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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/03/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 07/03/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 48 is new. Claims 7-12, 14, 19-33, 35-38, and 41-46 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 47 have been amended. Claims 1-6, 13, 15-18, 34, 39-40 and 47-48 are presented for examination on the merits for patentability.
Rejection(s) not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites “wherein the Lamiaceae extract comprises phenolic diterpenes, or is enriched in phenolic diterpenes…” The “in” should be replaced with “with”.
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.
Claim 13 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.
Claim 13 is rejected because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation in the same claim is 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). 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 13 recites “soya” and “beans”, which are the narrow and broad terms, respectively. The claim also recites “tomato” and “solanum”, which are the related narrow and broad terms. Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 13, 15-16, 18, and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller et al. (WO2017/037157 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 16, and 47 Mueller teaches poultry feed additive comprising microencapsulated essential thyme oil, and saponin contained in Quillaja bark powder (Abstract; Claim 1). Mueller teaches that thyme oil is used as antibacterial oil, and has a high amount of antioxidative phenolic compounds, such as carvacrol and thymol, correlated with the strongest antibacterial properties against food borne pathogens (p. 13, lines 13-18). As such, the claims are anticipated.
Regarding Claim 13, Mueller teaches admixing soybean, which would contain the saponin (p. 5, lines 15-17; p. 26, lines 8-12).
Regarding Claim 15 and 18, Mueller teaches a new poultry feed additive comprising <2.3%, or 23,000 ppm, saponin from Quillaja bark powder.
Regarding Claim 48, regardless of the recitation of its use or mechanism, a composition claim is examined based on the components and not by what occurs when used. As such, the recitation of “wherein the composition provides an antimicrobial and/or preservative effect when present at a concentration from about 50 ppm to about 20,000 ppm in a food or beverage product”, is not given patentable weight. "A 'whereby' clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim." Texas Instruments, Inc. v. International Trade Comm., 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed._Cir. 1993). See also Minton v. National Assoc. of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("A whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited."). Note MPEP 2111.04. In this case, Claim 48 uses the term "wherein", rather than "whereby", but it is concluded that the terms should be treated the same ... the wherein clause merely characterizes the results of using the composition, to which the instant claims are drawn, and does not distinguish the instantly claimed application from the application taught in the prior art.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-2, 13, 15-16, 18, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen et al. (EP1129627 A1; Of record), hereinafter Jensen.
Jensen discloses a natural feed additive comprising a first active component containing saponin based from Yucca, Quillaja, Azadirachta and/or Tirgonellan, and a second active containing antibacterial substance from citrus, hips, grapes, green pepper or Lamiaceae family (Abstract). Jensen teaches obtaining the first and second active components obtained by extraction or pressing followed by isolation and/or drying into a powder ([0024], [0032], [0049]-[0051]). Jensen discloses different additives comprising the combinations of components (Examples 1-5).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 15-16, and Claim 18, Jensen expressly teaches the production of feed additive comprising yucca powder, oregano powder and rosemary powder (Example 4). The feed additive reads on the feature of “food…for animals” in Claim 16. Jensen teaches that the plant material containing approximately 8% by weight of saponin must be included in the recipe [0024]. When a specific recipe indicates 35 g of Yucca-powder, and the Yucca-powder available only contains 4% by weight of saponin, it is necessary to use 70 g of the Yucca-powder [0024]. By Examiner’s calculation, 8% is equivalent to 80,000 ppm which is within the claimed range in Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 13, Jensen relates that saponin-containing or flavonoid-containing plant materials in animal feed for farm animals are known to improve the environment as well as the state of health of animals, wherein the compositions are admixed into animal feed and causes a reduced release of ammonium and sulphur gases from the animals [0006]. Jensen teaches compositions can comprise a mixture of saponin, inclusive of garlic [0006]-[0007].
Regarding Claim 47, Jensen teaches the natural feed additive comprises saponin obtained from Yucca, Quillaja etc., and an antibacterial substance from inter alia Lamiaceae family (Claim 1).
Claims 3-6, 17, 39, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Choe et al. (KR 2011-0130074A; Of record), hereinafter Choe.
The teachings of Jensen are set forth above.
Jensen does not expressly teach the Lamiaceae phenolic diterpene.
Regarding Claims 3-4, 6, and 39, Choe discloses antibacterial composition in the form of feed additive, preservative etc., comprising 0.5-1% carnosic acid as active ingredient, wherein the carnosic acid is isolated from rosemary extract (Abstract; Claims 1-4). The concentration of carnosic acid touches the at least about 1% claimed, and renders the amount in Claim 4 obvious.
Both Choe and Jensen are in the feed additive field, and teach antibacterial substances in the feed. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Choe with Jensen and incorporate about 1% carnosic acid from rosemary extract, which both have identified to be useful for feed additive. The conclusion of obviousness is grounded on the rationale that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings and arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2143.01 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 5, Choe discloses 1% carnosic acid whereas Jensen teaches 8% saponin in its composition. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to start with this amounts of actives, which gives a ratio of 1:8 carnosic acid to saponin, and is within the claimed range.
Regarding Claims 17 and 48, Choe discloses 1% carnosic acid, which corresponds to 10,000 ppm, and is within the claimed ranges.
Further regarding Claim 48, regardless of the recitation of its use or mechanism, a composition claim is examined based on the components and not by what occurs when used. As such, the recitation of “wherein the composition provides an antimicrobial and/or preservative effect when present at a concentration from about 50 ppm to about 20,000 ppm in a food or beverage product”, is not given patentable weight. "A 'whereby' clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim." Texas Instruments, Inc. v. International Trade Comm., 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed._Cir. 1993). See also Minton v. National Assoc. of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("A whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited."). Note MPEP 2111.04. In this case, Claim 48 uses the term "wherein", rather than "whereby", but it is concluded that the terms should be treated the same ... the wherein clause merely characterizes the results of using the composition, to which the instant claims are drawn, and does not distinguish the instantly claimed application from the application taught in the prior art.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen as applied to Claim 16 above, and in view of Berdahl et al. (US 7,550,162 B2; Of record), hereinafter Berdahl.
The teachings of Jensen have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 34, Berdahl discloses a packaged food product comprising the food with an antioxidant which contains a rosemary herb acid selected from the group consisting of carnosic acid, carnosol etc., wherein the food has been packaged by modified atmosphere packaging in an atmosphere comprising 20% or more oxygen and a mixture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen (Claims 1-6). Berdahl teaches that hop extracts containing beta acids, in combination with Labiatae herb extracts, most preferably rosemary extract, containing, carnosic acid, carnosol and/or rosmarinic acid, enhance the color shelf life and retard the growth of microorganisms in meat, fish and poultry stored in an atmosphere that contains 20% or more oxygen (Col. 6, lines 44-51). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Jensen and use the composition in Berdahl comprising the feed-additive containing rosemary in packaged food or feed under 20% oxygen or more in order to retard the growth of microorganisms.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Choe, as applied to Claims 3 and 39, and in further view of Aguilar et al. (The EFSA Journal (2008) 721, 1-29; Of record), hereinafter Aguilar.
The teachings of Jensen and Choe are above. These references do not expressly teach other phenolic diterpene derivatives.
Aguilar teaches rosemary extract for use as flavouring in processed food and drinks, i.e. incorporating the rosemary extracts in food products, e.g., meats, sauces, seasonings, dietary supplements, flavorings, and soft drinks (p. 12-29, Section 1.7, 2nd paragraph; Table 4). Aguilar relates that the antioxidant activity of rosemary extract can be attributed mainly to two components, carnosic acid and carnosol, which is a carnosic acid derivative (p. 9-29, Section 1.3, 1st paragraph).
Aguilar teaches rosemary extracts prepared using different production process, which gives varying amounts of phenolic diterpenes, carnosol and carnosic acid (pp. 6-29 to 7-29, Section 1.2. For example, Aguilar teaches a rosemary extract D74 comprising 8.7% carnosic acid and 1.3% carnosol (Extract D74, Table 1, p. 8-29). Aguilar also teaches the extract comprising 0.65 mg/kg Genkwanin (Extract D74, Table 1, p. 8-29).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Aguilar with that of Jensen and use rosemary extract comprising phenolic diterpenes carnosic acid and carnosol, which Aguilar teaches to provide antioxidant activity of rosemary extract.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant appears to argue that the Lamiaceae extract is not taught by Jensen because Jensen describes yucca and rosemary powders, and yucca and thyme powders, which are not extracts because i) extraction requires some solvent; ii) Jensen does not disclose the origins of the materials used in examples 2 or 4. As such, the skilled person would understand that yucca and rosemary are being used as powders, without extraction. Applicant reasons that extraction confers different properties compared to simply powdering the same plant as performed in the examples of Jensen.
The Examiner has considered the argument but traverses for multiple reasons.
First, the claim requires a) at least one Lamiaceae extract; and b) at least one Quillaja or yucca saponin, and does not recite the origin, or solvent, or extraction that the Applicant is arguing. Second, the claims are drawn to an antimicrobial and/or preservative composition and not method of making the antimicrobial and/or preservative composition. If the product is the same as a product from the prior art, the claim is unpatentable. Third, Applicant appears to be of the position that the Jensen only teaches powdered forms of the plant, which are not the same as extracting the actives with solvent. However, this is not the case. Jensen teaches “The plant material to be used in the feed additive according to the invention can be suitably processed, such as by the parts of the plant being dried and ground to a powder. The active substances can alternatively be extracted by means of a solvent, such as an aqueous solvent, and dried into a powder under lenient conditions.” [0049]. The Examiner then points to Jensen’s Claim 1 specifically requiring “b) a first active component comprising saponin and being obtained from a plant material originating from one or more plants selected among the genera Yucca, Quillaja, Azadirachta and/or Trigonella…and c) a second active component comprising an antibacterially active substance obtained from a plant material originating from one or more plants selected …(Lamiaceae)”. Jensen clearly differentiates just drying and grinding the plant parts to powder vs. the extracted active substances, citing the second active component being obtained from Lamiaceae etc. “by drying and grinding of the parts of a plant containing the active substances, or the substances are obtained in another way, such as by extraction or pressing followed by isolation and/or drying.” ([0024], [0032]). Applicant is reminded that the disclosure of a reference must be considered as expansively as is reasonably possible to determine the full scope of the disclosure. Thus, the fact that Jensen teaches drying and grinding of plant parts does not negate or direct the artisan away from the broader teaching of the reference, which expressly provides for, and, thus, clearly contemplates extraction with solvent followed by drying to obtain the powdered extract.
Applicant alleges that while Choe discloses an antibacterial composition comprising 0.5-1 % carnosic acid isolated from rosemary extract, this amount does not inform the skilled person on how much carnosic acid was present in the rosemary extract.
This argument is unpersuasive. Choe expressly recites “An antibacterial composition contains 0.5-1% of carnosic acid as an active ingredient” (Abstract and Claim 2). Choe discloses the antibacterial composition in the form of feed additive or preservative (Claim 1). The instant Claims 3-4, 6, and 39 requires that the antimicrobial composition comprises “at least about 1%... of the phenolic diterpene/s, carnosic acid etc.”, and does not require the recitation of the amount of extract in the rosemary extract.
Applicant argues that Jensen’s teaching of 8% saponin is for the plant material and not its composition, therefore Claims 5 and 6 are not obvious. Further, there is no teaching of carnosol.
This argument was also found unpersuasive. Jensen gives guidance on the variation, and that “the quantities…must be related to a plant material containing approximately 8% by weight of saponin. Thus when a specific recipe indicates 35 g of Yucca-powder, and the Yucca-powder available only contains 4% by weight of saponin, it is according to the recipe necessary to use 70 g of the Yucca-powder…” [0024]. This clearly indicates that the saponin needs to be adjusted to 8% in the final, so that when the powder only give 4% yield of the saponin, the amount of the starting material needs to be doubled to get the 8% in the final composition. The Examiner further notes that event at 4% saponin, the ratio of phenolic diterpene to saponin in Claim 5 is obvious.
Regarding the carnosol in Claim 6, the requirement is for a) OR b), and does not require both the carnosic acid AND carnosol.
Applicant claims unexpected synergistic antimicrobial effect from the combination of Lamiaceae extract with Quillaja and/or yucca saponins.
Applicant did not provide any discussion of any data regarding the claimed unexpected synergistic antimicrobial effect . As such, the Examiner equates the statement to a conclusory argument and nothing more.
Nevertheless, evaluating the data in Table 3 of the disclosure, the Examiner notes that the data fails to be probative of nonobviousness of the instantly claimed subject matter because the data fails to demonstrate that the results observed in the instant Application is unexpectedly greater than what would have already been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Please see MPEP §716.02(b)[R-2], which states, “The evidence relied upon should establish ‘that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.’ Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992)”. Applicant has yet to compare its composition with that of Jensen to provide clear evidence that that the claimed antimicrobial/preservative property is greater than that of the prior art. As it stands, because Jensen teaches the claimed Quillaja saponin and Lamiaceae extract, the antimicrobial/preservative property of the instantly claimed composition as compared to that of Jensen’s is expected to be comparable. The establishment of a property that is also found in the prior art fails to provide a patentable distinction between the products and, therefore, is insufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness. Please see MPEP §716.02(c)[R-2] (“Where the unexpected properties of a claimed invention are not shown to have a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties, the evidence of unexpected properties may not be sufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness. [n re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977).”) In other words, though Applicant asserts that the allegedly unexpected synergistic effect of the instantly claimed composition was unpredictable from the disclosure of the prior art, it remains that the prior art acknowledges a clear expectation of this property, and is, thus, predicted by the skilled artisan.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4, 6, 16-17, 34, 39-40, and 47-48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2, 11, and 14-15 of US 10,321,695 B2, hereinafter ‘695, in view of Jensen.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to the same subject matter and composition components.
Both the instant claims and ‘695 are drawn to an antimicrobial composition comprising Lamiaceae extract selected from rosemary extract, oregano extract, thyme extract etc., and contains phenolic diterpenes selected from carnosol, carnosic acid, etc. at overlapping amounts claimed (Claims 1-2, 11, and 21). The difference lies in the intended use of ‘695, and that ‘695 does not teach the combination with a Quillaja or yucca saponin. However, Jensen cures the deficiency of ‘695.
The teachings of Jensen have been set forth in the rejections above. Notably, Jensen teaches the use of saponin-containing or flavonoid-containing plant materials in animal feed for farm animals. Jensen claims surprising result in producing a feed additive by using a combination of an oligosaccharide, a saponin-containing material preferably from plants and additional plant material containing natural antibacterial substances, where said feed additive can match the classic growth-promoters with respect to efficiency ([0012], [0016], [0065]-[0066]).
‘695 and Jensen both recognize the antibacterial properties of the Lamiaceae extract and saponin based from Yucca and Quillaja, and therefore are compatible. As a general principle it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, i.e. bacterial inhibition, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. See In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) MPEP 2144.06.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of ‘695 and Jensen and add Quillaja or yucca extract in the antibacterial composition comprising Lamiaceae extract of ‘695 for use, for example, in an animal feed additive, because Jensen has taught that the combination of saponin-containing material preferably from plants and additional plant material containing natural antibacterial substances can match the classic growth-promoters with respect to efficiency.
Therefore, the claims are drawn to the same subject matter and are not patentably distinct from the instant claims.
Response to Arguments:
The crux of Applicant’s argument is that ‘695 does not teach the combination of one Lamiaceae extract and an at least Quillaja or yucca saponin, and that adding Jensen would not provide additional benefit to the claims of ‘695.
The Examiner now expressly states the benefit of adding the teachings of Jensen in the rejection above, i.e. to obtain a feed additive composition comprising saponin-containing material and additional plant material containing natural antibacterial substances that can act efficiently as growth-promoters.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10-6 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JANICE Y SILVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights