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 Claims
Claims 16-25, 27-36 and 38-44 are pending in a response dated 04/17/2026.
Withdrawn rejections:
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 04/17/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below are herein withdrawn.
The following rejection and/or objection are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejection and/or objection presently being applied to the instant application.
New Grounds of Rejections --- as necessitated by amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
As indicated above, the present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(MPEP 2141.03)
MPEP 2141.03 (I) states: “The “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.” Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). The level of skill is that of a cosmetic/medical/pharmaceutical research scientist, as is the case here, then one can assume comfortably that such an educated artisan will draw conventional ideas from cosmetic, medicine, pharmacy, physiology and chemistry— without being told to do so.
In addition, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level (MPEP 2141.03(II)).
Claims 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khandpur et al., “Comparative efficacy of various treatment regimens for androgenetic alopecia in men”, The Journal of Dermatology vol. 29, pp. 489-498, 2002 (hereinafter Khandpur) in view of FR2779053A1(hereinafter, FR ‘053, citation is obtained from the attached Google English translation); DE102005003949A1 (IDS of 08/02/2023, hereinafter “DE ‘949”); ES ‘246 (ES2436246A1 – Google English Translation was previously attached, hereinafter “ES ‘246”); and DE’658 (DE102018213658A1 - Google English Translation was previously attached, hereinafter “DE ‘658”).
Applicant claims the below claims 16 filed on 04/17/2026:
PNG
media_image1.png
466
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01) ); Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02); and Finding of prima facie obviousness Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
Regarding instant claims 16, 17 and 20-24, they are rejected by Khandpur in view of DE ‘949, ES ‘246 and/or DE ‘658.
Khandpur discloses minoxidil solution is useful to treat androgenetic alopecia wherein 2% minoxidil solution is topically applied reading on the claimed first composition to bald area of Group III people twice daily at 12-hour interval (abstract, Table 1 and page 490, right column), which means “after application of minoxidil, it is left for 12 hours that is within the instant leaving time range of 5 to 15 hours and the said 2% minoxidil is within the claimed range of 0.1 to 5% and minoxidil solution reads on the claimed first composition, and the composition of Khandpur does not contain caffeine (see entire document). Although Khandpur does not expressly teach the claimed only once daily application, it would not be inventive because such application frequency may depend on the amounts of minoxidil and/or other active ingredient to be applied, and here instant Examples 1-2 require 5% minoxidil while Khandpur 2% minoxidil, and therefore, determining application frequency as claimed would be obvious from the skill and knowledge of the ordinary artisan, and thus the claimed “once daily” limitation would be non-inventive. Further, even instant claim 16 does not require the amount of minoxidil (step (a) of instant claim 16, and amount of minoxidil of instant claim 17).
However, Khandpur does not expressly teach surfactant, caffeine and their amounts for the same purpose of treating and/or preventing hair loss. The deficiencies are cured by DE ‘949, ES ‘246 and/or DE ‘658.
DE ‘949 discloses agent to activate hair-roots comprising caffeine and anionic surfactant reading on the claimed second composition (abstract) wherein the amount of caffeine is in an amount of 0.01 and 10% ([0013]) which is identical to the claimed range (instant claim 20); the non-ionic surfactant is used in an amount between 0.5 and 10% which overlaps the instant range of 1 to 4% (instant claim 23); the agent can prevent against hair loss (claim 13 of prior art); the surfactant-containing caffeine solution is applied for 2 minutes ([0029]) which is within 1-10 minutes, and the composition containing caffeine and surfactant is used as a shampoo or rinse formulations. In any event, shampoo and/or rinse formulations require wetting the hair and applying surfactant containing composition to the wet har. Therefore, upon wetting the hair with applying the second composition, the portion of minoxidil of (a) would be removed by washing or rinsing (step (b) of instant claims 16, 20 and 23 – surfactant and caffeine and their amounts).
ES ‘246 discloses cosmetic composition for the treatment of alopecia (title) comprising a cosmetically effective amount of caffeine, zinc, organic pea, pantothenic acid (claim 1 of prior art); the caffeine is used in an amount of 0.5% (claim 2 of prior art) which is within the claimed range of 0.01 to 10% (instant claim 20), and the caffeine-containing composition reading on the claimed third composition is topically applied to the bald area and then leaving it for at least 6 hours without minoxidil using applicator (claim 6 of prior art) which is identical to the claimed leaving time range (step (c) of instant claim 16).
DE ‘658 discloses use of special hair care products to prevent premature hair loss (title); the products contain hair treatment agent which comprises Quassia Amara and 0.01 to 2.5% caffeine which is within the claimed range of 0.01 to 10% for expensing the hair growth phase (abstract) (instant claim 20); and the said hair treatment agent reading on the claimed third composition remains on the hair or scalp until then the next hair wash, preferably at least 10 hours (claim 7 of prior art – see page 1 of translation), and thus, the at least 10 hours of DE ‘658 overlap the claimed range of at least 6 hours (step (c) of instant claim 16).
As noted above, the ranges of minoxidil, surfactant and caffeine of the applied art overlap, are within inside and/or identical to the claimed ranges. MPEP 2144.05 states that [I]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
It would have been obvious to modify minoxidil-containing composition of Khandpur with surfactant with or without caffeine-containing composition of DE ‘949, ES ‘246 and/or DE ‘658 for the same purpose of improvement in treating and/or preventing hair loss effects because Khandpur teaches minoxidil solution reading on the claimed first composition and overlapping leaving time; DE ‘949 teaches surfactant and caffeine -containing composition reading on the claimed second composition and overlapping leaving time; ES ‘246 and DE ‘658 both teach caffeine-containing composition reading on the claimed third composition and overlapping or identical leaving time, for the same purpose of treating/preventing hair loss. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine all the applied references to produce the claimed method for enhancing treating and/or preventing hair loss (instant claim 16). It is well-established proposition of patent law that no invention resides in combining old ingredients of known properties where the results obtained thereby are no more than the additive effect of the ingredients, In re Sussman, 1943 C.D. 518. From MPEP 2143 A: “…all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).”
Further, DE ‘949 further discloses the surfactant-containing composition reading on the claimed second composition as noted above; the composition additionally contains nonionic surfactant in an amount of 0.5-10% ([0016]) which is within the instant range of 1-4% (instant claim 23). MPEP 2144.05 above; the composition further contains vitamins ([0017]) such as panthenol, niacinamide, biotin in 0.02% ([0053] Formulation B) which is within the claimed range of 0.01 to 2% (instant claim 22), vitamins C and E, coenzyme Q10, glycerol, glycol, sorbitol perfume reading on the claimed flavonoid, aqua (=water), chamomilla, Ginkgo, Camellia which reads on the claimed plant extract ([0017], [0037]-[0040] and the Examples) (instant claim 21 and 24).
It would have been to further add other additive ingredients of DE ‘949 to the composition of the applied art in order to enhance the properties of the formulation.
In light of the foregoing, instant claims 16, 17 and 20-24 are obvious over JP ‘821 in view of Khandpur, DE ‘949, ES ‘246 and DE ‘658.
Regarding instant claims 18-19, they are rejected by Khandpur/DE ‘949, ES ‘246 and/or DE ‘658 in view of FR ‘053.
In particular, Khandpur does not expressly teach the alcohol solvent for the first composition of instant claims 18-19. The deficiency is cured by FR ‘053.
FR ‘053 discloses a composition for reducing hair hoss comprising 2g minoxidil, 20g propylene glycol, 50g ethanol, 0.4g ketoconazole and water to 100g wherein the ranges of minoxidil is within the claimed range of 0.1 to 5%, and the amounts of propylene glycol and ethanol are within the claimed range of 1-20% propylene glycol and 20-80% ethanol. MPEP 2144.05 as noted above. And the composition is daily applied, and the composition does not contain caffeine (Example 4 on page 10 of translation) (instant claims 18-19).
It would have been obvious to modify minoxidil-containing solution of Khandpur with the solution of FR ‘053 in order to enhance solubility of the active ingredient for achieving the same purpose of reducing hair loss.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of removing JP ‘821. However, the examiner would like to address the followings:
Applicant argues that none of the applied references, alone or in combination with Khandpur teach or suggest administering a second composition comprising a surfactant in order to remove a portion of the minoxidil composition from the scalp at the same time or prior to administering caffeine; Khandpur discloses administering minoxidil twice a day; DE ‘949, ES ‘246 and/or DE ‘658 do not disclose administering compositions containing minoxidil to the scalp of a subject; and even if combined, the applied art would not achieve the claimed steps.
The Examiner responds that as noted in the body of Action, when wetting hair and then applying the surfactant-containing composition to the hair, a portion of the minoxidil of Khandpur would be removed even after the minoxidil is left for 2 days because the residue of minoxidil would be left behind; and DE ‘949, ES ‘246 and DE ‘658 are relied on for disclosing the claimed steps (b)-(c). Although Khandpur discloses twice daily use of minoxidil, application frequency may depend on the amount of active ingredients as noted in the body of Action. Further, the claimed steps would be obvious because the result to be accomplished is substantially the same regardless of whether administration is concurrent or sequential. In other words, there would be no difference in the end result whether the artisan does concurrent administration or sequential administration. Please see related case law to this situation is this: "Where the result accomplished is substantially the same, steps taken concurrently or simultaneously are the equivalent of and not patentable over steps taken successively" New Wrinkle, Inc. v. Watson, Comr. Pats., 96 USPQ 436, 437 (D.C. Cir. 1953).
Further, the instant specification does not present certain experimental data to show the significance of the claimed steps (a)-(c) comparing with the closest art method; and for example, the tested results of Examples 1-2 (application with two separate compositions) comparing with Comparative Example 2 (application with one single composition) appear to be interesting, and but they are not numerical data and but rather statements (less fatty hair, and after three month, no reduction in the prevention of hair loss). From the statements, it is not clear how significantly the instant results was obtained from that comparison. That is, the statements cannot replace evidentiary data because there are no facts to support that finding that "less fatty hair" is a finding of both statistical and practical significance. The evidence relied upon should establish “that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.” Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Also, it is unknown if this merely a difference in degree or in kind. Without any objective evidence to analyze, no conclusions can be made about patentable subject matter. Furthermore, the tested composition in Examples 1-2 are not commensurate with scope of the claims because the tested data requires certain amounts of minoxidil, surfactant and caffeine while the claimed invention does not. In this regard, please see MPEP 716.02(d): Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention “Whether the 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 addition, please see MPEP 2145 states that “A showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Further, when the order is sequentially performed (e.g., after two days as taught by JP ‘821), the hair will be washed, shampooed and/or rinsed which would remove a portion of minoxidil, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the claimed steps a)-c) would be obvious as noted above. Lastly, please see case law stating that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In reKeller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In reMerck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2145.
Therefore, in light of the foregoing, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claims 25, 28-36 and 39-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR2779053A1 (hereinafter FR ‘053, citation is obtained from the attached Google translation) in view of DE102005003949A1 (IDS of 08/02/2023, hereinafter “DE ‘949”).
Applicant claims the below claims 25, 34 and 36 filed on 04/17/2026:
PNG
media_image2.png
443
835
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
92
811
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
292
871
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
100
807
media_image5.png
Greyscale
For examination purpose,
Regarding claim 25, it is directed to a combination of a first composition and a second composition, not a method of use. Therefore, the limitations of “for use in the treatment and/or prevention of hair loss” and “administration steps (a)-(c)” are intended uses of the combination, but which intended uses will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. see Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Moreover, the patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure." Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Thus, "recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable." In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1977). Thus, claim 25 is interpreted as a combination of a first composition comprising minoxidil and a second composition caffeine.
Regarding claim 34, please note that the term “kit” is not given any patentable weight as it is directed to a pharmaceutical composition; and containers for various components of a kit were well recognized in the prior art.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01); Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02); and Finding of prima facie obviousness Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
FR ‘053 discloses a composition for reducing hair hoss comprising 2g minoxidil, 20g propylene glycol, 50g ethanol, 0.4g ketoconazole and water to 100g (e.g., Example 4 on page 10 of translation) wherein Example 4 composition reads on the claimed first composition, the ranges of minoxidil is within the claimed range of 0.1 to 5% or 2.5 to 5%, and the amounts of propylene glycol and ethanol are within the claimed range of 1-20% propylene glycol and 20-80% ethanol. MPEP 2144.05 as noted above, and Example 4 composition is liquid requiring ethanol and water. And the composition is daily applied and the composition does not contain caffeine (Example 4 on page 10 of translation); and the composition is provided in the foam, lotion, gel, emulsion, dispersion, spray or aerosol foam (see page 9 of translation) and thus when those forms are applied, it requires applicator such as spray nozzle, aerosol device, etc. (instant claims 25, 34 and 36, in part, and instant claims 28, 35 and 39).
However, FR ‘053 does not expressly teach a second composition containing surfactant and optionally caffeine of instant claims 25, 34 and 36 and their amounts of instant claims 29, 32, 40 and 43; and additives of instant claims 30, 31, 33 and 41, 42 and 44. The deficiencies are cured by DE ‘949.
DE ‘949 discloses caffeine-containing agent reading on the claimed second composition to activate hair-roots comprises caffeine and anionic surfactant (abstract) wherein the caffeine is used in an amount of 0.01 to 10% which is identical to the claimed range (instant claim 29) wherein the agent can prevent against hair loss (claim 13 of prior art); the composition contains agent for stabilizing roots, especially minoxidil (claim 7 of prior art); and the composition containing surfactant and caffeine is provided in the form of foam or as foaming gel or is conditioned as an aerosol application (claim 12 of prior art); and the composition contains cetyl alcohol (see e.g., formulation D and claim 12 of prior art) (instant claim 25 – foam and cetyl alcohol); the composition additionally contains nonionic surfactant in an amount of 0.5-10% ([0016]) which is within the instant range of 1-4% (instant claims 32 and 43); the surfactant-containing caffeine solution is applied for 2 minutes ([0029]); the composition further contains vitamins ([0017]) such as panthenol, niacinamide, biotin in 0.02% (Examples) which is within the claimed range of 0.01 to 2% (instant claims 31 and 41-42), vitamins C and E, coenzyme Q10, glycerol, glycol, sorbitol perfume reading on the claimed flavonoid, aqua (=water), chamomilla, Ginkgo, Camellia which reads on the claimed plant extract ([0017], [0037]-[0040] and the Examples) (instant claims 30, 33 and 44).
It would have been obvious to modify the teachings of FR ‘053 with separate addition of surfactant/caffeine-containing composition of DE ‘949 in order to provide the combination of two compositions for treating and/or preventing hair loss because Goren teaches minoxidil is effective to treat and/or prevent hair loss and DE ‘949 teaches caffeine/surfactant reading on the claimed second composition to do the same treatment/prevention. That is, it would have been obvious to combine minoxidil-containing composition, surfactant and caffeine-containing composition to provide a combination as claimed, for the same purpose of treating/preventing hair loss, as taught by applied art. In this regard, please see case laws holing that “it is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine two or more materials, such as the known antioxidants disclosed by Kosbab, when each is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d at 850; In re Crocket, 279 F.2d 274, 276-77 (CCPA 1960)”. Further, this rejection is based on the well-established proposition of patent law that no invention resides in combining old ingredients of known properties where the results obtained thereby are no more than the additive effect of the ingredients, In re Sussman, 1943 C.D. 518. From MPEP 2143 A: “…all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).”
It would have been to further add other additive ingredients such as of the applied art to enhance the properties of the formulation.
In light of the foregoing, instant claims 25, 28-36 and 39-44 are obvious over FR ‘053 in view of DE ‘949.
Claims 25, 27, 34, 36 and 38 (when the first composition is foam) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR2779053A1 (hereinafter FR ‘053, citation is obtained from the attached Google translation) in view of DE102005003949A1 (IDS of 08/02/2023, hereinafter “DE ‘949”) and further in view of CN109925282A (hereinafter, CN ‘282, citation is obtained from Google English translation).
Applicant recites claims 25, 34 and 36 as noted above; and the interpretation of claims 25 (intended uses) and 34 (kit) also apply hereto.
FR ‘053 in view of DE ‘949 was discussed above.
However, FR ‘053 in view of DE ‘949 does not expressly teach foam composition comprising minoxidil, cetyl alcohol and stearyl alcohol of instant claims 25, 27, 34, 36 and 38. The deficiency is cured by CN ‘282.
CN ‘282 teaches a foamy aerosol composition comprising minoxidil in an amount of 0.01 to 5% of cetyl alcohol and stearyl alcohol; and the cetyl alcohol and stearyl alcohol have effects on foam forming and foam defoaming temperature tolerance (see e.g., Tables 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to modify the minoxidil-containing composition of FR ‘053 with foamy composition by CN ‘282 as a matter of choice or design because FR ‘053 discloses the composition is also provided in the form of foam or aerosol foam in addition to liquid, spray; and CN ‘282 discloses foamy composition requiring cetyl alcohol and stearyl alcohol that have effects on foam forming and foam defoaming temperature tolerance.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the combined teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the combined references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of new combination of the references as noted above.
Conclusion
The examined claims are not allowable.
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 KYUNG S CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1392. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Yong (Brian-Yong) S Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/KYUNG S CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights