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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 6 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) as evidenced by Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012)
or over Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 23, Midkiff et al. teach a nonwoven spunbond fabric comprising a plurality of multicomponent fibers that are formed together into a web having a
basis weight in the claimed range, an air porosity in the claimed range and a plurality of discrete
bonds and the fabric having a bonding area percentage in the claimed range wherein the
multicomponent fibers comprises a sheath and at least one core formed of the same pure polymer
material [Abstract, 1:5-6, 3:20-35, 5:1-37 and 6:61-65]. Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers are calender bonded together in a web, but are silent regarding the bonding edge profile being curvilinear. However, Midkiff et al. teach different shapes can be used for the edge profile and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a curvilinear bonding edge profile (including round or oval) as is known in the art as evidenced by Zhang et al. and obvious giving the limited number of options in order to provide desired mechanical and handling properties to the web and so posts and/or cavities are at least slightly tapered and arrive at the claimed invention. In the alternative, Zhang et al. teach calender bonding edge profiles are curvilinear, elliptical (oval) or circular (round) in order to affect functionality of aesthetics of the web and so posts and/or cavities are at least slightly tapered. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the curvilinear, (oval) or circular (round) bonding edge profile of Zhang et al. in Midkiff et al. in order to affect functionality of aesthetics of the web and posts and/or cavities are at least slightly tapered and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers have a diameter of at least 2 denier [2:25-43 and 6:31-33].
Regarding claim 4, Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers are bonded together
in a web and teach the fabric is pleated and thus meets the limitation of the fabric is sufficiently
flexible to be folded on itself since if it can be pleated it can be folded on itself.
Regarding claim 6, the pure polymer material is selected from PP, PET or PLA [Abstract and 1:5-12].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midkiff et al.
(US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316) or Midkiff et al. (US Pat.
5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of Lin et al. (PG Pub.
2008/0015316).
Regarding claim 5, Midkiff et al. or the previous combination is silent regarding the
claimed notched Izod impact strength. However, Lin et al. teach polymer with the claimed
notched Izod impact strength in order to provide superior mechanical properties and strength
[0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polymer with the
notched Izod impact strength as taught by Lin et al. in Midkiff et al. or the previous combination
in order to attain superior mechanical properties and strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 7-10 and 13 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) or
Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of
Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155).
Regarding claim 7, Midkiff et al. or the previous combination is silent regarding the
claimed tear strength. However, Jordan et al. teach tear strength in the claimed range in order to
have sufficient tear strength so as to not tear when handling or in use in such application as a
beverage package [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the
tear strength of Jordan et al. in Midkiff et al. or the previous combination in order to ensure
sufficient tear strength so as to not tear when handling or in use in such application as a beverage
package and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 24, Midriff et al. or the previous combination is relied upon as set forth
in the rejection of claim 1 above and fully incorporated herein by reference. Midriff et al. are silent regarding the claimed filter being a filtered container. However, Jordan et al. teach using a nonwoven in a filtered container for use in forming a beverage with the filtered container
comprising at least one piece of a nonwoven formed into a container defining an interior space
and ingredients disposed in an interior space to form a beverage in order to provide a beverage
package with sufficient strength [0031, 0034 and 0075]. It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use the filtered container and specifics as taught by Jordan et al. with
the nonwoven of Midkiff et al. or the previous combination in order to provide a beverage
package with sufficient strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers have a diameter of at
least 2 denier [2:25-43 and 6:31-33].
Regarding claim 13, the pure polymer material is selected from PP, PET or PLA
[Abstract and 1:5-12].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midkiff et al.
(US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) in view of Lin et al.
(PG Pub. 2008/0015316) or Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG
Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) in view of Lin et al.
(PG Pub. 2008/0015316).
Regarding claim 12, The previous combination. are silent regarding the claimed notched
Izod impact strength. However, Lin et al. teach polymer with the claimed notched Izod impact
strength in order to provide superior mechanical properties and strength [0043]. It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polymer with the notched Izod impact
strength as taught by Lin et al. in the previous combination in order to attain superior mechanical
properties and strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 8-10, 13-14, 16, 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Trombetta et al. (PG Pub.
2014/0161936) or Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub.
2021/0229012) in view of Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 14 and 25, Midkiff et al. or the previous combination is relied upon as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above and fully incorporated herein by reference. Midriff et al. or the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed beverage capsule and filtered container. However, Trombetta et al. teach a beverage capsule for use in a beverage preparing machine with the beverage capsule comprising a body defining an interior space having an opening and a nonwoven fabric disposed in an interior space, ingredients disposed in to an interior space to form a beverage and a cover disposed over the opening and using a nonwoven in a filtered container for use in forming a beverage with the filtered container comprising at least one piece of a nonwoven formed into a container defining an interior space and ingredients disposed in an interior space to form a beverage in order to form a beverage capsule for filtering beverages for drinking Abstract, 0047 and Figures]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the beverage capsule and specifics of Trombetta et al. in Midkiff et al. or the previous combination in order to form beverage capsule for filtering beverages for drinking and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers have a
diameter of at least 2 denier [2:25-43 and 6:31-33].
Regarding claims 13 and 19, the pure polymer material is selected from PP, PET or
PLA [Abstract and 1:5-12].
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in
view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316) or Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of
Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in
view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed
notched Izod impact strength. However, Lin et al. teach polymer with the claimed notched Izod
impact strength in order to provide superior mechanical properties and strength [0043]. It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polymer with the notched Izod
impact strength as taught by Lin et al. in the previous combination in order to attain superior
mechanical properties and strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midkiff et al.
(US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Jordan et
al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) or Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG
Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Jordan
et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155).
Regarding claim 20, The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed tear
strength. However, Jordan et al. teach tear strength in the claimed range in order to have
sufficient tear strength so as to not tear when handling or in use in such application as a beverage
package [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the tear
strength of Jordan et al. in the previous combination in order to ensure sufficient tear strength so
as to not tear when handling or in use in such application as a beverage package and arrive at the
claimed invention.
Claims 8-10 and 13 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) or Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012).
Regarding claims 8-10 and 13 and 24, Jordan et al. teach using a nonwoven in a filtered
container for use in forming a beverage with the filtered container comprising at least one piece
of a nonwoven formed into a container defining an interior space and ingredients disposed in an
interior space to form a beverage. Jordan et al. are silent regarding the specifics of the nonwoven.
However, Midkiff et al. teach a nonwoven spunbond fabric comprising a plurality of
multicomponent fibers that are formed together into a web having a basis weight in the claimed
range, an air porosity in the claimed range and a plurality of discrete bonds and the fabric having a bonding area percentage in the claimed range wherein the multicomponent fibers comprises a sheath and at least one core formed of the same pure polymer material in order to yield high permeability and high filtration efficiency [Abstract, 1:5-6, 3:20-35, 5:1-37 and 6:61-65]. Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers have a diameter of at least 2 denier [2:25-43 and 6:31-33]. Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers are calender bonded together in a web, but are silent regarding the bonding edge profile being curvilinear. However, Midkiff et al. teach different shapes can be used for the edge profile and it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use a curvilinear bonding edge profile (including round or oval) as is
known in the art as evidenced by Zhang et al. and obvious giving the limited number of option
in order to provide desired mechanical and handling properties to the web and so posts and/or
cavities are at least slightly tapered and arrive at the claimed invention. In the alternative, Zhang
et al. teach calender bonding edge profiles are curvilinear, elliptical or circular in order to affect
functionality of aesthetics of the web and so posts and/or cavities are at least slightly tapered. It
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the curvilinear, elliptical or
circular (round) bonding edge profile of Zhang et al. in the previous combination in order to
affect functionality of aesthetics of the web and so posts and/or cavities are at least slightly
tapered and arrive at the claimed invention. The pure polymer material is selected from PP, PET or PLA [Abstract and 1:5-12]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fabric of Midkiff et al. in Jordan et al. in order to yield high permeability and high filtration efficiency and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al.
(PG Pub. 2005/0136155) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Lin et al.
(PG Pub. 2008/0015316) or Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) in view of Midkiff et al.
(US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of Lin et al. (PG
Pub. 2008/0015316).
Regarding claim 12, The previous combination. Are silent regarding the claimed
notched Izod impact strength. However, Lin et al. teach polymer with the claimed notched Izod
impact strength in order to provide superior mechanical properties and strength [0043]. It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polymer with the notched Izod
impact strength as taught by Lin et al. in the previous combination in order to attain superior
mechanical properties and strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 10, 13-14, 16, 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) or
Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in
view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012).
Regarding claims 8, 10 and 13-14, 16, 19 and 25, Trombetta et al. teach a beverage capsule for use in a beverage preparing machine with the beverage capsule comprising a body defining an interior space having an opening and a nonwoven fabric disposed in an interior space, ingredients disposed in to an interior space to form a beverage and a cover disposed over the opening and using a nonwoven in a filtered container for use in forming a beverage with the filtered container comprising at least one piece of a nonwoven formed into a container defining an interior space and ingredients disposed in an interior space to form a beverage Abstract, 0047 and Figures]. Trombetta et al. are silent regarding the claimed specifics of the nonwoven. However, Midkiff et al. teach a nonwoven spunbond fabric comprising a plurality of multicomponent fibers that are formed together into a web having a basis weight in the claimed range, an air porosity in the claimed range and a plurality of bonds and the fabric having a bonding area percentage in the claimed range wherein the multicomponent fibers comprises a sheath and at least one core formed of the same pure polymer material in order to yield high permeability and high filtration efficiency[Abstract, 1:5-6, 3:20-35, 5:1-37 and 6:61-65]. Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers have a diameter of at least 2 denier [2:25-43 and 6:31-33]. Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers are calender bonded together in a web, but are silent regarding the bonding edge profile being curvilinear. However, Midkiff et al. teach different shapes can be used for the edge profile and it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use a curvilinear bonding edge profile (including round or oval) as is
known in the art as evidenced by Zhang et al. and obvious giving the limited number of option
in order to provide desired mechanical and handling properties to the web and so posts and/or
cavities are at least slightly tapered and arrive at the claimed invention. In the alternative, Zhang
et al. teach calender bonding edge profiles are curvilinear, elliptical or circular in order to affect
functionality of aesthetics of the web. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to use the curvilinear, elliptical or circular (round) bonding edge profile of Zhang et al. in the
previous combination in order to affect functionality of aesthetics of the web and so posts and/or
cavities are at least slightly tapered and arrive at the claimed invention. The pure polymer
material is selected from PP, PET or PLA [Abstract and 1:5-12]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fabric of Midkiff et al. in Trombetta et al. in order to yield high permeability and high filtration efficiency and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316) or Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in
view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) in
view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed
notched Izod impact strength. However, Lin et al. teach polymer with the claimed notched Izod
impact strength in order to provide superior mechanical properties and strength [0043]. It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polymer with the notched Izod
impact strength as taught by Lin et al. in the previous combination in order to attain superior
mechanical properties and strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trombetta et
al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Jordan et
al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) or Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Midkiff
et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of Jordan
et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155).
Regarding claim 20, The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed tear
strength. However, Jordan et al. teach tear strength in the claimed range in order to have
sufficient tear strength so as to not tear when handling or in use in such application as a beverage
package [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the tear
strength of Jordan et al. in the previous combination in order to ensure sufficient tear strength so
as to not tear when handling or in use in such application as a beverage package and arrive at the
claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 13-14, 16, 19 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miozzo et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0216256) in view of Drews et al. (PG Pub. 2018/0038026).
Regarding claims 1-2, 6, 8, 13-14, 19 and 23-25, Miozzo et al. teaches a beverage capsule for use in a beverage preparing machine with the beverage capsule comprising a filtered container for use in forming a beverage with the filtered container comprising a nonwoven beverage filtration spunbond fabric formed into a container body defining an interior space defining an opening with the fabric comprising a plurality of multicomponent fibers that formed together into a web having a basis weight in the claimed range, an air porosity in the claimed range wherein the multicomponent fibers comprises one sheath and at least one core formed of the same pure PLA polymer material [Abstract, 0065, 0071, 0114 and claim 8]. Miozzo et al. teach ingredients disposed in the interior to form the beverage and a cover disposed over the opening. Miozzo et al. teach bonding the fabric, but are silent regarding the specifics of the bonding. However, Drews et al. teach bonding nonwoven with calendar bonds having an edge profile that is round or oval with the fabric having a bonding percentage in the claimed range in order to improve strength of the fabric [0056 and 0088]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the calendar bonding including edge profile and bonding percentage in Miozzo et al. in order to improve strength and arrive at the claimed range.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 16, Miozzo et al. teach any diameter and also teaches a preferred embodiment of 10-15 micrometers which yields a denier of 2 and further other deniers are encompassed by the teachings of Miozzo et al. It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed denier and that taught in a preferred embodiment by Miozzo et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the denier disclosed by Miozzo et al. and the denier disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the denier, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the denier disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the denier disclosed in Miozzo et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Miozzo et al. teach the fabric is for a lid which is used for a capsule and therefore is sufficiently flexible to folded upon itself.
Claims 5, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miozzo et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0216256) in view of Drews et al. (PG Pub. 2018/0038026) in view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, Miozzo et al. or the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed notched Izod impact strength. However, Lin et al. teach polymer with the claimed notched Izod impact strength in order to provide superior mechanical properties and strength [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polymer with the notched Izod impact strength as taught by Lin et al. in Miozzo et al. or the previous combination in order to attain superior mechanical properties and strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miozzo et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0216256) in view of Drews et al. (PG Pub. 2018/0038026) in view of Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Miozzo et al. or the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed tear strength. However, Jordan et al. teach tear strength in the claimed range in order to have sufficient tear strength so as to not tear when handling or in use in such application as a
beverage package [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the
tear strength of Jordan et al. in Miozzo et al. in order to ensure sufficient tear strength so as to not tear when handling or in use in such application as a beverage
package and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Midkiff teaches away from thermal point bonding and argues col. 6, lines 42-48 refers to a multilayer laminate incorporating the fiber web. Even if, arguendo, col.6 lines 42-48 refer to a multilayer laminate incorporating the fiber web, the fiber web still is thermal point bonded with the claimed percentage and still reads on the claims. Therefore, it is clear Midkiff does not teach away. Fig. 1 of US 4,374,888 clearly show discrete bonding. Midkiff teaches bonding according to US Pat. 4,347,888. Midkiff does in fact teach the low bonding is undesirable because of the spacing between, therefore what is desirable is high bonding with little to no space in between. Applicant argues the motivation to use Zhang. The motivation to use Zhang is to provide desired mechanical and handling properties to the web and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would in fact use Zhang in combination. Applicant also argues Zhang is a precursor web and not finalized. Zhang teaches a final web that is bonded and can be used for filtration. Midkiff as set forth above teaches calender bonding and Zhang teaches calender bonding so therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would in fact combine the two for the reasons set forth above including to provide desired mechanical and handling properties to the web.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights