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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 with respect to claims 1-17 and 20 have been considered and are persuasive with respect to the Harumoto reference. Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 17 to recite a concentric sheath-core configuration, which Harumoto does not teach. The examiner has applied a new grounds of rejection which does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, Applicant does specifically argues the combination of Denti and Gatto, which was applied in the previous action. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Gatto is relied on for an anti-stick agent. Applicant argues Denti utilizes mechanical macro deformations, including discrete recessions and apertures, stretch-formed into the topsheet to physically reduce the contact area against the wearer’s skin, thereby decreasing sticking and enhancing breathability. Applicant argues Gatto relies on a chemical surface treatment to create a hydrated barrier. Applicant argues coating Denti’s mechanically deformed, highly porous surface with Gatto’s chemical lotion would physically clog or otherwise frustrate the precise macro deformations and apertures Denti relies upon to function. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While Denti does teach macro deformations and apertures resulting in fluid permeability, Gatto teaches a topsheet also having apertures capable of allowing rapid transfer of fluid through it. Gatto further teaches the apertured topsheet provides for the transfer or migration of the lotion composition onto an external or internal portion of a wearer’s body (Gatto para. 0017). Gatto teaches the lotion composition applied to the body facing surface of the topsheet that helps to reduce adherence of bodily fluid, such as menses, to the outer surface of the topsheet, thereby resulting in less staining on the topsheet of the absorbent article. Gatto teaches applying the lotion to the topsheet also enables transfer of the lotion to the skin of the wearer, resulting in less fouling of the skin of the wearer. Gatto teaches the lotion composition as applied to the outer surface of the topsheet can also help to provide more efficient acquisition of the bodily fluid into the absorbent article (Gatto paras. 0017, 0022), as opposed to clogging or frustrating the apertures as suggested by Applicant.
Applicant further argues, that even if a prima facie case of obviousness could be established – which is denied – the rejection is overcome by the unexpected results detailed in the present application. Applicant cites samples 1-10 in the Experimentation section as providing persuasive experimental evidence showing a synergistic and unpredictable result. Applicant argues that specifically, the data shows that only when the nonwoven topsheet contains the precisely claimed 30:70 to 70:30 blend of hydrophilic to hydrophobic fibers and bears the anti-stick agent (as seen in Prototype Samples 2 and 5) does the article successfully pass both the acquisition time (ACQ-2) and the surface free fluid and rewet (SFF+Rewet) thresholds. Applicant argues the prior art references of record do not predict that pairing a specific hydrophilic/hydrophobic fiber bled with a chemical anti-stick agent would unexpectedly solve the intrinsic tradeoff between rapid downward fluid acquisition and upward fluid rewetting.
As previously argued, Applicant indicates the details of samples 7-10 are found in paragraphs 0189-0192 (the examiner referenced the published application US 2023/0121636 for the paragraphs). In the published application, paragraph 0189 – sample 7 is described as a topsheet nonwoven formed of entirely hydrophobic fibers and had no apertures and no application of anti-stick agent, which is contrary to claim 1, where the topsheet has apertures, comprises mixed hydrophobic and hydrophilic fibers and has an anti-agent applied. Samples 8-10 are also described in paragraphs 190-192 as being formed entirely of hydrophobic fibers with various sized apertures and open areas. None of the pending claims require a topsheet being formed entirely of hydrophobic fibers. It appears Applicant is arguing the gush acquisition (rapid downward fluid acquisition) and rewet values for these samples (1-10) show unexpected results, which negates an obviousness rejection of the claims. However, as explained in the previous arguments, the gush acquisition and rewet results are not germane to the scope of the pending claims. What is claimed in the pending claims is the structure and materials of the topsheet, which is met by the combination of references Denti, Veins, Chambers, Jr, and Gatto as discussed in the claim rejections below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denti et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0315859 in view of Viens et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0315871 and further in view of Chambers, JR. et al. US Patent Application Publication 2005/0148964 and further in view of Gatto et al. US Patent Application Publication 2009/0221978.
As to claim 1, Denti teaches a feminine hygiene pad 10 (Figure 1), comprising a liquid permeable topsheet 12 comprising a fibrous nonwoven web (Denti para. 0036),
a fibrous fluid management layer 20 beneath the topsheet 12, an absorbent
structure 14 beneath the fluid management layer, and a backsheet 14 beneath the absorbent structure 15 (Denti Figure 2; para. 0033), wherein:
the fibrous nonwoven web 12 comprises bicomponent staple (Denti para. 0036) topsheet fibers, wherein the topsheet fibers:
have an average denier of 1.5 to 2.5 (Denti para. 0036);
have a sheath-core configuration, wherein the sheath component comprises
polyethylene (PE) and the core component comprises polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) (Denti para. 0036). Denti does not teach the sheath-core in a concentric configuration or in a weight ratio of PE/PET of 40:60 to 60:40. Viens teaches a nonwoven fluid management layer for an absorbent article comprising a concentric sheath-core configuration comprising a sheath component and a core component, wherein the sheath component comprises polyethylene (PE) and the core component comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Viens para. 0053). Viens teaches the stiffness of polyethylene terephthalate is useful in creating a resilient structure and in contrast, the polyethylene component of the stiffening fibers can be utilized to bond to one another during heat treatment (Viens para. 0054). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the concentric sheath/core PE/PET bicomponent fiber in the invention of Denti for the benefits of taught in Viens.
Denti/Viens does not specifically teach the bicomponent fibers in a weight ratio of PE:PET of 40:60 to 60:40. Chambers, Jr. teaches sheath/core bicomponent PE/PET binder fibers in an absorbent article having an “island-in-the-sea” arrangement and having ratios of 75/25, 50/50, 25/75 or any other desired ratios (Chambers, Jr para. 0067). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the claimed ratio of 40:60 to 60:40, since Chambers, Jr. is from the same field of endeavor and solves the same problem of providing bicomponent fibers for resilient, stabilized nonwoven webs having good compression and good fluid handling properties (Denti para. 0039; Viens para. 0025; Chamber, JR. para. 0010).
Denti teaches the fibrous nonwoven web comprises a blend of hydrophilic fibers and hydrophobic fibers, in a weight ratio of hydrophilic fibers to hydrophobic fibers of about 30:70 to 70:30 - where Denti teaches the nonwoven comprises at least about 50%, or at least about 60% hydrophilic fibers by weight of the fibers (paragraph 0036).
Denti teaches the hydrophilicity of the hydrophilic fibers is effected by application of a surface treatment composition – through the incorporation by reference (Denti para. 0189) of Osborn, III et al. USPN 5,885,265 (Denti para. 0112). Osborn teaches an absorbent structure having a topsheet 28 and teaches at least portions of the body surface 28A of the topsheet 28 are hydrophilic so as to help liquid transfer through the topsheet faster than if the body surface was not hydrophilic. Osborn teaches a surfactant is applied to the body surface 28A of the topsheet 28. Osborn teaches such a hydrophilic surface helps to diminish the likelihood that bodily fluids will flow off the topsheet rather than flowing into and being absorbed by the absorbent core (Osborn col. 14, lines 8-16).
Denti teaches the fibrous nonwoven web has a basis weight of about 18 gsm to 40 gsm (Denti para.0038); the fibrous nonwoven web comprises a plurality of randomly-distributed inter-fiber bonds wherein sheaths of adjacent fibers are fusion-bonded together without compression – where Denti teaches the bicomponent stiffening fibers may be bonded to one another via heat treatment (Denti para.0076, 0088-0089).
Denti does not teach the topsheet bears a topical application of an anti-stick agent. Gatto teaches an absorbent article having a lotion composition applied to the body facing surface of the topsheet (Gatto para. 0022) for reducing adherence of feces or menses to the skin (Abstract). Gatto teaches the use of PPG lotion, which according to the present invention is also an anti-stick agent (Gatto para. 0022) for the benefit of reducing the adherence of menses to the outer surface of the topsheet, thereby resulting in less staining on the topsheet of the absorbent article (Gatto para. 0022). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Denti with an anti-stick agent for the benefits taught in Gatto.
As to claim 2, Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr/Gatto teach the fluid management layer 20 comprises
carded staple fibers (Denti para. 0061-0062, 0070) including absorbent fibers of regenerated cellulose (Denti para. 0083) in a weight fraction of the fluid management layer of about 10 percent to about 60 percent (Denti para. 0074), bicomponent stiffening fibers in a weight fraction of the fluid management layer of about 25 percent to about 70 percent (Denti para. 0076), and resilient fibers in a weight fraction of the fluid management layer of about 15 percent to about 70 percent (Denti para. 0075).
As to claim 3, Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr/Gatto teach the absorbent fibers are about 0.6 to 2.4 dtex (Denti para. 0081).
As to claim 4, Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr/Gatto teach the stiffening fibers are about 1.0 dtex to 6 dtex (Denti para. 0085).
As to claim 5, Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr/Gatto teach the stiffening fibers are bicomponent fibers having a sheath-core configuration, wherein a core component comprises PET (Denti para. 0086).
As to claim 6, Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr/Gatto teach the resilient fibers are about 4 dtex to 15 dtex (Denti para. 0090).
As to claim 7, Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr/Gatto teach the resilient fibers comprise a polymer selected from the group consisting of polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and combinations thereof (Denti para. 0091).
As to claim 8, Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr/Gatto teach the resilient fibers are bicomponent fibers having a sheath-core configuration (Denti para. 0091).
As to claim 9, Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr/Gatto teach the fluid management layer comprises a plurality of randomly-distributed inter-fiber bonds wherein adjacent fibers are fusion-bonded together without compression – where Denti teaches one of the benefits of the stiffening fibers is that the integrated nonwoven may be heat treated post fiber entanglement. Denti teaches the heat treatment can provide additional structural integrity to the integrated nonwoven by forming bonds between adjacent stiffening fibers (Denti para. 0088).
As to claim 10, Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr/Gatto teach the fluid management layer comprises a plurality of strata – where Denti teaches a first, second, and third carded web (Denti para. 0061, 0062, 0099).
As to claim 11, Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr/Gatto teach fibers of the fluid management layer are integrated in a z-direction (Denti para. 0063, 0098).
As to claim 12, Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr/Gatto teach the topsheet 12 has a pattern of apertures therethrough (Denti para. 0037). Denti also teaches macro deformation 50 may be open or partially open forming apertures with a diameter of about 0.5 mm to about 2mm (Denti para. 0041; Figure 3). Denti teaches an area of an individual macro deformation may be greater than or equal to about 0.25mm2 up to 15mm2 (Denti para. 0045). Denti teaches the macro deformations and apertures in a pattern (Denti Figure 4; para. 0046).
As to claim 13, Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr/Gatto teach the apertures have an average area of 0.5 mm2 to 2.5 mm2 (Denti para. 0045)
As to claim 14, in paragraph 0049, Denti teaches exemplary process for forming the macro deformations in the topsheet may be formed by processes taught in Ser. No. 16/547,843 (Cecchetto US Patent Application Publication 2020/0060882). Cecchetto teaches the apertures collectively constitute an open area greater than about 5 percent, which has values in the claimed range of 6 percent to 25 percent (Cecchetto paragraph 0060). Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine through routine experimentation the open area to achieve a desired fluid acquisition. Denti incorporates by reference Cecchetto 16/547,843 (Denti paragraph 0189).
As to claims 15 and 16, Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr/Gatto teach the anti-stick agent comprises a polypropylene glycol material (Gatto para. 0009, 0014, 0022, 0026, 0028, 0035).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denti et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0315859 in view of Viens et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0315871 and further in view of Chambers, JR. et al. US Patent Application Publication 2005/0148964.
As to claim 17, Denti teaches a feminine hygiene pad 10 (Figure 1), comprising a liquid permeable topsheet 12 comprising a fibrous nonwoven web (Denti para. 0036),
a fibrous fluid management layer 20 beneath the topsheet 12, an absorbent
structure 14 beneath the fluid management layer, and a backsheet 14 beneath the absorbent structure 15 (Denti Figure 2; para. 0033), wherein:
the fibrous nonwoven web 12 comprises bicomponent staple (Denti para. 0036) topsheet fibers, wherein the topsheet fibers:
have an average denier of 1.5 to 2.5 (Denti para. 0036);
have a sheath-core configuration, wherein the sheath component comprises
polyethylene (PE) and the core component comprises polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) (Denti para. 0036). Denti does not teach the sheath-core in a concentric configuration or in a weight ratio of PE/PET of 40:60 to 60:40. Viens teaches a nonwoven fluid management layer for an absorbent article comprising a concentric sheath-core configuration comprising a sheath component and a core component, wherein the sheath component comprises polyethylene (PE) and the core component comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Viens para. 0053). Viens teaches the stiffness of polyethylene terephthalate is useful in creating a resilient structure and in contrast, the polyethylene component of the stiffening fibers can be utilized to bond to one another during heat treatment (Viens para. 0054). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the concentric sheath/core PE/PET bicomponent fiber in the invention of Denti for the benefits of taught in Viens.
Denti/Viens does not specifically teach the bicomponent fibers in a weight ratio of PE:PET of 40:60 to 60:40. Chambers, Jr. teaches sheath/core bicomponent PE/PET binder fibers in an absorbent article having an “island-in-the-sea” arrangement and having ratios of 75/25, 50/50, 25/75 or any other desired ratios (Chambers, Jr para. 0067). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the claimed ratio of 40:60 to 60:40, since Chambers, Jr. is from the same field of endeavor and solves the same problem of providing bicomponent fibers for resilient, stabilized nonwoven webs having good compression and good fluid handling properties (Denti para. 0039; Viens para. 0025; Chambers, Jr. para. 0010).
Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr. teach in predominant weight fraction of the fibrous nonwoven web, are hydrophobic - where Denti teaches the nonwoven comprises bicomponent fibers and the bicomponent fibers are hydrophobic in nature (Denti para. 0033, 0036).
Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr teach the fibrous nonwoven web has a basis weight of about 18 gsm to 40 gsm (Denti para.0038); the fibrous nonwoven web comprises a plurality of randomly-distributed inter-fiber bonds wherein sheaths of adjacent fibers are fusion-bonded together without compression – where Denti teaches the bicomponent stiffening fibers may be bonded to one another via heat treatment (Denti para.0076, 0088-0089).
Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr teach the fibrous nonwoven web has a basis weight of about 18 gsm to 40 gsm (Denti para. 0038);
the fibrous nonwoven web comprises a plurality of randomly-distributed inter-fiber bonds wherein sheaths of adjacent fibers are fusion-bonded together without compression – where Denti teaches the bicomponent stiffening fibers may be bonded to one another via heat treatment (Denti para. 0076, 0088-0089).
Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr teach the topsheet 12 has a pattern of apertures therethrough (Denti para. 0037). Denti also teaches macro deformation 50 may be open or partially open forming apertures with a diameter of about 0.5 mm to about 2mm (Denti para. 0041; Figure 3). Denti teaches an area of an individual macro deformation may be greater than or equal to about 0.25mm2 up to 15mm2 (Denti para. 0045). Denti teaches the macro deformations and apertures in a pattern (Denti Figure 4; para. 0046).
In paragraph 0049, Denti teaches exemplary process for forming the macro deformations in the topsheet may be formed by processes taught in Ser. No. 16/547,843 (Cecchetto US Patent Application Publication 2020/0060882). Cecchetto teaches the apertures collectively constitute an open area greater than about 5 percent, which has values in the claimed range of 6 percent to 25 percent (Cecchetto para. 0060). Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine through routine experimentation the open area to achieve a desired fluid acquisition. Denti incorporates by reference Cecchetto 16/547,843 (Denti para. 0189).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denti et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0315859 in view of Viens et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0315871 and further in view of Chambers, JR. et al. US Patent Application Publication 2005/0148964 and further in view of Gatto et al. US Patent Application Publication 2009/0221978.
As to claim 20, Denti/Viens/Chambers,Jr do not teach the topsheet bears a topical application of an anti-stick agent, wherein the anti-stick agent comprises a polypropylene glycol material. Gatto teaches an absorbent article having a lotion composition applied to the body facing surface of the topsheet (Gatto para. 0022) for reducing adherence of feces or menses to the skin (Abstract). Gatto teaches the use of PPG lotion, which according to the present invention is also an anti-stick agent (Gatto para. 0022) for the benefit of reducing the adherence of menses to the outer surface of the topsheet, thereby resulting in less staining on the topsheet of the absorbent article (Gatto para. 0022). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Denti with an anti-stick agent for the benefits taught in Gatto. Gatto teaches the anti-stick agent comprises a polypropylene glycol material (Gatto para. 0009,0014,0022,0026,0028,0035).
Claims 21 and 22 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denti et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0315859 in view of Viens et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0315871 and further in view of Chambers, JR. et al. US Patent Application Publication 2005/0148964 and further in view of Gatto et al. US Patent Application Publication 2009/0221978 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wada et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0250917.
As to claim 21, Denti/Vien/Chambers,Jr/Gatto teach the present invention substantially as claimed, but do not teach the sheath component comprises low- density polyethylene (LDPE). Wada, from the same field of endeavor, teaches an absorbent article having a topsheet having heat-extendable fibers including two-component (bicomponent) fibers. Wada teaches the heat-extendable composite fibers may be concentric core-sheath composite fibers, the sheath component and the core component may be composed of a low-melting point resin and a high-melting point resin, respectively. Wada teaches the core component includes for example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and the sheath component includes for example, a low-density polyethylene (LDPE) (Wada para. 0101). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide Denti/Vien/Chambers,Jr/Gatto with a bicomponent fibers have a sheath component comprising low-density polyethylene as taught in Wada since it is obvious to try to combine the elements choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to choose from a finite number of predictable sheath and core components with a reasonable expectation of success of producing a bicomponent fiber. Suggestion, teaching or motivation does not have to be explicit and “may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole or the nature of the problem itself”, Dystar Textilfarben GMBH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006). That fact that the prior art teaches a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious particularly since the prior art composition and the claimed composition are intended to be used in the same environment and for the same purpose.
As to claim 22, Denti/Vien/Chambers,Jr/Gatto/Wada teach the weight ratio of LDPE:PET (LDPE sheath; Wada para. 0101) and (PET core; Wada para. 0101) is about 50:50 – where Wada teaches the sheath/core composite fiber has a ratio of core component/sheath component of 10:90 to 90:10, and more preferably 50:50 (Wada para. 0102);
wherein the weight ratio of hydrophilic fibers to hydrophobic fibers is about 60:40 - where Denti teaches the nonwoven comprises at least about 50%, or at least about 60% hydrophilic fibers by weight of the fibers (Denti para. 0036).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ouellette et al. US Patent Application Publication 2003/0168153 is cited to show an absorbent structure with bicomponent PE/PET fibers in a concentric sheath/core arrangement with the claimed rations (Ouellette paras 0032-0036). Vega et al. US Patent Application Publication 2008/0287903 is cited to show a topsheet with an anti-stick agent (Vega paras. 0027, 0115).
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 JACQUELINE F STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-4937. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights