DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 4/18/2023. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “and other like varieties” in line 4. The language “and other like varieties” is considered indefinite because the metes and bounds of the language “and other like varieties” cannot be ascertained. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted without the “and other like varieties” language.
Claim 5 recites “Gardner viscosity (25 C) of Z to Z3”, “Gardner viscosity (25 C) of Y to Z2” and “Gardner viscosity (25 C) of Z2+ to Z4” in lines 5, 8, 11. The Gardner viscosity is considered indefinite because there is no method of obtaining this viscosity recited in the claim or the instant specification. As such, it is unclear how the Gardner viscosity is being measured and what the units of “Z” and “Y” are referring to. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted without the Gardner viscosity language. Claim 6 is also rejected because it is depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A paint composition comprising:
a bio-resin;
and an acrylic resin;
wherein the bio-resin has a biocarbon content of about 90 wt% or more as measured by ASTM D6866.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 101994185 B1) as listed on the IDS dated 4/18/2025; English Machine Translation provided herewith) in view of Guo (CN 116178195 B; English Machine Translation provided herewith).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Park teaches a paint composition for a decoration sheet using a biomass-derived urethane acrylate oligomer and a biomass-derived acrylate which corresponds to the bio-resin and acrylate (abstract).
Park does not teach the biocarbon content of the bio-resin and are further silent on the biocarbon content of the paint composition.
Guo teaches a preparation method of bio-based bisphenol, bio-based epoxy resin with biologically sourced raw materials to produce the resin (Abstract). Guo teaches the process to prepare the resin from readily available bio-derived raw materials will result in a resin with a biocarbon content of up to 90% (¶ 21). Guo offers the motivation of preparing a resin composition with this bio-carbon content due its ability to utilize inexpensive and readily available bio-derived raw materials (abstract, ¶ 5) and results in a resin with high hardness, high glass transition temperature, good heat resistance, strong toughness, and excellent mechanical properties (¶ 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve a biocarbon content of up to 90% as taught by Guo in both the bio-resin and in the paint composition of Park, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Park in view of Guo do not teach the exact same range as required by the instant claim 10.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Guo (up to 90 wt%) overlap the instantly claimed ranges (about 14 to about 23 wt%) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 101994185 as listed on the IDS dated 4/18/2025) in view of Guo (CN 116178195 B) as set forth above for claim 1 and further in view Jung (KR 101619590 B1 as listed on the IDS dated 4/18/2025) and Lee Yun (KR 101615794 as listed on the IDS dated 4/18/2025); English Machine Translations provided herewith.
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Guo teaches the paint composition according to claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Park further teaches the paint composition comprising 20 to 30 parts by weight of the biomass-derived acrylate (Abstract) thereby reading on the claimed range of about 20 to about 40 wt% of the acrylic resin.
Park in view of Guo does not teach the amount of bio-resin, solvent or additives as required by the instant claim.
Regarding the amount of solvent and additives, Jung teaches a paint composition (claim 1) comprising bio-resins and acrylic resin and additives, wherein the additives are present in an amount of 5 to 15 wt% of cellulose acetate butyrate (additive), 1 to 2 wt% of a pigment (additive), 1.5 to 3.5 wt% of a matting agent (additive), 5 to 10 wt% of an anti-settling agent (additive). When these additives are added together, the amounts read on the claimed range of about 30 to 40 wt% of the additive. Jung further teach the solvent in the amount of 10 to 25 wt% (claim 1) thereby overlapping the claimed amount of 20 to 40 wt%. Jung offers the motivation of using a paint composition with these ingredients in these amounts due to their ability to formulate a paint composition that is eco-friendly and can impart excellent properties such as scratch resistance, sunscreen resistance, acetone resistance, moisture resistance, and light resistance [0001]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the additives and solvent of Jung in the paint composition of Park in view of Guo, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding the amount of bio-resin, Lee Yun teaches a thermoplastic resin composition, wherein the resin composition comprises 10 to 50% by weight of a biomass derived resin [¶16] which overlaps the claimed range of about 5 to 11 wt%. Lee Yun offers the motivation of using a paint composition with these amounts due to their ability to formulate a paint composition that is reduce the amount of CO2 emissions and have an environmentally friendly effect (abstract) and can impart excellent properties such as moldability, impact resistance, and chemical resistance, and has a great advantage of low specific gravity, low cost (¶ 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the biomass derived resin of Lee Yun in the paint composition of Park in view of Guo and Jung, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding the overlapping ranges, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Jung (10 to 25 wt% of solvent) and Lee Yung (10 to 50 wt% of bio-resin) overlap the instantly claimed ranges (20 to 40 wt% of solvent and 5 to 11 wt% of bio-resin) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 101994185) as listed on the IDS dated 4/18/2025; in view of Guo (CN 116178195 B) as set forth above for claim 1, and further in view of Ana (PT 108887), Gregory (CN106715525 A) and Jung (KR 101619590 B1 as listed on the IDS dated 4/18/2025). English Machine Translations provided herewith.
Park in view of Guo teaches the paint composition according to claim 1.
Park in view of Guo do not teach the solid content, the weight average molecular weight or the hydroxyl value of the bio-resin.
Regarding the solid content, Ana teaches bio resins / biopolymers solid content ranges from 20 to 100 wt.% (m/m) (¶ 35) which overlaps the claimed range of about 90 to 100 wt%. Ana offers the motivation of using a paint composition with these bio resins / biopolymers solid content ranges due to advantages of this ranges to enhance the value materials, waste / residue or byproducts of low cost and increasing the productivity of existing resources (¶ 35, 36, 37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the bio-resins having these solid contents of Ana in the paint composition of Park in view of Guo, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding the molecular weight, Gregory teaches bio-based resins or products that include renewable raw materials that are of non-fossil origin and are derived from plants or animals (¶ 26) wherein the number – average molecular weight (Mn) of the resin can range from 500 to 20,000 and is preferably from 750 to 10,000 (¶ 45) thereby overlapping the claimed range of about 100 to 1000 g/mol. Gregory offers the motivation of using these bio-based resins having these molecular weights due to their ability to form coatings for metal sheets with advantageous application properties, particularly a good balance between hardness and bending tests (¶ 135) and coatings with high durability and based on renewable raw materials, particularly in metal sheet coatings (¶ 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the molecular weights of Gregory in the paint composition of Park, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding the hydroxyl value, Jung teaches a biomass polyurethane resin (Abstract) having a hydroxyl value of 100 to 200 mg KOH/g (¶ 13) which overlaps the claimed range of about 170 mg KOH/g or more. Jung offers the motivation of using a paint composition with these biomasses polyurethane resin in these hydroxyl values due to their ability to impart excellent properties such as scratch resistance, sunscreen resistance, acetone resistance, moisture resistance, and light resistance (abstract, ¶ 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the hydroxyl values of Jung in the paint composition of Park in view of Guo, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding the overlapping ranges, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Ana (solid content of 20 to 100 wt.%), Gregory ( molecular weight of 750 to 10,000), and Jung (hydroxyl value of 100 to 200 mg KOH/g ) overlap the instantly claimed ranges ( 90 to 100 wt% of solid content, 100 to 1000of molecular weight and 170 mg KOH/g or more of hydroxyl value) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 101994185) as listed on the IDS dated 4/18/2025; in view of Guo (CN 116178195 B) as set forth above for claim 1 and further in view of Lee Yun (KR 101615794 as listed on the IDS dated 4/18/2025); English Machine Translations provided herewith.
Park in view of Guo teaches the paint composition according to claim 1.
Park in view of Guo do not teach the particular bio-resins as required by the instant claim.
Lee Yun teaches a biomass resin or biomass-derived thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) comprising polylactic acid (PLA), polybutylene succinate (PBS), biomass-derived polyethylene, and bio mass -derived resin extracted from natural plants such as corn, sugarcane, corn, pork potato, and sugar beet (¶ 7, 8, 24, 35, 37). Lee Yun offers the motivation of using a paint composition with these biomass-derived thermoplastic resins due to their ability to impart excellent physical properties (¶119-120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the bio-derived and plant extracted components of Lee Yun in the paint composition of Park, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 101994185) as listed on the IDS dated 4/18/2025; in view of Guo (CN 116178195 B) as set forth above for claim 1, and further in view of Suzuki (CN 101376129 A) in view of Jung (KR 101619590 B1 as listed on the IDS dated 4/18/2025), English Machine Translations provided herewith.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Park in view of Guo teaches the paint composition according to claim 1. The paint composition of Park comprises a first, second and third acrylic resins (Abstract) wherein the paint composition comprises 30-40 parts by weight of a biomass-derived urethane acrylate oligomer, 10-20 parts by weight of a silicon-modified urethane acrylate oligomer and 20-30 parts by weight of biomass-derived acrylate (Abstract) thereby when other ingredients are considered, overlap the claimed ranges of about 10 to 15 wt% of the first acrylic resin, about 10 to 15 wt% of the second acrylic resin and about 5 to 10 wt% of the third acrylic resin as required by the instant claim 6.
Park in view of Guo do not teach the solid content, glass transition temperatures, the hydroxy value, or the viscosity of the acrylic resins as required by claim 5.
Regarding the solid content and the hydroxy value, Suzuki teaches a coating paint composition (claim 1) wherein the coating composition comprises an acrylic resin (a) which corresponds to first acrylic resin solid content preferably 50 to 85 wt.%, (¶167) and a hydroxyl value of 110 to 160 mg KOH/g. The content of acrylic resin (b) which corresponds to second acrylic resin has a hydroxyl value of 20 to 130 mg KOH/g, (¶142) which overlaps the claimed range (¶ 167, 142, 227, 155, 87).
Suzuki offers the motivation of using a paint composition with acrylic resin comprises acrylic resin(a), acrylic resin (b) and their solid content and hydroxyl value due to their ability to impart excellent depth transparency, design properties, depth color properties, smoothness, depth of tone, and corrosion resistance properties (¶ 4, 5, 7, 21, 62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the first acrylic resin (acrylic resin a), second acrylic resin (acrylic resin b) of Suzuki in the paint composition of Park in view of Guo, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Park in view of Guo and further in view of Suzuki are silent on the second and third acrylic resin’s solids content and the third acrylic resin’s hydroxy value.
However, Park teaches three acrylic resins as set forth above. Further, Suzuki teaches the solid content range of 50 to 85 wt% ((¶167) which overlaps the ranges as recited for all three acrylic resins (about 57 to 59 wt%, about 50 to 52 wt% and about 50 to 52 wt%, respectively) as recited in claim 5. Suzuki further teaches the hydroxyl value of 20 to 130 mg KOH/g (¶142) which overlaps the hydroxyl value for the second resin (about 50 to about 100 mg KOH/g) and third resin (about 10 to about 50 mg KOH/g) as required in the claim 5. Suzuki offers the motivation of choosing these acrylic resins as set forth above. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose solid content values and hydroxyl values for the three acrylic resins of Park within the overlapping ranges as disclosed by Suzuki, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Park in view of Guo and further in view of Suzuki are silent on the acrylic resin glass transition temperature of the acrylic resins.
Jung teaches a paint composition (claim 1) comprising bio-resins, acrylic resin and additives, wherein the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the acrylic resin is from 40 to 100°C (¶ 29).
Jung offers the motivation of using a paint composition with acrylic resin glass transition temperature in this range due to their ability to formulate a paint composition that is eco-friendly and can impart excellent properties such as scratch resistance, sunscreen resistance, acetone resistance, moisture resistance, and light resistance (¶ 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use resin glass transition temperature Jung in the paint composition of Park in view of Guo and Suzuki, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The glass transition temperature ranges for the acrylic resins of Jung are not exactly the same as the Tg temperatures required by the instant claim 5.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Jung (from 40 to 100 C) overlap the instantly claimed ranges (about 25 to 35 C, about 35 to 25 C and about 45 to 55 C) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the viscosity of the acrylic resins, Park in view of Guo are silent regarding the Gardner viscosity of the acrylic resins.
However, Park teach the viscosity of the acrylic resin must be controlled in order to result in the desired hardness of paint [0038]. As such, the Gardner viscosity of the acrylic resins will affect the resulting hardness of the final paint product. Therefore, the viscosity of the acrylic resins can be optimized to reach the desired hardness via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the relative viscosity of the acrylic resins for the intended application (paint composition) via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 101994185) as listed on the IDS dated 4/18/2025; in view of Guo (CN 116178195 B) as set forth above for claim 1, and further in view of Jung (KR 101619590 B1 as listed on the IDS dated 4/18/2025); English Machine Translations provided herewith.
Park in view of Guo teaches the paint composition according to claim 1.
Park in view of Guo do not teach the particular solvents or additives required by the instant claim.
Jung teaches a paint composition comprising an organic solvent, such as methyl isobutyl ketone, and butyl acetate (¶ 20) and further teaches the paint composition comprises additives (¶ 12, 31, 41, 9):
matting agent,
pigments which corresponds to colorants,
moisture resistance which corresponds to stain repellents,
activators or catalysts which corresponds to curing accelerators,
wetting additive which corresponds to surface conditioning agent,
anti-settling agents that reads on pot-life delaying agents,
wetting agents which corresponds to dispersants and surface conditioning agents.
Jung offers the motivation of using a paint composition with these organic solvents and additives due to their ability to formulate a paint composition that is eco-friendly and can impart excellent properties such as scratch resistance, sunscreen resistance, acetone resistance, moisture resistance, and light resistance (¶ 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the solvents and additives of Jung in the paint composition of Park in view of Guo, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 101994185) as listed on the IDS dated 4/18/2025; in view of Guo (CN 116178195 B) as set forth above for claim 1, and further in view of Jung (KR 101619590 B1 as listed on the IDS dated 4/18/2025) and Jeong (KR 20210047526 A); English Machine Translations provided herewith.
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Guo and further in view of Jung teach the paint composition according to claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Jung teaches the paint composition comprising (¶12, 49),:
1.5 to 3.5 wt.% of matting agent which overlaps the claimed range of about 3 to 10 wt%,
1 to 2 wt% of a pigment,
Moisture resistance (reads on stain repellent),
Anti-settling agent (reads on pot-life delaying agent),
to 1.5 wt.% of curing accelerators/catalyst which overlaps the claimed range of about 0.5 to 2 wt%
0.1 to 0.5 wt.% of wetting agent which corresponds to surface conditioning agent and dispersants and overlaps the claimed range of about 0.1 to 1 wt% and about 0.1 to 1 wt%.
Park in view of Guo and further in view of Jung do not teach the same amount of pigment/colorant, additives having moisture resistance or the amount of anti-settling agent/pot-life delaying agent as required by the instant claim.
However, the pigment will impart color to the final product (paint composition), the anti-settling agent will allow the paint to stay mixed longer and the additives imparting moisture resistance will impart stain resistance properties. As such, the amount of pigment/colorant, anti-settling agent/pot-life delaying agent and moisture resistance additives can be optimized to reach the desired color and stain repellency via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the relative amounts of the colorant and moisture repellant additives for the intended application (paint composition) via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Park in view of Guo and further in view of Jung do not teach wax.
Jeong teaches an oil base paint composition including a polyolefin resin and an acrylic resin, wherein the paint composition further comprises wax, wherein the wax is present in an amount of from 1 to 5 wt% of the composition (Abstract), [¶0010]. Jeong offers the motivation of using an oil paint composition with these ranges due to their ability to formulate a paint composition that impart excellent properties such as coating workability, appearance, coating film adhesion (¶ 125), wear resistance and scratch resistance (¶ 51), paint appearance (¶ 56), workability and drying properties (¶ 60), curing speed (¶ 64), and paint workability (¶ 68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the wax of Jeong in the paint composition of Park in view of Guo, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
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 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US2022356368 (A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the co-pending application claim 1 comprises a bio-paint composition comprising a biomass polyurethane, acrylic resin and an additive which overlaps with the bio-resin and acrylic resin of the present application claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMADAS SR SATHUNURU whose telephone number is (571)272-1687. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM to 3:30PM.
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, Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571)-270-7026. 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.
/RAMADAS SATHUNURU/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764