DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
Applicant is advised to elect one of (i), (ii), or (iii) from the following species:
lithium atoms and aluminum atoms;
titanium atoms and zinc atoms; and
tin atoms.
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claim(s) are generic: Claims 1 and 32.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Species (i) – (iii) lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature. Species (i) is directed to embodiments in which a combination of lithium and aluminum atoms are provided in the polyester, whereas species (ii) is directed to embodiments in which a combination of titanium and zinc atoms are provided in the polyester, whereas species (iii) is directed to embodiments in which tin atoms are provided in the polyester.
During a telephone conversation with Robert Morris on March 11, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of (i) lithium atoms and aluminum atoms, Claims 1, 3, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 29, 32, 35, and 40. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 4, 11, 12, 14, 22, 25, 26, 36, and 41 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 20, and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
to mirror the language of the rest of the claim, it is suggested Claims 1 and 32 be amended to recite 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol residues;
for conciseness, it is further suggested that Claims 1 and 32 be amended to simply recite “greater than 80 mole% of cis-2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol and less than 20 mole% of cis-2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol”, as the subsequently recited narrower ranges are necessarily included in the aforementioned range; and
Claim 20 should be amended to recite “tri-n-butyrate”.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 29, 32, 35, and 40 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 because:
Use of parentheses (wt/wt) in Claims 1 renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether the limitations enclosed in parentheses are required or optional. For the purposes of examination, the limitations enclosed in parentheses will be interpreted as being required.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the final” polyester recited twice in the last paragraph Claim 1. The claim does not set forth a final polyester prior to this recitation. For the purposes of examination, “the final” polyester will be interpreted as referring to the polyester composition.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the” total percentage yield of 2,2,4,4,-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol residues and “the” catalyst system in Claim 29. The claim does not set forth a percentage yield or catalyst system prior to these recitations. The metes and bounds of the claim are also not clearly defined because it is unclear how the total percentage yield is calculated, i.e. if this percentage is a weight percent, mole percent, etc. For the purposes of further examination, Claim 29 will be interpreted as setting forth a total percentage yield of 2,2,4,4,-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol residues is 0.50 weight percent or greater than in an identical polyester composition except that a mixture of 55/45 mol% cis/tran-2,2,24,4,-tetramethyl-1,3,-cyclobutanediol is used in place of component (b)(ii).
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the final” polyester recited twice in the last paragraph Claim 1. The claim does not set forth a final polyester prior to this recitation. For the purposes of examination, “the final” polyester will be interpreted as referring to the polyester composition.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the final” polyester in each instance in Claim 32. The claim does not set forth a final polyester prior to this recitation. For the purposes of examination, “the final” polyester will be interpreted as referring to said at least one polyester.
As other pending claims ultimately depend on Claim 1 or Claim 32, they incorporate the subject matter thereof and are consequently also rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 13, 15, 20, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2 332 592 to Crawford et al. (hereinafter Crawford).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3. Crawford teaches a polyester composition comprising:
a dicarboxylic acid component comprising:
90 to 100 mol% of terephthalic acid residues;
0 to 30 mol% of aromatic dicarboxylic acid residues having up to 20 carbon atoms;
0 to 10 mol% of aliphatic dicarboxylic acid residues having up to 16 carbon atoms;
a glycol component comprising:
5 to 50 mol% of 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol (TMCD) residues. The TMCD component provided may be greater than 70 mole percent cis-TMCD and thus the remaining less than 30 mole percent of this component would be trans-TMCD; and
greater than 50 to 95 mol% cyclohexanedimethanol residues.
wherein the total mole% of the dicarboxylic acid component is 100 mole% and the total mole% of the glycol component is 100 mole% ([0011] and [0081]). Crawford does not teach at least one modifying glycol is included in this embodiment, which corresponds to an optional component in the instant claim which is not required to be present in the polyester composition.
The polyester composition may further comprises an aluminum compound with lithium hydroxide [0114], which will respectively provide aluminum and lithium atoms in the composition.
The polyester has an inherent viscosity of 0.50 to 1.2 dL/g as determined in 60/40 (wt/wt) phenol/tetrachlorethane at a concentration of 25°C and a Tg from 85 to 125°C.
Regarding Claims 13 and 15. Crawford teaches the polyester composition of Claim 1 and does not require manganese or germanium be present, corresponding to an amount of each element of 0 ppm.
Regarding Claim 20. Crawford teaches the polyester composition of Claim 3 in which the lithium source is lithium hydroxide [0114].
Regarding Claim 29. Crawford teaches the polyester composition of Claim 1 but is silent with respect to the total percentage yield of 2,2,4,4,-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol residues relative to an identical polyester composition except that a mixture of 55/45 mol% cis/tran-2,2,24,4,-tetramethyl-1,3,-cyclobutanediol is used in place of component (b)(ii). However, Crawford teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties - i.e. total percentage yield of 2,2,4,4,-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol residues that is 0.50 weight percent or greater than in an identical polyester composition except that a mixture of 55/45 mol% cis/tran-2,2,24,4,-tetramethyl-1,3,-cyclobutanediol is used in place of component (b)(ii) - would implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process.
Claims 32, 45, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2 332 592 to Crawford et al. (hereinafter Crawford).
Regarding Claim 32. Crawford teaches a process for making at least one polyester composition comprising:
a dicarboxylic acid component comprising:
90 to 100 mol% of terephthalic acid residues;
0 to 30 mol% of aromatic dicarboxylic acid residues having up to 20 carbon atoms;
0 to 10 mol% of aliphatic dicarboxylic acid residues having up to 16 carbon atoms;
a glycol component comprising:
5 to 50 mol% of 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol (TMCD) residues. The TMCD component provided may be greater than 70 mole percent cis-TMCD and thus the remaining less than 30 mole percent of this component would be trans-TMCD; and
greater than 50 to 95 mol% cyclohexanedimethanol residues.
wherein the total mole% of the dicarboxylic acid component is 100 mole% and the total mole% of the glycol component is 100 mole% ([0011] and [0081]). Crawford does not teach at least one modifying glycol is included in this embodiment, which corresponds to an optional component in the instant claim which is not required to be present in the polyester composition.
The process comprises (I) heating a mixture of the above described glycol and dicarboxylic acid components in a molar ratio of 1.0 – 1.5/1.0 to at least one temperature selected from 150 to 200°C and at least one pressure chosen from 0 to 75 psig. The process further comprises (II) heating the obtained product to a temperature of 230 to 320°C at a pressure of 0.02 torr absolute [0049]. In step (I), heating may occur in the presence of a catalyst system comprising an aluminum compound and lithium hydroxide [0114].
The polyester has an inherent viscosity of 0.35 to 1.2 dL/g as determined in 60/40 (wt/wt) phenol/tetrachlorethane at a concentration of 25°C and a Tg from 85 to 200°C [0049].
Regarding Claims 35 and 40. Crawford teaches the process of Claim 35 wherein the catalyst system comprise an aluminum compound and lithium hydroxide [0114], i.e. at least one aluminum compound and at least one lithium compound.
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 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2 332 592 to Crawford et al. (hereinafter Crawford), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2007/0066735 to Quillen et al. (hereinafter Quiellen).
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.
Regarding Claims 16 and 18. Crawford teaches the polyester composition of Claim 3 but is silent with respect to the amounts of lithium and aluminum provided, as well as the ratio of lithium to aluminum atoms. However, Quillen teaches the concept of preparing a polyester polymer in which 10 to 50 ppm of lithium and 10 to 50 ppm aluminum are included in the composition [0294], corresponding to a total catalyst metal of lithium and aluminum present in the polyester being in the range of 20 to 100 ppm relative to the mass of the polyester. Quillen further teaches a ratio of alkaline earth metal or alkali (e.g. lithium):aluminum is desirably 0.5 to 6 [0142], which may be written alternatively as 1:2 to 5:1. Crawford and Quillen are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polyester compositions. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the catalyst system comprising lithium and aluminum in the amounts and ratios disclosed by Quillen in the polyester composition of Crawford. The motivation would have been that Quillen teaches this catalyst system provides a polyester which has a low yellow hue, neutral b* color, low haze, and good reheat rates, while being prepared with highly active catalysts [0007].
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 1, 3, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 29, 32, 35, and 40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 21 of copending Application No. 18/257,692.
The claims of Application No. 18/257,692 differ from the instant claims in that they do not expressly set forth the 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol (TMCD) is 80 mol percent or more cis-TMCD and 20 mole percent of less trans-TMCD and also that the polyester has an inherent viscosity and Tg in the instantly claimed ranges. However, Claim 17 of Application No. 18/257,692 does set forth a 70/30 or greater molar ratio of cis/trans TMCD is provided, which would result in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a polyester having an inherent viscosity and Tg in the instantly claimed ranges, would implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 3, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 29, 32, 35, and 40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/257,729.
The claims of Application No. 18/257,729 differ from the instant claims in that they do not expressly set forth the 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol (TMCD) is 80 mol percent or more cis-TMCD and 20 mole percent of less trans-TMCD and also that the polyester has an inherent viscosity and Tg in the instantly claimed ranges. However, Claim 17 of Application No. 18/257,729 does set forth a 70/30 or greater molar ratio of cis/trans TMCD is provided, which would result in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a polyester having an inherent viscosity and Tg in the instantly claimed ranges, would implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 3, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 29, 32, 35, and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 – 27 of U.S. Patent No. 9,169,388 to US 2007/0066735 to Quillen et al. (hereinafter Quiellen).
The claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,169,388 differ from the instant claims in that they do not expressly teach the polyester composition further comprises lithium and aluminum atoms. However, Quillen teaches the concept of preparing a polyester polymer in which 10 to 50 ppm of lithium and 10 to 50 ppm aluminum are included in the composition [0294], corresponding to a total catalyst metal of lithium and aluminum present in the polyester being in the range of 20 to 100 ppm relative to the mass of the polyester. Quillen further teaches a ratio of alkaline earth metal or alkali (e.g. lithium):aluminum is desirably 0.5 to 6 [0142], which may be written alternatively as 1:2 to 5:1. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the catalyst system comprising lithium and aluminum in amounts and ratios disclosed by Quillen in the polyester composition set forth in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,169,388. The motivation would have been that Quillen teaches this catalyst system provides a polyester which has a low yellow hue, neutral b* color, low haze, and good reheat rates, while being prepared with highly active catalysts [0007].
Claims 1, 3, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 29, 32, 35, and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,598,533 to US 2007/0066735 to Quillen et al. (hereinafter Quiellen).
The claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,598,533 differ from the instant claims in that they do not expressly teach the polyester composition further comprises lithium and aluminum atoms. However, Quillen teaches the concept of preparing a polyester polymer in which 10 to 50 ppm of lithium and 10 to 50 ppm aluminum are included in the composition [0294], corresponding to a total catalyst metal of lithium and aluminum present in the polyester being in the range of 20 to 100 ppm relative to the mass of the polyester. Quillen further teaches a ratio of alkaline earth metal or alkali (e.g. lithium):aluminum is desirably 0.5 to 6 [0142], which may be written alternatively as 1:2 to 5:1. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the catalyst system comprising lithium and aluminum in amounts and ratios disclosed by Quillen in the polyester composition set forth in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,598,533. The motivation would have been that Quillen teaches this catalyst system provides a polyester which has a low yellow hue, neutral b* color, low haze, and good reheat rates, while being prepared with highly active catalysts [0007].
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 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, Arrie 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.
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764