DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of species dinotefuran as the insecticide alongside diafenthiuron and pyriproxyfen and suspension concentrate as the form of the pesticidal composition in the reply filed on 30 May 2025, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that one or more special technical features are present and that there is no search burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because base claim 1 is recited to be a pesticidal composition comprising diafenthiuron, pyriproxyfen, and dinotefuran, which are all taught by U.S. Patent No. 8,859,462 B2, as stated in the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed on 3 April 2025. In addition, claim 1 as originally presented recited numerous broad genera that are in separate classifications, which would constitute a serious search burden as defined in MPEP § 808.02. Finally, while demonstration of a serious search burden is relevant to restriction/election requirements in applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the instant application is a national stage application submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 and the existence of a search burden is not required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant did not elect the one or more inactive excipients in the replies filed on 30 May 2025, or 10 September 2025. The species election requirement is withdrawn in favor of the rejections presented below.
Status of Claims
The preliminary amendments, filed on 5 December 2022, 30 May 2025, and 10 September 2025, are acknowledged.
Claims 1-14 are amended.
New claims 15-18 are entered.
Claims 1-18 are pending in the instant Office Action.
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the replies filed on 30 May 2025, and 10 September 2025.
Claims 1-11 and 15-18 are under consideration in the instant Office Action, to the extent of the elected species dinotefuran as the insecticide alongside diafenthiuron and pyriproxyfen and suspension concentrate as the form of the pesticidal composition.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the inclusion of legal phraseology – specifically, the phrases “The present invention further relates to…” and “said composition(s)”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of parent India Patent Application No. 202011023685, filed on 5 June 2020, has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5 December 2025, was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “said pesticidal composition comprises of” in line 2. The word “of” is unnecessary and should be removed so the resulting phrase recites “said pesticidal composition comprises”.
Claim 5 recites “Tristryl” in line 4 (bold added for emphasis). The Examiner believes this should be “Tristyryl” (bold added for emphasis). Applicant is asked to confirm that the latter spelling is correct in response to the instant Office Action.
Claim 11 was amended to recite “is formulated as Suspension Concentrate (SC) .” The article “a” should precede “Suspension” and the extraneous space should be removed so the phrase recites “is formulated as a Suspension Concentrate (SC).” (bold added for emphasis).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-10 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the surfactant" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claims 2 and 3, upon which claim 4 depends, do not recite a surfactant.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the dispersing agent" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claims 2 and 3, upon which claim 5 depends, do not recite a dispersing agent.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the anti-freezing agent" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claims 2 and 3, upon which claim 6 depends, do not recite an anti-freezing agent.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the wetting agent" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claims 2 and 3, upon which claim 7 depends, do not recite a wetting agent.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the anti-foaming agent" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claims 2 and 3, upon which claim 8 depends, do not recite an anti-foaming agent.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the thickener" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claims 2 and 3, upon which claim 9 depends, do not recite a thickener.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the binder" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claims 2 and 3, upon which claim 10 depends, do not recite a binder.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the anti-microbial/bacterial agent" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claims 2 and 3, upon which claim 16 depends, do not recite an anti-microbial/bacterial agent.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the filler" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claims 2 and 3, upon which claim 17 depends, do not recite a filler.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the suspension aid" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claims 2 and 3, upon which claim 18 depends, do not recite a suspension aid.
Claims 4-9 and 15-18 are rejected on the basis that they contain an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group “consisting of” (rather than “comprising” or “including”) the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group “comprising of” or “consisting essentially of” the recited alternatives), the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See In re Kiely, 2022 USPQ2d 532 at 2* (Fed. Cir. 2022). See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
Claims 4-9 and 15-17 recite “selected from the group comprising…”, and the Markush grouping is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping are an open list of alternatives (bold added for emphasis). Claim 18 recites “selected as…material which comprises”, which is improper Markush grouping because the alternatives are an open list of alternatives (bold added for emphasis).
To overcome these rejections, Applicant may amend the claims to recite “selected from the groups consisting of..”.
Claim 5 is rejected as being indefinite for reciting “Tristyrylphenol Ethoxylate Amine salt of phosphate tristyryl phenol ethylated / Acrylic Copolymer/ Ethoxylated Tristryl phenol Sulphate or a combination thereof”. It is unclear if the backslash punctuation is intended to separate different species or designate a mixture, and if the latter interpretation is intended, then the recitation of “or a combination thereof” is ambiguous.
Claim 6 is rejected as being indefinite for reciting “Mono Ethylene Glycol /Propylene glycol/Diethylene glycol or a combination thereof”. It is unclear if the backslash punctuation is intended to separate different species or designate a mixture, and if the latter interpretation is intended, then the recitation of “or a combination thereof” is ambiguous.
Claim 9 is rejected as being indefinite for reciting “Silicon Dioxide/China – Clay/Kaolin/Talc/starch or a combination thereof”. It is unclear if the backslash punctuation is intended to separate different species or designate a mixture, and if the latter interpretation is intended, then the recitation of “or a combination thereof” is ambiguous.
Claim 18 is rejected as being indefinite for reciting groupings of species in parentheses in lines 3-5. It is unclear if the species in the parentheses are merely examples of solids or liquids or if they are intended to limit the claim, rendering the recitation indefinite.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitations “solid” in line 3 and “liquid” in line 4, and the claim also recites “(clays, nautral or synthetic silicates…)” in lines 3-4 and “(water, alcohols, ketones…)” in lines 4-5, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 1-4, 6, 9, 11, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikoshi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,859,462 B2, issued 10/14/2014, cited in IDS filed on 5 December 2025, hereafter referred to as Horikoshi).
Horikoshi teaches a pest control composition comprising one or more derivatives of pyripyropene and one or more other pest control agents (Abstract). The composition is taught to comprise 0.1-80% w/w of the one or more pyripyropene derivative and 0.1-80% w/w of the one or more other pest control agents (claim 1). The other pest control agents are taught, among others, to include diafenthiuron, pyriproxyfen, and dinotefuran (column 18, lines 50-60).
In addition to the pest control agents above, Horikoshi teaches that their composition may be formulated as a suspension and/or a concentrate and may comprise a “a suitable agriculturally and horticulturally acceptable carrier” (column 20, lines 56-65). Carriers are taught to include solid carriers, such as talc, clay, kaolin, or diatomaceous earth, liquid carriers, such as alcohols, ketones, aliphatic hydrocarbons, or esters, gaseous carriers, surfactants, and/or dispersants (column 21, lines 4-21). Examples of surfactants or dispersants include alkyl-sulfuric esters, polyhydric alcohol esters, and lignin sulfonic acid salts, which fall within the genera of surfactants recited in instant claim 4 (column 21, lines 22-26).
Horikoshi additionally teaches that their composition may be formulated to comprise a wetting agent in the amount of 0.6-30% w/w, 0.6-30% w/w of a binder, and 5-40% w/w of a thickening agent (column 21, lines 40-65). Preparation Example 3 teaches a composition which contains 6% w/w propylene glycol, which is one of the anti-freezing agents recited in instant claim 6, and 5% w/w POE polystyryl phenyl ether sulfate, which is a surfactant present in an amount that falls within the range recited in instant claim 4. Finally, Preparation Example 9 teaches a composition which comprises 0.2% w/w of an antiseptic, which is considered equivalent to the anti-microbial/bacterial agent recited in instant claims 15-16.
Although “picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference...has no place in...a 102, anticipation rejection,” picking and choosing may be entirely proper in an obviousness rejection. In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ” (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007)). The Court further emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is…a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” (Id. at 1742).
The only difference between Horikoshi and the instant claims is that Horikoshi does not teach the specific combination of components as claimed in a single embodiment (e.g., fails to explicitly teach diafenthiuron, pyriproxyfen, and dinotefuran in one composition), or with sufficient specificity to be anticipatory. The specific combination of features claimed is disclosed within the teaching of Horikoshi, but such “picking and choosing” within several variables does not necessarily give rise to anticipation. Where, as here, the reference does not provide any explicit motivation to select this specific combination of variables, anticipation cannot be found. However, it must be remembered that “[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” See MPEP § 2141.I. Consistent with this reasoning, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to have selected various combinations of the various disclosed ingredients from within the teachings of Horikoshi, to arrive at an invention such as the one being sought.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikoshi (U.S. Patent No. 8,859,462 B2, priority to 10 March 2008, cited in IDS filed on 5 December 2025) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, 15, and 17-18 above, and further in view of Bhoge et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,259,525 B2, priority to 25 October 2017, hereafter referred to as Bhoge).
Horikoshi teaches the above, and particularly relevant to instant claims 5 and 8, teaches that a dispersant may be present in an amount from 0.6-40% and an anti-foaming agent may be present (column 21, line 40 - column 22, lines 25 and claims 3-5).
Horikoshi does not teach the dispersing agent species recited in instant claim 5 nor the anti-foaming agent species or amount recited in instant claim 8. These deficiencies are offset by the teachings of Bhoge.
Bhoge teaches a stable agrochemical composition comprising the pesticide glufosinate, additional pesticides, an organosilicone adjuvant, a nonionic surfactant, and additional adjuvants (Abstract). The composition of Bhoge is taught to improve the bioefficacy of pesticides and to be surprisingly stable when a non-ionic surfactant is present (column 3, lines 39-50). Formulating agrochemical compositions as emulsifiable concentrates is taught to be preferable when water insoluble ingredients are present, such as organosilicone adjuvants, which increase the availability of agrochemicals to plants by increasing spray coverage area (column 1, lines 54-58 and column 2, lines 41-58).
Preferred organosilicone adjuvants are taught to include polyalkyleneoxide-modified trisiloxanes, such as trisiloxane polyethoxylated products Silwet™ 408 and Silwet™ L 408, which is present in an amount from 0.1-5% by weight (column 4, line 58 - column 5, line 6). The nonionic surfactant in the composition of Bhoge is taught to be present in an amount from 0.1-25% by weight (column 5, lines 9-11). Preferred species include tristyryl phenol alkoxylates such as tristyryl phenol ethoxylate (column 5, lines 12-31). In addition, the composition is taught to comprise an anionic surfactant in an amount from 0.1-25% by weight, which in one embodiment is a salt of tristyrylphenol ether phosphate and/or sulfate (column 5, lines 44-65).
Guidelines on the obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions are provided in MPEP § 2144.05. With respect to claimed ranges which “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). These guidelines apply to the quantities of dispersing agent and anti-foaming agent taught by Bhoge. In each case, the ranges taught by Bhoge either significantly overlap with or fall within the ranges recited in instant claims 5 and 8, rendering them obvious.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to combine the teachings of Horikoshi and Bhoge to arrive at the invention of claims 5 and 8 because combining prior art elements in related inventions to impart known benefits produces predictable results. Horikoshi rendered obvious a pesticidal composition comprising diafenthiuron, pyriproxyfen, and dinotefuran, in the recited quantities, as well as dispersing and anti-foaming agents. In view of the teachings of Bhoge, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use polyalkyleneoxide-modified trisiloxanes, a tristyrylphenol ether phosphate and/or sulfate, and a tristyryl phenol ethoxylate, in the quantities taught by Bhoge, because Bhoge teaches that these components, when used in an herbicidal composition, can enhance the bioefficacy of pesticides and produce a surprisingly stable composition. The ordinary artisan would desire their pesticidal composition to be efficient in achieving its intended goal and to be stable, and would therefore be motivated to combine ingredients that are taught to improve both properties. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of claims 1-2, 5, and 8 in view of the teachings of Horikoshi and Bhoge.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikoshi (U.S. Patent No. 8,859,462 B2, priority to 10 March 2008, cited in IDS filed on 5 December 2025) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, 15, and 17-18 above, and further in view of Chaudhry (U.S. Patent No. 10,238,104 B2, priority to 21 November 2013).
Horikoshi teaches the above.
Horikoshi does not teach the wetting agent species or amount recited in instant claim 7 nor xanthum gum in the amount recited in instant claim 10. These deficiencies are offset by the teachings of Chaudhry.
Chaudhry teaches an agricultural adjuvant composition that provides nutrients to plants and protects them while also reducing the required usage of agrochemicals by increasing their efficiency (Abstract and Claim 1). To achieve the above goal, Chaudry teaches their composition to comprise adjuvants including surfactants and wetting agents (column 5, lines 1-9). The one or more surfactants are taught to be present in an amount of 8-15% (column 6, lines 33-39) and may be the non-ionic surfactant sorbitan monooleate in an amount of 2-4% and/or one or more non-ionic organosilicone-based surfactants in an amount of 3-6%, which is interpreted as being equivalent to the “mixture of non-ionic surfactants” recited in instant claim 7. Chaudry further teaches their composition to comprise Xanthan Gum, which is interpreted as being equivalent to the ”Xanthum Gum” recited in instant claim 10, in an amount from 0.03-0.15% (column 6, lines 51-53).
Guidelines on the obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions are provided in MPEP § 2144.05. With respect to claimed ranges which “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). These guidelines apply to the quantities of non-ionic surfactants and xanthan gum taught by Chaudhry. In each case, the ranges taught by Chaudhry either significantly overlap with or fall within the ranges recited in instant claims 7 and 10, rendering them obvious.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to combine the teachings of Horikoshi and Chaudhry to arrive at the invention of claims 1-2, 7, and 10 because combining prior art elements in related inventions to impart known benefits produces predictable results. Horikoshi rendered obvious a pesticidal composition comprising diafenthiuron, pyriproxyfen, and dinotefuran, in the quantities recited in instant claim 2, as well as wetting agents and binders. In view of the teachings of Chaudhry, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a mixture of non-ionic surfactants and xanthan gum in the composition of Horikoshi, in the quantities taught by Chaudhry, because Chaudhry teaches that these components, when used in an adjuvant composition, can enhance the efficiency of agrochemicals, such as pesticides. The ordinary artisan would desire their pesticidal composition to be efficient in achieving its intended goal and would therefore be motivated to combine ingredients that are taught to improve the efficiency. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of claims 1-2, 7, and 10 in view of the teachings of Horikoshi and Chaudhry.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikoshi (U.S. Patent No. 8,859,462 B2, priority to 10 March 2008, cited in IDS filed on 5 December 2025) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, 15, and 17-18 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,517,013 B2, priority to 15 August 2018, hereafter referred to as Anderson).
Horikoshi teaches the above.
Horikoshi does not teach the anti-microbial/bacterial agent species or amount recited in instant claim 16. These deficiencies are offset by the teachings of Anderson.
Anderson teaches compositions for use in agricultural production which protect plants from pests (Abstract and Summary of the Invention). The compositions comprise, among other ingredients, fungicides, insecticides, a dispersant, xanthan gum, and fertilizers (Claim 1 and Example 2). Anderson teaches that agricultural formulations are susceptible to microbial or fungal degradation during storage and preservatives are taught to be useful in preventing or reducing these deleterious effects (column 41, lines 1-3). Examples of preservation agents include propionic acid, sorbic acid, and benzoic acid or their respective sodium salts, p-hydroxybenzoic acid sodium salt, methyl p-hydroxybenzoate, and 1,2-benzisothiazalin-3-one (BIT) (column 41, lines 3-10). The quantity of preservative is taught to be from 0.01-0.2% by weight (column 41, lines 10-19).
Guidelines on the obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions are provided in MPEP § 2144.05. With respect to claimed ranges which “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). These guidelines apply to the quantity of preservative taught by Anderson. The range taught by Anderson falls within the range recited in instant claim 16, rendering the range obvious.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to combine the teachings of Horikoshi and Anderson to arrive at the invention of claims 1-2 and 16 because combining prior art elements in related inventions to impart known benefits produces predictable results. Horikoshi rendered obvious a pesticidal composition comprising diafenthiuron, pyriproxyfen, and dinotefuran, in the quantities recited in instant claim 2. In view of the teachings of Anderson, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a preservative such as propionic acid, sorbic acid, benzoic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid sodium salt, or BIT, in the quantity taught by Anderson, because Anderson teaches that these components can either prevent or limit degradation of agricultural compositions during storage. The ordinary artisan would desire their agricultural composition to be stable during storage, and would therefore be motivated to combine ingredients that are taught to improve its stability and shelf life. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of claims 1-2 and 16 in view of the teachings of Horikoshi and Anderson.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean J. Steinke, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3396. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 ET.
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, David Blanchard, can be reached at (571) 272-0827. 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.
/S.J.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619