DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Pursuant to the amendment dated 02/25/2026, claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13-15, and 17-21 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 16 are pending and under current examination.
All rejections not reiterated have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 16 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 is indefinite because the claim is directed to a product, a composition for increasing a plant’s natural processes for absorbing CO2, but claim 1 also recites “the mixture is diluted in a diluting agent at a ratio comprising 0.25 to 20 ml of mixture per litre of diluting agent to form the composition” (emphasis added), implying method steps for using this product. Per MPEP 2173.05(p), a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. Amending the claim to clearly recite product by process language, such as, “the composition has been formed by diluting in a diluting agent at a ratio comprising 0.25 to 20 ml of mixture per litre of diluting agent”
See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to “A system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. In re Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited “an input means” and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear “whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.”); < Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
Claim 9 recites “foliar”. This renders the claim indefinite because the term “foliar” is an adjective and it is unclear what is modified, i.e. what foliar object the composition is suitable for application to.
Claim 9 is indefinite because the claim is directed to a product, a composition for increasing a plant’s natural processes for absorbing CO2, but claim 9 recites “the composition is applied” (emphasis added), implying method steps for using this product. Per MPEP 2173.05(p), a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. Amending the claim to clearly recite an intended use, such as “the composition is suitable to be applied” would obviate the rejection.
See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to “A system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. In re Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited “an input means” and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear “whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.”); < Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
Claims depending from rejected claims have also been rejected because they incorporate all of the limitations of the claims from which they depend, but fail to resolve the indefiniteness concerns outlined above.
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a product of nature without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a composition for increasing a plant’s natural processes for absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere comprising a mixture comprising: between 10% to 20% by weight of a bioflavonoid derived from citrus fruit plant extracts selected from the citrus fruit plant group consisting of grapefruit, lemon, lime, orange, tangerine and bitter orange; between 30% to 60% by weight of an organic acid selected from the group consisting of malic acid, citric acid, lactic acid, salicylic acid, caprylic acid and tartaric acid; and between 10% to 20% by weight of a natural plant derived wetting agent. wherein the mixture is diluted in a diluting agent at a ratio comprising 0.25-20 ml of mixture per litre of diluting agent to form the composition. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim reads on compositions consisting of only a mixture of the naturally occurring products bioflavonoids and the naturally occurring products organic acids in the claimed amounts. The examiner also points out that the claim recites product by process language “wherein the mixture is diluted in a diluting agent at a ratio comprising 0.25 - 20 mL of mixture per liter of diluting agent to form the composition”. This language simply imparts the limitation that the composition also comprises a diluting agent, which reads on e.g. the naturally occurring substance water, and that the percentages of the bioflavonoid, organic acid, and wetting agent are present at 1/4000th to 1/50th the percentages recited in claim 1, lines 4, 7, and 10, respectively. The combination itself is suitable to achieve the purposes recited in the transitional phrase of claim 1, therefore the transitional phrase does not impart any further structural limitations to the claim. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims read on a mixture of a bioflavonoid, organic acid, natural plant derived wetting agent, and a diluent such as water in the claimed amounts. The source of the bioflavonoid and organic acid is limited to natural sources, and dependent claims require the presence of a nutrient, including the natural products boron, magnesium, or calcium, and/or limit the amounts of the natural products. Thus, the claims read on a mixture of naturally occurring substances. Thus all claims read on a mixture of products of nature. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no additional elements are recited in the claim. No evidence of record indicates that the combination of natural products possesses a markedly different characteristic from the combination of substances in isolation. As such, the claims embrace patent ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, Applicant argues that claim 1, as amended, combines and mixes the components in a matter which is not present in nature and which is in a diluted state that can be applied to plants to maximize the plant’s ability to absorb CO2. Applicant found that the claimed composition increases soil respiration of plants relative to plants that have not been treated with the claimed composition and that this offers significant benefit in carbon management and sequestration.
This argument is not persuasive because it does not address the factors underlying subject matter eligibility under 35 USC §101. When, as here, a claim is directed to only a mixture of nature-based products, the markedly different characteristics analysis applies to the mixture and the closest naturally occurring counterpart to the mixture are the individual components of the mixture, i.e. each naturally occurring species by itself. As no evidence has been made of record to establish that the claimed mixture possesses markedly different characteristics from the individual components of the mixture, i.e. in this case the bioflavonoid, organic acid, natural plant derived wetting agent, and diluent (which reads on natural products such as water), the claims remain rejected as directed to ineligible subject matter. A comparison to untreated plants cannot be relied on to establish a difference between the mixture and its individual components.
Applicant argues that the claimed composition does not read on orange juice.
The examiner respectfully points out that this argument is moot as the rejection of the amended claims no longer relies on this rationale.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripley (WO 2014/122446; publication date: 08/14/2014; of record).
Regarding claim 1, on pages 17-20, Ripley discloses compositions comprising bio-mass that contains flavonoid (noting that it is derived from a biomass and is therefore naturally derived). The bioflavonoids are derived from orange, grapefruit, tangerine, or bitter orange (page 7, line 34). Example compositions also can contain the organic acids such as citric or lactic acid as well as an alkyl glucoside wetting agent, which are all naturally derived. With regard to the percentage of each ingredient, and the product by process language requiring the composition to have been diluted from the claimed mixture of bioflavonoid, organic acid, and wetting agent, this language simply imparts the limitation that the composition also comprises a diluting agent and that the percentages of the bioflavonoid, organic acid, and wetting agent are present at 1/4000th to 1/50th the percentages specifically recited in claim 1, lines 4, 7, and 10, respectively. Ripley teaches that the composition is diluted (i.e. comprise a diluting agent) prior to use and will contain from 99.95 to 99.5% by weight water (page 10, lines 13-14). Ripley also teaches that the flavonoid and fruit acid are preferably present in a ratio of 1:3 (page 9, line 23). The implicit ranges in remaining ingredients taught by Ripley overlap with the ranges required for the flavonoid, organic acid, and wetting agent required the by the instant claims, particularly in view of the ratio for these ingredients taught by Ripley, noted above and in example compositions. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). With regard to the transitional phrases recited in instant claim, 1 this is an intended use for the instant invention. As Ripley’s composition is suitable for the recited intended use (e.g. Ripley’s preferred bioflavonoids are derived from citrus, as is the case for the flavonoids according to the instant invention that provide the effect recited in the transitional phrase) the intended use does not patentably define over the composition taught by Ripley.
With regard to claim 4, the composition may contain calcium or magnesium in chelate form derived from the water used for dilution (page 12, lines 6-8).
With regard to claim 7, the compositions are in water (e.g. page 17, line 3) and are therefore liquid.
With regard to claim 9, the composition is intended for, inter alia, foliar spray.
With regard to claim 10, the composition is suitable for an irrigation additive because it contains ingredients compatible with application to plants.
With regard to claim 16, the composition also may comprise fatty acids such as caprylic acid, which are plant nutrients (see e.g. page 17).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripley (WO 2014/122446; publication date: 08/14/2014; of record) as applied to claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of Fujiwara et al. (US 20070079394; publication date: 04/05/2007).
The relevant disclosure of Ripley is set forth above. Ripley is silent with respect to the amount of the at least one nutrient selected from boron, magnesium, and calcium in the composition.
Fujiwara discloses that boron is a plant essential trace nutrient but it can also be toxic (0005, 0007, 0013).
It would have been prima facie obvious to add boron to the composition disclosed by Ripley. The artisan of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to provide nutritional benefit and had reasonable expectation of success because this would merely require including a source of boron in the composition. With regard to the amount of boron required by the claim, the examiner considers it a matter of routine for one of ordinary skill to empirically determine the requisite quantity of boron required to supplement the nutrition for any given crop based upon the amount of boron in the environment. For this reason the examiner does not consider the limitation on percentage of boron in the mixture (and implicit quantity of boron in the final composition) to patentably define over the cited prior art.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. (US 20210029997; publication date: 02/04/2021; of record) in view of Ripley et al. (US 2010/0055053: publication date: 03/04/2010).
The applied reference has common inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier publication date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1), but falls within the grace period afforded the instant claims. Please refer to MPEP 717.01 for information regarding how a reference may be disqualified as prior art under 102(b)(1)(A) or (B).
Watson discloses a composition comprising glycerin 10-40%; ascorbic acid 1-25%; ethanol 1-25%; lactic acid 1-25%; fatty acid 1-25%; surfactant 1-25%; bioflavonoids 10-40%; saponin 1-25%; and, ascorbic acid 1-25%. Thus, the composition comprises a naturally derived bioflavonoid, a naturally derived organic acid, a naturally derived wetting agent (i.e. the saponin), and a naturally derived organic acid derived from the citrus recited in claim 1 (e.g. lactic acid). Watson discloses that the composition can be used on food (0030), therefore the examiner considers the composition to be compatible with the intended uses recited in the instant claims, which require it to be suitable for application to plants (i.e. “for increasing a plant’s natural processes for absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere”). With regard to the percentage of each ingredient, and the product by process language requiring the composition to have been diluted from the claimed mixture of bioflavonoid, organic acid, and wetting agent, this language simply imparts the limitation that the composition also comprises a diluting agent and that the percentages of the bioflavonoid, organic acid, and wetting agent are present at 1/4000th to 1/50th the percentages specifically recited in claim 1, lines 4, 7, and 10, respectively. The composition disclosed by Watson can be diluted at a rate of between 0.5 and 1.5 ml per liter of the mixture added to water (0030). The consequent ranges of amounts of each substance overlaps with the range in amount of each substance required by the instant claims. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Watson does not disclose that the bioflavonoids are derived from the citrus fruits listed in instant claim 1.
Ripley teaches that it is possible to synergise, enhance or facilitate the biological activity of certain combinations of flavonoids by the addition of other agents to the flavonoid composition. Much effort has therefore been directed to finding a suitable combination of flavonoids, with or without other agent(s), that will have a desired effectiveness against certain microbes but without accompanying toxic or other disadvantageous effects in use. An example of such a combination is to be found in a combination of orange extracts, known as bioflavonoids, and natural fruit acids such as vitamin C (0003).
It would have been prima facie obvious to use bioflavonoids derived from orange as the bioflavonoids in Watson’s composition. The artisan of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to maximize antimicrobial efficacy and had reasonable expectation of success because orange-derived bioflavonoids were recognized to provide synergistic antimicrobial effect in combination with ingredients of Watson’s invention, such as ascorbic acid (vitamin C).
With regard to claim 7, the composition can be applied as a spray (0019) and therefore is a liquid.
With regard to claims 9 and 10, the composition does not contain anything that would make it incompatible with application to foliage or as an irrigation additive, therefore these claims are also considered obvious.
With regard to claim 16, the composition contains fatty acids, which are plant nutrients (0007).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. (US 20210029997; publication date: 02/04/2021; of record) in view of Ripley et al. (US 2010/0055053: publication date: 03/04/2010) as applied to claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of Jacobson (US 20160235070; publication date: 08/18/2016).
The relevant disclosures of Watson and Ripley are set forth above. Neither reference discloses that the composition comprises at least one of boron, magnesium, or calcium.
Jacobson discloses that boron containing substances such as oxaborole ring containing compounds have antimicrobial properties (0002).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine Watson’s composition with the boron-containing substances taught to be antimicrobial by Jacobson because they were known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments traversing the obviousness rejection have been fully addressed by the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment. Insomuch as these arguments may be relevant to the new grounds of rejection, they are addressed as follows:
On page 8, Applicant argues that Ripley does not disclose the claimed invention in a single example.
The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the anticipation rejection; however, the claims are rejected under 5 USC 103 as obvious over Ripley. With regard to the argument that Ripley does not disclose a single example falling within the scope of the claims, the examiner points out that "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (MPEP 2123(I)).
On page 8, Applicant argues that Ripley does not disclose the claimed dilution ratio, and on page 9, Applicant argues that Watson does not disclose the claimed dilution ratio or claimed concentrations of components.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that the instant claims are directed to a composition, and the dilution is a process step for forming the claimed composition that results in broad ranges in concentration of each ingredient in the final composition that overlap with prior art ranges, see the rejection above. It is well settled that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). Absent criticality of the claimed range to a persuasive showing of unexpected results, this limitation fails to define over Watson.
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, 7, 9, 10, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-25 of copending Application No. 18886779 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims render obvious the instant claims.
Inter alia, the claims of the ‘779 application embrace a composition comprising a naturally derived bioflavonoid from citrus, specifically grapefruit, lemon, lime, orange, tangerine, pomelo bitter orange extract, a naturally derived organic acid specifically malic acid, citric acid, lactic acid, salicylic acid, silicic acid, ascorbic acid, caprylic acid and tartaric acid, and a naturally derived wetting agent (specifically glycerin or saponin which are naturally derived). The examiner also notes that caprylic acid is a plant nutrient (limitation of instant claim 16).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 4 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-25 of copending Application No. 18886779 (reference application) as applied to claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of Fujiwara et al. (US 20070079394; publication date: 04/05/2007).
The relevant limitations of the ‘779 application are set forth above and are silent with respect to the amount of the at least one nutrient selected from boron, magnesium, and calcium in the composition.
Fujiwara discloses that boron is a plant essential trace nutrient but it can also be toxic (0005, 0007, 0013).
It would have been prima facie obvious to add boron to the composition embraced by the ‘779 application. The artisan of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to provide nutritional benefit and had reasonable expectation of success because this would merely require including a source of boron in the composition. With regard to the amount of boron required by the claim, the examiner considers it a matter of routine for one of ordinary skill to empirically determine the requisite quantity of boron required to supplement the nutrition for any given crop based upon the amount of boron in the environment. For this reason the examiner does not consider the limitation on percentage of boron in the mixture (and implicit quantity of boron in the final composition) to patentably define over the cited copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 10 Applicant argues that a terminal disclaimer has been filed for the ‘779 application. This is not persuasive because the terminal disclaimer filed 02/25/2026 was disapproved by the Office.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE PEEBLES whose telephone number is (571)272-6247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9 am to 3 pm.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at (571)272-9925. 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.
/KATHERINE PEEBLES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights