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 .
CONTINUING DATA
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/008010 02/25/2022
FOREIGN APPLICATIONS
JAPAN 2021-031138 02/26/2021
Claims 1-10 and 18 are pending.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this instance, the abstract contains legal phraseology such as “solution means.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a composition comprising adenosine. Adenosine is a product of nature, which is a judicial exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only requires the presence of adenosine. The adenosine is unchanged from adenosine occurring in nature. The limitation “for use in combination with…” is an intended use and does not require the presence of the additional components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not require any additional elements. The preamble “hair growth agent” is an intended use which does not structurally limit the claim.
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5-8 are drawn to the agent of claim 1 “used for” certain purposes. The phrase “used for” implies a process, but the claims are drawn to products. A product and process in the same claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(p). For the purpose of examination, the claims will be interpreted as product claims.
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.
Claims 4-8 and 10 are 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. Claims 4-8 and 10 depend from claim 1 and recites “used for” or “for use in” various hair improvements. The “used for” and “for use in” limitations do not structurally limit the claims as they are only intended uses. Thus, the scope of claims 4-8 and 10 is not different from the scope of claim 1 and claims 4-8 and 10 do not further limit 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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dobson (US 6,645,513).
Dobson teaches a topical composition comprising adenosine and its application to the skin. The composition can further include a conditioning agent. See claims.
The phrase “A hair growth agent for use in combination with palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminobutyloyl hydroxythreonine and palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminohydroxybutyrate” is an intended use of the composition, but does not require that the composition contains palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminobutyloyl hydroxythreonine and palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminohydroxybutyrate or that the composition is actually used for hair growth. MPEP 2111 states that where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ziegler (US 2009/0155347 A1, cited on IDS).
Ziegler teaches topical skin compositions comprising Palm-Lys-Val-Dab-OH and Palm-Lys-Val-Dab-Thr-OH. These are the two compounds recited in claim 2.
Page 6 of the current specification states:
PNG
media_image1.png
135
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The phrase “A hair growth agent for use in combination with adenosine” is an intended use of the composition, but does not require that the composition contains adenosine, or that the composition is used in a method for hair growth. MPEP 2111 states that where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ehama (US 2007/0299032 A1, cited on IDS)
Ehama teaches an external scalp composition comprising adenosine for promoting hair thickening. See abstract. The product shown on page 5 is a liquid because the majority of the composition is comprised of ethanol and water. Dosage forms can be liquid [0042]. The composition is used as a hair growth preparation [0038].
The phrase “for use in combination with palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminobutyloyl hydroxythreonine and palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminohydroxybutyrate” is an intended use of the composition, but does not require that the composition contains palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminobutyloyl hydroxythreonine and palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminohydroxybutyrate. MPEP 2111 states that where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakamura (WO 2021/075219 A1, published April 22, 2021, filed September 23, 2020, cited on IDS). US 20220387283 A1 is used as an English equivalent.
Nakamura teaches a hair growth agent that contains palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminobutyloyl hydroxythreonine and palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminohydroxybutyrate. (claim 1). The composition is in liquid solution form (claim 10).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. If the foreign priority is perfected, the rejection will be made under 102 (a)(2).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (US 6,645,513) in view of Nalabolu (WO 2015/157692A1).
Dobson teaches a topical composition comprising adenosine and its application to the skin. The composition can further include a conditioning agent. See claims. The composition may be formulated using conventional methods, such as in phosphate buffered saline (column 4, last paragraph).
Dobson’s composition does not include Palmitoyl Dipeptide-5 Diaminobutyroyl Hydroxythreonine and Palmitoyl Dipeptide-5 Diaminohydroxybutyrate.
Nalabolu teaches that Palmitoyl Dipeptide-5 Diaminobutyroyl Hydroxythreonine and Palmitoyl Dipeptide-5 Diaminohydroxybutyrate are skin-conditioning agents. See paragraphs [0093]-[0094] and [0144].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to incorporate Palmitoyl Dipeptide-5 Diaminobutyroyl Hydroxythreonine and Palmitoyl Dipeptide-5 Diaminohydroxybutyrate into Dobson’s adenosine composition and to apply it to skin because Dobson’s composition comprises skin-conditioning agents and Palmitoyl Dipeptide-5 Diaminobutyroyl Hydroxythreonine and Palmitoyl Dipeptide-5 Diaminohydroxybutyrate are skin-conditioning agents. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to prepare a liquid composition because Dobson teaches the composition formulated in phosphate buffered saline (a liquid).
The limitations “hair growth agent” and “used for” or “for use in” in claims 1-9 and 10 are interpreted to be intended uses which do not further limit the structure of the claim, or are met because the proposed combination is suitable for the recited purposes.
Claims 1-10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ehama (US 2007/0299032 A1, cited on IDS) in view of Nakamura (WO 2021/075219 A1, published April 22, 2021, filed September 23, 2020, cited on IDS). US 20220387283 A1 is used as an English equivalent.
Ehama teaches an external scalp composition comprising adenosine for promoting hair thickening. See abstract. The product shown on page 5 is a liquid because the majority of the composition is comprised of ethanol and water. Dosage forms can be liquid [0042]. The composition is used as a hair growth preparation [0038].
Ehama does not teach that the composition contains palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminobutyloyl hydroxythreonine and palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminohydroxybutyrate.
Nakamura teaches a hair growth agent that contains palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminobutyloyl hydroxythreonine and palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminohydroxybutyrate. (claim 1). The composition is in liquid solution form (claim 10).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the Ehama and Nakamura compsoitions because each composition is used for hair growth. See MPEP 2144.06. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
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 1-10 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/571,529 in view of Ehama (US 2007/0299032 A1, cited on IDS)
The ‘529 application claims a hair growth agent and a hair growth method comprising palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminobutyloyl hydroxythreonine and palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminohydroxybutyrate. Claims 1-3. The composition is a liquid solution (claim 9).
The ‘529 composition does not contain adenosine.
Ehama teaches an external scalp composition comprising adenosine for promoting hair thickening. See abstract. The product shown on page 5 is a liquid because the majority of the composition is comprised of ethanol and water. Dosage forms can be liquid [0042]. The composition is used as a hair growth preparation [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to add adenosine to the ‘529 composition because both adenosine and the ‘529 composition are used for promoting hair growth. See MPEP 2144.06. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-10 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-12 of copending Application No. 17/769,990 in view of Ehama (US 2007/0299032 A1, cited on IDS)
The ‘990 application claims a hair growth agent and a hair growth method comprising palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminobutyloyl hydroxythreonine and palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminohydroxybutyrate. Claims 1 and 3.
The ‘990 composition does not contain adenosine.
Ehama teaches an external scalp composition comprising adenosine for promoting hair thickening. See abstract. The product shown on page 5 is a liquid because the majority of the composition is comprised of ethanol and water. Dosage forms can be liquid [0042]. The composition is used as a hair growth preparation [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to add adenosine to the ‘990 composition because both adenosine and the ‘990 composition are used for promoting hair growth. See MPEP 2144.06. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. It would have been obvious to prepare the composition as a liquid because Ehama teaches that a hair growth formulation can be in the form of a liquid.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-10 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/278,726 in view of Ehama (US 2007/0299032 A1, cited on IDS)
The ‘726 application claims a hair growth agent and a hair growth method comprising palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminobutyloyl hydroxythreonine and palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminohydroxybutyrate. Claims 1-3. The composition is a liquid solution (claim 9).
The ‘726 composition does not contain adenosine.
Ehama teaches an external scalp composition comprising adenosine for promoting hair thickening. See abstract. The product shown on page 5 is a liquid because the majority of the composition is comprised of ethanol and water. Dosage forms can be liquid [0042]. The composition is used as a hair growth preparation [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to add adenosine to the ‘726 composition because both adenosine and the ‘726 composition are used for promoting hair growth. See MPEP 2144.06. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. It would have been obvious to prepare the composition as a liquid because Ehama teaches that a hair growth formulation can be in the form of a liquid.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-10 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/571,549 in view of Nakamura (WO 2021/075219 A1, published April 22, 2021, filed September 23, 2020). US 20220387283 A1 is used as an English equivalent.
The ‘549 application claims a hair growth agent containing adenosine. See claims 1-3. The composition is in liquid solution form. Claim 9.
The ‘549 application does not claim a composition containing palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminobutyloyl hydroxythreonine and palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminohydroxybutyrate
Nakamura teaches a hair growth agent that contains palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminobutyloyl hydroxythreonine and palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminohydroxybutyrate. (claim 1). The composition is in liquid solution form (claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to add palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminobutyloyl hydroxythreonine and palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminohydroxybutyrate to the ‘549 composition because both palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminobutyloyl hydroxythreonine and palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminohydroxybutyrate and the ‘549 composition are used for promoting hair growth. See MPEP 2144.06. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/571,549 (reference application). Current claim 3 recites “for use in combination with palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminobutyloyl hydroxythreonine and palmitoyl dipeptide-5 diaminohydroxybutyrate.” ‘549 claim 3 recites “for use in combination with phytosphingosine.” These are intended uses recited in the preamble which do not limit the claim, so the scope of each claim 3 is the same. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/278,726 (reference application). Current claim 2 recites “for use in combination with adenosine.” ‘726 claim 2 recites “for use in combination with minoxidil.” These are intended uses recited in the preamble which do not limit the claim, so the scope of each claim 2 is the same. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/571,529 (reference application). Current claim 2 recites “for use in combination with adenosine.” ‘529 claim 2 recites “for use in combination with phytosphingosine.” These are intended uses recited in the preamble which do not limit the claim, so the scope of each claim 2 is the same. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAYLA D BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-9572. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00-3:00 CST, M-F.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/LAYLA D BERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693