DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received 9/22/2025, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-9 have been maintained and updated to reflect the new limitations.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “when such a film laid flat and tensionless on floor”, which should be amended to read “when such a film is laid flat and tensionless on the floor” in order to improve grammar.
Claim 1 recites “wherein change of direction of the film occurs…” which should be amended to read “wherein change of direction of the heated second polymer film” to improve claim limitation consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 as amended recites “wherein change of direction of the film occurs in the same plane in which the film is already moving”, which has no support in the originally filed disclosure, and one skilled in the art in making or using the invention based on the claims and specification would not be aware of any requirement to keep the film in the same plane when changing its direction, because the originally filed disclosure made no mention of this limitation, thus the added limitation is considered to be new matter. Regarding applicant's remarks regarding support for this limitation on page 4 of applicant's remarks, the examiner notes that an absence of a mention of the claim limitation is not evidence that it is implicitly required. The examiner further notes that the claim amendment is broader than what applicant is arguing regarding the “banana-shape”, and thus there is no support for such a broad amendment.
By virtue of their dependence from claim 1, claims 2-9 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites “when such a film laid flat and tensionless on floor” which renders the claim vague and indefinite, as it is not clear whether "such a film" refers to the third film, the second film, or to an example of a similar film that is not claimed. For the purposes of examination, this phrasing will be considered to refer to the second polymer film.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 1, claims 2-9 are also thereby rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20110210471A1, hereafter Rasmussen '471, in view of Published Application US20160039138A1, hereafter Rasmussen '138.
Regarding claim 1, Rasmussen ‘471 discloses a procedure wherein a tubular high molecular weight polymer ([0024] 50% or more HDPE) film which has been longitudinally stretched and therefore is longitudinally shrinkable ([0037] Fig 2, longitudinal stretching by rollers 107-112), is converted by helical cutting to a second polymer film ([0042] Fig 2 tubular sheet is cut [0025] by helical cutting), whereby one edge of the helically cut film becomes longer than the other edge, when the second polymer film is laid flat and tensionless on the floor, referring to a relaxed state (this is implicit, as it is the intended result of the process step positively recited – see MPEP 2111.04 (I), further, this quality is disclosed on page 1 of the present specification as the expected consequence of helical cutting of longitudinally oriented tubular polymer films (“…the inventor has observed that there is still an outstanding problem in connection with helical cutting of longitudinally oriented, tubular polymer film. When such a film is laid flat and tensionless on the floor, one edge becomes slightly longer than the other edge…”)), characterized in that the second film is converted to a third film by continuously advancing the second film in a first direction towards a lineary zone which extends perpendicularly to the edges of the cut film (see annotated Fig 2, advancing film along mandrel 14 until it is [0043] pulled by the driven winding unit 20), and in direct succession thereto moving the second film at velocity (v) in a second direction which forms a small angle (a) to the first direction, wherein change of direction of the heated second polymer film occurs in the same plane in which the film is already moving (this is implicit - since the tubular film is rotating while it moves in the first direction ([0014] film is evenly propelled in a screwing movement), the planar direction that is tangent to the surface of the cylinder at the moment the direction is changed is the same as the second direction. While rotating about the mandrel, at a given moment in time, the plane along which the tubular film is currently traveling is the plane that is tangent to the surface at that moment in time. The moment the cut film leaves the mandrel is the moment when it follows the current tangential direction rather than being redirected by forces of the rotating tubular film holding itself together. Thus, Rasmussen '471 discloses the change in direction occurring in the same plane), wherein the velocity (v) and angle (a) being selected to reduce or totally eliminate the difference between the lengths of the edges of the third film ([0043] Fig 2, angle of cut is determined by ratio between the speeds of rotating of the unit (1) and the rolls (11), direction of winding unit (20) is at small angle to direction of mandrel (14) axis; Fig 2, edges of film are straight when wound onto winding unit (20); the examiner notes that since the edges of the film are straight, it is clear the differences in length of the edges of the second film were mitigated by selection of roller speed and angle of cut, as the angle and speed could instead have been selected such that the film was cut at an angle not conducive to the speed of the film conveyance in the second direction, resulting in varying edge lengths and film widths and wrinkles and other assorted negative qualities in the cut film that one skilled in the art would expect from the helical cutting angle not being selected to match the film conveyance speed).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rasmussen ‘471 is silent on (1) the second polymer film then being heated to a temperature lower than but close to its melting range and relaxed in order to partly or totally eliminate the shrinkability as well as (2) converting the second film to the third film while still heating the film and (3) the third film being flat and free of banana-shaped distortions.
In the analogous art of blown film processing, Rasmussen ‘138 discloses heating the film, after stretching, to an elevated temperature that is below its melting range in order to retain a memory of its orientation state, which results in a lower than original yield tension when the film is stretched again after being relaxed, resulting in improved tear and puncture properties ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Rasmussen ‘471 with the additional heating of the second film to a temperature lower than but close to its melting range after stretching as disclosed by Rasmussen ‘138 in order to improve the film’s tear and puncture properties, as suggested by Rasmussen ‘138 ([0030]). The examiner notes that because the claimed method steps are met by the cited combination of Rasmussen ‘471 with Rasmussen ‘138, and because Rasmussen ‘471 discloses the proper stabilization of the film results in a reduced tendency to curl or roll up ([0006-0007] too low a stabilization increases tendency to curl; [0008] main purpose to reduce such stabilization problems; [0013] disclosed stabilization method became more efficient; [0044] cut sheet is flat) the resulting claimed quality of the product, which is that the third film is flat and free of banana-shaped distortions, is also inherently met by the combination.
Regarding claim 2, Rasmussen ‘471 further discloses a separate or inline heat-stabilization step ([0027] stabilization at 70-90°C over heated rollers).
Regarding claim 3, Rasmussen ‘471 further discloses that the film mainly consists of a polyolefin ([0024] 50% or more HDPE or crystalline PP).
Regarding claim 4, Rasmussen ‘471 further discloses an apparatus suitable for carrying out the procedure of claim 1 (Fig 2).
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Rasmussen ‘471 further discloses a product obtained by the procedure according to claim 1, including a product which further has been cross-laminated with a manufactured film ([0029] implicit product of “optional further steps” including crosslamination with a similar, simultaneously produced, obliquely oriented film). That being said, product-by-process claims such as present claim 5 are only limited by the structure of the product claimed. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (MPEP 2113 (I)).
Regarding claim 7, Rasmussen ‘471 further discloses that the film mainly consists of a polyolefin HDPE or PP ([0024] 50% or more HDPE or crystalline PP).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20110210471A1, hereafter Rasmussen '471, in view of Published Application US20160039138A1, hereafter Rasmussen '138, as stated above for claim 2, and further in view of Published Application US20080193747A1, hereafter MacDonald.
Regarding claim 6, modified Rasmussen ‘471 is silent on wherein the separate or inline heat-stabilization step is added under relaxation.
In the analogous art of film stretching, MacDonald discloses wherein the separate or inline heat-stabilization step is added under relaxation ([0039] film is further heat stabilized by heating it under minimal physical restraint to produce a film with very low residual shrinkage and consequently high dimensional stability).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to further modify Rasmussen ‘471 to perform the separate heat stabilization step under relaxation in order to produce a film with very low residual shrinkage and consequently high dimensional stability, as suggested by MacDonald ([0039]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20110210471A1, hereafter Rasmussen '471, in view of Published Application US20160039138A1, hereafter Rasmussen '138, as stated above for claim 1, and further in view of Published Application US20170136759A1, hereafter Rasmussen ‘759.
Regarding claim 8, modified Rasmussen ‘471 is silent on the film mainly consisting of a biodegradable polymer.
In the analogous art of film stretching, Rasmussen ‘759 discloses that the film mainly consists of a biodegradable polymer ([0033] biodegradable polymers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to select a biodegradable polymer as disclosed by Rasmussen ‘759 in order to improve the sustainability of the product, and further because the selection of known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 8 of applicant’s remarks that Rasmussen ‘471 in combination with Rasmussen ‘138 fails to teach, disclose, or suggest wherein change of direction of the film happens in the same plane in which the film is already moving, the examiner disagrees. As stated above in the rejection of claim 1, since in Rasmussen ‘471 the tubular film is rotating while it moves in the first direction, the planar direction that is tangent to the surface of the cylinder at the moment the direction is changed is the same as the second direction. The claim is broad enough to interpret that at a given moment in time, while rotating about the mandrel, the plane along which the tubular film is currently traveling is the plane that is tangent to the surface at that moment in time. The moment the cut film leaves the mandrel is the moment when it follows the current tangential direction rather than being redirected by forces of the rotating tubular film holding itself together. Thus, Rasmussen '471 discloses the change in direction occurring in the same plane
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 9 of applicant’s remarks that while Rasmussen '471 mentions reducing curling via stabilization (para. [0028]), it does not recognize or solve the specific "banana-shape" issue from biased shrinkage in helically cut films, the examiner notes the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case, Rasmussen ‘471 discloses the problem of curling and its link to proper stabilization, as well as the goal of improving the stabilization to reduce those related issues, including curling ([0006-0007] too low a stabilization increases tendency to curl; [0008] main purpose to reduce such stabilization problems; [0013] disclosed stabilization method became more efficient; [0044] cut sheet is flat). Thus, the modification of Rasmussen ‘471 with Rasmussen ‘138 results in a flat product that is inherently free of the banana-shaped distortions, as claimed, as well as having the benefits of puncture resistance as suggested by Rasmussen ‘138, as stated above in the rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 9 of applicant’s remarks that while Rasmussen '471 mentions reducing curling via stabilization (para. [0028]), it does not teach selecting velocity and angle for edge equalization, the examiner disagrees. As stated in the rejection, Rasmussen '471 discloses straight edges of the film when it is wound on the winding unit (20) (Fig 2), that the angle of the helical cut is determined by the ratio between the speeds of rotating the unit (1) and the rolls (11) ([0043], Fig 2), and that the direction of the winding unit (20) is at the small angle to the direction of the mandrel (14) axis. Thus, the differences in length of the edges of the film were mitigated by the selection of film conveying speed and angle of the cut to match the angle of the second direction to the first direction.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 9 of applicant’s remarks that Figures 1-3 of Rasmussen ‘471 show film advancement along cylindrical axes with shape changes from flat to cylindrical, but no linear zone or same-plane angled movement to eliminate edge differences, the examiner disagrees, and notes the lineary zone is shown in annotated Fig 2 of Rasmussen ‘471 above, and the same-plane angled movement is addressed in the first response and rejection above.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 9 of applicant’s remarks that applicant disagrees with the Advisory Action's interpretation (page 3) that Rasmussen '471's film sides appear straight because the reference does not address or measure edge length differences, the examiner notes that present claim 1 states the edge length differences are controlled by the velocity and angle between first and second directions, and as noted in the rejection and response to argument above, if the angle and velocity and cutting angle were chosen such that they did not match, distortions in the edges resulting in different edge lengths and widths of the film would be commonplace in the product, among other deficiencies such as wrinkles due to the cutting angle and speed not matching up, which is not the intention of Rasmussen '471 ([0043] angle of cut determined by ratio between speeds of rotation of the unit (1) and rolls (11), but direction of knife or blade must also be adjusted so that they approximately fit with the rotation-determined cutting angle).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on pages 9-10 of applicant’s remarks that the film in Rasmussen ‘471 does not remain in the same plane and hence does not reduce the shrinkage and/or the difference between the lengths of the two edges, the examiner notes the claim does not require the film to remain in the same plane after changing direction, only that the change in direction occurs in the same plane in which the film was already moving. Further, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 10 of applicant’s remarks that the limitation now included in claim 1 whereby the third film is flat and free of "banana-shaped distortions" cannot be resolved by one skilled in the art from the teachings of Rasmussen '138 or starting from the teachings of Rasmussen '471 and further in view of Rasmussen '138, the examiner notes, as stated above and in the rejection, and that this is the intended result of the claimed method as executed. Rasmussen ‘471 discloses the problem of curling and its link to proper stabilization, as well as the goal of improving the stabilization to reduce those related issues, including curling ([0006-0007] too low a stabilization increases tendency to curl; [0008] main purpose to reduce such stabilization problems; [0013] disclosed stabilization method became more efficient; [0044] cut sheet is flat). Thus, the modification of Rasmussen ‘471 with Rasmussen ‘138 results in a flat product that is inherently free of the banana-shaped distortions, as claimed, as well as having the benefits of puncture resistance as suggested by Rasmussen ‘138, as stated above in the rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 10 of applicant’s remarks that Rasmussen ‘138 teaches away from the object of the present invention as this document is directed to producing a film which is shrinkable in the direction (1), which is completely contrary to the recitations of instant claim 1, the examiner notes that Rasmussen ‘138 discloses the produced film is shrinkable only in one direction, and only for regions (B) which are not heat treated as described in [0033], and further Rasmussen ‘138 was only cited for the teaching in [0030], “The inventor was found that a film which first has been stretched and then subjected to shrinkage at an elevated temperature, but below its melting range, has retained a memory of its orientation state. The yield tension found, when it is brought back from its relaxed state into the same oriented state, is lower than the original yield tension, and the yield takes place more gradual. This is an advantage, e.g., for tear and puncture properties”, which is only described to apply to regions (A). The examiner further notes "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." (MPEP 2141.02 (VI).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 10 of applicant’s remarks that “the object of Rasmussen '138 is to prepare a film of a pleated or waved shape, where heating has been adopted in one side so that the regions (A) become flattened, while unheated film regions (B) of the film or the film area remain pleated or waved where the regions (B) are discontinuous or disrupted. It intentionally creates shrinkable films with differential regions (flattened A vs. pleated B) for elasticity, contrary to the claimed goal of eliminating shrinkability and edge disparities (Rasmussen '138, para. [0009]). Heating is patterned (e.g., via heated rollers with protrusions) to cause contraction in specific regions, not uniform heating while advancing to a linear zone and angled movement to equalize edges (Rasmussen '138, paras. [0012]-[0014]; Figs. 3-6)”, the examiner notes the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Rasmussen ‘138 was cited for the teaching disclosed in [0030] relating to heating the film after stretching to a higher temperature below its melting temperature, as stated in the rejection above.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 11 of applicant’s remarks that even if heating step of Rasmussen '138 is adopted with the basic experimental set up of Rasmussen '471, we cannot achieve a film without banana shape distortion and shrinkage, as any person skilled in art would not get any hint or teaching for the production of the third film from combined reading of Rasmussen '471 and Rasmussen '138, the examiner notes, as stated above and in the rejection, that in this case, Rasmussen ‘471 discloses the problem of curling and its link to proper stabilization, as well as the goal of improving the stabilization to reduce those related issues, including curling ([0006-0007] too low a stabilization increases tendency to curl; [0008] main purpose to reduce such stabilization problems; [0013] disclosed stabilization method became more efficient; [0044] cut sheet is flat). Thus, the modification of Rasmussen ‘471 with Rasmussen ‘138 results in a flat product that is inherently free of the banana-shaped distortions, as claimed, as well as having the benefits of puncture resistance as suggested by Rasmussen ‘138.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 12 of applicant’s remarks that the objective of Rasmussen '138 is producing pleated, strainable films is fundamentally different from the present invention's goal of stabilized, non-shrinking films without curling, the examiner notes one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Rasmussen ‘138, as a secondary reference, is not relied upon for its own produced film, but for the teaching of [0030] relating to heating the film after stretching to a higher temperature below its melting temperature, as stated in the rejection above.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 12 of applicant’s remarks that that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Rasmussen ‘471 and Rasmussen ‘138, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is to improve tear and puncture properties, as suggested by Rasmussen '138 ([0030]) and as stated in the rejection.
In response to applicant’s statement regarding claim 1 on page 12 of applicant’s remarks that the examiner suggested modifying Rasmussen '471's heating/stabilization with Rasmussen '138's patterned heating, the examiner disagrees. According to the rejection of claim 1, the examiner stated it would have been obvious to modify the invention of Rasmussen ‘471 with the additional heating of the second film to a temperature lower than but close to its melting range after stretching as disclosed by Rasmussen ‘138 in order to improve the film’s tear and puncture properties, as suggested by Rasmussen ‘138 ([0030]).
In response to applicant’s statement regarding claim 1 on page 13 of applicant’s remarks that modifying Rasmussen '471 with Rasmussen '138 would change its principle of operation (uniform stabilization to reduce splittability) to one creating pleated, shrinkable regions, defeating the goal of a stable, non-curling film, the examiner disagrees, and notes the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, as stated above and in the rejection, Rasmussen ‘471 would be modified to include an additional heating to a temperature below the melting point after stretching of the film as disclosed in [0030] of Rasmussen ‘138, rather than including all of the other steps disclosed by Rasmussen ‘138.
In response to applicant’s statement regarding claim 1 on page 13 of applicant’s remarks that as the object of Rasmussen '138 is entirely different from Rasmussen'471, therefore, it is not possible for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rasmussen '471 and Rasmussen '138 to overcome the "banana-shape" issue at edges of the film and would not anticipate or render the presently claimed feature obvious, the examiner disagrees, and notes the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case, Rasmussen ‘471 discloses the problem of curling and its link to proper stabilization, as well as the goal of improving the stabilization to reduce those related issues, including curling ([0006-0007] too low a stabilization increases tendency to curl; [0008] main purpose to reduce such stabilization problems; [0013] disclosed stabilization method became more efficient; [0044] cut sheet is flat). Thus, the modification of Rasmussen ‘471 with Rasmussen ‘138 results in a flat product that is inherently free of the banana-shaped distortions, as claimed, as well as having the benefits of puncture resistance as suggested by Rasmussen ‘138, as stated above in the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754 /SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights