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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 4, 7-13, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teratani (JP 2011-207953) in view of Gisser et al. (US 2016/0194502) [IDS 4/28/23]. An English machine translation of Teratani (JP 2011-207953) used for citation.
Regarding claims 1, 8-9, 11-13, and 17: Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses coating compositions [abstract] comprising an acrylic polyol, a polycarbonate diol and a polyisocyanate [0017]. Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses Example 9 [Ex. 9; 0047-0060; Table 1, Ex. 9] contains 50 parts by mass (solid content [0016; 0048]) AS-5552 (acrylic polyol; solids content 60%; hydroxyl value 100 mgKOH/g; Tg = 40 oC; Mw = 8000 [0051]), 50 parts by mass G3450J (polycarbonate diol; solids content 100%; hydroxyl value 140 mgKOH/g; Tg = -32 oC; Mn = 800 [0052]), 46 parts by mass TKA-100 (hexamethylene diisocyanate; NCO value 21.7 [0059]), 0.2 parts by mass BYK-337 (silicone leveling agent [0060]), 0.2 parts by mass BYK-355 (acrylic leveling agent {corresponding to acrylic resin} [0060]), 1.0 parts by mass 14 (Tinuvin 400; UV absorber [0060]), 0.5 parts by mass 15 (Tinuvin 152; light stabilizer [0060]), and 0.1 parts by mass 16 (Neostan U-100; tin based curing accelerator [0060]) [Ex. 9; 0047-0060; Table 1, Ex. 9]. Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses a paint was prepared by mixing Ex. 9 with xylene/butyl acetate/solvesso 100/MIBK (4/3/2/1) and adjusting the viscosity of the mixture [0061].
Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses additives [0040], but does not disclose an antibacterial agent. However, Gisser et al. (US ‘502) discloses paint compositions [abstract] comprising inorganic biocides [0009], such as zeolites containing silver ions [0010-0011]. Teratani (JP ‘953) and Gisser et al. (US ‘502) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely the preparation of paint compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined zeolites containing silver ions, as taught by Gisser et al. (US ‘502) in the invention of Teratani (JP ‘953), and would have been motivated to do so since Gisser et al. (US ‘502) suggests zeolites containing silver ions affords paints having bacteriostatic and bactericidal properties [0009-0010].
Regarding claim 4: Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses two or more acrylic polyols [0019] in an amount of 10-80 parts by mass [0027].
Teratani (JP ‘953) does not specifically disclose Ex. 9 containing two acrylic polyols. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included 10-25 wt% of a first acrylic polyol and 10-25 wt% of a second acrylic polyol based on the invention of Teratani (JP ‘953), and would have been motivated to do so since Teratani (JP ‘953) suggests two or more acrylic polyols [0019] in an amount of 10-80 parts by mass [0027]. Additionally, “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) [see MPEP 2144.06].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 7: Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses the polycarbonate diol of Ex. 9 has a solids content 100%; hydroxyl value 140 mgKOH/g {~ 4.2% hydroxyl (OH%), as calculated by examiner}; Tg = -32 oC; Mn = 800 [0052]. Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses the polycarbonate diols having a Mn of 300 to 1500 [0031], corresponding to a Mw of ≥ 300.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 10: Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses adjusting the viscosity of the mixture with a solvent blend of xylene/butyl acetate/solvesso 100/MIBK (4/3/2/1) {corresponding to 3:1 butyl acetate:MIBK (methylisobutyl ketone [0039])} [0061].
Teratani (JP ‘953) does not specifically disclose the paint contains 20-50 wt% butyl acetate and 1-10 wt% MIBK. However, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject mat-ter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [see MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 18: Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses 0.2 parts by mass {~0.14 wt%} BYK-337 (silicone leveling agent [0060]), 1.0 parts by mass 14 {~0.68 wt%} (Tinuvin 400; UV absorber [0060]) and 0.1 parts by mass 16 {0.07 wt%} (Neostan U-100; tin based curing accelerator [0060]) [Ex. 9; 0047-0060; Table 1, Ex. 9].
Teratani (JP ‘953) does not disclose 0.1 wt% of the curing accelerator. However, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject mat-ter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [see MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teratani (JP 2011-207953) in view of Kimura et al. (JP 2004-26841). English machine translations of Teratani (JP 2011-207953) and Kimura et al. (JP 2004-26841) used for citation.
Regarding claims 1, 8-9 and 11-17: Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses coating compositions [abstract] comprising an acrylic polyol, a polycarbonate diol and a polyisocyanate [0017]. Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses Example 9 [Ex. 9; 0047-0060; Table 1, Ex. 9] contains 50 parts by mass (solid content [0016; 0048]) AS-5552 (acrylic polyol; solids content 60%; hydroxyl value 100 mgKOH/g; Tg = 40 oC; Mw = 8000 [0051]), 50 parts by mass G3450J (polycarbonate diol; solids content 100%; hydroxyl value 140 mgKOH/g; Tg = -32 oC; Mn = 800 [0052]), 46 parts by mass TKA-100 (hexamethylene diisocyanate; NCO value 21.7 [0059]), 0.2 parts by mass BYK-337 (silicone leveling agent [0060]), 0.2 parts by mass BYK-355 (acrylic leveling agent {corresponding to acrylic resin} [0060]), 1.0 parts by mass 14 (Tinuvin 400; UV absorber [0060]), 0.5 parts by mass 15 (Tinuvin 152; light stabilizer [0060]), and 0.1 parts by mass 16 (Neostan U-100; tin based curing accelerator [0060]) [Ex. 9; 0047-0060; Table 1, Ex. 9]. Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses a paint was prepared by mixing Ex. 9 with xylene/butyl acetate/solvesso 100/MIBK (4/3/2/1) and adjusting the viscosity of the mixture [0061].
Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses additives [0040], but does not disclose an antibacterial agent. However, Kimura et al. (JP ‘841) discloses paint compositions [abstract] comprising an antimicrobial agent [0001; 0004-0005] prepared from an antimicrobial powder having 3% silver ions supported on zeolite having a mean particle size 1.5 µm; 35 parts by weight of the antimicrobial powder mixed with 65 parts by weight of a surfactant solution {corresponding to 35 wt% solids} [Ex. 1; 0042]. Teratani (JP ‘953) and Kimura et al. (JP ‘841) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely the preparation of paint compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined an antimicrobial agent prepared from an antimicrobial powder having 3% silver ions supported on zeolite having a mean particle size 1.5 µm, as taught by Kimura et al. (JP ‘841) in the invention of Teratani (JP ‘953), and would have been motivated to do so since Kimura et al. (JP ‘841) discloses the resulting antimicrobial paste affords a coating composition having an antimicrobial agent that maintains uniform dispersion over a long period of time [0005].
Regarding claim 4: Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses two or more acrylic polyols [0019] in an amount of 10-80 parts by mass [0027].
Teratani (JP ‘953) does not specifically disclose Ex. 9 containing two acrylic polyols. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included 10-25 wt% of a first acrylic polyol and 10-25 wt% of a second acrylic polyol based on the invention of Teratani (JP ‘953), and would have been motivated to do so since Teratani (JP ‘953) suggests two or more acrylic polyols [0019] in an amount of 10-80 parts by mass [0027]. Additionally, “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) [see MPEP 2144.06].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 7: Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses the polycarbonate diol of Ex. 9 has a solids content 100%; hydroxyl value 140 mgKOH/g {~ 4.2% hydroxyl (OH%), as calculated by examiner}; Tg = -32 oC; Mn = 800 [0052]. Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses the polycarbonate diols having a Mn of 300 to 1500 [0031], corresponding to a Mw of ≥ 300.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 10: Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses adjusting the viscosity of the mixture with a solvent blend of xylene/butyl acetate/solvesso 100/MIBK (4/3/2/1) {corresponding to 3:1 butyl acetate:MIBK (methylisobutyl ketone [0039])} [0061].
Teratani (JP ‘953) does not specifically disclose the paint contains 20-50 wt% butyl acetate and 1-10 wt% MIBK. However, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject mat-ter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [see MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 18: Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses 0.2 parts by mass {~0.14 wt%} BYK-337 (silicone leveling agent [0060]), 1.0 parts by mass 14 {~0.68 wt%} (Tinuvin 400; UV absorber [0060]) and 0.1 parts by mass 16 {0.07 wt%} (Neostan U-100; tin based curing accelerator [0060]) [Ex. 9; 0047-0060; Table 1, Ex. 9].
Teratani (JP ‘953) does not disclose 0.1 wt% of the curing accelerator. However, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject mat-ter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [see MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teratani (JP 2011-207953) in view of Gisser et al. (US 2016/0194502) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 2015/0079295).
Regarding claim 3: Teratani (JP ‘953) and Gisser et al. (US 2016/0194502) disclose the basic claimed composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 1].
Teratani (JP ‘953) does not disclose an acrylic resin having a solid content of about 30-45 wt% and a Tg of about 50-90 oC. However, Jeong et al. (US ‘295) discloses paint compositions [abstract] comprising an acrylic resin having a solid content of about 40 wt% and a Tg of about 70-80 oC [0033]. Teratani (JP ‘953) and Jeong et al. (US ‘295) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely the preparation of paint compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined an acrylic resin having a solid content of about 40 wt% and a Tg of about 70-80 oC, as taught by Jeong et al. (US ‘295) in the invention of Teratani (JP ‘953), and would have been motivated to do so since Jeong et al. (US ‘295) discloses acrylic resin having a solid content of about 40 wt% and a Tg of about 70-80 oC affords increased hardness and adhesion [0033].
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teratani (JP 2011-207953) in view of Gisser et al. (US 2016/0194502) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2017/0174929).
Regarding claims 19-20: Teratani (JP ‘953) and Gisser et al. (US ‘502) disclose the basic claimed composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 1].
Teratani (JP ‘953) does not disclose a quencher. However, Jeon et al. (US ‘929) discloses paint compositions [abstract] comprising a hydrophobic silica quencher (matting agent) having a particle size of amount 1-2 µm [0075, 0097]. Teratani (JP ‘953) and Jeon et al. (US ‘929) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely the preparation of paint compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined a hydrophobic silica quencher having a particle size of amount 1-2 µm, as taught by Jeon et al. (US ‘929) in the invention of Teratani (JP ‘953), and would have been motivated to do so since Jeon et al. (US ‘929) discloses a hydrophobic silica quencher having a particle size of amount 1-2 µm is moisture resistant and affords a film that will not whitened when flexed [0075].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teratani (JP 2011-207953) in view of Kimura et al. (JP 2004-26841) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 2015/0079295).
Regarding claim 3: Teratani (JP ‘953) and Kimura et al. (JP ‘841) disclose the basic claimed composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 1].
Teratani (JP ‘953) does not disclose an acrylic resin having a solid content of about 30-45 wt% and a Tg of about 50-90 oC. However, Jeong et al. (US ‘295) discloses paint compositions [abstract] comprising an acrylic resin having a solid content of about 40 wt% and a Tg of about 70-80 oC [0033]. Teratani (JP ‘953) and Jeong et al. (US ‘295) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely the preparation of paint compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined an acrylic resin having a solid content of about 40 wt% and a Tg of about 70-80 oC, as taught by Jeong et al. (US ‘295) in the invention of Teratani (JP ‘953), and would have been motivated to do so since Jeong et al. (US ‘295) discloses acrylic resin having a solid content of about 40 wt% and a Tg of about 70-80 oC affords increased hardness and adhesion [0033].
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teratani (JP 2011-207953) in view of Kimura et al. (JP 2004-26841) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2017/0174929).
Regarding claims 19-20: Teratani (JP ‘953) and Kimura et al. (JP ‘841) disclose the basic claimed composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 1].
Teratani (JP ‘953) does not disclose a quencher. However, Jeon et al. (US ‘929) discloses paint compositions [abstract] comprising a hydrophobic silica quencher (matting agent) having a particle size of amount 1-2 µm [0075, 0097]. Teratani (JP ‘953) and Jeon et al. (US ‘929) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely the preparation of paint compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined a hydrophobic silica quencher having a particle size of amount 1-2 µm, as taught by Jeon et al. (US ‘929) in the invention of Teratani (JP ‘953), and would have been motivated to do so since Jeon et al. (US ‘929) discloses a hydrophobic silica quencher having a particle size of amount 1-2 µm is moisture resistant and affords a film that will not whitened when flexed [0075].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The combination of Teratani (JP 2011-207953) and Gisser et al. (US 2016/0194502), or Teratani (JP 2011-207953) and Kimura et al. (JP 2004-26841) do not disclose the paint composition comprising: an amount of 1% to 10% by weight of the acrylic resin; an amount of 20% to 50% by weight of the acrylic polyol resin; an amount of 1% to 10% by weight of the polycarbonate diol resin; an amount of 15% to 25% by weight of the diisocyanate; an amount of 21% to 60% by weight of the solvent; and an amount of 2% to 5% by weight of the antibacterial agent [instant claim 2] with sufficient specificity. Such a reconstruction of the claims would be based on improper hindsight reasoning.
Teratani (JP ‘953) discloses two or more acrylic polyols [0019] in an amount of 10-80 parts by mass [0027], wherein the acrylic polyols have hydroxyl values of 30-300 mg KOH/g (~ 0.91 – 9.1% hydroxyl (OH%)). Teratani (JP ‘953) does not disclose an amount of 10% to 25% by weight of a first acrylic polyol resin; and an amount of 10% to 25% by weight of a second acrylic polyol resin with respect to 100% by weight of the entire paint composition; wherein the first acrylic polyol resin has a solid content of about 55% to 65% by weight and has a hydroxyl value in a range of about 15% to 60% and a glass transition temperature in a range of about 30°C to 70°C [instant claim 5]; the second acrylic polyol resin has a solid content of about 45% to 55% by weight and has a hydroxyl value in a range of about 10% to 50% and a glass transition temperature in a range of about 20°C to 60°C [instant claim 6] with sufficient specificity. Such a reconstruction of the claims would be based on improper hindsight reasoning.
See attached form PTO-892.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F PEPITONE whose telephone number is (571)270-3299. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL F PEPITONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767