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 .
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.
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 1-6, 10-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (US10059836, herein Ha), in the view of Wu (US20180179711, herein Wu).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 15, Ha teaches granular eco-friendly infill for artificial turf [C6; L52], which reads on the artificial turf infill consists of granules. Ha further teaches the granular eco-friendly infill for artificial turf comprising: calcium carbonate (chalk) [C3; L34], wherein, the calcium carbonate has the density of 2.71g/cm3 reads on the filler; oil, dibasic acid ester [C3; L38], which is synthetic ester, hence, collectively matches the claimed ingredients/materials and therefore, can meet the unfoamed feature. Additionally, the composition taught by Ha set forth above has excluded the UV stabilizers, hindered amine light stabilizer (HALS), UV absorbers and radical scavengers upon non-selection any of them.
Ha teaches oil is added as a softening agent [C6; L15] reads on lubricant, but does not teach the specific lubricant and the range. However, Wu teaches stearic acid [0022] reads on the claimed specific lubricant, in the range of 0.1% to 20% of the composition [0022] overlaps the claimed range. Ha and Wu are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf application via the selection of the lubricant. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the stearic acid [0022], in the range of 0.1% to 20% of the composition [0022] into the composition formation process, because doing so would further achieve the desired property of improved infill performance—e.g., improvements of material handling properties [0015], moreover, the application of the lubricant stearic acid toward lower concentration of 0.1-0.5% can further prevent clumping and reduce friction.
Ha does not explicitly teach the compostable polymer and range. However, Wu teaches polylactic acid (PLA), in the range of 10% to 90% of the composition [0017] overlaps the claimed range. Ha and Wu are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf application via the selection of the polymers toward sustainability. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the polylactic acid (PLA), in the range of 10% to 90% of the composition [0017] into the composition formation process, because doing so would further achieve the desired property of improved infill performance—e.g., improvements in one or more of the following characteristics: strength, resistance to ultraviolet light, thermal resistance, moisture resistance, resistance to biological attack, and material handling properties [0015], and further lead to the sustainability owing to the natural materials selection and manufacturing.
Ha does not explicitly teach the range of the filler. However, Wu teaches calcium carbonate 1% to 50% of the composition [0021] overlaps the claimed range. Ha and Wu are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf application via the selection of the filler. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the calcium carbonate 1% to 50% of the composition [0021] into the composition formation process, because doing so would further achieve the desired property of improved infill performance—e.g., improvements in one or more of the following characteristics: strength, resistance to ultraviolet light, moisture resistance [0015].
In 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claims 3-5, 12, Ha and Wu teach the artificial turf infill as set forth in claims 1, 11 above, Ha does not teach natural fibers and range, however, Wu teaches cellulosic fiber, hemp, jute [0018], wherein, the jute fiber has lignin content 12.4%, and cellulosic material can comprise from 10% to 80% of the composition [0018] overlaps the claimed range. Ha and Wu are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf application via filler selection toward sustainability. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the cellulosic fiber, hemp, jute [0018], wherein, the jute fiber has lignin content 12.4%, and cellulosic material can comprise from 10% to 80% of the composition [0018] into the composition formation process, because doing so would further lead to rigidity, strength, and stiffness properties to the composition brought by the fiber materials [0018] and further lead to the sustainability owing to the natural materials selection and manufacturing. In 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Ha, and Wu teach all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and Ha teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process as of mix, stir, extrusion molding [C6; L63]. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. density, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients and amounts, wherein, the instant application discloses the processing of the artificial turf granule is formed via: mixing, kneading, blending and extrusion [Instant App. US20230243110; 0151]. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 13, Ha teaches stirring the primary mixture on heating at a temperature range of 85 to 110° C [C6; L27] encompasses the claimed temperature range. In 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (US10059836, herein Ha), Wu (US20180179711, herein Wu) as applied in the claim 1 above, in the view of Siekmann (EP3336252, herein Siekmann).
Regarding Claim 7, Ha and Wu teach the artificial turf infill as set forth in claim 1 above, Ha does not teach the wherein the natural fibers are at least partially embedded in the granules of the artificial turf infill, however, Siekmann teaches the natural fiber is at least partially embedded in the vulcanized portion [0006]. Ha and Siekmann are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of engineering thermoplastic composite formation toward artificial turf manufacturing. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the natural fiber is at least partially embedded in the vulcanized portion [0006] into the composition formation process, because doing so would lead to the desired turf performance with advantages that the natural fiber does not become unmixed with the rest of the artificial turf infill; protection against water, rain and heat [0008], as taught by Siekmann.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (US10059836, herein Ha) and Wu (US20180179711, herein Wu) as applied in the claim 1 above, in the view of Nagele (WO2012110237, herein Nagele, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claims 8, 9, Ha and Wu teach the artificial turf infill as set forth in claim 1 above, Ha teaches aromatic oil, but does not teach the specified oil which comprises an unsaturated synthetic ester, and wherein the oil is made from renewable resources, however, Nagele teaches trimellitic acid esters [0063] reads on the unsaturated synthetic ester; plasticizer from the group of natural oils and waxes, contains carboxylic acids including their salts and esters, and cross-linked unsaturated vegetable oils. [0064] collectively reads the oil is made from renewable resources. Ha and Nagele are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of engineering thermoplastic composite formation toward molded article manufacturing via oil selection. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute trimellitic acid esters [0063] and the plasticizer from the group of natural oils and waxes, contains carboxylic acids including their salts and esters, and cross-linked unsaturated vegetable oils [0064] into the composition formation process, because doing so would optimize the manufacturing process owing to the plasticizers selection of trimellitic acid esters [0063], and further lead to desired property of ecologically neutral CO2 balance and are readily biodegradable or decomposable [0064], toward to energy and environmental sustainability owing to the selection of the plasticizer from the group of natural oils and waxes, contains carboxylic acids including their salts and esters, and cross-linked unsaturated vegetable oils [0064] as taught by Nagele.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (US10059836, herein Ha), Wu (US20180179711, herein Wu) as applied in the claim 1 above, in the view of Spittle (US20120094107, herein Spittle).
Regarding Claim 14, Ha and Wu teach the artificial turf infill as set forth in claim 1 above, Ha does not teach the pigment, however, Spittle teaches iron oxide, 0.1 to 15 percent by weight of the total dry weight of the infill composition [0035], reads on the pigment and overlaps the claimed range. Ha and Spittle are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf infills manufacturing. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the iron oxide, 0.1 to 15 percent by weight of the total dry weight of the infill composition [0035], and further apply into the composition formation process, because doing so would further effectively reduce and dissipate static charges of plastics upon the inclusion of the iron oxide [0035], wherein, the iron oxide is known as both static charge-reducing materials and pigment possess strong inherent coloration, hence, the iron oxide can perform antistatic and coloration simultaneously in plastic manufacturing. In 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (US10059836, herein Ha) and Wu (US20180179711, herein Wu) as applied in the claim 1 above, in the view of Wong (US20150337094, herein Wong) and Nagele (WO2012110237, herein Nagele, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claims 16, 17, Ha and Wu teach the artificial turf infill as set forth in claim 1 above, Ha does not teach the compostable polymer is a mixture of the PLA and a PBS and/or PBAT and the range, however, Wong teaches the blend of PBAT, PBS and PLA include PBAT of 5-50% and PBS of 5-40% [0034], 10-60% PLA [0035], which indicate the compostable polymer is a mixture of PLA/PBS/PBAT, in the range of at least (5+5+10)%=20%, overlaps the claimed range. Ha and Wong are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of polymeric composite formation including composable polymer, chalk toward sustainability. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add he blend of PBAT, PBS and PLA include PBAT of 5-50% and PBS of 5-40% [0034], 10-60% PLA [0035] into the composition formation process, because doing so would further achieve the desired properties including improved mechanical properties, elongation-to-break, flexibility and impact resistance when the blend of PBAT, PBS and PLA [0034] as taught by Wong.
Ha teaches calcium carbonate (chalk) [C3; L34], but does not explicitly teach the ranges of the filler, however, Wu teaches calcium carbonate 1% to 50% of the composition [0021] overlaps the claimed range. Ha and Wu are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf application via the selection of the filler. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the calcium carbonate 1% to 50% of the composition [0021] into the composition formation process, because doing so would further achieve the desired property of improved infill performance—e.g., improvements in one or more of the following characteristics: strength, resistance to ultraviolet light, thermal resistance, moisture resistance, resistance to biological attack, and material handling properties [0015].
Ha teaches aromatic oil, but does not teach the specified oil which comprises an unsaturated synthetic ester, however, Nagele teaches trimellitic acid esters [0063] reads on the unsaturated synthetic ester. Ha and Nagele are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of compostable polymer based thermoplastic composite formation toward molded article manufacturing via oil selection. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute trimellitic acid esters [0063] into the composition formation process, because doing so would optimized the processability [0062] toward ecological and sustainable manufacturing.
Ha does not teach natural fibers and range. However, Wu teaches cellulosic fiber, hemp, jute [0018], and cellulosic material can comprise from 10% to 80% of the composition [0018] overlaps the claimed range. Ha and Wu are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf application via filler selection toward sustainability. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the cellulosic fiber, hemp, jute [0018], wherein, the jute fiber has lignin content 12.4%, and cellulosic material can comprise from 10% to 80% of the composition [0018] into the composition formation process, because doing so would further lead to rigidity, strength, and stiffness properties to the composition brought by the fiber materials [0018] and further lead to the sustainability owing to the natural materials selection and manufacturing.
Claims 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (US10059836, herein Ha) and Wu (US20180179711, herein Wu) as applied in the claim 1 above, in the view of Aldahir (US20200216673, herein Aldahir) and Nagele (WO2012110237, herein Nagele, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claims 18, 19, Ha and Wu teach the artificial turf infill as set forth in claim 1 above, Ha does not explicitly teach the TPC and range, however, Aldahir teaches particle suitable for use as a synthetic turf infill, comprising thermoplastic copolyesters and filler [0028], with filler calcium carbonate in the range of 20-80% [0031-32], hence, the range of thermoplastic copolyesters is 20-80%, overlaps the claimed range. Ha and Aldahir are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf infills via polymer selection. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add thermoplastic copolyesters [0028], and the range of thermoplastic copolyesters is 20-80%, further apply into the composition formation process, because doing so would further achieve the desired particle size, uniformity of particle size, a desired particle size distribution, specific gravity, flowability, bulk density. [0035], as taught by Aldahir.
Ha teaches calcium carbonate (chalk) [C3; L34], but does not explicitly teach the ranges of the filler, however, Wu teaches calcium carbonate 1% to 50% of the composition [0021] overlaps the claimed range. Ha and Wu are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf application via the selection of the filler. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the calcium carbonate 1% to 50% of the composition [0021] into the composition formation process, because doing so would further achieve the desired property of improved infill performance—e.g., improvements in one or more of the following characteristics: strength, resistance to ultraviolet light, thermal resistance, moisture resistance, resistance to biological attack, and material handling properties [0015].
Ha teaches aromatic oil, but does not teach the specified oil which comprises an unsaturated synthetic ester, however, Nagele teaches trimellitic acid esters [0063] reads on the unsaturated synthetic ester. Ha and Nagele are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of compostable polymer based thermoplastic composite formation toward molded article manufacturing via oil selection. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute trimellitic acid esters [0063] into the composition formation process, because doing so would optimized the processability [0062] toward ecological and sustainable manufacturing.
Ha does not teach natural fibers and range. However, Wu teaches cellulosic fiber, hemp, jute [0018], and cellulosic material can comprise from 10% to 80% of the composition [0018] overlaps the claimed range. Ha and Wu are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf application via filler selection toward sustainability. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the cellulosic fiber, hemp, jute [0018], wherein, the jute fiber has lignin content 12.4%, and cellulosic material can comprise from 10% to 80% of the composition [0018] into the composition formation process, because doing so would further lead to rigidity, strength, and stiffness properties to the composition brought by the fiber materials [0018] and further lead to the sustainability owing to the natural materials selection and manufacturing.
In 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (US10059836, herein Ha), Wu (US20180179711, herein Wu), Wong (US20150337094, herein Wong) and Nagele (WO2012110237, herein Nagele, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) as applied in the claim 16 above, in the view of Spittle (US20120094107, herein Spittle).
Regarding Claim 20, Ha, Wu, Wong and Nagele collectively teach the artificial turf infill as set forth in claim 16 above, Ha teaches oil is added as a softening agent [C6; L15] reads on lubricant, but does not teach the specific lubricant and the range; However, Wu teaches stearic acid [0022] reads on the claimed specific lubricant, in the range of 0.1% to 20% of the composition [0022] overlaps the claimed range. Ha and Wu are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf application via the selection of the polymer and lubricant. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the stearic acid [0022], in the range of 0.1% to 20% of the composition [0022] into the composition formation process, because doing so would further lead to the turf infill processing optimization, as the stearic acid serve as modifying agents to promote bonding between cellulosic materials and polymer [0022] further lead to the improved infill performance—e.g., improvements in one or more of the following characteristics: strength, resistance to ultraviolet light, thermal resistance, moisture resistance, resistance to biological attack, and material handling properties [0015], and further lead to the sustainability owing to the natural materials selection and manufacturing, additionally the application of the lubricant stearic acid toward lower concentration of 0.1-0.5% can further prevent clumping and reduce friction.
Ha does not teach the pigment; however, Spittle teaches iron oxide, 0.1 to 15 percent by weight of the total dry weight of the infill composition [0035], reads on the pigment and overlaps the claimed range. Ha and Spittle are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf infills manufacturing. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the iron oxide, 0.1 to 15 percent by weight of the total dry weight of the infill composition [0035], and further apply into the composition formation process, because doing so would further effectively reduce and dissipate static charges of plastics upon the inclusion of the iron oxide [0035], wherein, the iron oxide is known as both static charge-reducing materials and pigment possess strong inherent coloration, hence, the iron oxide can perform antistatic and coloration simultaneously in plastic manufacturing. In 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ha (US10059836, herein Ha), Wu (US20180179711, herein Wu).
In this case, the applicant’s arguments are directed toward the amendment of the claims, which has been addressed by the rejection set forth above.
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, Ha teaches the granular eco-friendly infill for artificial turf comprising: calcium carbonate (chalk) [C3; L34], read on the specific filler, therefore, the specific filler based granular eco-friendly infill for artificial turf with not only lead to antimicrobial properties, but also increased strength [C4; L21]. As analogous art, Wu teaches turf infills [0014] with calcium carbonate 1% to 50% of the composition [0021], lead to granule strength [0008]; strong and durable, providing sufficient strength, impact resistance [0048], collectively match the artificial turf infill showed compression resilient properties [Instant App. US20230243110; 0018].
Moreover, Ha explicitly teaches the formation of the granular eco-friendly infill for artificial turf [C6; L52], wherein, Wu teaches the composition pelletized or ground into granules of suitable sizes [0025], therefore, modify Hu to incorporate the Wu, will not require changing the essential feature, which is the granular infill for artificial turf with the compositions collectively taught by Ha and Wu.
Hence, neither Ha nor Wu teaches away the instant application.
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 extension fee 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights