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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 3, 2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 21-24, and 26-27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 5,505,787 to Yamaguchi in view of CA 2687613 by Ludtke.
With regard to claims 1, 7, 8, 26, and 27 Yamaguchi teaches a method of removing pollutants (items 6 in Figure 1a) from a surface (item 3 in Figure 1a), wherein the method comprises forming a coating film (item 9 in Figure 1b) on the surface by applying an aqueous film-forming composition to the surface, drying the coating film, and removing (Figure 1c) the film – together with the pollutants – after drying the coating film such that the surface is clean (Figure 1d; Col. 2, line 17 to Col. 4, line 33). Yamaguchi teaches that the aqueous film-forming composition comprises polyvinyl alcohol (reads on film-forming component), water (reads on volatile solvent), and silicone oil (reads on silicone compound; Col. 2, line 17 to Col. 4, line 33).
Yamaguchi does not teach that the mass ratio of the silicone oil to polyvinyl alcohol in the aqueous composition is 0.01 to 1.00. However, Yamaguchi teaches that the polyvinyl alcohol is a “film forming agent”, and Yamaguchi teaches that the film forming present is present in the aqueous composition “in an amount of 1 to 50% by weight, preferably 10 to 30% by weight” (Col. 2, line 54 to Col. 3, line 47). With regard to the silicone oil, Yamaguchi teaches that the silicone oil is a release agent, and Yamaguchi teaches that the concentration of a release agent should be determined “depending on the strippability of the strippable film, the level of soil on the surface of the external wall of the building, etc.” (Col. 3, lines 47-54). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamaguchi by optimizing the concentrations of polyvinyl alcohol and silicone oil in the aqueous composition. The motivation for performing those optimizations is that the concentrations of polyvinyl alcohol and silicone oil are result-effective variables, as Yamaguchi teaches that some polyvinyl alcohol concentrations are more preferred than others and as Yamaguchi teaches that the concentration of release agent should be determined “depending on the strippability of the strippable film, the level of soil on the surface of the external wall of the building, etc.”.
As discussed, Yamaguchi teaches that the film-forming composition comprises polyvinyl alcohol. However, Yamaguchi is silent concerning the glass transition point of the polyvinyl alcohol.
Ludtke teaches that when using a polymer-comprising liquid to form a coating film on a surface, the glass transition point of the polymer is a result-effective variable that can affect the drying time of the coating film (Par. 0035 and 0037).
In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamaguchi such that the glass transition point of the polyvinyl alcohol is optimized, as Ludtke teaches that when using a polymer-comprising liquid to form a coating film on a surface, the glass transition point of the polymer is a result-effective variable that can affect the drying time of the coating film. The cleaning method of Yamaguchi involves drying the coating film before removing the coating film (and pollutants), and thus the speed of drying affects how long it takes to perform the cleaning method.
The combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke does not disclose whether or not the aqueous film-forming composition has a peel level of 20% to 100%, with the peel level measured as recited in claim 1. However, since Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke teaches performing the same steps as recited by applicant with the same chemicals as recited by applicant, it is reasonably expected that the same result occurs – namely, that the composition will have the same peel level as specified in claim 1. Additionally, since claim 1 doesn’t specify that the peel level is measured by the film peeling spontaneously, the composition of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke is considered to have the peel level as recited in claim 1 because a person could choose to 100% peel the film after 24 hours.
With regard to claim 2, the combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke does not explicitly teach that the step of removing the film – together with the pollutants – after drying the coating film involves collecting the film. However, once the film (together with the pollutants) has been removed from the cleaned surface, the film has served its purpose and can be considered waste material. In the art of cleaning, it is well known that waste material from a cleaning process can be collected such that the waste material can then be advantageously disposed of in some manner (MPEP 2144.03, Official Notice). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke such that the removed film (together with the pollutants) is collected as waste for some type of disposal, as the film has already served its cleaning purpose. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of cleaning, it is well known that waste material from a cleaning process can be collected such that the waste material can then be advantageously disposed of in some manner.
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke teaches that the film-forming composition is applied to building surfaces in order to remove pollutants therefrom (Abstract; Col. 2, line 17 to Col. 4, line 33 of Yamaguchi). The combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke does not teach the density with which the film-forming composition is applied to building surfaces. However, the density of the application of the film-forming composition to building surfaces is a result-effective variable because if too little is applied, proper coating film formation may not cover building surfaces in order to successfully remove pollutants therefrom, and if film-forming composition is applied more densely than needed for pollutant removal to successfully occur, then film-forming composition is clearly being wasted. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke such that the density with which the film-forming composition is applied to building surfaces is optimized, as that density is a result-effective variable.
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke teaches that the film-forming composition is applied to external building surfaces in order to remove pollutants therefrom (Abstract; Col. 2, line 17 to Col. 4, line 33 of Yamaguchi). The combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke is silent with regard to the environmental temperature at which the drying of the coating film occurs. However, since an ambient outside temperature below -10°C or above 60°C is cold or hot (respectively) to a noteworthy extent, and since Yamaguchi doesn’t mention that such very cold or very hot environmental temperatures of the building exteriors is necessary for drying of the coating film to occur, Yamaguchi is considered to suggest having the drying of the coating film occur within the range specified by applicant in claim 5. Furthermore, in the art of drying, it is well known that drying can successfully occur at normal, ambient temperatures (MPEP 2144.03, Official Notice). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke such that the drying occurs at an ambient temperature within the range of applicant’s claim 5, wherein the ambient temperature is a temperature at which drying can occur. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Yamaguchi suggesting as much and by the fact that, in the art of drying, it is well known that drying can successfully occur at normal, ambient temperatures.
With regard to claim 21, the combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke does not specify the weight average molecular weight of the film-forming polyvinyl alcohol. However, Yamaguchi teaches that some by-weight concentrations of film-forming agent are more preferable than others (Col. 3, lines 44-46 of Yamaguchi), and thus Yamaguchi is considered to teach that the weight average molecular weight of the film-forming polyvinyl alcohol is a result-effective variable, as it affects how many film-forming molecules can be present to achieve a preferred by-weight concentration of polyvinyl alcohol. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke by optimizing the weight average molecular weight of the film-forming polyvinyl alcohol, as that weight average molecular weight can be considered a result-effective variable.
With regard to claim 22, the combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke does not specify the mass% of the film-forming polyvinyl alcohol in the aqueous composition. However, Yamaguchi teaches that some by-weight concentrations of film-forming agent are more preferable than others, with Yamaguchi teaching that a by-weight concentration of film-forming agent preferably being 10 to 30% (Col. 3, lines 44-46 of Yamaguchi). Yamaguchi can thus be considered to teach that the mass% of film-forming agent in the aqueous composition is a result-effective variable, as Yamaguchi teaches that some by-weight values of the film-forming polyvinyl alcohol in the aqueous composition are more preferable than others. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke such that the mass% of the film-forming polyvinyl alcohol in the aqueous composition is optimized, as the mass% can be viewed as a result-effective variable in view of Yamaguchi’s teachings.
With regard to claim 23, the combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke does not recite that the water concentration (of the cleaning composition) is 50-92 mass%. However, Yamaguchi teaches a preferred polyvinyl alcohol concentration of 10 to 30% by weight (Col. 3, lines 44-46 of Yamaguchi). Yamaguchi can thus be considered to teach that the mass% of film-forming agent in the aqueous composition is a result-effective variable, as Yamaguchi teaches that some by-weight values of the film-forming polyvinyl alcohol in the aqueous composition are more preferable than others. Yamaguchi teaches that “the amount of each of other components of the cleaning fluid…is appropriately determined depending on the strippability of the strippable film, the level of the soil on the surface of the external wall of the building, etc.” (Col. 3, lines 47-54 of Yamaguchi). Yamaguchi can thus be considered to teach that the concentrations of “each of the other components” are thus result-effective variables, as Yamaguchi teaches optimizing those concentrations based on factors such as “the strippability of the strippable film, the level of the soil on the surface of the external wall of the building, etc.”. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke by optimizing the concentration of all the components mixed with water in the aqueous composition – and thus also optimizing the concentration of water in the aqueous composition. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Yamaguchi, who is considered to teach that the concentrations of polyvinyl alcohol and “the amount of each of other components of the cleaning fluid” are result-effective variables.
With regard to claim 24, in the combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke developed in the rejection of claim 1, the concentration of the silicone oil in the aqueous composition is optimized, as discussed in that rejection of claim 1.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 5,505,787 to Yamaguchi in view of CA 2687613 by Ludtke as applied to claim 1 above, and as evidenced by JPH04345637 by Igarashi in view of JP2013209562 by Sakuse.
With regard to claim 25, the combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke teaches that the silicone oil is a release agent (Col. 3, lines 7-9 of Yamaguchi). The phrase “silicone oil” can be applied to a plurality of different chemicals, and the combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke does not specifically recite that the “silicone oil” comprises one of the chemicals listed in claim 25. However, Yamaguchi does teach that the release agent can be a release agent suitable for use as a release agent for metal molds (Col. 3, lines 7-9 of Yamaguchi). Igarashi provides evidence that dimethylpolysiloxane (aka “PDMS”) can successfully be used as a release agent for metal molds (Par. 0040 of Igarashi translation). It is well known in the field of chemistry that PDMS can be considered a “silicone oil”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke such that PDMS is used as the silicone oil in the aqueous composition. PDMS is a silicone oil, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Yamaguchi teaching that the release agent can be a release agent suitable for use as a release agent for metal molds. Igarashi provides evidence that PDMS can successfully be used as a release agent for metal molds (Par. 0040 of Igarashi translation).
The combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke as evidenced by Igarashi does not recite the kinetic viscosity of the PDMS. However, Sakuse teaches that when applying a cleaning liquid to a to-be-cleaned surface in order to form a removable cleaning film from the cleaning liquid, the viscosity of the cleaning liquid is a result-effective variable because the viscosity should be low enough such that the film can be formed over irregularities of the to-be-cleaned surface while not being so low that an undesired level of flow may occur (Abstract and pages 2-7 of Sakuse translation, with emphasis on the page 7 viscosity discussion on page 7 of that translation). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke as evidenced by Igarashi by optimizing the viscosity of the PDMS used in the aqueous cleaning composition, as the viscosity of the aqueous cleaning composition can be considered a result-effective variable in light of Sakuse’s teachings that when applying a cleaning liquid to a to-be-cleaned surface in order to form a removable cleaning film from the cleaning liquid, the viscosity of the cleaning liquid is a result-effective variable because the viscosity should be low enough such that the film can be formed over irregularities of the to-be-cleaned surface while not being so low that an undesired level of flow may occur.
The combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke as evidenced by Igarashi in view of Sakuse does not explicitly teach that the DMPS is nonvolatile. However, since the DMPS serves to aid the stripping of the formed film from the to-be-cleaned surface (Col. 3, lines 3-10 of Yamaguchi), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke as evidenced by Igarashi in view of Sakuse such that the DMPS is nonvolatile, as the DMPS should remain in the cleaning chemistry in order to aid stripping of the formed film instead of volatilizing away into the atmosphere.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 5,505,787 to Yamaguchi in view of CA 2687613 by Ludtke as evidenced by JPH04345637 by Igarashi in view of JP2013209562 by Sakuse.
With regard to claim 20, Yamaguchi teaches a method of removing pollutants (items 6 in Figure 1a) from a surface (item 3 in Figure 1a), wherein the method comprises forming a coating film (item 9 in Figure 1b) on the surface by applying an aqueous film-forming composition to the surface, drying the coating film, and removing (Figure 1c) the film – together with the pollutants – after drying the coating film such that the surface is clean (Figure 1d; Col. 2, line 17 to Col. 4, line 33). Yamaguchi teaches that the aqueous film-forming composition comprises polyvinyl alcohol (reads on film-forming component), water (reads on volatile solvent), and silicone oil (reads on silicone compound; Col. 2, line 17 to Col. 4, line 33).
As discussed, Yamaguchi teaches that the film-forming composition comprises polyvinyl alcohol. However, Yamaguchi is silent concerning the glass transition point of the polyvinyl alcohol.
Ludtke teaches that when using a polymer-comprising liquid to form a coating film on a surface, the glass transition point of the polymer is a result-effective variable that can affect the drying time of the coating film (Par. 0035 and 0037).
In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamaguchi such that the glass transition point of the polyvinyl alcohol is optimized, as Ludtke teaches that when using a polymer-comprising liquid to form a coating film on a surface, the glass transition point of the polymer is a result-effective variable that can affect the drying time of the coating film. The cleaning method of Yamaguchi involves drying the coating film before removing the coating film (and pollutants), and thus the speed of drying affects how long it takes to perform the cleaning method.
The combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke teaches that the silicone oil is a release agent (Col. 3, lines 7-9 of Yamaguchi). The phrase “silicone oil” can be applied to a plurality of different chemicals, and the combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke does not specifically recite that the “silicone oil” comprises one of the chemicals listed in claim 25. However, Yamaguchi does teach that the release agent can be a release agent suitable for use as a release agent for metal molds (Col. 3, lines 7-9 of Yamaguchi). Igarashi provides evidence that dimethylpolysiloxane (aka “PDMS”) can successfully be used as a release agent for metal molds (Par. 0040 of Igarashi translation). It is well known in the field of chemistry that PDMS can be considered a “silicone oil”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke such that PDMS is used as the silicone oil in the aqueous composition. PDMS is a silicone oil, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Yamaguchi teaching that the release agent can be a release agent suitable for use as a release agent for metal molds. Igarashi provides evidence that PDMS can successfully be used as a release agent for metal molds (Par. 0040 of Igarashi translation).
The combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke as evidenced by Igarashi does not teach that the mass ratio of the PDMS to polyvinyl alcohol in the aqueous composition is 0.01 to 1.00. However, Yamaguchi teaches that the polyvinyl alcohol is a “film forming agent”, and Yamaguchi teaches that the film forming present is present in the aqueous composition “in an amount of 1 to 50% by weight, preferably 10 to 30% by weight” (Col. 2, line 54 to Col. 3, line 47). Yamaguchi teaches that the concentration of a release agent should be determined “depending on the strippability of the strippable film, the level of soil on the surface of the external wall of the building, etc.” (Col. 3, lines 47-54). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke as evidenced by Igarashi by optimizing the concentrations of polyvinyl alcohol and PDMS in the aqueous composition. The motivation for performing those optimizations is that the concentrations of polyvinyl alcohol and PDMS are result-effective variables, as Yamaguchi teaches that some polyvinyl alcohol concentrations are more preferred than others and as Yamaguchi teaches that the concentration of release agent should be determined “depending on the strippability of the strippable film, the level of soil on the surface of the external wall of the building, etc.”.
The combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke as evidenced by Igarashi does not recite the kinetic viscosity of the PDMS. However, Sakuse teaches that when applying a cleaning liquid to a to-be-cleaned surface in order to form a removable cleaning film from the cleaning liquid, the viscosity of the cleaning liquid is a result-effective variable because the viscosity should be low enough such that the film can be formed over irregularities of the to-be-cleaned surface while not being so low that an undesired level of flow may occur (Abstract and pages 2-7 of Sakuse translation, with emphasis on the page 7 viscosity discussion on page 7 of that translation). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke as evidenced by Igarashi by optimizing the viscosity of the PDMS used in the aqueous cleaning composition, as the viscosity of the aqueous cleaning composition can be considered a result-effective variable in light of Sakuse’s teachings that when applying a cleaning liquid to a to-be-cleaned surface in order to form a removable cleaning film from the cleaning liquid, the viscosity of the cleaning liquid is a result-effective variable because the viscosity should be low enough such that the film can be formed over irregularities of the to-be-cleaned surface while not being so low that an undesired level of flow may occur.
The combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke as evidenced by Igarashi in view of Sakuse does not explicitly teach that the DMPS is nonvolatile. However, since the DMPS serves to aid the stripping of the formed film from the to-be-cleaned surface (Col. 3, lines 3-10 of Yamaguchi), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke as evidenced by Igarashi in view of Sakuse such that the DMPS is nonvolatile, as the DMPS should remain in the cleaning chemistry in order to aid stripping of the formed film instead of volatilizing away into the atmosphere.
The combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke as evidenced by Igarashi in view of Sakuse does not disclose whether or not the aqueous film-forming composition has a peel level of 20% to 100%, with the peel level measured as recited in claim 20. However, since Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke as evidenced by Igarashi in view of Sakuse teaches performing the same steps as recited by applicant with the same chemicals as recited by applicant, it is reasonably expected that the same result occurs – namely, that the composition will have the same peel level as specified in claim 1. Additionally, since claim 20 doesn’t specify that the peel level is measured by the film peeling spontaneously, the composition of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke as evidenced by Igarashi in view of Sakuse is considered to have the peel level as recited in claim 20 because a person could choose to 100% peel the film after 24 hours.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 3, 2026 have been fully considered. The examiner is not presenting the enablement rejection in this office action, so the arguments concerning the enablement rejection are considered moot.
With regard to the obviousness rejections, applicant argues that “it is undisputed that none of the cited references explicitly discloses or suggests the peel level in claims 1 and 20”. However, with regard to the peel level, the examiner articulates his position in the above rejections. With regard to claim 1, for example, the combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke does not disclose whether or not the aqueous film-forming composition has a peel level of 20% to 100%, with the peel level measured as recited in claim 1. However, since Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke teaches performing the same steps as recited by applicant with the same chemicals as recited by applicant, it is reasonably expected that the same result occurs – namely, that the composition will have the same peel level as specified in claim 1. Additionally, since claim 1 doesn’t specify that the peel level is measured by the film peeling spontaneously, the composition of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke is considered to have the peel level as recited in claim 1 because a person could choose to 100% peel the film after 24 hours.
Applicant argues that, in such rejections, the examiner is improperly relying on the concept of “inherency”. However, the examiner’s rejections don’t rely on “inherency” to teach the now-recited “peel level”. With regard to claim 1, for example, the examiner’s rejection simply says that applicant’s recited composition property (applicant’s recited peel level) is expected to occur in the method of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke because the combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke teaches performing the same steps as recited by applicant with the same materials as recited by applicant.
Applicant argues that “Yamaguchi does not disclose any specific composition, so it is not possible to say that any composition according to Yamaguchi would necessarily exhibit self-peeling”. However, it is noted that applicant’s claims 1 and 20 don’t recite “self-peeling” or spontaneous peeling. Presumably, a human could now perform the peeling recited in claims 1 or 20. Yamaguchi does teach chemical composition options for forming this film-forming composition. Again, the examiner’s rejections don’t rely on “inherency” to teach the now-recited “peel level”. With regard to claim 1, for example, the examiner’s rejection simply says that applicant’s recited composition property (applicant’s recited peel level) is expected to occur in the method of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke because the combination of Yamaguchi in view of Ludtke teaches performing the same steps as recited by applicant with the same materials as recited by applicant.
Applicant teaches that since varying components and varying component amounts affect peel level, “it cannot be said that Yamaguchi, alone or together with Ludtke, discloses or suggests any particular peel level – either explicitly or inherently”. However, what matters is what the claims recite. If the prior art combination teaches the same method steps as recited by applicant and the same material as recited by applicant, it is reasonably expected that the same peel level property of the composition would also be present.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights