Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 extension fee 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 Jeffrey E Barzach whose telephone number is (571)272-8735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 8 am - 5 pm. 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149 . 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. /J.E.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 1731 /AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 2 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 3 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 4 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 5 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 6 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 7 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 8 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 9 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 10 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 11 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 12 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 13 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 14 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 15 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 16 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 17 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 17/851,563 Page 18 Art Unit: 1731
Prosecution Insights