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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French
(US 4,575,326) in view of Loe et al. (US 4,750,873), Noda et al. (US 2003/0217648) and Bessemer et al. (US 6,620,354).
It is known to make drink straws by extruding. It should be noted that drinking straws are ducts/tubes/pipes which are used for drinking. In other words, ducts/tubes/pipes capable of being used as drinking straws are within the scope of drinking straws. For example, Noda et al. (US 2003/0217648) discloses “items, such as straws, may also be extruded” [0093], “items such as straws are extruded items” [0107], and “Straws comprising poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) 9.1 mol % hexanoate (PHB-Hx-9.1) are made by extrusion of molten polymer through an {fraction (1/4)} inch tube die. The extruder is a Hake twin screw extruder operated at about 150o C. in all zones. The extrudate is passed through a water bath at a temperature of 60o C. The bath is about 2 meters long. The extruded tubes are cut at 7 inch lengths and form a drinking straw.” [0156]. Note that Noda et al. (US 2003/0217648) discloses extruding molten polymer through a tube die (i.e., an extrusion die which shapes the molten polymer into a tube), passing the extrudate (i.e., extruded tube) through a water bath for cooling and solidifying the molten extruded tube (extruding temperature is 150o C and bath temperature is 60o C), and cutting the extruded tubes to form drinking straw, as mentioned above. Thus, the extrusion art is pertinent to making drinking straws. Note that all the references used in this prior art rejection are within the extrusion art.
French (US 4,575,326) discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a duct/tube/pipe 10 (fig. 4; note that, while French discloses the apparatus making the duct having electrical conductors therein, the apparatus can also be used to make "empty duct" (i.e., to just make duct) (col. 4, lines 65-66); it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ducts can be made in various sizes, and that some sizes of the ducts would be capable of being used as drinking straws), the apparatus comprising:
a two-stage water bath (figs. 3-4; col. 5, line 28, to col. 7, line 8) comprising a housing 38 and a
wall (not labeled but shown in fig. 4 holding a gasket 75) disposed within the housing 38, wherein the
wall and the housing 38 cooperate to define a first chamber 65 within the housing 38 and a second
chamber 74 within the housing 38, wherein the wall is disposed between the first chamber 65 and the
second chamber 74, wherein the wall separates the first chamber 65 and the second chamber 74 (fig. 4);
wherein the first chamber 65 contains water having a first temperature and the second chamber
74 contains water having a second temperature (col. 6, lines 36-64, the water is a cooling water and thus
has a temperature capable of cooling the extrudate);
wherein the first chamber 65 receives a continuous tubular stream of extruded material from an
extruder die 32 (fig. 4), wherein the extruded material is cooled via the water contained in the first
chamber to produce first cooled material, wherein the second chamber 74 receives the first cooled
material from the first chamber 65, and wherein the first cooled material is further cooled via the water
contained in the second chamber to produce a continuous tubular stream of second cooled material (fig.
3-4, col. 6, lines 10-64; cooling water fills the tank so as to fully submerse and cool the extruded
material; the extruded material is cooled in the first chamber 65, and then cooled again in the second
chamber 74); and
wherein the water in the second chamber 74 further cools the first cooled material over a
predefined period of time sufficiently to solidify the material (as shown in fig. 4, the first cooled material
will inherently be in the second chamber 74 for a predefined period of time depending upon the rate of
travel of the first cooled material through the second chamber 74; col. 6, lines 27-29, cooling solidifies
the molten resin).
However, French 4,575,326) does not disclose a polyhydroxyalkanoate drink straw, the first temperature of the first chamber water being different from the second temperature of the second
chamber water, the continuous tubular stream of extruded material being pulled in the first chamber,
the first cooled material being pulled into the second chamber, the apparatus wherein the extruded PHA
material is pulled through the first chamber at a rate that allows for the extruded PHA material to
remain in the first chamber for a first predefined period of time within a range of one to three seconds
to produce the first cooled PHA material, OR wherein the first cooled PHA material is pulled through the
second chamber at a rate that allows for the first cooled PHA material to remain in the second chamber
for a second predefined period of time of one to three seconds to produce the second cooled PHA
material, as recited by claim 1.
Noda et al. (US 2003/0217648) discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) drink straw including a tube die for extruding a tube, a water bath for
cooling the extruded tube, cutting the extruded tubes to form a PHA drink straw, [0045], [0093], [0107], [0155]-[0156].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to modify the duct (tube)/drinking straws of French (US 4,575,326) to be polyhydroxyalkanoate
(PHA) tubes/drink straws because such a modification is known in the art, as disclosed by Noda et al. (US 2003/0217648), and would enable production of PHA tubes/drink straws. As mentioned above, drinking straws are ducts/tubes/pipes capable of being used for drinking. As mentioned above, French (US 4,575,326) discloses an apparatus for extruding “empty” ducts (i.e., ducts/tubes/pipes), and Noda et al. (US 2003/0217648) disclose an apparatus for extruding tubes (i.e., ducts/tubes/pipes) capable of being used as PHA drinking straws. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus for making duct (i.e., duct/tubes/pipes) to make a PHA drinking straw, as disclosed by French (US 4,575,326), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the tube making apparatus capable of making tubes to be used as PHA drinking straws.
Loe et al. (US 4,750,873) disclose a two-stage water cooling chamber for use in apparatus for
manufacturing a tubular object (i.e., a duct) 2 (fig. 1, col. 3, lines 26-44), the water cooling chamber
comprising: a housing 4; a wall (not labeled but shown in fig. 1 between parts 5a and 8) disposed within
the housing 4, wherein the wall and the housing 4 cooperate to define a first chamber 5 within the
housing 4 and a second chamber 8 within the housing 4, wherein the first chamber 5 contains water
having a first temperature and is configured to receive extruded material 2 from an extruder 1, and
wherein the second chamber 8 contains water having a second temperature that is different from the
first temperature and wherein the second chamber 8 is configured to receive first cooled material from the first chamber 5 and to produce second cooled material (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 33-43; water in first
chamber 5 is 60 degrees C, and water in second chamber 9 is 20 degrees C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the water temperatures of the first and second chambers of French (US
4,575,326) to be different, as disclosed by Loe et al. (US 4,750,873), because such a modification is
known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the water temperatures of the first
and second chambers known to be operable in the art for cooling an extruded material. As to the
combination of French and Loe et al., both disclose a two stage water cooling apparatus for an
extrudate. As is known in the art, water cooling of an extrudate can be from a water bath or from a
water sprayer, as respectively recited by French and Loe et al. It would be well within an artisan of
ordinary skill that the amount of cooling of the extrudate is dependent upon the cooling temperature of
the cooling water. French discloses a two-stage water bath including a first and second chamber
including cooling water contained therein, as mentioned above. While Loe et al. does not disclose a
two-stage water bath, Loe et al. does disclose a two-stage water cooling chamber including a first and
second chamber including water (from sprayers) contained therein, wherein the water temperature in
the chambers are different to obtain different cooling of the extrudate between the chambers. Thus, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to
modify the temperature of the cooling water in the first and second chambers of French to be different
because such a modification is known in the art, namely the two stage extrudate cooling art, as
disclosed by Loe et al., and would enable the two stages of French to have different cooling of the
extrudate between the chambers with a reasonable expectation of success. As is known in the art (two
stage water cooling of extrudate), water cooling of an extrudate can be from a water bath or from a
water sprayer, as respectively recited by French and Loe et al., as mentioned above.
Bessemer et al. (US 6,620,354) disclose apparatus for making hollow extruded products (i.e.,
ducts/tubes/pipes; col. 4, lines 12-15) including a combined vacuum/cooling chamber, wherein coolant is provided in a vacuum chamber (col. 4, lines 37-40; col. 4, lines 15-17, vacuum chamber provides support to a hollow extrudate until it is sufficiently cooled to a stable temperature; col. 1, lines 19-25, cooling chamber cools the hollow extrudate), wherein a cooling chamber can be partially or completely filled with coolant or can have spray nozzles (col. 1, lines 36-42), wherein the cooling processes of the vacuum chamber and the cooling chamber can be controlled (col. 1, lines 42-46); wherein the cooling
temperature can be adjusted up and down to control the extrudate temperature to achieve a desired
final cooling temperature of the extrudate (col. 2, line 43, to col. 3, line 24; col. 4, line 53, to col. 5, line
3); wherein there can be multiple cooling chambers 503-515 each including a temperature sensor 600-
612 for controlling the temperature in each cooling chamber (fig. 9; col. 10, line 65, to col. 11, line 27);
wherein a puller mechanism 27 pulls the extrudate downstream after being extruded at a rate past
further processing equipment, such as vacuum and cooling equipment, for the extruded duct/tube (fig.
1; col. 4, lines 17-23, “the rollers 27 do not deform the extrudate 15 as it is drawn through the cooling chamber 24 thereby” (i.e., the extrudate 15 is drawn (pulled) through the cooling chamber 24 by the rollers 27)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the apparatus with a puller mechanism, as disclosed by Bessemer et al.
(US6,620,354), because such a modification is known in the art and would enable pulling of the
extrudate through duct/tube processing equipment (such as the water bath) at a rate downstream of
being extruded. Such a puller mechanism would pull the continuous tubular stream of extruded
material into and through the first chamber and would pull the first cooled material into and through
the second chamber. Note that such a puller mechanism would pull the extruded material through the
first chamber at a rate that allows for the extruded material to remain in the first chamber for a first
predefined period of time to produce the first cooled material, and would pull the first cooled material
through the second chamber at a rate that allows for the first cooled material to remain in the second chamber for a second predefined period of time to produce the second cooled material. As to the
specifically claimed times (one to three seconds), such times would have been found by an artisan of
ordinary skill in finding operable times to achieve the desired cooling of the extrudate depending upon
other processing conditions such as pulling rates, chamber dimensions, chamber temperatures,
extrudate temperature, and material used as the extrudate. In other words, it would be well within an
artisan of ordinary skill that processing conditions, including such times, affect cooling, and thus can be
manipulated to achieved desired cooling.
As to claim 2, French (US 4,575,326) further discloses a calibrator head 68 for sizing the duct
(tube) (col. 6, lines 46-50), but does not disclose the calibrator head being a sizing tube. Loe et al. (US
4,750,873) further disclose a sizing tube 3 capable of controlling an inner diameter and wall thickness of
the duct (tube) (via the vacuum through holes of the tube 3), wherein the sizing tube 3 defines a bore
that extends longitudinally therethrough for passage of the extruded duct 2 (fig. 1), defines a plurality of
holes through the outer surface thereof (fig. 1, col. 3, lines 28-33), and has an inner diameter that
corresponds to an outer diameter of the duct (tube) 2 inside the sizing tube 3 (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 28-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the calibrator head of French (US 4,575,326) with a sizing tube, as disclosed by
Loe et al. (US 4,750,873), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an
alternative configuration for the calibration head known to be operable in the art for sizing the extruded
duct.
As to claim 3, French (US 4,575,326) further discloses a two-stage water bath further comprising
a gasket 75 in the wall that separates the first chamber 65 from the second chamber 74, wherein the
first cooled material is pulled through the gasket 75 into the second chamber 74 (fig. 4).
As to claim 4, Loe et al. (US 4,750,873) further disclose the two-stage water cooling chamber
wherein the second chamber water temperature is less than the first chamber water temperature (col. 3, lines 33-43; water in first chamber 5 is 60 degrees C, and water in second chamber 9 is 20 degrees C;
20 is less than 60).
As to claim 5, Loe et al. (US 4,750,873) further disclose a first chamber water temperature of 60
degrees C (140 degrees F), and a second chamber water temperature of 20 degrees C (68 degrees F)
(col. 3, lines 33-43). While these temperatures are disclosed in Loe et al. (US 4,750,873), it would have
been well within an artisan of ordinary skill to adjust these temperatures, such as to the temperatures
recited in claim 5, to achieve the desired cooling depending upon the processing conditions to achieve
desired cooling, as mentioned above.
As to claims 6-7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
invention was made, to further modify the second chamber temperature to be greater than the first
chamber temperature because it is known in the art that that there can be multiple chambers, as
disclosed by French (US 4,575,326), Loe et al. (US 4,750,873) and Bessemer et al. (US6,620, 354), and
because it is known in the art that a chamber temperature can be controlled up and down, as disclosed
by Bessemer et al. (US6,620,354). As to the specific instantly claimed temperatures of the chambers in
instant claim 7, such temperatures would have been found by an artisan of ordinary skill in finding
operable temperatures adjusted up and down to achieve the desired cooling and the desired
temperature in the extruded product depending upon the processing conditions as mentioned above.
As to claim 10, Loe et al. (US 4,750,873) further discloses a gasket 10 in a second wall that
defines the second chamber 8 (fig. 1), wherein a second cooled material (cooled in the second chamber
8) travels through the gasket 10 out of the second chamber 8 (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 43-44, the jacket 4 is
closed off from the extruded tube 2 by a flexible collar (gasket) 10, thus it would be obvious, if not
inherent, that the gasket 10 in the second wall of the second chamber 8 would remove residual water
from an outer surface of the tube (second cooled material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the apparatus with a gasket, as disclosed by Loe et al. (US 4,750,873), because
such a modification is known in the art and would enable closing off the water bath from the extruded
tube.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (i.e., piecemeal analysis of references), 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). All the references used in the prior art rejection relate to the extrusion of ducts/tubes/pipes.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest pulling a tubular stream of PHA material through a two-stage water bath to form a drink straw.
The Office Action asserts that French discloses a two-stage water bath. However, as the Office
Action recognizes, French does not disclose a PHA drink straw - as Applicant's claims explicitly recite.
In response to the piecemeal analysis of references, as mentioned in the prior art rejection above, French discloses a two-stage water bath for cooling extruded duct/tube/pipe, and Noda et al. (US 2003/0217648) discloses a water bath for cooling extruded PHA duct/tube/pipe which forms a PHA drinking straw.
Applicant respectfully submits that the material disclosed in French for use as the outside layer is polyethylene, which has inherent properties that differ from those of PHA.
In response, while polyethylene may have different properties from PHA, it is known in the extrusion art that extruded ducts/tubes/pipes can be made from various materials, particularly polyethylene or PHA, as respectfully disclosed by French and Noda.
Second, French relates to jacketing cables in a manner to avoid the cable jacket from bonding to the internal cables being jacketed while the jacketing material is not in a fully solid state. One skilled in the art would not start with French because the jacketing is not a structural component; that is, it needs to be supported by a gas to prevent the undesired contacting with the internal cable, which is the structural component. By contrast, in the claimed apparatus, the PHA is the structural component, and there is no concern of it bonding to another material.
In response, as mentioned in the prior art rejection above, while French discloses the apparatus making the duct (i.e., jacketing) having electrical conductors therein, the apparatus can also be used to make "empty duct" (i.e., to just make duct/tube/pipe). PHA being the structural component (i.e., PHA duct/tube/pipe) is disclosed by Noda.
Applicant's claims explicitly recite, and Applicant's specification clearly teaches, that a molten material exits the extruder with the extruder pushing the extruded PHA. It is important to recognize that the function of the first chamber is for the first chamber to convert the extrudate to a material with sufficient crystallinity to allow it to be pulled into the second chamber where it is solidified to a point it can be further processed. A goal of the apparatus is to reduce the cycle times in forming a straw to reduce costs.
The combination of references provides no guidance as to how to efficiently achieve the multiple goals recited using PHA, specifically residence times and temperatures for each bath. A key to the claimed invention is to control crystallization of the PHA material. Uncontrolled crystallization is known to negatively affect the desired properties of the end product, that is, a drink straw.
In response, such arguments are not commensurate in scope to the instant claims. The period of times and temperatures recited by the instant claims are addressed in the prior art rejection above.
The Office Action relies on Noda as allegedly disclosing an apparatus for manufacturing a PHA
drink straw including a tube die for extruding a tube and a water bath for cooling the extruded tube. The
Office Action relies on Loe as disclosing a two-stage water cooling chamber for use in apparatus for
manufacturing a tubular object, wherein the first chamber contains water having a first temperature and the second chamber contains water having a second temperature that is different from the first temperature. But, as the Office Action recognizes, even in combination, these three references nowhere teach or suggest pulling the polymer extrudate through a two-stage water bath.
The Office Action relies on Bessemer as disclosing apparatus for making hollow extruded products, the apparatus of Bessemer including a puller mechanism that pulls the extrudate downstream. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the theoretical "apparatus" of French as modified by Noda as modified by Loe, with a puller mechanism, as disclosed by Bessemer, because such a modification "is known in the art and would enable pulling of the extrudate through duct/tube processing equipment."
Though Noda does indeed disclose extruding a tubular stream of polymer material, which arguably could be a stream of PHA material, Noda nowhere teaches or suggests pulling the polymer material. Neither do French or Loe. And Bessemer, which arguably discloses a puller mechanism, nowhere teaches or suggests that the polymer material might be PHA.
In response to Applicant’s piecemeal analysis of references, Noda discloses straws (i.e., ducts/tubes/pipes) are extruded items comprising PHA [0107], and Bessemer discloses that the hollow extrudate 15 (i.e., duct/tube/pipe) is drawn (pulled) through the cooling chamber 24 by the rollers 27, as recited in the prior art rejection above.
The Examiner contends that pulling is known in the art and that cooling to solidify is known in the art. Perhaps this is true. And, as the Examiner contends, it might well be obvious, if not inherent, that the extrudate (formed from molten material) would need to be "sufficiently stabilized/cooled/formed to enable such known continuous (no breaks) pulling of the extrudate." But the cited references nowhere teach or suggest pulling PHA material because, even in combination, the cited references do not teach one skilled in the art how to cool PHA material sufficiently such that it may be pulled through the apparatus without breaking. By contrast, Applicant's disclosure does. That is, Applicant has discovered that a two-stage water bath, having the properties recited in Applicant's claims, sufficiently solidifies the PHA material such that it may be pulled through the apparatus without breaking or tearing.
Applicant has argued that one skilled in the art would be counseled against pulling PHA material
through the apparatus because PHA material is known to be softer and more likely to break as it's pulled
than would be the polymer material used to make the ducts specified in French. The Examiner has
responded to Applicant's arguments by asserting that Applicant's arguments are "conclusory without factual basis." Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner take official notice that one skilled in the art would understand that PHA material is known to be softer and more likely to break as it's pulled
than would be the polymer material used to make the ducts specified in French. This understanding
is well within the purview of one skilled in the relevant art of polymer extrusion, and, at the Examiner's
request, Applicant can produce any evidence necessary to demonstrate that fact.
In response, it is known in the art that extruded ducts/tubes/pipes can be made from various extrusion materials including PHA, as mentioned above. It is known in the art that after extrusion of hollow products (i.e., ducts/tubes/pipes), the extruded hollow products can be pulled through equipment (such as a cooling chamber for cooling the extruded hollow products) for further processing of the extruded hollow product, as disclosed by Bessemer. It would be obvious, if not inherent, that such pulling would not break or tear the hollow products (i.e., ducts/tubes/pipes), or else such products would not be made by pulling through further processing equipment. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to pull a PHA duct/tube/pipe through a water bath (further processing equipment) with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Examiner goes on to say that "Applicants pull extruded PHA material with puller 116 for pulling the PHA extrudate, and thus PHA extrudate material is capable of being pulled." The Examiner is correct: Applicant's claimed apparatus is indeed capable of pulling PHA extrudate material. But the prior art doesn't teach or suggest any apparatus that is capable of doing so! Applicant respectfully submits that, in this statement, the Examiner is admitting the impermissible use of hindsight to apply the teachings of the cited references to arrive at the claimed invention.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As mentioned above, it is known in the art that extruded ducts/tubes/pipes can be made from various extrusion materials including PHA, as mentioned above (Noda discloses extruding PHA tubes and even passing through a water bath). It is known in the art that after extrusion of hollow products (i.e., ducts/tubes/pipes), the extruded hollow products can be pulled through equipment (such as a cooling chamber for cooling the extruded hollow products) for further processing of the extruded hollow product, as disclosed by Bessemer. These disclosures are from the prior art, and thus are not hindsight. Thus, in view of such prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to pull a PHA duct/tube/pipe through a water bath (further processing equipment) with a reasonable expectation of success. Note that it is Applicant who argued that PHA tubes are softer and more likely to break if pulled, which is contradictory to Applicant’s specification which discloses that PHA tubes can be pulled.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH S LEYSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 5712705343. 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.
/J.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights