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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 and 5-17 are pending. Claim 4 has been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed October 22, 2025, has been entered.
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 11, 2025.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 7/29/25 have been withdrawn:
The rejection of claims 1-8 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/001103 (reference application) or claims 1-9 of 18/000906, has been withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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 1-3, 5-8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3,263,681.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘681 teaches compositions that provide good limescale removal and long lasting shine over a wide range of surfaces. When formulated with the preferred acid systems, the acidic cleaning compositions provide good cleaning and long lasting shine, with little or no damage to delicate surfaces, especially metal surfaces such as stainless steel and chrome. See para. 5. The compositions contain from 70% to 99% by weight of water. See para. 7. The composition also contains a vinyl pyrrolidone copolymer, nonionic surfactant, and organic acid system. See para. 10. The composition may have a pH of from 1.5 to less than 7. See para. 4. The vinyl pyrrolidone copolymer is present at a level from 0.001% to 2% by weight and suitable copolymers contain from 20 to 99 mol% of vinyl pyrrolidone monomers, 1 to 80 mol% of monomer such as dimethylaminomethyl acrylate, and 0 to 50 mole percent of monomers such as vinyl acetate, vinyl alcohol, etc. The copolymer has a molecular weight from 50,000 to 5,000,000 Daltons. See paras. 10-18.
‘681 does not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition having a pH of from 5 to 9, wherein the composition contains a polyvinylpyrrolidone and vinyl acetate copolymer, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition having a pH of from 5 to 9, wherein the composition contains a polyvinylpyrrolidone and vinyl acetate copolymer, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘681 suggest a composition having a pH of from 5 to 9, wherein the composition contains a polyvinylpyrrolidone and vinyl acetate copolymer, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP982,394 in view of Gopalkrishnan et al (US 6,743,763) or Luviskol VA Grades.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘394 teaches to a liquid composition, having a pH of from 7 to 14, comprising a nonionic surfactant, a homo or copolymer of vinylpyrrolidone and a polysaccharide polymer, with the proviso that said composition does not comprise an amphoteric surfactant. See para. 17. The compositions are preferably aqueous and contain from 70% to 99% by weight of water. See paras. 21-24. The compositions contain from 0.01% to 5% by weight of a vinylpyrrolidone copolymer which is a copolymer of N-vinylpyrrolidone and an alkylenically unsaturated monomer and mixtures thereof. The alkylenically unsaturated monomers of the copolymers herein include unsaturated dicarboxylic acids such as maleic acid, chloromaleic acid, fumaric acid, itaconic acid, citraconic acid, phenylmaleic acid, aconitic acid, acrylic acid, N-vinylimidazole and vinyl acetate. Such copolymers of N-vinylpyrrolidone and alkylenically unsaturated monomers like PVP/vinyl acetate copolymers are commercially available under the trade name Luviskol® series from BASF. The molecular weight is from 1,000 to 1,000,000, preferably from 10,000 to 500,000. See paras. 30-45.
‘394 does not teach the specific molar ratio of vinylpyrrolidone and vinyl acetate copolymer or a composition having a pH of from 5 to 9, wherein the composition contains a polyvinylpyrrolidone and vinyl acetate copolymer, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
Gopalkrishnan et al teach stable aqueous laundry detergents containing vinyl pyrrolidone copolymers are provided. The stable aqueous laundry detergents contain, in addition to the vinyl pyrrolidone copolymers, a combination of anionic and nonionic surfactants. See Abstract. The copolymer comprises, as polymerized units, from about 20 to about 80 mole percent vinyl pyrrolidone, from about 1 to about 80 mole percent vinyl acetate, and optionally, from 0 to about 20 mole percent of one or more additional polymerizable monomers. Preferably, the copolymer comprises, as polymerized units, vinyl pryrrolidone at a level of from about 50 to about 80 mole percent. Preferably, the copolymer comprises, as polymerized units, vinyl acetate at a level of at least about 20 mole percent, most preferably from about 20 to about 50 mole percent. The copolymer optionally comprise, as polymerized units, one or more additional polymerizable monomers. Suitable additional polymerizable monomers include, for example, acrylic acid, acrylic acid esters, maleic acid, maleic anhydride, ethylene, methacrylic acid, methacrylate esters and substituted methacrylate esters, vinyl imidazole, vinyl alcohol, methylvinyl ether, styrene, vinyl chloride, vinylidene chloride, acrylonitrile, methacrylonitrile, acrylamide, methacrylamide, crotonic acid, itaconic acid, and vinyl sulfonate. When used, the one or more additional polymerizable monomers are present in the copolymer at levels up to about 20 mole percent, preferably up to about 10 mole percent, most preferably up to about 5 mole percent. See column 2, lines 20-69. Gopalkrishnan et al exemplifies compositions containing LuviskolVA73W which is a copolymer of 70% vinyl pyrrolidone and 30% vinyl acetate, with a number average molecular weight of 33,000. It is sold by BASF Corporation. See column 6, lines 20-65.
Luviskol VA Grades teaches Vinylpyrrolidone / vinyl acetate copolymers which have a wide variety of molar ratios of VP:VA such as 30:70, 50:50, 60:40, etc. See page 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a copolymer of vinylpyrrolidone and vinyl acetate having, for example, a molar ratio of VP:VA of 30:70 or 50:50, in the composition taught by ‘394, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Gopalkrishnan et al or Luviskol VA Grades teach the use and existence of Luviskol polymers which are a copolymer of vinylpyrrolidone and vinyl acetate having, for example, a molar ratio of VP:VA of 30:70 or 50:50, and further, ‘394 teaches the use of PVP/vinyl acetate copolymers which are commercially available under the trade name Luviskol®.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition having a pH of from 5 to 9, wherein the composition contains a polyvinylpyrrolidone and vinyl acetate copolymer, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘394 in view of Gopalkrishnan et al or Luviskol VA Grades suggest a composition having a pH of from 5 to 9, wherein the composition contains a polyvinylpyrrolidone and vinyl acetate copolymer, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using EP 3,263,681, Applicant states that ‘681 and the present application do not relate to the same technical field since the claimed invention is drawn to pickling compositions while ‘681 is drawn to hard surface cleaning compositions providing improved treatment of metal surfaces, and therefore, a person skilled in the art would not have selected '681 to arrive at the subject-matter of claim 1. Additionally, Applicant states that ‘681 only teaches a broad range of molecular weights between 50,000 to 5,000,000 Daltons, and this is much broader than the present claims, and is mostly outside the scope of the present claims. Also, Applicant states the claimed invention is drawn to an improved aqueous, neutral and particularly phosphonate-free pickling compositions providing an improved, particularly balanced pickling behavior when used on different substrates and which do not adversely affect subsequent conversion coating processes, and ‘681 does not teach or suggest such a technical problem or solution.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that ‘681 is analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention since it is drawn to the same field of endeavor, namely a polyvinylpyrrolidone copolymer-containing soil removal/treatment composition. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that “pickling composition” as recited by the instant claims is merely an intended use of the claimed composition and is not read as a patentable limitation. Note that, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use for the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81. See MPEP 2111.02. Note that, the Examiner asserts that ‘681 suggests compositions capable of functioning as a “pickling composition” because ‘681 teaches compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. While ‘681 does not specifically mention or discuss pickling properties or coating properties, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. Note that, while there must be motivation to make the claimed invention, there is no requirement that the prior art provide the same reason as the applicant to make the claimed invention. In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP 2144. To render an invention obvious, the prior art does not have to address the same problem addressed by a patent applicant. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550, U.S. 398, 420 (2007); see also, In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the Examiner’s reason for combining the teachings of the references does not need to be the same as Applicant’s reason (i.e., to prevent a greasy feeling on items or hands). See e.g., In re Khan, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Additionally, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of a reference are not limited to the preferred embodiments and that the broad teachings of ‘681 suggest compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. Note that, the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the disclosed alternatives. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[a] reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment." CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions". Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994); See MPEP 2123(II). The fact that a reference discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 R.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also, In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from amount thousands of compounds”); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was huge, but it undeniably included at least some of the compounds recited in appellant’s generic claims and was a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant’s additives).
For example, ‘681 clearly teaches that the vinyl pyrrolidone copolymer is present at a level from 0.001% to 2% by weight and suitable copolymers contain from 20 to 99 mol% of vinyl pyrrolidone monomers, 1 to 80 mol% of monomer such as dimethylaminomethyl acrylate, and 0 to 50 mole percent of monomers such as vinyl acetate, vinyl alcohol, etc., wherein the copolymer has a molecular weight from 50,000 to 5,000,000 Daltons (See paras. 10-18 of ‘681), which would clearly suggest copolymers of vinyl pyrrolidone and vinyl acetate having the same molar ratio and molecular weight as recited by the instant claims (e.g., a molecular weight of 50,000, 60,000, etc.). Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘681 are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using EP 982,394 in view of Gopalkrishnan et al (US 6,743,763) or Luviskol VA Grades, Applicant states that '934 does not teach or suggest pickling compositions and rather, '394 is merely directed to hard surface cleaning compositions providing improved treatment of metal surfaces. Additionally, Applicant states that ‘394 teaches a broad molecular weight range between 1,000 and 100,000,000 for the polyvinylpyrrolidone copolymer which is not sufficient to suggest more narrow molecular weight range as recited by the instant claims. Also, Applicant states the claimed invention is drawn to an improved aqueous, neutral and particularly phosphonate-free pickling compositions providing an improved, particularly balanced pickling behavior when used on different substrates and which do not adversely affect subsequent conversion coating processes, and ‘394 does not teach or suggest such a technical problem or solution. Further, Applicant states that a person skilled in the art starting from '394 would not have considered Gopalkrishnan as relevant since Gopalkrishnan provides an aqueous laundry detergent composition and a method for inhibiting dye transfer during washing of fabrics (cf. Gopalkrishnan, col. 2, lines 5 to 32), which, again, is a completely different technical field, and not considered Luviskol VA Grades since this relates to the use of Luvisko products in hairsprays which is different technical field than those of the present application and all other cited references.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that ‘394, Gopalkrishnan et al (US 6,743,763) and Luviskol VA Grades are analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention since they are drawn to the same field of endeavor, namely a polyvinylpyrrolidone copolymer-containing soil removing/treatment composition. Also, Gopalkrishnan et al and Luviskol VA Grades are secondary references that provide evidence and teachings of the polyvinylpyrrolidone copolymer under the Luviskol® series from BASF clearly taught by ‘394 as suitable copolymers (See 30-45 of ‘394). Additionally, the Examiner asserts that “pickling composition” as recited by the instant claims is merely an intended use of the claimed composition and is not read as a patentable limitation. Note that, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use for the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81. See MPEP 2111.02. Note that, the Examiner asserts that ‘681 suggests compositions capable of functioning as a “pickling composition” because ‘394 in view of Gopalkrishnan et al (US 6,743,763) or Luviskol VA Grades teaches compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. While ‘394 does not specifically mention or discuss pickling properties or coating properties, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. Note that, while there must be motivation to make the claimed invention, there is no requirement that the prior art provide the same reason as the applicant to make the claimed invention. In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP 2144. To render an invention obvious, the prior art does not have to address the same problem addressed by a patent applicant. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550, U.S. 398, 420 (2007); see also, In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the Examiner’s reason for combining the teachings of the references does not need to be the same as Applicant’s reason (i.e., to prevent a greasy feeling on items or hands). See e.g., In re Khan, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Additionally, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of a reference are not limited to the preferred embodiments and that the broad teachings of ‘394 in view of Gopalkrishnan et al (US 6,743,763) or Luviskol VA Grades suggest compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. Note that, the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the disclosed alternatives. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[a] reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment." CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions". Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994); See MPEP 2123(II). The fact that a reference discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 R.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also, In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from amount thousands of compounds”); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was huge, but it undeniably included at least some of the compounds recited in appellant’s generic claims and was a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant’s additives).
For example, ‘394 clearly teaches that the compositions contain from 0.01% to 5% by weight of a vinylpyrrolidone copolymer which is a copolymer of N-vinylpyrrolidone and an alkylenically unsaturated monomer and mixtures thereof. The alkylenically unsaturated monomers of the copolymers herein include unsaturated dicarboxylic acids such as maleic acid, chloromaleic acid, fumaric acid, itaconic acid, citraconic acid, phenylmaleic acid, aconitic acid, acrylic acid, N-vinylimidazole and vinyl acetate. Such copolymers of N-vinylpyrrolidone and alkylenically unsaturated monomers like PVP/vinyl acetate copolymers are commercially available under the trade name Luviskol® series from BASF. The molecular weight is from 1,000 to 1,000,000, preferably from 10,000 to 500,000, which would clearly molecular weights as recited by the instant claims (e.g., a molecular weight of 50,000, 60,000, etc.) (See paras. 30-45 of ‘394).
Additionally, the Examiner asserts that Gopalkrishnan et al (US 6,743,763) or Luviskol VA Grades are secondary references relied upon for their teaching of the specific molar ratio of vinylpyrrolidone and vinyl acetate copolymer as recited by the instant claims. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use a copolymer of vinylpyrrolidone and vinyl acetate having, for example, a molar ratio of VP:VA of 30:70 or 50:50, in the composition taught by ‘394, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Gopalkrishnan et al or Luviskol VA Grades teach the use and existence of Luviskol polymers which are a copolymer of vinylpyrrolidone and vinyl acetate having, for example, a molar ratio of VP:VA of 30:70 or 50:50, and further, ‘394 teaches the use of PVP/vinyl acetate copolymers which are commercially available under the trade name Luviskol®. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘394 in view of Gopalkrishnan et al (US 6,743,763) or Luviskol VA Grades, are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/January 15, 2026