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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed 7 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following by virtue of amendment of the claims: (1) the objections to the claims have been withdrawn; (2) the 112(b) rejections of claims 5, 7, and 12 have been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1, 3-10 and 13-18
Withdrawn claims: 9-10
Previously canceled claims: 11
Newly canceled claims: 2 and 12
Amended claims: 1, 3-10, and 13-15
New claims: 16-18
Claims currently under consideration: 1, 3-8 and 13-18
Currently rejected claims: 1, 3-8 and 13-15 and 17-18
Allowed claims: None
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On p. 2, line 31, it appears that “donate” should read, “denote”.
On p. 3, line 17, it appears that “germinal” should read, “geminal”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP § 2163(I)(B) states, “To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure.”
Additionally, MPEP § 2173.05(i) states, “Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977) ("[the] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining."). See also Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In describing alternative features, the applicant need not articulate advantages or disadvantages of each feature in order to later exclude the alternative features. See Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356-57, 116 USPQ2d 2006, 2010-11 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. However, a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). "Rather, as with positive limitations, the disclosure must only 'reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.'... While silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure." Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 2022 USPQ2d 569 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 589 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172). Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.”
Claim 18 recites the limitation, “wherein the polyvinyl alcohol excludes a non-terminal carbonyl group”. The instant specification is silent regarding non-terminal carbonyl groups in the polyvinyl alcohol. The instant specification does not positively recite non-terminal carbonyl groups that may then be explicitly excluded in the claims. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. MPEP § 2173.05(i).
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the terminal carbonyl group”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant can overcome this rejection by amending the claim to recite “the terminal ketone group”.
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, 3-5, 7-8, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borodaev et al. (WO 2012/134347A1, cited on the IDS filed on 10 October 2022) in view of Sakado et al. (JP S51-84999, cited on the IDS filed on 10 October 2022) and as evidenced by Liu et al. (Liu, B., Wang, Y., Ding, W., and Shi, B. (2019). Preparation of Oxidised Polyvinyl Alcohol Using Hydrogen Peroxide and its Application for Collagen Modification. J. Soc. Leather Technol. Chem., 103(1), 14-20.) and Lu et al. (Lu, Y., Kong, Q. M., Jing, R., Hu, X., & Zhu, P. X. (2013). Solid state oxidation of polyvinyl alcohol by hydrogen peroxide-Cu (II). Polymer degradation and stability, 98(6), 1103-1109, cited on the IDS filed on 20 October 2025).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Borodaev teaches a foodstuff comprising a synthetic food casing having at least one layer comprising a polyvinyl alcohol with a terminal carbonyl group – “The object of the invention is achieved by providing a single- or multilayer water vapor- and smoke-permeable synthetic food casing, comprising at least one layer containing 10 to 95.5% of polyamide material, 4.5 to 50% of modified polyvinyl alcohol, and 0 to 40% of additives.” (p. 9, line 32 – p. 10, line 2). Borodaev discloses that the modified polyvinyl alcohol is produced by oxidation by exposure to oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide (p. 4, lines 10-15) and that polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) acquires aldehyde groups (i.e., terminal carbonyl groups) as a result of treatment with oxidants (p. 22, lines 14-15). As evidenced by Liu, oxidation of PVA with at least hydrogen peroxide yields PVA scission products with terminal aldehyde groups and terminal ketone groups, with terminal carboxylic acid groups as a further oxidation product (p. 15, Figure 1; p. 19, col. 2, ¶ 1). In Figure 1 of Liu, scission of the PVA molecule at the expanded site shown would result in a terminal aldehyde and a terminal methyl ketone as further evidenced by Lu (p. 1106, Figure 3). Therefore, while Borodaev only explicitly discloses a terminal aldehyde group (p. 22, lines 14-15), the oxidation reaction of PVA necessarily produces terminal methyl ketone groups. Borodaev implicitly discloses a foodstuff comprising the food casing in that the invention is a casing for food products (p. 1, lines 5-7).
Borodaev further teaches that “The casing according to the present invention has improved optical properties compared with casings obtained with the use of unmodified PVA as a hydrophilic component, which, as was mentioned above, acquire a strong opalescence or pearlescence at humidification, becoming virtually opaque. This is apparently due to the fact that the dispersed phase of the hydrophilic compound present in the casing absorbs moisture more than the polyamide matrix, which results in greater difference in the refractive indices of these phases.” (p. 12, line 33 – p. 13, line 5). This indicates that the modified PVA of the invention absorbs less moisture (i.e., has decreased water solubility) than an unmodified PVA, and the casing of the invention is therefore more transparent/less opalescent than conventional casings.
Borodaev does not discuss that the polyvinyl alcohol comprises equal to or more than 0.01 mol% and equal to or less than 2.0 mol% of a terminal ketone group.
However, Sakado discloses an emulsion of a vinyl polymer and polyvinyl alcohol having a carbonyl group (p. 2, “Claims”) with a carbonyl group content of 0.1 mol% or more (p.4, ¶ 5). In preparing the polyvinyl alcohol, a carbonyl group, such as an aldehyde group or a ketone group is introduced into a terminal or main chain thereof by oxidation with a known oxidizing agent (p. 4, ¶ 2). Sakado discloses that the combination of the vinyl polymer and the PVA component with carbonyl groups provides a textile finish with good “washfastness” (i.e., waterproofing/decreased solubility in water) (p. 3, ¶¶ 1-8), and that it is necessary that the PVA contains 0.1 mol% or more of such carbonyl groups to exert the desired waterproofing effect (p.4, ¶ 5). As such, Sakado discloses modifying PVA with terminal carbonyl groups for controlling its moisture absorption/water solubility in the same way as Borodaev.
MPEP § 2144.02 provides that when the art shows logic and/or sound scientific principles, such a thing is evidence for the existence and meaning of this theory to be factual.
Therefore, based on sound scientific reasoning and principles that oxidation-modified PVA comprising terminal carbonyl groups reduces water solubility in both Borodaev and Sakado, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the composition of Borodaev to comprise a polyvinyl alcohol with 0.1 mol% or more of terminal carbonyl groups as disclosed by Sakado. First, Borodaev discloses that the interaction of terminal carbonyl groups of the oxidation-modified PVA with polyamide components is suspected to exert the effect of improved optical properties by decreasing water solubility (p. 12, line 33 – p. 13, line 15; p. 22, lines 6-17). However, Borodaev does not specify the amount of terminal carbonyl groups required to have the desired effect. Sakado teaches that oxidation of PVA increases terminal carbonyl groups, and this oxidation-modified PVA increases "washfastness" (i.e. waterproofing/decreases water solubility) (p. 3, ¶¶ 1-8), and teaches that 0.1 mol% or more of terminal carbonyl groups on PVA is required for the desired effect (p.4, ¶ 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consult Sakado to identify a specific amount of PVA terminal carbonyl groups required to provide an effective amount of decreased water solubility to the overall synthetic food casing composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Sakado teaches that only by addition of a PVA with at least 0.1 mol% of terminal carbonyl groups (p.4, ¶ 5) to a vinyl polymer are the disadvantages of using a vinyl polymer alone or with an unmodified polyvinyl alcohol overcome (p.3, ¶¶ 1-8).
Regarding the ranges, the claimed range of 0.01 mol% to 2.0 mol% of terminal ketone groups overlaps the disclosed range of greater than 0.1 mol% of terminal carbonyl groups. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I). As described above, Liu and Lu evidence that oxidation of PVA produces both terminal aldehyde and terminal ketone groups. It is considered that the disclosed range of greater than 0.1 mol% of terminal carbonyl groups provides disclosure of an amount of terminal ketone groups with sufficient specificity to render the claimed range obvious.
Claims 1 and 3 are therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Borodaev and Sakado teach the foodstuff according to claim 1.
The cited prior art does not teach that the terminal carbonyl group is introduced into the polyvinyl alcohol by using a chain transfer agent during the polymerization reaction.
However, claim 4 is a product-by-process claim. MPEP § 2113(I) states, “Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. ‘[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”
Since Borodaev teaches that the polyvinyl alcohol comprises a terminal carbonyl group (p. 22, lines 14-15), as required by claim 1, the structure of both the claimed product and that of Borodaev are seen to be the same. Therefore, claim 4 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Borodaev and Sakado teach the foodstuff according to claim 1.
Borodaev also teaches that the at least one layer further comprises a further thermoplastic resin selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic starch, thermoplastic polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyamide, block copolymers of polyamide and polyether, block copolymers of polyurethane and polyether, block copolymers of polyester and polyether, and blends thereof (p. 10, lines 16-20).
Claim 5 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Borodaev and Sakado teach the foodstuff according to claim 1.
Borodaev also teaches that the polyvinyl alcohol further comprises at least one plasticizer selected from the group consisting of glycerin, 1,2-propanediol, trimethylolpropane, pentaerythritol, sorbitol, xylitol, inositol, mannitol, triethanolamine, polyethylene glycol with a molecular weight from 200 to 10,000 Da and mixtures thereof (p. 10, lines 12-15).
Claim 7 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Borodaev and Sakado teach the s foodstuff according to claim 1.
Borodaev also teaches that the polyvinyl alcohol comprises from 0.001 to 2.0 wt% sodium acetate – Borodaev teaches the production of modified PVA comprising combining 60 kg of PVA and 900 g of 38% aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide, in which 180 g of sodium acetate are additionally dissolved (p. 15, lines 8-16). That is, the amount of the sodium acetate is 180 g/60900 g x 100% = 0.3% of the weight of the polyvinyl alcohol.
Claim 8 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Borodaev and Sakado teach the foodstuff according to claim 1.
Borodaev also teaches a foodstuff comprising the synthetic food casing according to claim 1 – “An object of this invention is enhancing of the transparency level of casings made of a blend of polyamide and polyvinyl alcohol…with maintenance of their water vapor- and smoke-permeability, low adhesion to the meat emulsion, and the ability to be easily peeled off a sausage/frankfurter product… (p. 2, lines 23-27). Therefore, Borodaev teaches a smoked sausage/frankfurter product comprising the food casing, and claim 12 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Borodaev and Sakado teach the foodstuff according to claim 1.
Borodaev as modified by Sakado as described regarding claim 1 above also teaches that the at least one layer comprises the polyvinyl alcohol with equal to or more than 0.01 mol% and equal to or less than 2.0 mol% of the terminal ketone group and a polyamide (re: claim 13), wherein the terminal ketone group is a terminal methyl ketone group (re: claim 14) – Borodaev teaches a “synthetic food casing, comprising at least one layer containing 10 to 95.5% of polyamide material, 4.5 to 50% of modified polyvinyl alcohol, and 0 to 40% of additives.” (p. 9, line 32 – p. 10, line 2). Therefore, the at least one layer of Borodaev as modified by the teachings of Sakado described regarding claim 1 also comprises a polyamide as claimed.
Claim 13 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Borodaev and Sakado teach the foodstuff according to claim 13 as described above.
As described regarding claim 1, Borodaev, as evidenced by Liu and Lu, teaches that the terminal ketone group is a terminal methyl ketone group.
Therefore, claim 14 is rendered obvious for the same reasons and with the same expectation of success as described regarding claims 1 and 13 above.
Regarding claim 15, Borodaev and Sakado teach the foodstuff according to claim 13.
Borodaev also teaches that the polyamide comprises at least one selected from a (co)polyamide selected from the group comprising polyamide 6, polyamide 66, polyamide 46, copolyamide 6/66, copolyamide 46/6 and mixtures thereof (p. 10, lines 3-8).
Claim 15 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Borodaev and Sakado teach the foodstuff according to claim 1.
The cited prior art does not discuss that the foodstuff excluding introducing the terminal carbonyl group into the polyvinyl alcohol using a thermo-oxidative process.
However, claim 17 is a product-by-process claim. MPEP § 2113(I) states, “Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. ‘[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”
Since Borodaev, as evidenced by Liu and Lu, teaches that the polyvinyl alcohol comprises a terminal ketone group, as required by claim 1, the structure of both the claimed product and that of Borodaev are seen to be the same.
Therefore, claim 17 is rendered obvious.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borodaev et al. (WO 2012/134347A1, cited on the IDS filed on 10 October 2022) in view of Sakado et al. (JP S51-84999, cited on the IDS filed on 10 October 2022) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Siddiqui et al. (US 2014/0322394 A1, cited on the IDS filed on 10 October 2022).
Regarding claim 6, Borodaev and Sakado teach the foodstuff according to claim 1.
The cited prior art does not specifically teach that the synthetic food casing has a permeability to water vapor and smoke from 300 g/m2/day at 50 µm film thickness when measured according to DIN53122-1 at 40°C and 95% relative humidity.
However, Borodaev teaches a “single- or multilayer water vapor- and smoke-permeable synthetic food casing, comprising at least one layer containing 10 to 95.5% of polyamide material, 4.5 to 50% of modified polyvinyl alcohol, and 0 to 40% of additives.” (p. 9, line 32 – p. 10, line 2). Similarly, Siddiqui teaches a film for use as a food casing that comprises from at least about 20 wt. % to about 70 wt. % of an amorphous polyvinyl alcohol and from at least about 80 wt. % to about 30 wt. % of polyamide; and optionally, from approximately 3 wt. % to about 5 wt. % of an antiblocking agent ([0025]).
Siddiqui further teaches that “the film is permeable to both liquid and gaseous smoke components to the extent that smoky flavor and/or smoky color transfers to the surface of the encased foodstuff comparable to the transfer as seen with cellulosic casing. The film has a moisture vapor transmission rate of greater than about 40 g/100 in2/day/mil and ranges up to approximately 100 g/100 in2/day/mil.” ([0026]). Using the conversion factor of 1 g/100 in2/day = 15.5 g/m2/day, and accounting for 1 mil = 25.4 µm, at a 50 µm thickness, the film of Siddiqui has a permeability to water vapor and smoke from 315 to 787 g/m2/day, which falls inside the claimed range.
MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states, “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the amounts of modified polyvinyl alcohol and polyamide taught by Borodaev according to the teachings of Siddiqui by routine experimentation to achieve the desired permeability to water vapor and smoke, including 300 g/m2/day at 50 µm film thickness as claimed, such that the sausage has the desired organoleptic properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for doing so because Borodeav discloses preparing casings with different percentages of modified polyvinyl alcohol and polyamide can modulate the transparency and also the percent of weight lost due permeability (p. 21, “Table”).
Claim 6 is therefore rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Applicant has overcome the objections to claims 5-6 by amendment. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112:
Applicant has overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claims 5, 7, and 12 based on amendment to the claims. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102/103: Applicant made no substantive arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection of claim 1 (p. 4, ¶¶ 4-5). Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 filed on 7 November 2025 is sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon consideration of the amendments, the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 presented in this Office action are made.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-5, 7-8, 12-13, and 15 over Borodaev in view of Sakado: Applicant’s arguments filed on 7 November 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argued that the cited references fail to teach or suggest a polyvinyl alcohol with equal to or more than 0.01 mol% and equal to or less than 2.0 mol% of a terminal ketone group as set forth in claim 1. Applicant argued that Sakado teaches that the polyvinyl alcohol has an aldehyde at the terminal end or a ketone group in the main chain. Thus, Sakado does not teach or suggest a terminal ketone group. Applicant argued that Liu fails to cure the deficiencies of Borodeaev and Sakado (p. 5, ¶¶ 3-4).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. Liu provides that the oxidation reaction of Borodaev necessarily yields PVA scission products with terminal aldehyde groups and terminal ketone groups, with terminal carboxylic acid groups as a further oxidation product (p. 15, Figure 1; p. 19, col. 2, ¶ 1). Therefore, while Borodaev only explicitly discloses aldehyde groups (p. 22, lines 14-15), the oxidation reaction of PVA necessarily produces terminal ketone groups. The oxidation reaction in Sakado would likewise produce terminal ketone groups. The ranges disclosed by Sakado are therefore considered to be applicable to the composition of Borodaev.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as described hereinabove. Claims 2 and 12 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 6 over Borodaev in view of Sakado and further in view of Siddiqui: Applicant’s arguments filed on 7 November 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that amended claim 1 renders the rejection of claim 6 moot because Siddiqui fails to cure the deficiencies of Borodaev and Sakado (p. 5, ¶ 7 – p. 6, ¶ 1).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. As described above, Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 is insufficient to overcome rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 1 over Khan: Applicant made no substantive arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1 (p. 6, ¶¶ 2-3). Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 filed on 7 November 2025 is sufficient to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon consideration of the amendments, the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 presented in this Office action are made.
Conclusion
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 James Shellhammer whose telephone number is (703) 756-5525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/JAMES P. SHELLHAMMER/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793