The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Formal Matters
Claims 2, 8, and 19 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-18, and 20 are pending and under examination.
Priority
This application is a Continuation-in-Part of PCT/US22/37053 filed on 7/14/2022.
Rejections Withdrawn
The rejection under USC 112(a) for “the beta-carotene is non-discoloring” is withdrawn as applicant has removed this limitation from claim 1.
The rejection under USC 112(b) over claims 15-18 for lack of clarity on how water miscible solvent is presented in dependency to claim 14 is withdrawn per applicant’s amendment to change the dependency of claim 15 to claim 13.
The rejection under USC 112(b) over claim 19 is withdrawn per applicant’s cancellation of the claim.
The rejection under USC 112(d) is withdrawn per applicant’s cancellation of claim 8.
The rejection under USC 102(a)(1) over CN104739847A is withdrawn per applicant’s amendments.
The rejection under USC 102(a)(1) over Shade is withdrawn per applicant’s amendments.
The rejection under USC 103 over only Shade and Saloum is withdrawn per applicant’s amendment. However, note the rejections under USC 103 that are presented below to address applicant’s new amendment to ratio of provitamin A to preformed vitamin A that was added to the claims.
Objections or rejections toward cancelled claims are withdrawn as they are now moot.
As these rejections are withdrawn, applicant’s arguments to these rejections are now moot.
Maintained Objections- Updated Due to New claim 20
Claim Objection
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7 are objected to for the recitation of “at least one of…and a probiotic formulation.” where the recitation should be “at least one of (or two of)…..or a probiotic formulation.” or alternatively “at least one of (or two of)…. or combinations thereof.” as this is a list of options without using the terminology “selected from the group consisting of…. and…”.
Claims 18 and 20 are objected to for the recitation of “at least two of….and zinc.” should be “at least two of….or combinations thereof” as this is a list of option without using the terminology “selected from the group consisting of …and…”.
Claim 13 is objected to for having periods that are unnecessary in the claim. These are the periods found after a, b and c in the claim. Applicant may use parentheses instead such as a), b) and c).
Appropriate corrections are required.
Response to Applicant over Objections
Applicant does not argue or amend the claims toward these objections. Thus, the objections are maintained.
New Rejection – As Necessitated by Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – New Matter
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant does not indicate how the ratio range (ratio of 96.5-94.5% to 3.5-5.5% - regarding provitamin A to pre-formed vitamin A) added to the claims was derived nor is it clear from the specification where the full range was derived or if applicant has support. If applicant has derived support for this ratio range from what is provided in the original specification, then applicant should particularly point out and use calculations where necessary. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claims are considered with the amendments as provided. If applicant simply deletes the recitation of this ratio in response, then the former rejections may be reinstated.
Maintained Rejection – Modified As Necessitated by Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to products of nature without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a multivitamin with beta-carotene that is non-discoloring. Claim 13 provides for a multivitamin with vitamin A, vitamin E and solubilizer and claim 19 provides for a multivitamin with preformed vitamin A (form that is active), pro-vitamin A, which could be carotenes, and a solubilizer (some are natural compounds). Multivitamin suggests the composition has at least two vitamins where many vitamins are known to be naturally occurring. A non-discoloring beta-carotene may be one where the amount of beta-carotene is present at low amounts so the color is not readily visible. A lower amount of a natural substance still retains its structure as a natural compound, and thus, the natural structure or properties are unchanged. In regards to solubilizers (water soluble or miscible), the claims do not provide a form of the composition where the solubilizer will function (e.g. aqueous liquid) to solubilize an insoluble or poorly soluble compound that might be in the claim, so naturally occurring compounds that can act as solubilizers will read on this limitation (biosurfactants like phospholipids or carrier proteins like albumin, for example). Beta-carotene (a natural provitamin A), vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin K, vitamin E, zinc, peppermint oil and probiotics (microbes) are natural components. Emulsifiers can read on compounds that are natural such as phospholipids or other naturally occurring biosurfactant compounds. As bodily fluids like blood and cytoplasm and plant fluids like juices/secretions can carry natural vitamins, oils, natural minerals, liquids like water, sometimes microbes, and other compounds (e.g. phospholipids, fats, fatty acids, sugars, amino acids, peptides, cholesterol, hormones), applicant’s claims potentially read on such natural products. Thomas (News-Medical Life Sciences, downloaded June 2025, Blood Plasma Components and Function) provides that blood has water and other components including proteins like albumin, ions, dissolved gases, nutrient molecules, and wastes (Plasma Components). Thomas recognizes some plasma proteins (albumins) act to carry small molecules, fats and hormones. This would help solubilize those small molecules in the blood. Electrolytes, amino acids, and nutrients including vitamins, minerals, fats and glucose are also found in blood plasma by teachings of Thomas. Cholecystokinin is a peptide hormone in the body that helps stimulate bile fluid secretion. Www.fao.org (Chapter 3, Fruit morphology and composition, downloaded June 2025, https://www.fao.org/4/y2515e/y2515e04.htm#:~:text=These%20are%20water%2Dsoluble%20with,although%20avocado%20puree%20merits%20consideration) provides that fruit/juice general composition is water, carbohydrates (e.g. pectin, hemicellulose), proteins, lipids, acids, phenolics, vitamins (water soluble greater than fat soluble), minerals, dietary fiber and pigments like carotenoids (section 3.2 of Fao.org). Polysaccharides, proteins and lipids include substances that act as solubilizers for other compounds. Haskell (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2012, volume 96, pages 1193S-1203S) provides for plant sources of beta-carotene as well as the natural existence of preformed vitamin A (abstract and introduction of Haskell, also section on Vitamin A equivalency of beta-carotene from plant sources section) in plants and animals. Haskell’s teachings would indicate amounts of beta-carotene and preformed vitamin A would vary by plant.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim can read on a multivitamin/composition of all natural substances that can exist in liquids like blood and juices of plants/fruits/vegetables where the natural compounds are acting for their respective functions in the naturally occurring items. For example, peppermint oil is used for its individual ability to stimulate bile fluid secretion/release. Additionally, to reiterate, solubilizer in the claims that currently stand are not in a necessary form where solubilization can occur and it appears that natural solubilizers exist in naturally occurring fluids exist along with vitamins, minerals and other naturally occurring compounds. The solubilizer is not incorporated into a composition form that would change the state of the vitamin A (provitamin A or preformed version) or not defined as a particular solubilizer that would aid solubilization of these items in the claim. Thus, such natural solubilizers are not acting differently than what is present in nature.
Response to Applicant over the Rejection under USC 101
Applicant argues that amendments to the claims overcome the rejection. As provitamin A includes natural provitamin A compounds like carotenes (e.g. beta-carotene), this amounts to a ratio of natural compound to natural compound. There was no argument on how such amendments to the claims provide a composition with markedly different characteristics or significantly more. The rejection is updated to account for this amendment to include the ratio by applicant.
Maintained and New Rejections – Modified As Necessitated by Amendment
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 1, 3-7, 9-18, and 20 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.
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 are indefinite for the recitation of “high dose vitamin C”. The specification provides for different recommended daily allowance (RDA) values of vitamin C based on age and sex (see pages 28-29 of applicant’s specification). If a high dose is based on different RDA values, it is uncertain what amount is high dose due to this variability in what would be considered high dose for different individuals. It is suggested that applicant use numerical ranges for what is considered high dose vitamin C based on dose values, dose ranges, or RDA values found on pages 28-29 of applicant’s specification. For the purpose of compact prosecution, if the prior art teaches an amount of vitamin C over 45 mg, it will be considered high dose in terms of newborns to 12 month olds (see specification page 28, lines 1-3) since that may be one version of high dose. Applicant may amend the claim to remove “high dose” from before vitamin C.
Claims 9-10 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claims.
Claims 1 and 13 are indefinite for the new indication of “ratio” after amendment without providing if the ratio is a weight% ratio, molar% ratio, etc. There is no indication in the specification of how ratios would be interpreted in a particular way. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner will consider the ratios as weight ratios and if support is found for this being a weight ratio or weight/weight ratio then applicant may amend the claims to provide this limitation.
Claims 3-7, 9, 12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claims.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant has overcome certain rejections under USC 112(b) as noted above and these were withdrawn. However, applicant did not delete “high dose” front of of vitamin C or provide how “high dose” provides a definite limitation via recitations of the specification to what “high dose” would mean to read on this limitation (e.g. what would be the lowest value to still be considered a high dose). For this reason, this rejection under USC 112(b) was maintained. The rejection regarding ratio was added due to applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 13.
New Rejection – As Necessitated by New Amendment
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shade US 10722465, Noordeen WO 2020201763A1, and Haskell (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2012, volume 96, pages 1193S-1203S).
The limitation of “for a patient over three years of age” is to the intended use of the multivitamin and does not provide structure to the claimed multivitamin.
Provitamin A is being read as compounds that are converted into vitamin A such as carotenoids like beta-carotene.
Shade teaches an aqueous, intra-oral, transparent nanoemulsion blend in the form of a stable dispersion is provided that delivers both oil and water soluble components of a vitamin supplement (abstract). Shade allows for micelle forming phosphatidylcholine in the formulations (abstract). Example 1 of Shade teaches a formulation with vitamin A with 14% by weight as beta carotene (thus, preformed and pro-vitamin A), vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin K2 (a vitamin K), glycerin and TPGS (Example 1). TPGS is tocopheryl polyethylene glycol succinate, which is water soluble and micelle forming. The formulation is noted to be transparent in Shade as well as having a portion of beta-carotene, and thus, is presumed to be non-discoloring. Shade teaches 120 mg of vitamin C in example 1. Shade allows for formulation with additional oil-soluble carotenoids (claims 1 and 14 of Shade).
Shade does not teach the ratios of provitamin A to preformed vitamin A in the claims.
Noordeen teaches formulations with vitamin A that are beneficial for tissue injury (abstract). Noordeen teaches provitamin A as part of the vitamin A in the formulation (claim 59 of Noordeen). Noordeen teaches vitamin A in some supplements may be entirely or partly beta-carotene or other forms of provitamin A (page 7 of Noordeen, lines 13-20). Noordeen allows for solubilizers as an option of conventional additive (page 20). Noordeen allows for an aqueous formulation as an option (page 21).
Haskell teaches that beta-carotene is an important source of vitamin A (abstract). Haskell teaches “these results support the inclusion of dietary interventions with plant sources of β-carotene (a provitamin A) as a strategy for increasing vitamin A status in populations at risk of deficiency” (abstract). The introduction of Haskell notes that Beta-carotene is a safe source of vitamin A while preformed vitamin A has potentially adverse effects when consumed in high amounts (Introduction of Haskell). This motivates having a higher amount of a provitamin A form than preformed vitamin A where safety is a concern.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have sought to decrease the amount of preformed vitamin A and add more forms of provitamin A like carotenes as preformed vitamin A is shown to be toxic while beta-carotene is seen as a source of vitamin A that is safe in teachings of Haskell with Noordeen allowing for supplements entirely or partly having provitamin A for the vitamin A component. Although Shade provides for vitamin A comprising an amount of beta-carotene, one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to increase that amount of beta-carotene/carotenes and lower the amount of preformed vitamin A based on teachings of Haskell and Noordeen to achieve safe and still effect formulations to provide vitamin A to a subject. Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such an adjustment to have provitamin A through routine optimization to make safer supplements capable of providing vitamin A (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 11, 12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shade US 10722465, Noordeen WO 2020201763A1, Haskell (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2012, volume 96, pages 1193S-1203S) and Saloum US 20080038367.
Shade, Noordeen and Haskell teach the claims as discussed above.
Shade, Noordeen and Haskell do not teach a bile secretion stimulator like peppermint oil.
Saloum’s composition is for nutrition and has a carrier liquid (abstract). Saloum teaches peppermint essential oils that is the most extensively used of all oils due to minty scent, flavoring and medicinal properties (paragraph 57). Saloum teaches a number of possible nutrients for its nutritional drink including zinc, beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin K, glycerin and peppermint oil among others (paragraph 39). Thus, Saloum recognizes a number of nutritional ingredients for its formulation. Saloum recognizes zinc occurs in many metalloenzymes and is important for a healthy immune system (paragraph 100).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have included other nutritional ingredients including zinc and peppermint oil taught by Saloum in formulations of Shade, Noordeen and Haskell as Saloum recognizes the benefits of such ingredients in its formulations that are also orally taken and containing nutrients/vitamins. Thus, there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Shade, Noordeen, Haskell and Saloum and arriving at compositions of applicant’s claims.
Non-Statutory 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.
Claims 13-18 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/684862 (reference application) in view of Haskell (see above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides for compositions of vitamin A and/or provitamin A, which would include beta-carotene along with solubilizers, other vitamins, zinc and peppermint oil for multivitamins including a liquid multivitamin.
The claims of ‘862 do not provide for ratios of provitamin A to preformed vitamin A as in applicant’s claims.
Haskell teaches that beta-carotene is an important source of vitamin A (abstract). Haskell teaches “these results support the inclusion of dietary interventions with plant sources of β-carotene as a strategy for increasing vitamin A status in populations at risk of deficiency” (abstract). The introduction of Haskell notes that Beta-carotene is a safe source of vitamin A while preformed vitamin A has potentially adverse effects when consumed in high amounts (Introduction of Haskell).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have sought to decrease the amount of preformed vitamin A and add more forms of provitamin A like carotenes as preformed vitamin A is shown to be toxic while beta-carotene is seen as a source of vitamin A that is safe in teachings of Haskell. Although Shade provides for vitamin A comprising an amount of beta-carotene, one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to increase that amount of beta-carotene/carotenes and lower the amount of preformed vitamin A based on teachings of Haskell to achieve safe and still effect formulations to provide vitamin A to a subject.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/684862 (reference application) in view of Haskell (see above) and Shade US 10722465. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides for compositions of vitamin A and/or provitamin A, which would include beta-carotene along with solubilizers, other vitamins, zinc and peppermint oil for multivitamins including a liquid multivitamin.
‘862 and Haskell does not teach beta-carotene that is non-discoloring, although it allows for beta-carotene by way of provitamin A.
Shade teaches an aqueous, intra-oral, transparent nanoemulsion blend in the form of a stable dispersion is provided that delivers both oil and water soluble components of a vitamin supplement (abstract). Shade allows for micelle forming phosphatidylcholine in the formulations (abstract). Example 1 of Shade teaches a formulation with vitamin A with 14% by weight as beta carotene (thus, preformed and pro-vitamin A), vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin K2 (a vitamin K), glycerin and TPGS (Example 1). TPGS is tocopheryl polyethylene glycol succinate, which is water soluble and micelle forming. The formulation is noted to be transparent in Shade as well as having a portion of beta-carotene, and thus, is presumed to be non-discoloring. Shade teaches 120 mg of vitamin C in example 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized vitamin A with the beta-carotene concentration of Shade when providing transparent formulations of multivitamin liquid compositions of ‘862. This would result in a non-discolored formulation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Double Patenting Comments
Applicant did not argue the double patenting rejections or provide a terminal disclaimer. The rejections were updated to reflect applicant’s amended claims.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 MARK V STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7080. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST.
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 on (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 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.
/MARK V STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613