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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, in line 1, “Claim” should not be capitalized, there should be a comma after the number 1, and the word “the” should be inserted after wherein.
Regarding claims 3-5, in line 2 of each claim, the word “the” should be inserted after wherein.
Regarding claim 11, in line 2, “or from” should be deleted.
Regarding claim 13, in line 3, the word “is” should be inserted between prepared and from.
Regarding claim 16, in line 5, the word “and” should be deleted; and in line 6, the comma inside “alkyl acetoacetate gallium diisopropylate” should be deleted.
Regarding claim 18, in line 3, “Claim” should not be capitalized; and in line 6, polysulfones should be followed by a comma and not a semicolon.
Regarding claim 20, please write out the abbreviation TMCD.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 7, 11-16, 20, and 21 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.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitation "residues of diethylene glycol" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, the only mention in the claims and in the specification of diethylene glycol is as a modifying glycol and the specification states that these compounds are present in less than 25 mole% (PG-PUB, ¶16). Further, it is unclear how diethylene glycol residues can be part of the glycol component at an amount of about 50 mole% while also having 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol residues present in about 50 mole% and 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol residues present in about 10 mole%. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant to be encompassed by this claim. For the purpose of further examination, the diethylene glycol will be interpreted as being a modifying glycol and present in less than 25 mole% based on the teaching of the application as a whole.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the limitation "the inherent viscosity" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as “an inherent viscosity.”
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the limitation "the amount" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as “an amount.”
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the limitation "the amount" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as “an amount.”
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the limitation "the ratio of lithium atoms to gallium atoms" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as “a ratio of lithium atoms to gallium atoms.”
Additionally, the ratio range of 0.5-1:5 to 5:1 is unclear. Should the ratio be 0.5:5 to 5:1, or 1:5 to 5:1? For the purpose of further examination, this ratio range will be interpreted as 1:5 to 5:1.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the limitation "the total of catalyst metal atoms" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as “a total of catalyst metal atoms.” Additionally, in order to have full antecedent basis for the phrase catalyst metal atoms, the lithium, gallium, and tin atoms in claim 1 should be referred to as catalyst metal atoms.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the limitation "at least one lithium source" in lines 2 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, in line 2, this phrase will be interpreted as “a source of lithium atoms;” and in line 6, this phrase will be interpreted as “the source of lithium atoms comprises lithium acetylacetonate.”
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the limitation "at least one gallium source" in lines 2, 9, and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, in line 2, this phrase will be interpreted as “a source of gallium atoms is selected from at least one of;” and in line 6, this phrase will be interpreted as “the source of gallium atoms is selected from at least one of;” and in line 11, this phrase will be interpreted as “the source of gallium atoms is selected from at least one of.”
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the limitation "the extent of TMCD incorporation or conversion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as “an extent of 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cycloburtanediol incorporation or conversion.”
Regarding claim 21, this claim recites an article of manufacture “made with” the polyester composition of claim 1. However, this phrase is vague and does not necessarily convey that the article of manufacture contains the composition of claim 1. Therefore, for the purpose of further examination, this claim will be treated as referring to an article of manufacture comprising the polyester composition of claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 requires the 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cycloburtanediol to be present in the final polyester in an amount of greater than 55 mole%. However, claim 1, from which claim 20 depends, has the amount of 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cycloburtanediol in a range of from about 10 to about 50 mole%. Therefore, claim 20 fails to limit the claim from which it depends. For the purpose of further examination, this claim will be treated based on the claimed range of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 14, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. (EP 2332592).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 20, Crawford et al. teaches a polyester composition comprising at least one polyester which comprises a dicarboxylic acid component comprising 70 to 100 mole% of terephthalic acid residues, 0 to 30 mole% of aromatic dicarboxylic acid residues having up to 20 carbon atoms, and 0 to 10 mole% of aliphatic dicarboxylic acid residues having up to 16 carbon atoms; and a glycol component comprising 1 to 99 mole% of 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol residues, and 1 to 99 mole% of 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol residues (¶172), wherein the total mole% of the dicarboxylic acid component is 100 mole%, and the total mole% of the glycol component is 100 mole%; and wherein the inherent viscosity is 0.10 to less than 1.0 dL/g as determined in 60/40 (wt/wt) phenol/tetrachloroethane at a concentration of 0.25 g/50 ml at 25° C (¶9). The polyester composition also comprises a catalyst comprising at least one tin compound, and optionally, at least one catalyst chosen from titanium, gallium, zinc, antimony, cobalt, manganese, magnesium, germanium, lithium, aluminum compounds and an aluminum compound with lithium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide (¶50). Crawford et al. additionally teaches that the amount of tin atoms is 15 to 400 ppm (¶117), which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 30 ppm.
Crawford et al. does not explicitly teach using lithium and gallium catalysts in the preparation of the polyester composition. However, Crawford et al. does teach that they are catalysts which may be used and that they may be used together (¶50). At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a gallium catalyst and a lithium catalyst to make the polyester composition, as taught by Crawford et al., and would have been motivated to do so because Crawford et al. teaches that these are suitable catalysts for the purpose of making a polyester composition and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in choosing to use both of these types of catalysts.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Crawford et al. teaches that the glycol component of the polyester portion of the polyester compositions useful in the invention can contain 25 mole % or less of one or more modifying glycols such as diethylene glycol (¶173, 174).
Regarding claims 8-10, Crawford et al. does not require the presence of titanium, manganese, or zinc atoms.
Regarding claim 14, Crawford et al. teaches that catalyst amounts can range from 10 to 20,000 ppm based on the catalyst metal and the weight of the final polymer (¶230).
Regarding claim 17, Crawford et al. teaches that the molar ratio of cis/trans 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol is greater than 70 mole% cis and less than 30 mole% trans (¶166).
Regarding claim 18, Crawford et al. teaches a polymer blend comprising 5 to 95% by weight of the inventive polyester and 5 to 95% by weight of at least one polymeric component chosen from at least one of poly(etherimides), polyphenylene oxide, poly(phenylene oxide)/polystyrene blends, polystyrene resins, polyphenylene sulfides, polyphenylene sulfide/sulfones, poly(ester-carbonates), polycarbonates, polysulfones, polysulfone ethers, and poly(ether-ketones) (¶276, 277).
Regarding claim 19, Crawford et al. teaches that the polyester composition comprises at least one phosphorous compound (¶50).
Regarding claim 21, Crawford et al. teaches an article of manufacture comprising the polyester composition (¶131).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. (EP 2332592) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sublett (US 5,017,680).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Crawford et al. teaches the polyester composition as set forth above. Crawford et al. does not teach that the lithium atoms are present in an amount of from 20 to 500 ppm and are sourced from at least one of lithium carbonate, lithium acetate, lithium benzoate, lithium succinate, lithium acetylacetonate, lithium methoxide, lithium oxalate, lithium nitrate, lithium ethoxide, lithium hydroxide, lithium hydride, lithium glycoxide, alkyl lithium, lithium gallium hydride, lithium borohydride, or lithium oxide. However, Sublett teaches preparing a polyester by using a complex of titanium and alkali or alkaline earth metal salt (Col. 1, lines 5-15). The alkali or alkaline earth metal salt can be lithium carbonate, lithium acetate, lithium benzoate, lithium succinate, lithium acetylacetonate, lithium methoxide, lithium ethoxide, lithium glycoxide (Col. 5, lines 15-35). Additionally, this complex contains from 10 to 100 ppm of titanium atoms and the metal to titanium atom ratio is at least 0.25:1 (Col. 3, lines 50-55), which provides for a wide range of metal (lithium) atoms to be present in the composition. The examples in Table 1 show examples using the alkali metal in amounts of up to 100 ppm, and Example 25 uses 50 ppm of lithium atoms. This amount of metal overlaps with the claimed range. Crawford et al. and Sublett are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of polyester polymers and catalyst systems. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a titanium and lithium catalyst complex, as taught by Sublett, in the composition, as taught by Crawford et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to have faster reaction rates and reduced acetaldehyde generation (Col. 1, lines 5-15).
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. (EP 2332592) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yau et al. (US 5,668,243).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, Crawford et al. teaches the polyester composition as set forth above. Crawford et al. does not teach that the gallium atoms are present in an amount of from 50 to 1000 ppm and are sourced from gallium lactate. However, Yau et al. teaches a polyester prepared by using a catalyst system comprising one or more antimony compounds and one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of zinc compounds, gallium compounds, and silicon compounds (Col. 1, lines 10-20). The gallium compounds are present in an amount of 5 to 100 ppm (Col. 6, lines 1-2) and are gallium chloride, gallium nitrate hydrate, gallium oxide, gallium lactate and gallium phosphide (Col. 6, lines 10-15). Crawford et al. and Yau et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely that of polyester polymers and catalyst systems. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a catalyst system of an antimony compound and from 5 to 100 ppm of a gallium compound, as taught by Yau et al., to the composition, as taught by Crawford et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to produce polyester resins having high clarity and good color (Col. 1, lines 10-15).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. (EP 2332592) in view of Sublett (US 5,017,680) and Yau et al. (US 5,668,243) as applied to claims 1, 11, and 12 above.
Regarding claim 13, Crawford et al. teaches the polyester composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Sublett teaches using a lithium compound catalyst in a wide range of amounts, but exemplifies amounts of 25 to 100 ppm. Yau et al. teaches using a gallium compound catalyst in an amount of from 5 to 100 ppm. The motivations for using these compounds and these amounts are set forth above in the rejections of claims 11 and 12. The disclosed amounts of lithium compound and gallium compound provide ratios of lithium atoms to gallium atoms which fall into the claimed ratio range of 1:5 to 5:1. For example, 50 ppm of lithium atoms and 50 ppm of gallium atoms provide a 1:1 ratio; and 25 ppm of lithium atoms and 100 ppm of gallium atoms provide a ratio of 1:4.
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 1-5 and 7-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6-20 of copending Application No. 18/257,714 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 4, claim 1 of the reference application teaches a polyester composition comprising: (1) at least one polyester which comprises: (a) a dicarboxylic acid component comprising: (i) about 70 to about 100 mole % residues of terephthalic acid or esters thereof; (ii) about 0 to about 30 mole % of aromatic and/or aliphatic dicarboxylic acid residues having up to 20 carbon atoms; (b) a glycol component comprising: (i) about 10 to about 50 mole % of 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol residues; (ii) about 50 to about 90 mole % residues of modifying glycols; wherein the total mole % of the dicarboxylic acid component is 100 mole %, wherein the total mole % of the diol component is 100 mole %; and (2) lithium atoms, gallium atoms; and, optionally, less than 30 ppm of tin atoms. Claim 2 of the reference application teaches that the modifying glycols comprise at least one of diethylene glycol, 1,2-propanediol, 1,3-propanediol, 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol, ethylene glycol, 1,4-butanediol, 1,5-pentanediol, 1,6-hexanediol, p-xylene glycol, neopentyl glycol, isosorbide, polytetramethylene glycol, or combinations thereof. Further, claim 4 of the reference application teaches that the polyester specifically comprises 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol residues in the amount of from about 50 to about 90 mole %.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 of the reference application teaches that the polyester comprises residues of 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol in the amount of from about 10 to about 40 mole %.
Regarding claim 5, claim 4 of the reference application teaches that the polyester comprises residues of diethylene glycol in the amount of from about 50 to about 90 mole %
Regarding claim 7, claim 6 of the reference application teaches that the inherent viscosity of said at least one polyester is from 0.35 to 1.2 dL/g, determined in 60/40 (wt/wt) phenol/tetrachloroethane at a concentration of 0.5 g/100 ml at 25° C.
Regarding claim 8, claim 7 of the reference application teaches that composition comprises less than 30 ppm of titanium atoms.
Regarding claim 9, claim 8 of the reference application teaches that the composition comprises less than 30 ppm of manganese atoms.
Regarding claim 10, claim 9 of the reference application teaches that the composition comprises less than 30 ppm of zinc atoms.
Regarding claim 11, claim 10 of the reference application teaches that the composition comprises lithium atoms in an amount from 20 to 1000 ppm, relative to the mass of final polyester being prepared.
Regarding claim 12, claim 11 of the reference application teaches that the composition comprises gallium atoms in an amount from 50 to 1000 ppm, relative to the mass of final polyester being prepared.
Regarding claim 13, claim 12 of the reference application teaches that the composition comprises a ratio of lithium atoms to gallium atoms in ppm, relative to the mass of final polyester being prepared: from 0.50-1:5 to 5:1.
Regarding claim 14, claim 13 of the reference application teaches that the composition comprises the total catalyst metal atoms present in the final composition is in the range of from 200 to 800 ppm, relative to the mass of final polyester being prepared.
Regarding claim 15, claim 14 of the reference application teaches that the composition comprises at least one lithium source selected from at least one of lithium carbonate, lithium acetate, lithium benzoate, lithium succinate, lithium acetylacetonate, lithium methoxide, lithium oxalate, lithium nitrate, lithium ethoxide, lithium hydroxide, lithium hydride, lithium glycoxide, alkyl lithium, lithium gallium hydride, lithium borohydride, lithium oxide; or wherein at least one lithium source is lithium acetylacetonate.
Regarding claim 16, claim 15 of the reference application teaches that the composition comprises at least one gallium source selected from gallium acetate, gallium benzoate, gallium sulfate, gallium lactate, gallium laurate, gallium stearate, gallium alcoholates, gallium ethylate, gallium isopropoxide, gallium tri-n-butyrate, gallium tri-tert-butyrate, mono-sec-butoxygallium diisopropylate, and gallium chelates, ethyl acetoacetate gallium diisopropylate, gallium tris(ethyl acetoacetate), alkyl acetoacetate, gallium diisopropylate, gallium monoacetylacetate bis(ethyl acetoacetate), gallium tris(acetyl acetate), or gallium acetylacetonate; or comprising at least one gallium source selected from gallium hydroxide, gallium acetylacetonate, gallium acetate, gallium isopropoxide or gallium sulfate; or comprising at least one gallium source selected from gallium acetylacetonate and gallium isopropoxide.
Regarding claim 17, claim 16 of the reference application teaches that said 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol residues are a combination comprising greater than 70 mole % of cis-2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol and less than 30 mole % of trans-2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol.
Regarding claim 18, claim 17 of the reference application teaches that the composition comprises at least one polymer chosen from at least one of the following: polyesters other than those in claim 1, poly(etherimides), polyphenylene oxides, poly(phenylene oxide)/polystyrene blends, polystyrene resins, polyphenylene sulfides, polyphenylene sulfide/sulfones, poly(ester-carbonates), polycarbonates, polysulfones; polysulfone ethers, and poly(ether-ketones); or wherein said polyester composition comprises a blend of said polyester with recycled poly(ethylene terephthalate)(rPET).
Regarding claim 19, claim 18 of the reference application teaches that the composition comprises residues of at least one phosphorus compound.
Regarding claim 20, claim 19 of the reference application teaches that the extent of TMCD incorporation or conversion in the final polymer is greater than 55 mole %.
Regarding claim 21, claim 20 of the reference application teaches an article of manufacture comprising the polyester composition.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 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 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767