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 .
Election/Restrictions
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s response filed 07/07/2025.
Claims 1,9,11-12,16-17,19-23,26-27,29,31-33,40,52, and 56 are pending.
Claims 23,32-33,40,52, and 56 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/07/2025.
Claims 1,9,11-12,16-17,19-22,26,27,29, and 31 are currently under consideration to the extent that they read upon Applicant’s elected species.
NOTE: Applicant elected –
Medium chain triglyceride (MCT) for the pharmaceutically acceptable oil
Lactose for the sugar
Maltodextrin for the polysaccharide
Ammonium glycyrrhizinate for the surfactant - claim 21
Lipophilic nanospheres size between 100-300 nm
Anti-inflammatory drugs for the lipophilic active pharmaceutical ingredient.
Upon further search and examination the species election over sugar is broadened to include sucrose, trehalose, or mannitol, pharmaceutically acceptable oil is broadened to include mono-, di- and triglyceride oils.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2022 are being considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
The term “improved” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite because the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the betterment the invention is required to have.
Claim 21 contains the trademark/trade name : Pluronic ® F-127 and Pluronic ® F-68. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a surfactant and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 9,11-12,16-17,19-22,26,27,29, and 31 are rejected as depending from claim 1 without resolving the issue.
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.
Claims 1,11,17,20 and 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Magdassi et al (US 20210059975 A1; also available as IL261132A and WO2020035850A1).
Magdassi discloses a nanoemulsion, and upon dispersion in water said formulation produces nanoparticles (droplets of a submicron size) with an average size of up to about 500 nm for treating disorders and broader application for a range of medical conditions (abstract). Magdassi teaches an initial fine-tuned nanoemulsion that is designed to contain lipophilic nanodroplets of a specific size is the basis for the inventor’s solid-based delivery method (see entire document, for instance, [0018]). When the nanoemulsion is transformed into a powder, the integrity, composition, and size of the nanodroplets are preserved (see entire document, for instance, [0018]). Re-dispersion of the solid-based delivery method in water or contact with water further preserves their size, content, and integrity (see entire document, for instance, [0018]). Magdassi discloses a water-dispersible powder comprising lipophilic microspheres having a size of 50-900 nm that comprise surfactant such as ammonium glycyrrhizinate, pluronic F-127, F68, cannabinoid oil, sucrose, trehalose, or mannitol and maltodextrin and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (see entire document, for instance, claim 1). Magdassi teaches a significant quantity of the lipophilic/oil fraction may be added to the solid formulations up to as much as 75% (see entire document, for instance, [0021]). Magdassi discloses certain solid oils can be added to facilitate controlled release, such as mono-, di- and triglyceride oils, ([0122]).
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.
Claim(s) 1,9,11-12,16-17,19-21,26-27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magdassi et al (US 20210059975 A1; also available as IL261132A and WO2020035850A1).
Magdassi discloses a nanoemulsion, and upon dispersion in water said formulation produces nanoparticles (droplets of a submicron size) with an average size of up to about 500 nm for treating disorders and broader application for a range of medical conditions (abstract). Magdassi teaches an initial fine-tuned nanoemulsion that is designed to contain lipophilic nanodroplets of a specific size is the basis for the inventor’s solid-based delivery method (see entire document, for instance, [0018]). When the nanoemulsion is transformed into a powder, the integrity, composition, and size of the nanodroplets are preserved (see entire document, for instance, [0018]). Re-dispersion of the solid-based delivery method in water or contact with water further preserves their size, content, and integrity (see entire document, for instance, [0018]). Magdassi discloses a water-dispersible powder comprising lipophilic microspheres having a size of 50-900 nm that comprise surfactant such as ammonium glycyrrhizinate, pluronic F-127, F68, cannabinoid oil, sucrose, trehalose, or mannitol and maltodextrin and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (see entire document, for instance, claim 1). Magdassi teaches a significant quantity of the lipophilic/oil fraction may be added to the solid formulations up to as much as 75% (see entire document, for instance, [0021]). Magdassi discloses certain solid oils can be added to facilitate controlled release, such as mono-, di- and triglyceride oils, ([0122]).
Regarding instant claim 9, Magdassi teaches a water-dispersible powder made up of lipophilic nanospheres with an average size of 50-900 nm, that have an adsorbed layer of at least one solid surfactant, and that significantly retain their size and structure when dissolved in an environment that contains water (see entire document, for instance, [0040]). Magdassi discloses when the nanoemulsion is transformed into a solid-based delivery system, such as powder, the size, composition, and integrity of the nanodroplets are preserved (see entire document, for instance, [0018]). Re-dispersion of the solid-based delivery method in water or contact with water further preserves their size, content, and integrity (see entire document, for instance, [0018]). A solid-based delivery system that can be derived from an initial fine-tuned nanoemulsion that is customized to contain lipophilic nanodroplets of a specific size has been devised by the inventors. Thus, the determination of the optimum or workable amounts given the guidance of the prior art would have been generally prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding instant claim 16, Magdassi discloses the invention’s compositions can include antioxidants, nutrients, a polysaccharide, peppermint oil, oregano oil, eucalyptus oil, plant sweeteners, natural antioxidants, vitamins, antioxidants such as vitamin E and C, and complete of fractionated extracts of cannabis plants in various proportions and combinations thereof ([0111]).
Regarding instant claim 19, Magdassi discloses along with ammonium glycyrrhizinate and maltodextrin, the powder contains sucrose, trehalose, or mannitol. In certain embodiments, the powder contains Pluronic F-127 or F68 together with maltodextrin and sucrose. In certain forms, the powder contains carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), maltodextrin, and sucrose (see entire document, for instance, [0019], claim 1).
Regarding instant claim 26-27,29, Magdassi discloses lipophilic nanospheres containing a cannabinoid material (see entire document, for instance, [0144]). Magdassi teaches anorexia, emesis, pain, inflammation, multiple sclerosis, neurodegenerative disorders (such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, Tourette's syndrome, Alzheimer's disease), epilepsy, spasticity, autism, tuberculosis, inflammatory bowel diseases, including ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, irritable bowel syndrome, glaucoma, osteoporosis, schizophrenia, cardiovascular disorders, cancer, obesity, and metabolic syndrome-related disorders, fibromyalgia, graft versus host disease, constitute only a partial list of clinical conditions that are treatable by cannabinoid/cannabinoid agonists ([0076]). Magdassi teaches application to a wide range of human conditions, including inflammatory, neurological, psychiatric disorders, malignancies and further immune, metabolic disorders, nutritional deficiencies, infectious diseases, and types of gastrointestinal disorders, cardiovascular disorders, and various types of pain, including chronic and neuropathic pain ([0130]). Magdassi discloses lipo-nanospheres of a particular particle (droplets) size, have a potential to limitations in terms of increased dissolution or dispersion of actives, increased bioavailability and protection of actives from P-gp metabolism ([0026]). Magdassi teaches the potential of an increased bioavailability, especially for oral dosage forms ([0026]).
Regarding instant claim 31, Magdassi discloses parenteral administration (e.g., including all systemic administration routes, not involving administration via the gastrointestinal tract). Non-limiting administration routes effective for administration or powders or reconstituted formulations of the invention include oral, sublingual, mucosal, aerosol, inhalation, parenteral, subcutaneous, intravenous, intramuscular, interperitoneal, rectal and vaginal administrations ([0114]). Magdassi teaches oral dosage forms with a controlled release property ([0120]). The term “controlled release” refers to a property or a modification enabling to achieve time dependent release, sustained release, prolonged release and also pulse release, i.e., delayed release of the drug ([0120]). The term further relates to gastro-resistance, i.e., a property or a modification enabling to achieve pH-controlled drug release, gastrointestinal targeting, colon delivery, protection of acid-sensitive actives, protection of gastric mucosa from aggressive actives ([0120]). In this sense, gastro-resistance is also targeted drug release ([0120]). Gastro-resistant coatings and modifications are also known to improve storage stability ([0120]).
Claims 1,9,11-12,16-17,19-21,26-27 and 31 are rejected under Magdassi. Magdassi et al does not teach within a single embodiment in order to anticipate but renders obvious the instant claims. As such it would be obvious at the time the invention was filed to rearrange the components of Magdassi and obtain a composition as claimed. A reference is analyzed using its broadest reasonable interpretation. MPEP 2123 [R-5]. Where, as here, the specific combination of features claimed is disclosed within the broad teachings of the reference but the reference does not disclose the specific combination of variables (for example, surfactant selected from a natural emulsifier, a monoglyceride, a diglycerine, a glycolipid, a lecithin, a fatty alcohol, a fatty acid), in a specific embodiment or in a working example, “picking and choosing” within several variables does not necessarily give rise to anticipation. Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec., 868 F.2d 1251, 1262 (Fed. Circ. 1989).
However, "when 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". KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976). "[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious", the relevant question is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 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 emphasized that "[a] person of ordinary skill is ... a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 1742.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to rearrange the disclosed elements and embodiments of Magdassi et al., to include an example surfactant selected from a natural emulsifier, a monoglyceride, a diglycerine, a glycolipid, a lecithin, a fatty alcohol, a fatty acid, to prepare the claimed composition. Such a rearrangement by a person of ordinary skill in the art who is not an automaton to yield the instantly claimed compositions and methods is within the purview of the ordinary skilled artisan upon reading Magdassi et al., as cited above, and would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 1,9,11-12,16-17,19-22,26-27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magdassi et al (US 20210059975 A1; also available as IL261132A and WO2020035850A1) as applied to claims 1,9,11-12,16-17,19-21,26-27 and 31 above, and further in view of Shefer et al (US 20030152629 A1).
The teachings of Magdassi et al have been set forth above. Magdassi teaches surfactant however, they do not expressly disclose including surfactant selected from a natural emulsifier, a monoglyceride, a diglycerine, a glycolipid, a lecithin or a fatty alcohol. Shefer et al remedy this deficiency.
Shefer discloses multi component controlled release system that can be incorporated in oral care products, nutraceutical, food products and beverages to effectively encapsulate one or multiple active ingredients and sensory markers (i.e., flavors, cooling agents, sweeteners, etc.) and release multiple active ingredients in a consecutive manner, one after the other ([0003]). The controlled release system of the present invention enhances the stability and bioavailability of wide range of flavors, sensory markers, and other active ingredients, prolongs their residence time in the oral cavity, controls their release characteristics ([0003]). Shefer teaches the composition comprises microspheres having an average size form about 20 to 100 µm [0047]. Shefer provides that the composition comprises at least one sugar ([0083]). Shefer discloses that the composition comprises at least one polysaccharide ([0100]). Shefer provides that the composition comprises at least one surfactant ([0093] - [0097]). Shefer teaches that the composition comprises at least lipid, including: oils, lipophilic substances, animal fat or vegetable oil, such as soy oil, as a source of long chain triglycerides (LCT), medium chain triglycerides (MCT) [0091]. Shefer discloses that the composition comprises at least one lipophilic substance as matrix material for nanospheres, which encompasses a plurality of lipophilic nanospheres ([0088], See title of section I). Shefer teaches a high loading capacity of the nanosphere, including from about 1 to 80 wt.% of the active ingredients are in the nanospheres; and from about 1 to 50 wt.% of the active ingredients are in the microsphere, wherein the microsphere has about 1 to 80 wt.% of the nanospheres ([0089], [0117], [0132]).
Regarding instant claim 22, Shefer discloses the use of glycerines, including: mono and di types, fatty acids, and surfactants, including: lecithin ([0091], [0080] [0096]). It would have been obvious to utilize surfactants as taught in Shefer in the composition of Magdassi. One would be motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. There would be a reasonable expectation of success since Magdassi and Shefer are both drawn to compositions for enhances the stability and bioavailability of oral products.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1,9,19-22 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,6,9,18,20,22,26,78-79 and 81 of copending Application No. 17/779,036 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The copending claims are directed to an edible water-dispersible powder comprising a plurality of micrometric particles comprising: a) at least one sugar, b) at least one polysaccharide c) at least one surfactant and d) at least one liquid edible oil or at least one edible lipophilic substance dissolved in said at least one edible oil, which are configured to form a plurality of lipophilic non-solid nanospheres with an average size in the range of about 50 nm to about 900 nm comprised in the micrometric particles,
wherein an encapsulation capacity of the at least one edible lipophilic substance and/or the at least one edible oil is of at least 85%to 98%, and wherein the size of the nanospheres is substantially maintained upon dispersion of the powder composition in water, thereby conferring the edible powder improved delivery of edible lipophilic substances and oils. The powder of claim 1 having a loading capacity of the at least one edible lipophilic substance up to about 50% (w/w). The micrometric particles have an average size between about 10 pm and to about 300 pm. The at least one edible polysaccharide is selected from maltodextrin and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC). The at least one edible surfactant is selected from a monoglyceride, a diglycerine, a glycolipid, a lecithin, a fatty alcohol, a fatty acid, and a sucrose fatty acid ester (sugar ester), or a mixture thereof. An improved bio-accessibility of the at least one edible lipophilic substance into at least a part of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract or at least one tissue in the GI tract; (iii) an improved permeation of the at least one edible lipophilic substance into at least a part of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract or at least one tissue.
The copending claims, while teaching each of the instantly claimed elements, does not teach the elements with sufficient specificity to rise to the level of anticipation, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to utilize the elements as taught by the copending claims, and thereby arrive at the instantly claimed invention. There would be a reasonable expectation of success since it would require no more than following the guidance of the claims in order to arrive at the instantly claimed invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1,9,11,19, and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,31, and 65-66 of copending Application No. 17/800,333 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The copending claims are directed to a water-dispersible powder for cosmetic applications comprising at least one sugar, at least one polysaccharide, at least one surfactant and at least one cosmetic lipophilic active ingredient comprised or is dissolved in at least one liquid cosmetic oil, which are configured to form a plurality of micrometric particles each comprising a plurality of non-solid lipophilic nanospheres with an average size in the range of about 50 nm to about 900 nm, wherein the at least one cosmetic lipophilic substance is distributed inside and/or outside the lipophilic nanospheres wherein an encapsulation capacity of the at least one cosmetic lipophilic active ingredient and the at least one cosmetic oil is of at least 90- 98% , and wherein the size of the lipophilic nanospheres is substantially maintained upon dispersion of the powder in water and in high osmolarity solutions, thereby an improved topical and/or dermal delivery of the at least one cosmetic lipophilic active ingredient and/or at least one cosmetic oil. The at least one surfactant is selected from a monoglyceride, a diglycerine, a glycolipid, a lecithin, a fatty alcohol, a fatty acid, a sucrose fatty acid ester (sugar ester) or a mixture thereof. The micrometric particles have an average size between about 10 pm and to about 300 pm. The at least one sugar is selected from the groups of oligo-, di-, monosaccharides and polyols.
The copending claims, while teaching each of the instantly claimed elements, does not teach the elements with sufficient specificity to rise to the level of anticipation, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to utilize the elements as taught by the copending claims, and thereby arrive at the instantly claimed invention. There would be a reasonable expectation of success since it would require no more than following the guidance of the claims in order to arrive at the instantly claimed invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 0730-1730 Eastern.
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, Bethany Barham, can be reached at (571)272-6175. 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.
/JANET JOSEPH/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/TREVOR LOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights