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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 March 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
The amendment, filed on 24 March 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 19, and 21 are amended.
Claims 5-6 and 12 are cancelled.
New claims 22-27 are entered.
Claim 17 was previously withdrawn from consideration in the non-final Office Action mailed on 19 September 2025.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 14-15, and 19-27 are pending in the instant application.
Newly submitted claims 26-27 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: In the response to restriction/election received on 14 July 2025, Applicant elected without traverse the species glyceryl oleate as the nonionic surfactant and cocamidopropyl betaine as the amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant. Newly submitted claims 26 and 27 limit the composition of claim 1 to have no nonionic surfactant or amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant, respectively, which fall outside the limitations of the elected invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 26-27 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 14-15, and 19-25 are under consideration in the instant Office Action, to the extent of the previously elected species:
the specific wax particle is ethylene glycol distearate;
the specific sulfate-free anionic surfactant is sodium methyl cocoyl taurate;
the specific amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant is cocamidopropyl betaine; and
the specific nonionic surfactant is glyceryl oleate.
Rejections Withdrawn
Rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-10, 14, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 and in favor of the new grounds of rejection below. The rejection of claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is rendered moot in view of the cancellation of the claims.
Rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 14-15, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims and in favor of the new grounds of rejection below. The rejection of claims 5-6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of the claims.
New Grounds of Objection
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because it appears to have inadvertently omitted the word “and” following the semi-colon. The claim should be amended to include the omitted conjunction.
Appropriate correction is required.
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Instant claim 1 was amended to recite an amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant in an amount from 0-4.5% w/w and a nonionic surfactant in an amount from 0-5% w/w. Instant claim 2 was amended to recite an amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant in an amount of at least 0.1% w/w and instant claim 3 was amended to recite a nonionic surfactant in an amount of at least 0.1% w/w. Both claims 2 and 3 allow for quantities greater than 4.5% w/w or 5% w/w, respectively, which fall outside the ranges recited in instant claim 1 and claims 2-3 therefore fail to limit the claim from which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 7, 9-10, 14-15, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieendick et al. (WIPO International Patent Publication No. WO 2019/228975 A1, published on 5 December 2019, provided by Applicant in the IDS filed on 15 January 2024, references to English translation, hereafter referred to as Nieendick) in view of Cline et al. (Cutis. 2018, 101, 22., hereafter referred to as Cline) and Prabhjyot Singh ("Sulfate free solutions for personal care applications" in "Advances in Cosmetic Formulation Design", ECI Symposium Series, 2018. Accessed at dc.engconfintl.org/cosmetic/29 on 14 September 2026, hereafter referred to as Singh).
Nieendick teaches aqueous wax dispersions which can be used as opacifiers and for improving “the conditioning effect in hair care preparations” (Abstract). Opacifiers are taught to be added to cosmetic compositions to modify the appearance and/or conditioning effect, with opacifiers being taught to be capable of imparting a pearlescent appearance or a non-glossy whitening, which Nieendick describes as “milky” (pg. 2, lines 7-18). The invention of Nieendick is taught to show a whitening or milky appearance “and no pearlescence” (pg. 2, lines 18-20) or “a white turbidity without pearlescence” (pg. 2, line 40), which is considered equivalent to the opacifier composition that is “a milky-turbid emulsion and is not pearlescent” recited in amended claim 1.
The opacifier compositions of Nieendick are taught to comprise ethylene glycol fatty acid esters as the wax body, fatty acid partial glycerides, anionic surfactants, and amphoteric surfactants (pg. 2, lines 26-30). The fatty acid ester of ethylene glycol in one embodiment is taught to be the ester of ethylene glycol and stearic acid ethylene glycol distearate (pg. 2, lines 31 and 44-49 and pg. 3, lines 1-2). The fatty acid ester of ethylene glycol is taught to be present in an amount from 20-35% w/w (pg. 3, lines 6-7). The fatty acid partial glycerides are taught, in one embodiment, to be 50-95% w/w monoglycerides and in a preferred embodiment the fatty acid is taught to be oleic acid (pg. 3, lines 13-21). The fatty acid partial glycerides are taught to be present in an amount from 0.5-3.0% w/w, which would result in 0.25-2.85% w/w monoglyceryl oleate (pg. 3, line 23).
The anionic surfactants are taught to preferably be fatty alcohol (ether) sulfates present in an amount of 8-15% w/w (pg. 3, lines 27 and 37). Nieendick also teaches sulfate-free anionic surfactants may be used and in one embodiment the anionic surfactant is taught to be a fatty acid tauride, another name for an acyl taurate (pg. 3, lines 51-55). Nieendick further teaches that the amphoteric surfactants in their composition are preferably betaines (pg. 3, line 41) and in a preferred embodiment the betaine is cocamidopropyl betaine (pg. 4, line 31). The amphoteric surfactants are taught to be present in an amount from 0.5-3.0% w/w (pg. 4, line 32). Finally, Nieendick teaches the use of their opacifier compositions in cosmetic preparations in amounts of 1-5% w/w (pg. 5, line 21).
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 range of quantities of ethylene glycol distearate, anionic surfactant, cocamidopropyl betaine, glyceryl oleate, and opacifier composition present in cosmetics taught by Nieendick.
Nieendick does not teach motivation to select the acyl taurate sodium methyl cocoyl taurate over a sulfate-containing anionic surfactant. This deficiency is offset by the teachings of Cline and Singh.
Cline teaches the increased scrutiny of ingredients in shampoos and other cosmetic products by the public, in particular the use of sulfates and parabens (Abstract). The subcategory of surfactants that are anionic and comprise sulfate groups are commonly referred to as “sulfates”, which Cline teaches to have a negative reputation due to surfactants such as sodium lauryl sulfate being a skin and scalp irritant and erroneously labelled as carcinogenic (pg. 23, left col., para. 3). Due to the potent surfactant abilities of sulfate surfactants, they can “leave the hair feeling dry and stripped of moisture” and “can have cosmetically unpleasant properties” (pg. 23, right col., final para. - pg. 24, left col., para. 1). Cline notes that public demand has resulted in some product developers “reformulating shampoos with labels that indicate sulfate free or paraben free” (pg. 22, right col., para. 1).
Singh teaches that the “sulfate-free market is driven by consumers”, with a clear trend towards the use of natural, environmentally friendly ingredients (Slide 3). Sulfate-free cosmetics are increasing in prevalence (Slides 4-5), but formulating sulfate-free products is taught to be challenging (Slide 6). Singh teaches that sodium methyl cocoyl taurate is a sulfate-free surfactant with unique benefits (Slide 7), including the ability to be processed at low temperatures without adding pearlescence or forming a viscous or pasty composition (Slide 24) and to maintain storage stability at room temperature, 2 °C, and 45 °C for 12 weeks in a sulfate-free cosmetic composition (Slide 25).
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 modify the invention of Nieendick to substitute the sulfate-containing anionic surfactant with the sulfate-free sodium methyl cocoyl taurate in view of the teachings of Cline and Singh because simple substitution of one known element for another in response to market demands and safety concerns produces predictable results. Nieendick rendered obvious a milky turbid opacifier composition comprising ethylene glycol distearate, an anionic surfactant, cocamidopropyl betaine, and glyceryl oleate in quantities that encompass, fall within, or significantly overlap with the amounts recited in instant claims 1-4 and 23. Nieendick further teaches use of the opacifier composition in a cosmetic composition in amounts that fall within the range recited in instant claim 15.
In view of the teachings of Cline, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a sulfate-free anionic surfactant because Cline teaches that surfactants containing sulfates can be skin and scalp irritants, may lead users to consider the composition to be carcinogenic, can “leave the hair feeling dry and stripped of moisture”, and “can have cosmetically unpleasant properties”. The ordinary artisan would recognize these properties and consumer perceptions as undesirable in a cosmetic composition and would not want to use a sulfate-containing anionic surfactant in their composition. In view of the teachings of Singh, the ordinary artisan would be motivated to select sodium methyl cocoyl taurate as the sulfate-free anionic surfactant because Singh teaches it to be a suitable replacement for sulfate-containing surfactants in cosmetic compositions and to possess desirable properties including the ability to be processed at low temperatures without adding pearlescence or forming a viscous or pasty composition and to maintain long-term storage stability. A person of ordinary skill would recognize these properties as desirable and be motivated to substitute the sulfate-free surfactant for the sulfate-containing surfactant in response to clear market demands. The ordinary artisan would also reasonably expect sodium methyl cocoyl taurate to be suitable for their invention because Nieendick teaches that fatty acid taurides are anionic surfactants that may be used in their invention. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of claims 1-4, 7, 9-10, 14-15, and 19-24 in view of the teachings of Nieendick, Cline, and Singh.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieendick (WIPO International Patent Publication No. WO 2019/228975 A1, published on 5 December 2019, provided by Applicant in the IDS filed on 15 January 2024, references to English translation) in view of Cline (Cutis. 2018, 101, 22.) and Singh ("Sulfate free solutions for personal care applications" in "Advances in Cosmetic Formulation Design", ECI Symposium Series, 2018. Accessed at dc.engconfintl.org/cosmetic/29 on 14 September 2026) as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 9-10, 14-15, and 19-24 above, and further in view of Bettenhausen (How companies are getting 1,4-dioxane out of home and personal care products. Chemical & Engineering News, published on 22 March 2020, Vol. 98, Issue 11).
Nieendick, Cline, and Singh have been described above.
Nieendick, Cline, and Singh do not teach their composition to be formulated without ethylene oxide. This deficiency is offset by the teachings of Bettenhausen.
Bettenhausen teaches that ethoxylated fatty alcohols are commonly used surfactants in household cleaning products (pg. 2, para. 1-2). However, the process of manufacturing the surfactants creates 1,4-dioxane as a byproduct, which is a “likely human carcinogen” and “does not readily biodegrade in the environment” (pg. 2, para. 3). To limit groundwater contamination, the state of New York was taught to pass a law “severely limiting” the concentration of 1,4-dioxane in products, and the state of California was expected to follow suit and pass a similar regulation (pg. 2, antepenultimate para. and pg. 3, para. 3). Efforts to reduce the concentration of dioxane in products has required careful attention to reaction conditions and improved capabilities for dioxane removal post-processing, but manufactures have stated that “it is easier to suppress dioxane formation than it is to remove the by-product afterward” (pg. 4, antepenultimate para. - pg. 5, para. 2). To avoid the toxic compound, Bettenhausen teaches that some manufacturers are pursuing surfactants that are not alcohol ethoxylates (pg. 3, para. 1, pg. 5, para. 3, and pg. 6, para. 4-7). Finally, Bettenhausen teaches that due to the lower water content in concentrates, the concentration of dioxane can be a bigger problem (pg. 6, para. 2).
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 modify the invention rendered obvious by the teachings of Nieendick, Cline, and Singh to be formulated to be ethylene oxide free in view of the teachings of Bettenhausen because the use of a technique known in the art to improve a product in a similar field yields predictable results. The teachings of Nieendick, Cline, and Sing rendered obvious a milky turbid opacifier composition comprising ethylene glycol distearate, sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, cocamidopropyl betaine, and glyceryl oleate in quantities that encompass, fall within, or significantly overlap with the amounts recited in instant claims 1-4 and 23, as well as use of the opacifier composition in a cosmetic composition in amounts that fall within the range recited in instant claim 15.
In view of the teachings of Bettenhausen, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use components that are not ethoxylated because Bettenhausen teaches the presence of 1,4-dioxane in ethoxylated surfactants, which is a likely carcinogen and hazardous to the environment. In addition, Bettenhausen teaches that the manufacturing process becomes more expensive when complying with state regulations regarding levels of dioxane in products, which is an outcome that an ordinary artisan would seek to avoid. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of claim 11 in view of the teachings of Nieendick, Cline, and Sigh, and further in view of the teachings of Bettenhausen.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieendick (WIPO International Patent Publication No. WO 2019/228975 A1, published on 5 December 2019, provided by Applicant in the IDS filed on 15 January 2024, references to English translation) in view of Cline (Cutis. 2018, 101, 22.) and Singh ("Sulfate free solutions for personal care applications" in "Advances in Cosmetic Formulation Design", ECI Symposium Series, 2018. Accessed at dc.engconfintl.org/cosmetic/29 on 14 September 2026) as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 9-10, 14-15, and 19-24 above, and further in view of Okuda et al. (J. Occup. Health 2006, 48, 462., hereafter referred to as Okuda).
Nieendick, Cline, and Singh have been described above.
Nieendick, Cline, and Singh do not teach their composition to be formulated without propylene oxide. This deficiency is offset by the teachings of Okuda.
Okuda teaches the effects of inhalation of propylene oxide to the respiratory tract and reproduction and development in rats (Title and Abstract). Propylene oxide (PO) is widely used as a chemical intermediate and/or reactant in industrial processes, but Okuda teaches that over 400,000 workers were exposed to PO between 1981-1983 in the USA, resulting in irritation of the eyes, respiratory tract, and lungs as a result of inhalation and irritation and necrosis of the skin as a result of dermal contact (pg. 462, left col., para. 1). Studies in rats demonstrated that inhalation exposure to PO resulted in damage to the nervous system, respiratory system, and nasal cavity, as well as tumorigenesis (pg. 462, left col., para. 1). Further experiments using rats demonstrated that PO inhalation resulted in damage to “the upper and lower respiratory tract, the male and female reproductive system, motor function, parental body weights and fetal survival and development (pg. 471, right col., penultimate para.). While no equivalent data in humans exists, Okuda theorized that some of the biological and adverse effects of PO exposure in rats can be extrapolated to humans (pg. 471, left col., final para.).
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 modify the invention rendered obvious by the teachings of Nieendick, Cline, and Singh to be formulated to be propylene oxide free in view of the teachings of Okuda because the use of a technique known in the art to improve a product in a similar field yields predictable results. The teachings of Nieendick, Cline, and Sing rendered obvious a milky turbid opacifier composition comprising ethylene glycol distearate, sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, cocamidopropyl betaine, and glyceryl oleate in quantities that encompass, fall within, or significantly overlap with the amounts recited in instant claims 1-4 and 23, as well as use of the opacifier composition in a cosmetic composition in amounts that fall within the range recited in instant claim 15.
In view of the teachings of Okuda, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to formulate their composition to exclude propylene oxide because Okuda teaches the chemical to be toxic to humans and other mammals. An ordinary artisan would find it undesirable for their cosmetic composition to be toxic to users and would therefore be motivated to produce their composition without PO. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of claim 25 in view of the teachings of Nieendick, Cline, and Sigh, and further in view of the teachings of Okuda.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed on 24 March 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The declaration filed on 24 March 2026, is acknowledged.
Applicant argues from the final para. of pg. 8 to para. 2 of pg. 9 that the Chen reference prepares a pearlizing concentrate, which the Applicant argues is distinct from their composition, by heating wax with water and an anionic surfactant, adding further surfactants, and then storing at an elevated temperature. In view of the new grounds of rejection above, which rely upon the teachings of Nieendick regarding a milky turbid opacifier composition in view of the teachings of Cline and Singh and not the teachings of Chen, the argument is considered moot.
Applicant argues in para. 3 of pg. 9 that the Chen reference teaches ethoxylated surfactants as “ the preferred nonionic component”. In view of the new grounds of rejection above, which rely upon the teachings of Nieendick regarding a milky turbid opacifier composition in view of the teachings of Cline and Singh rather than the teachings of Chen, the argument is considered moot.
In the penultimate para. of pg. 11, Applicant argues that the Chen reference does not teach an opacifier composition, the Chen reference teaches a pearlescent appearance, and the Chen reference teaches production of their composition via storage at an elevated temperature for an extended time. Further, in the final para. of pg. 11, Applicant argues that their composition forms a “milky-turbid emulsion upon mixing and cooling” and does not “undergo the crystallization process required to produce pearlescence”. Finally, Applicant argues that opacification is achieved in the claimed composition “by dispersed wax particles in the emulsion, rather than from the reflective crystalline structures responsible for pearlescence” and that the Chen references teaches a composition comprising “a different physical structure of the wax phase than that of the presently claimed compositions”. As stated above, the new grounds of rejection above do not rely upon the teachings of the Chen reference but instead state that the claimed invention is obvious in view of the teachings of Nieendick, Cline, and Singh, and the argument is considered moot.
In section 4.2.1 spanning pg. 13-14, Applicant reiterates their arguments above against the Chen reference. As stated above, these arguments are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
In para. 2 of section 4.2.2 on pg. 14, Applicant argues that the Bettenhausen and AG-Q references address only “the single species glyceryl oleate, rather than the broader classes now recited in the claims”. Applicant elected without traverse the nonionic surfactant to be glyceryl oleate in the remarks received on 14 July 2025. Applicant has received an Office Action on the merits following that election, the references need not teach the broad range recited in the amended claims when the elected species is obvious in view of the prior art and falls within that broad range, and Applicant’s argument is found to be unpersuasive. See MPEP § 819 and 821.02.
In the para. that spans the bottom of pg. 14 and top of pg. 15, Applicant argues that the Bettenhausen and AG-Q references do not address “the specific formulation and processing requirements of Chen’s pearlizing concentrates”. The new grounds of rejection above do not rely upon the teachings of the Chen reference and the argument is not found to be persuasive.
In para. 2 of pg. 15, Applicant argues against the combination of the teachings of the Chen and AG-Q references. The new grounds of rejection above do not rely upon the teachings of the Chen or AG-Q references but instead state that the claimed invention is obvious in view of the teachings of Nieendick, Cline, and Singh, and the argument is considered moot.
Finally, in para. 3 of pg. 15, Applicant again argues that the cited references do not teach the broad range of surfactants now recited in the amended claims. This argument has been addressed above (vide supra) and is not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Petter (Int. J. Cosmetic Sci. 1984, 6, 249.) teaches a review of the manufacture, properties, and applications of the anionic surfactant classes taurates and isethionates (Synopsis). Both classes of surfactants are taught to maintain “the benefits of the soaps to which they are structurally similar” but without many of the undesirable features, resulting in “extreme mildness to skin” and suitability to many cosmetic applications (pg. 249, para. 4-6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean J. Steinke, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-3396. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 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
Prosecution Insights