DETAILED ACTION
Claims 4, 9-10 and 14-23 are currently pending. Claims 4, 9-10, 14-17 and 22 are currently under examination.
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 08/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 23 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/19/2025. Claim 23 is properly placed in Group II.
Withdrawn Rejections
The prior rejection of claims 4, 9 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn as Applicant has amended independent claim 4 to require a biocompatible substrate with a film disposed on the substrate the fil consisting of magnesium and calcium, thus being significantly more than the natural composition of matter.
The prior rejection of claims 4, 10-11, 13, 15 and 17 under 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ibasco is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s claim amendments to specify claim 4 requires Ca be present at 0 to 40% by weight of the film and is free of Mg2Ca.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 01/14/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. In the Applicant’s response, filed 01/14/2026, it is noted that claims 4, 9, 15-17 are amended and claim 22 is newly added. No new matter or claims have been added.
New Rejections:
The following rejections are newly applied based on Applicant’s claim amendments and newly added claim.
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.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is directed to an arithmetic mean surface height Sa1 of surface roughness of the film is 2um or less, a different between arithmetic mean surface height Sa1 of surface roughness of the film and arithmetic mean surface height Sa2 of surface roughness of surface which does not comprise the film, an arithmetic mean surface height Ra1 of line roughness of the film is 2um or less and different between the arithmetic mean surface height Ra1 of the line roughness of the film and arithmetic mean surface heigh Ra2 of line roughness of a surface which does not comprise the film. Claim 4 contains a biocompatible substrate and film disposed on the biocompatible substrate. Claim 9 is directed to “a surface which does not comprise the film” in b) and d). It is unclear if the surface is the biocompatible substrate disclosed in claim 4 without the film or if it can be any surface, thus instant claim 9 has unclear metes and bounds. The surface referred back to does not clearly refer back to the surface of the substrate, the surface of the substrate containing the film or to what the surface is in the comparison. Thus, multiple surfaces may be “a surface without the film” leading to unclear metes and bounds of the instant claim. It would be remedial to clarify what “surface” is specifically being referred to.
Claim 14 is dependent on canceled claim 12. A claim dependent on a canceled claim has unclear scope and metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes claim 14 will be examined as deponent on independent claim 4.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 9-10 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibasco (previously applied) in view of Salahshoor (IDS dated 05/19/2025).
Regarding claims 4, the limitation of a biocompatible material comprising a film comprised of magnesium, wherein the film comprises 0 to 40 wt% of calcium where a total weight of magnesium and calcium is 100% by weight is met by Ibasco teaching magnesium sputtered titanium for the formation of bioactive coatings. Osteoconductive coating may improve clinical performance of implanted metallic biomaterial. Substrates initially sputter coated with pure magnesium metal and then the anions to be incorporated in the coating are presented in solution. Uniform struvite MgNH4PO4 6H2O coating was formed. Subsequent immersion into calcium phosphate solution, stable coatings were formed (abstract). The structure of a Magnesium film is taught, and thus would have the features of hardness, critical load and/or shear stress absent actual evidence to the contrary. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, the limitation of wherein the biocompatible material has any one, two, three or all of the following characteristics: a difference between the arithmetic mean surface height Sa1 of the surface roughness of the film and an arithmetic mean surface height Sa2 of surface roughness of a surface which does not comprise the film is 300 nm or less is met by Ibasco teaching a thickness of magnesium layer of 3um (page 2330, second column, first paragraph). The surface roughness comparison is to a surface, therefore the comparison maybe to a surface 300 nm or less difference, see 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation of wherein an average thickness of the film is 0.1 to 30 um is met by Ibasco teaching the thickness of 3um of the magnesium layer (page 2339, second column, first paragraph).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, the limitation teaches wherein the biocompatible material comprises a biocompatible substrate and the biocompatible substrate is selected from the group consisting of titanium alloy in the form of a sheet is met by Ibasco teaching titanium alloy (section 2.1).
Regarding claim 16, the limitation of wherein the biocompatible material is one selected from the group which includes dental implant material is met by Ibasco teaching the metals have been a screw, plates, pine and implants, both orthopedic and dental, where bone stabilization and augmentation is required (page 2338, first column, first paragraph) thus teaching dental implant material.
Ibasco does not specifically teach calcium present at 0 to not more than 40% by weight of the film and the film is free of Mg2Ca (claim 4).
Salahshoor teaches biodegradable orthopedic magnesium-calcium (MgCa) Alloys (title). Mg-Ca alloys have excellent biocompatibility (page 138, last paragraph). The maximum solubility of calcium in the magnesium lattice at room temperature amounts to 0.8 wt% (page 140, first paragraph). Alloying magnesium with low amount of calcium up to 4.0 wt% leads to an increase in tensile strength (page 141, second paragraph). Precipitation of brittle Mg2Ca intermetallic phase on grain boundaries and inside grains is responsible for poor ductility above 1.5 wt% Ca concentration (page 141, third paragraph, Figure 5). Corrosion rates increased significantly with higher amounts of Ca (page 148, first paragraph). Up to 0.8 wt% Ca, Mg-Ca alloys show a homogeneous texture and uniformly disturbed corrosion (page 149, fourth paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include calcium in the coating taught by Ibasco because Salahshoor teaches the inclusion of Ca in Mg-Ca coatings leads to increased tensile strength and excellently biocompatibility. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success as Ibasco and Salahshoor are both directed to the use of magnesium containing coatings on implants. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use Ca in the sputtered Mg coating of Ibasco and optimize the included Ca amount as Salahshoor teaches the inclusion of Ca leads to increase tensile strength and corrosion rates wherein the amount of included Ca is an optimizable parameter to obtain the desired tensile strength, corrosion amount and prevent the formation of Mg2Ca due to its increase in brittleness. As MPEP 2144.05 recites “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization”.
Claim(s) 4, 9-10, 14-17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0075162 (Applicant provided) in view of Zaatreh (IDS 01/27/2025) and Salahshoor (IDS dated 05/19/2025).
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of a biocompatible material comprising a film comprised of magnesium and calcium, wherein the film comprises 0-40 wt% of calcium, where a total weight of magnesium and calcium in 100% by weight is met by the ‘162 publication teaching an implant consisting of a biodegradable magnesium-based alloy or partially applied with the magnesium-based alloy. Biodegradation rate can be easily controlled and the implant has excellent strength and interfacial strength to an osseous tissue (abstract). Pure Mg was and at 0.8, 5, 10.5, 23 and 33% Ca where mixed ([0050]-[0051], [0063]). The Ti alloy is taught to be coated by magnesium alloy by sputtering [0063]. The ‘162 publication teaching magnesium-based alloy containing magnesium and calcium at 0%, 0.8%, 5%, 10.5%, 23% and 33% Ca [0054] wherein impurities of 0.01% or less is preferred [0049].
Regarding claims 9-10, the limitation of wherein the biocompatible material has any one, two or three or all of the following characteristics including an arithmetic mean surface height Sa1 of surface roughness of the film is 2um or less is met by the ‘162 publication teaching a sputtered thin coating of 1um or less [0044]. As MPEP 2144.05 recites “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization”.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation of wherein the film has an amorphous portion is met by the instant specification teaching the proportion of calcium increases, the crystallite size decreases and the structure becomes more amorphous [0116] and the ‘162 publication teaches magnesium-based alloy containing magnesium and calcium at 0%, 0.8%, 5%, 10.5%, 23% and 33% Ca [0054] wherein impurities of 0.01% or less is preferred [0049].
Regarding claim 15, the limitation of wherein the biocompatible material comprises a biocompatible substrate and the biocompatible substrate is pure titanium is met by Ti alloy implant [0031].
Regarding claim 16, the limitation of wherein the biocompatible material is one selected from the group consisting of an artificial bone material, intraosseous fixture material, a dental implant material, an orthodontic anchor screw material is met by the ‘162 publication teaches dental implant (claim 4).
Regarding claim 17, the limitation of wherein the shape of the biocompatible material is one selected from the group consisting of a cylindrical shape, a truncated cone shape, a conical shape, a shape having a screw shaped threaded portion in part of the shape, a rectangle parallelepiped and cube, a block shaped having partially included surface and wedge shape is met by the ‘162 publication molding in the shape of implant can be performed by using metal processing method known in related art to form the desired shape and include rod and sheet shapes [0041].
Regarding claim 22, The structure of a Magnesium film is taught, and thus would have the features of hardness, critical load and/or shear stress absent actual evidence to the contrary. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The ’162 publication does not specifically teach the film is free of Mg2Ca (claim 4).
Zaatreh discloses an antibacterial implant for reducing implant related infections and indicates that a simple in which a cyclical titanium alloy base having a surface roughly of 0.31 um is coated by magnesium thin film (page 295, right side, page 298, bottom left side) (figure 2C) which was manufactured by sputtering (page 295, right side). The temperature of the substratum holder did not exceed 76 degrees C (page 295, right column, bottom). The film is taught to be applied to ta titanium substrate for use as an implant (abstract).
Salahshoor teaches biodegradable orthopedic magnesium-calcium (MgCa) Alloys (title). Mg-Ca alloys have excellent biocompatibility (page 138, last paragraph). The maximum solubility of calcium in the magnesium lattice at room temperature amounts to 0.8 wt% (page 140, first paragraph). Alloying magnesium with low amount of calcium up to 4.0 wt% leads to an increase in tensile strength (page 141, second paragraph). Precipitation of brittle Mg2Ca intermetallic phase on grain boundaries and inside grains is responsible for poor ductility above 1.5 wt% Ca concentration (page 141, third paragraph, Figure 5). Corrosion rates increased significantly with higher amounts of Ca (page 148, first paragraph). Up to 0.8 wt% Ca, Mg-Ca alloys show a homogeneous texture and uniformly disturbed corrosion (page 149, fourth paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include calcium in the coating taught by the ‘162 publication because Salahshoor teaches the inclusion of Ca in Mg-Ca coatings leads to increased tensile strength and excellently biocompatibility. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success as the ‘162 publication and Salahshoor are both directed to the use of magnesium containing coatings on implants containing magnesium and calcium. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use Ca in the sputtered Mg coating of the ‘162 publication and optimize the included Ca amount as Salahshoor teaches the inclusion of Ca leads to increase tensile strength and corrosion rates wherein the amount of included Ca is an optimizable parameter to obtain the desired tensile strength, corrosion amount and prevent the formation of Mg2Ca due to its increase in brittleness. As MPEP 2144.05 recites “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization”.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention that the shape of the implant maybe optimizable as the ‘162 publication teaches that any desired shape can be manufactured. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the impurity and calcium amounts in the sputtered coating as the ‘162 publication teaches a range of impurities and calcium utilized in the coating material. As MPEP 2144.05 recites “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization”.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to provide MgCa coating of the ‘162 publication sputtered at the temperature of Zaatreh since both teach coating comprising magnesium which are applied by sputtering. It would have been prima facie obvious to oneo foridnary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use a known temperature for sputtering coating as taught by Zaatreh for the coating taught by the ’162 publication as both coatings are taught to contain magnesium applied to a titanium substrate for use as an implantable material.
Zaatreh teaches amorphous films may be used (page 202, right side, first full paragraph). Applicant teaches that MgCa is amorphous and having no Mg2Ca are formed at low temperature (see specification Figure 25, paragraph 138). Thus the absence features of Mg2Ca of claim 4 is expected to be inherently achieved in view of the low temperature sputtering and amorphous form taught by Zaatreh and the ‘162 publication.
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 4, 9, 14-17 and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 9-19 of copending Application No. 18/684,385 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the ‘385 publication are both directed to a pre titanium substrate with a film formed of magnesium and calcium, and the calcium has 0-40 wt%, where a total weight of magnesium and calcium is 100% by weight and the metal film is free from Mg2Ca and wherein the surface roughness is 50 um or less and is shaped such as a cone shape used for a dental implant. The structure of a Magnesium film is taught, and thus would have the features of hardness, critical load and/or shear stress absent actual evidence to the contrary. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 4, 9, 14-17 and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-11 of copending Application No. 18/684,404 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the ‘385 publication are both directed to a pre titanium substrate with a film formed of magnesium and calcium, and the calcium has 0-40 wt%, where a total weight of magnesium and calcium is 100% by weight and the metal film is free from Mg2Ca and wherein the surface roughness is 50 um or less and is shaped such as a cone shape used for a dental implant. The structure of a Magnesium film is taught, and thus would have the features of hardness, critical load and/or shear stress absent actual evidence to the contrary. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not deemed to be persuasive.
103: The ‘162 publication (Yang)
Applicant argues the ‘162 publication expressly teaches that each of the magnesium calcium alloys manufactured according to its Example 2 contain Mg2Ca compound and were melted at 700 degrees C and 1000 degrees C. Applicant points to Niranjan which illustrates that manufacture of a magnesium-calcium alloy be melting forms Mg2Ca.
In response, Applicant is referred to the modified rejection above. The ‘162 publication teaches manufacturing alloys coating through sputtering on the base material [0063]. Salahshoor teaches the maximum solubility of calcium in the magnesium lattice at room temperature amounts to 0.8 wt% (page 140, first paragraph). Alloying magnesium with low amount of calcium up to 4.0 wt% leads to an increase in tensile strength (page 141, second paragraph). Precipitation of brittle Mg2Ca intermetallic phase on grain boundaries and inside grains is responsible for poor ductility above 1.5 wt% Ca concentration (page 141, third paragraph, Figure 5). Corrosion rates increased significantly with higher amounts of Ca (page 148, first paragraph). Up to 0.8 wt% Ca, Mg-Ca alloys show a homogeneous texture and uniformly disturbed corrosion (page 149, fourth paragraph). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include calcium in the coating taught by the ‘621 publication because Salahshoor teaches the inclusion of Ca in Mg-Ca coatings leads to increased tensile strength and excellently biocompatibility. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success as the ‘162 publication and Salahshoor are both directed to the use of magnesium containing coatings on implants containing magnesium and calcium. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use Ca in the sputtered Mg coating of the ‘162 publication and optimize the included Ca amount as Salahshoor teaches the inclusion of Ca leads to increase tensile strength and corrosion rates wherein the amount of included Ca is an optimizable parameter to obtain the desired tensile strength, corrosion amount and prevent the formation of Mg2Ca due to its increase in brittleness. As MPEP 2144.05 recites “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization”. Additionally, Zaatreh teaches sputtering of magnesium containing coatings onto titanium implants at lower temperatures (76 degrees C) was known at the time of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDSEY MARIE BECKHARDT whose telephone number is (571)270-7676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 4pm and Friday 9am to 2pm.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/LYNDSEY M BECKHARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/BRIAN-YONG S KWON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1613