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
The Applicant’s reply filed on 2/11/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 94-103 are pending. Claims 94-97 have been amended. Claims 1 and 94-103 are under consideration.
Objections Withdrawn
The objections of claims 94-97 is withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Rejections Maintained and New Grounds of Rejections
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/11/26. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 1 and 94-103 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.
The amount of xanthommatin required in Claim 1 is unclear. The claim recites the concentration of xanthommatin in both wt% and in mM. Calculating based on a solution in water, 0.6 mM is equivalent to approximately 0.025 wt% (using 423.3 g/mol as the molecular weight of xanthommatin and 1 g/ml as the density of the solution). Therefore, a 0.6 mM or greater solution would have 0.025 wt% or more xanthommatin. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because, for example, 0.01 wt% xanthommatin would satisfy the beginning of the claim (“1 wt% or less”) but would be outside of the claimed molarity. Likewise, a 25 mM solution would satisfy the end of the claim (e.g. at least 0.6 mM) but would be outside of the claimed wt% (i.e. 1.06 wt%). It is suggested to amend the claim such that the concentration is recited in either wt% or mM. Claims 94-103 are rejected depending from and not clarifying indefinite claim 1.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 94-103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2015/0342845) in view of Deravi et al. (WO 2019/060916; cited in IDS).
Hwang et al. teach a cosmetic composition with enhanced water resistance, color intensity and color retention after exposure to water, comprising a water dispersible film former component, a skin adhesion promoter component, a color enhancer component, and one or more colorants, and a one or more photoactives (e.g. abstract, paragraph 0015; Claims 1 and 18). Hwang et al. exemplify compositions comprising 0.5 or 1.2 wt% avobenzone and 0.1-5.0 wt% “Caramel and Pearls” (i.e. colorants) (e.g. Tables I, III, and V).
Hwang et al. do not teach that the colorant is xanthommatin in a solution of at least 0.6 mM or 1wt% or less. This is made up for by the teachings of Deravi et al.
Deravi et al. teach cosmetic and dermatological compositions, including color changing compositions, comprising one or more aggregates of a pigment selected from phenoxazone, phenoxazine, and a derivate or precursor thereof, and a stabilizing material (e.g. abstract). Deravi et al. teach that the pigment is xanthommatin (i.e. ammonium xanthommatin), which also functions as UVA and UVB absorber, and is present at 0.01-0.9 wt% (i.e. less than 1 wt%, and equivalent to 0.24-21.6 mM) (e.g. paragraph 0070-0074). Deravi et al. teach that the compositions can be used as total solar radiation protectants that can be used alone or in combination with other commercially available antioxidants and UV filters (e.g. paragraph 0049). Deravi et al. teach that the compositions have a number of advantages, for example, when designed as cosmetic and dermatological compositions and adjuvants, they can provide improved hiding power, improved dispersion ability and improved weather durability, and can impart luminosity and diffuse reflectance of light while still being stable when excited by all wavelengths of solar light. Further, they can provide improved solar protection, including protection from infrared radiation and visible light, and/or suppression of ROS formation. Yet further, they can provide color, and color tunability in response to pH and electrochemical (or chemical redox) triggers (e.g. paragraph 0005).
Regarding Claims 1 and 99, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the xanthommatin of Deravi et al. for use in the compositions of Hwang et al. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have predicted success as both of the compositions are cosmetic compositions comprising both UV filters and colorants. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include the xanthommatin of Deravi et al. in the cosmetic compositions of Hwang et al. in order to provide the benefits of improved hiding power, improved dispersion ability and improved weather durability, luminosity and diffuse reflectance of light while still being stable when excited by all wavelengths of solar light, improved solar protection, including protection from infrared radiation and visible light, and/or suppression of ROS formation (e.g. paragraph 0005).
Regarding Claims 94-97, Deravi et al. teach that the xanthommatin is present at 0.01-0.9 wt% (i.e. less than 1 wt%, and equivalent to 0.24-21.6 mM), which overlaps the claimed ranges and values (e.g. paragraph 0070-0074). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding Claim 98, Hwang et al. exemplify compositions comprising 0.5 or 1.2 wt% avobenzone, which are within the claimed range (e.g. Tables I, III, and V).
Regarding Claim 100, Hwang et al. exemplify compositions comprising glyceryl stearate (e.g. Tables I and III).
Regarding Claims 101-103, Hwang et al. teach that the compositions may be in the form of a lotion, cream gel, or spray, and a solution or emulsion (e.g. paragraph 0027, 0061, 0062; Examples).
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 and 94-103 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 18/291,393 in view of Hwang et al. (US 2015/0342845).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claim 1, both the instant and copending claims require an unsaturated solution of a phenoxazone and/or phenoxazine compound, or a salt thereof, and one or more further cosmetic compositions or topical dermatologic drug compositions. Copending claim 15 recites that the phenoxazone and/or phenoxazine compound is xanthommatin. Copending Claim 20 recites that the phenoxazone and/or phenoxazine compound, or a salt thereof, comprises 0.01-1 wt % of the ingredient blend.
Copending ‘393 does not claim that the further ingredient is avobenzone. This is made up for by Hwang et al.
Hwang et al. teach a cosmetic composition with enhanced sun protection, water resistance, color intensity and color retention after exposure to water, comprising a water dispersible film former component, a skin adhesion promoter component, a color enhancer component, and one or more colorants, and a one or more photoactives (e.g. abstract, paragraph 0005 and 0015; Claims 1 and 18). Hwang et al. exemplify compositions comprising 0.5 or 1.2 wt% avobenzone and 0.1-5.0 wt% “Caramel and Pearls” (i.e. colorants) (e.g. Tables I, III, and V).
Regarding Claims 1 and 99, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the avobenzone of Hwang et al. for use in the compositions of Copending ‘393. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have predicted success as both of the compositions are cosmetic compositions comprising UV filters and colorants. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include the ingredients of Hwang et al. in order to provide the benefits of enhanced sun protection, water resistance, color intensity and color retention after exposure to water. 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, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claims 94-97, copending Claim 20 recites that the phenoxazone and/or phenoxazine compound, or a salt thereof, comprises 0.01-1 wt % of the ingredient blend (i.e. less than 1 wt%, and equivalent to 0.24-21.6 mM), which overlaps the claimed ranges and values (e.g. paragraph 0070-0074). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding Claim 98, Hwang et al. exemplify compositions comprising 0.5 or 1.2 wt% avobenzone, which are within the claimed range (e.g. Tables I, III, and V).
Regarding Claim 100, Hwang et al. exemplify compositions comprising glyceryl stearate (e.g. Tables I and III).
Regarding Claims 101-103, Hwang et al. teach that the compositions may be in the form of a lotion, cream gel, or spray, and a solution or emulsion (e.g. paragraph 0027, 0061, 0062; Examples).
Claims 1 and 94-103 directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claims 1-21 of commonly assigned 18/291,393. Specifically, see above.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The USPTO normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). Commonly assigned 18/291,393, discussed above, may form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the patentably indistinct inventions were not commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention.
In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i) to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Alternatively, the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; the application must also be amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
A showing that the inventions were commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 based upon the commonly assigned case. Alternatively, applicant may take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications, or the patent and the application, no longer contain claims directed to patentably indistinct inventions.
Claims 1 and 94-103 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 35, 40, 42, 45, 47, 52-58, 60-65 of copending Application No. 17/819,981 in view of Hwang et al. (US 2015/0342845).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claim 1, both the instant and copending claims require 1 wt% or less (0.01-0.5 wt%) xanthommatin, and a UV filter.
Copending ‘981 does not claim that the further ingredient is avobenzone. This is made up for by Hwang et al.
Hwang et al. teach a cosmetic composition with enhanced sun protection, water resistance, color intensity and color retention after exposure to water, comprising a water dispersible film former component, a skin adhesion promoter component, a color enhancer component, and one or more colorants, and a one or more photoactives (e.g. abstract, paragraph 0005 and 0015; Claims 1 and 18). Hwang et al. exemplify compositions comprising 0.5 or 1.2 wt% avobenzone and 0.1-5.0 wt% “Caramel and Pearls” (i.e. colorants) (e.g. Tables I, III, and V).
Regarding Claims 1 and 99, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the avobenzone of Hwang et al. for use in the compositions of Copending ‘981. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have predicted success as both of the compositions are cosmetic compositions comprising UV filters and colorants. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include the ingredients of Hwang et al. in order to provide the benefits of enhanced sun protection, water resistance, color intensity and color retention after exposure to water. 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, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claims 94-97, copending Claims 35, 45 and 60 recite that the phenoxazone and/or phenoxazine compound, or a salt thereof, comprises 0.01-0.5 wt % of the ingredient blend (i.e. less than 1 wt%, and equivalent to 0.24-21.6 mM), which overlaps the claimed ranges and values (e.g. paragraph 0070-0074). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding Claim 98, Hwang et al. exemplify compositions comprising 0.5 or 1.2 wt% avobenzone, which are within the claimed range (e.g. Tables I, III, and V).
Regarding Claim 100, Hwang et al. exemplify compositions comprising glyceryl stearate (e.g. Tables I and III).
Regarding Claims 101-103, Hwang et al. teach that the compositions may be in the form of a lotion, cream gel, or spray, and a solution or emulsion (e.g. paragraph 0027, 0061, 0062; Examples).
Claims 1 and 94-103 directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claims 1-21 of commonly assigned 17/819,981. Specifically, see above.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The USPTO normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). Commonly assigned 17/819,981, discussed above, may form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the patentably indistinct inventions were not commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention.
In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i) to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Alternatively, the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; the application must also be amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
A showing that the inventions were commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 based upon the commonly assigned case. Alternatively, applicant may take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications, or the patent and the application, no longer contain claims directed to patentably indistinct inventions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 112(b), Applicant argues pending independent claim 1 recites a single, internally consistent limitation: an unsaturated solution that is both "1 wt % or less" and "at least 0.6 mM" of xanthommatin or a precursor, derivative, or salt thereof. Applicant submits that there is no ambiguity in the recited features of pending claim 1.
This is not found persuasive. The claim recites two ranges of concentrations which differ in scope and are not properly identified as an upper and lower limit. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because, for example, 0.01 wt% xanthommatin would satisfy the beginning of the claim (“1 wt% or less”) but would be outside of the claimed molarity. Likewise, a 25 mM solution would satisfy the end of the claim (e.g. at least 0.6 mM) but would be outside of the claimed wt% (i.e. 1.06 wt%). It is suggested to amend the claim such that the concentration is recited in either wt% or mM with an explicit upper and lower limit, for example, “0.05 wt% to 1 wt%”.
Regarding the rejection under 103, Applicant argues the references individually.
This is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the xanthommatin of Deravi et al. for use in the compositions of Hwang et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have predicted success as both of the compositions are cosmetic compositions comprising both UV filters and colorants. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include the xanthommatin of Deravi et al. in the cosmetic compositions of Hwang et al. in order to provide the benefits of improved hiding power, improved dispersion ability and improved weather durability, luminosity and diffuse reflectance of light while still being stable when excited by all wavelengths of solar light, improved solar protection, including protection from infrared radiation and visible light, and/or suppression of ROS formation (e.g. paragraph 0005).
Applicant further argues that the specification of the application as filed demonstrates that an unsaturated xanthommatin solution at .6 mM (<1 wt %) unexpectedly (1) boosts avobenzone's UV absorbance by up to ~250 % in the UVB region and ~9% in the UVA region superior to conventional boosters such as oxybenzone or octinoxate, and (2) stabilizes avobenzone against photodegradation, maintaining SPF and absorbance over weeks. These advantages are not suggested by the cited art. The claimed combination therefore represents a non- obvious improvement.
This is not found persuasive. Regarding Example 3, it is noted that xanthommatin alone has not been tested. It is not clear that the combination of avobenzone and xanthommatin is unexpected without knowing the value of xanthommatin alone. Especially given Deravi’s teaching that “xanthommatin… have an intrinsic UV absorbance and ability to scatter light - both are characteristics that contribute to brightening and/or distorting visible color. Specifically, these pigments are UVA and UVB absorbers, which makes them suitable for sun-protectant compositions” (e.g. paragraph 0073). Figure 12 of Deravi demonstrates a higher SPF value for xanthommatin vs avobenzone (0026, 00142 and Figure 12). It is not clear that a composition of the prior art, i.e. that of Deravi, would not also provide the same result. This appears to be the case, as shown in the instant Example 5 and Figure 16. It appear that the increase in UVA and UVB performance is due to the presence of the xanthommatin and not necessarily the combination of avobenzone and xanthommatin as claimed. The effect does not appear to be greater than additive. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE PLOURDE BABSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3055. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-4:30; F 8-12:30.
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 on 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.
/NICOLE P BABSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619