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 Claims
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 7, 13, and 15 are amended and claims 3, 5-6, 8-11, 14, 16, and 21 are canceled. Claims 18-20 and 25 remain withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention or species. Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 12-13, 15, 17, 22-24, and 26-27 are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application filed 10/13/2023, is a 371 filing of PCT/EP2022/060291, filed 04/19/2022, which claims foreign priority to EP21170414.3, filed 04/26/2021.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
Claim 7 was objected to for informalities. Applicants’ amendment to the claim has overcome the objection and the objection is withdrawn.
Claims 13 and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection and the rejection is withdrawn.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 12-13, 15, 17, 22-24, and 26-27 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneoka in view of Bouchara. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection and the rejection is withdrawn.
The following rejections are new as necessitated by amendment:
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.
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.
1. Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 12-13, 15, 17, 22-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider, J., et al. (WO 2019096815 A1, 05/23/2019, PTO-892), hereinafter Schneider, in view of Bouchara, A, et al. (WO 2013144263 A1, 10/03/2013, PTO-892), hereinafter Bouchara, as evidenced by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (2025). PubChem Compound Summary for CID 72941497, Quaternium-18 Hectorite. Retrieved November 20, 2025 (PTO-892), hereinafter the NCBI.
Schneider discloses a process for permanent waving keratin fibers, especially human hair, for achieving durable waves wherein fibers are treated with a reducing composition, a non-reducing and non-oxidizing alkaline composition and finally an oxidizing composition (abstract).
Regarding claim 1: The non-reducing and non-oxidizing aqueous composition comprises one or more alkalizing agent (p. 2, para. 4; p. 4, para. 5; claims 1 and 15). The pH of the composition is in the range of 7.5 to 12 (p. 4, para. 6), which falls within the instantly claimed pH range (i.e., 7-12). Suitable and most preferred alkalizing agents include ammonia and its salts (p. 5, para. 2; p. 6, para. 2; claims 9-10), which reads on the instantly elected alkalizing agent of a). The aqueous compositions of Schneider advantageously comprise a thickening agent (p. 7, para. 4; claim 14). The aqueous compositions may also comprise one or more fatty alcohols. Non-limiting examples are myristyl alcohol, cetyl alcohol, stearyl alcohol, behenyl alcohol, octyl dodecanol, cetostearyl alcohol, and their mixtures (p. 7-8, bridge paragraph). Such fatty alcohols read on the instantly claimed lipophilic compound of c). The total concentration of fatty alcohol is preferably in the range of 1 to 10% by weight, calculated to total of each of the compositions (p. 8, para. 2), which falls within the instantly claimed range of c) (i.e., 1-25%). The non-oxidizing composition of Schneider necessarily comprises less than 1% of oxidizing agents as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 2: The non-reducing and non-oxidizing composition necessarily comprises less than 1% by weight of a reducing agent, relative to the total weight of the composition.
Regarding claim 4: The pH of the non-reducing and non-oxidizing composition is most preferably 8.5 to 10 (p. 4, para. 6), which falls within the instantly claimed pH range (i.e., 8-10.5).
Regarding claim 13: The fatty alcohols may be cetyl alcohol, stearyl alcohol, cetostearyl alcohol (i.e., cetearyl alcohol), and their mixtures (p. 7-8, bridge paragraph).
Regarding claim 15: The total concentration of fatty alcohol is preferably in the range of 1 to 10% by weight (p. 8, para. 2), which falls within the instantly claimed range (i.e., 1-20%).
Regarding claim 17: The non-reducing and non-oxidizing composition of Schneider is used in a process for permanently waving keratin fibers (title; abstract; claims). Thus, the non-reducing and non-oxidizing composition reads on a permanent waving composition.
The teachings of Schneider differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Schneider does not explicitly teach the inorganic particulate thickening agent of claim 1 nor its average particle size and concentration as defined in claims 7 and 12. Schneider also fails to teach the specific species of the inorganic particulate thickening agent as outlined in claims 22-24 and 26-27.
However, Bouchara, throughout the reference teaches a cosmetic composition for treating keratin fibers and a process for permanently reshaping keratin fibers via heat (abstract). The treatment of Bouchara gives the hair satisfactory cosmetic properties in terms of softness, feel and disentangling (p. 7, lines 5-7).
Bouchara specifically teaches the composition to contain one or more inorganic thickeners in the form of particles, which reads on the inorganic particulate thickening agent of claim 1.
The inorganic thickener particles of Bouchara have a primary number-average size ranging from 0.1 to 500 µm (abstract), even more preferably it ranges from 1 to 100 µm (p. 20, lines 7-9), which falls with range of claim 7 (i.e., 10 nm to 100 µm). Regarding the recitation of “determined by static light scattering technique”, particle size is inherent to a given particle and will be the same regardless of the measurement method.
The particulate thickener(s) of Bouchara are most preferably present in the cosmetic composition at an amount of 2% to 10% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition (p. 23, lines 9-14), which falls within the range of claim 12 (i.e., 0.1% to 30%).
The particulate thickener(s) are preferably chosen from clays (p. 20, lines 17-18). Examples of clays include those from the smectite family such as montmorillonites, hectorites, bentonites, and more (p. 20, lines 27-30). Preferably, the clay is a bentonite or a hectorite (p. 21, lines 5-6). Such thickeners read on those of claims 22-24. Specifically, hectorite reads on the instantly elected species of a particulate thickener.
The clays may further be chosen from organophilic clays. Preferably, the organophilic clays according to the invention are clays modified with a chemical compound chosen from quaternary amines such as quaternium-18, such as those sold under the names Bentone 3, Bentone 38 and Bentone 38V (p. 21, lines 7-17). The organophilic clay is particularly chosen from modified hectorites such as hectorite modified with fatty acid ammonium chloride (p. 21, lines 25-28). The organophilic clays read on the hydrophobically-modified clay minerals of claim 26. Bentone 38, reads on the Quaternium-18 hectorite of claim 27, as evidenced by the NCBI.
Regarding the thickener of claim 1: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the inorganic particulate thickener of Bouchara into the reshaping composition of Schneider since the inorganic particulate thickeners of Bouchara are routine and known in the art of permanent keratin reshaping as taught by Bouchara. Furthermore, both Schneider and Bouchara teach compositions for reshaping keratin via heat. “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.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7: It would have been further obvious to use an inorganic thickener with the particle size of Bouchara (i.e., 1 to 100 µm) in the combined composition above, since such a particle size is taught as known and effective for particles used as thickeners in permanent reshaping compositions. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 12: It would have been obvious to provide the inorganic particulate thickener in the combined composition at an amount of 2% to 10% by weight relative to the entire composition since such an amount is taught as known and effective in permanent reshaping compositions by Bouchara. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to followed the guidance of Bouchara when incorporating inorganic thickener particles into a reshaping composition since the amount taught by Bouchara is known and effective for providing a reshaping composition with good softness, feel and disentangling properties.
Regarding claims 22-24: It would have been obvious to select a clay mineral, specifically a smectite clay mineral such as hectorite, as the inorganic thickener in the combined composition, since hectorites are known and effective inorganic particulate thickeners in permanent reshaping compositions as taught by Bouchara. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 26-27: It would have also been obvious to select a hydrophobically-modified clay mineral such as Bentone 38 (i.e., Quaternium-18 hectorite), since modified clay minerals are known and effective inorganic particulate thickeners in permanent reshaping compositions as taught by Bouchara. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
As such, the prior art teaches all the components of the composition as claimed with amounts within the instantly claimed ranges. Therefore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Note: MPEP 2141 KSR International CO. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the above modifications since Schneider welcomes the addition of thickeners and Bouchara teaches that inorganic particulate thickeners may be used in a reshaping composition to provide good softness, feel and disentangling to keratin fibers.
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.
1. Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 12-13, 15, 17, 22-24, and 26-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,296,034 in view of Schneider and Bouchara. The Obviousness Double Patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims and would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Schneider and Bouchara.
Conflicting claim 1 recites a non-reducing, non-oxidizing reshaping composition for keratin fibers, the composition having a pH in the range of 7 to 12, and comprising: a) one or more organic alkalizing agents having a pKa of less than 9.0; b) one or more lipophilic compounds; c) one or more surfactants; and d) one or more thickening agents wherein the one or more organic alkalizing agents according to a) is tris-(hydroxymethyl)-aminomethane and/or a salt thereof. The conflicting claims differ from the instant claims in that the conflicting claims do not recite ammonia as an alkalizing agent or an inorganic particulate thickening agent, as recited in instant claim 1. Schneider discloses a process for permanent waving keratin fibers, especially human hair, for achieving durable waves wherein fibers are treated with a non-reducing and non-oxidizing alkaline composition comprising one or more alkalizing agent (p. 2, para. 4; p. 4, para. 5; claims 1 and 15). Suitable and most preferred alkalizing agents include ammonia and its salts (p. 5, para. 2; p. 6, para. 2; claims 9-10), which reads on the instantly elected alkalizing agent of instant claim 1. Bouchara, throughout the reference teaches a cosmetic composition for treating keratin fibers and a process for permanently reshaping keratin fibers (abstract; p. 5, lines 19-30). The treatment of Bouchara gives the hair satisfactory cosmetic properties in terms of softness, feel and disentangling (p. 7, lines 5-7). Bouchara specifically teaches the composition to contain one or more inorganic thickeners in the form of particles, which reads on the inorganic particulate thickening agent of claim 1. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the ammonia of Schneider into the composition of the conflicting claims since ammonia is a routine and known alkalizing agent for permanent reshaping compositions as taught by Schneider. “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.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Similarly, it would have been obvious to select the inorganic particulate thickener of Bouchara as the thickener of the conflicting claims since such thickeners are routine and known in the art of permanent keratin reshaping as taught by Bouchara. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 12-13, 15, 17, 22-24, and 26-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,403,074 in view of Bouchara. The Obviousness Double Patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims and would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Bouchara.
Conflicting claim 1 recites a process for permanently waving keratin fibers which includes applying a second non-reducing and non-oxidizing aqueous composition comprising one or more alkalizing agents and having a pH ranging from 7.5 to 12. The alkalizing agent may be selected from a number of ammonium salts (conflicting claim 7), which will exist as both ammonium and ammonia in solution. At least one of the first, second, third, and fourth compositions comprises at least one of a thickening agent (conflicting claim 14). The conflicting claims differ from the instant claims in that they do not recite an inorganic particulate thickening agent, as recited in instant claim 1. However, Bouchara, throughout the reference teaches a cosmetic composition for treating keratin fibers and a process for permanently reshaping keratin fibers (abstract; p. 5, lines 19-30). The treatment of Bouchara gives the hair satisfactory cosmetic properties in terms of softness, feel and disentangling (p. 7, lines 5-7). Bouchara specifically teaches the composition to contain one or more inorganic thickeners in the form of particles, which reads on the inorganic particulate thickening agent of claim 1. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the to add the inorganic particulate thickener of Bouchara into the reshaping composition of the conflicting claims since such thickeners are routine and known in the art of permanent keratin reshaping as taught by Bouchara. Both the conflicting claims and Bouchara teach compositions for reshaping keratin. “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.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 12-13, 15, 17, 22-24, and 26-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/788,073 in view of Bouchara. The Obviousness Double Patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims and would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Bouchara.
Copending claim 1 recites a non-reducing, non-oxidizing reshaping composition for keratin fibers having a pH in the range of 7 to 12, the non-reducing, non-oxidizing reshaping composition comprising: a) one or more alkalizing agents selected from: ammonia and/or ammonium salt(s), and/or organic amine(s) and/or salt(s) of organic amines; b) one or more lipophilic compounds; c) one or more surfactants; and d) one or more thickening agents being soluble in the one or more lipophilic compounds according to b) and comprising at least one homo- or copolymer comprising monomers of styrene. The copending claims differ from the instant claims in that they do not recite a particulate thickening agent, as recited in instant claim 1. However, Bouchara, throughout the reference teaches a cosmetic composition for treating keratin fibers and a process for permanently reshaping keratin fibers (abstract; p. 5, lines 19-30). The treatment of Bouchara gives the hair satisfactory cosmetic properties in terms of softness, feel and disentangling (p. 7, lines 5-7). Bouchara specifically teaches the composition to contain one or more inorganic thickeners in the form of particles, which reads on the inorganic particulate thickening agent of claim 1. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to 1) add the inorganic particulate thickener of Bouchara into the reshaping composition of the copending claims or 2) substitute the styrene thickener of the copending claims with the inorganic particulate thickener of Bouchara since such thickeners are routine and known in the art of permanent keratin reshaping as taught by Bouchara. Regarding option 1, both the copending claims and Bouchara teach compositions for reshaping keratin. “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.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Regarding option 2, it is considered prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another (i.e., a thickener) to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 12-13, 15, 17, 22-24, and 26-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/004,574 in view of Bouchara. The Obviousness Double Patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims and would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Bouchara.
Copending claim 1 recites a process for permanently waving keratin fibers which includes applying a non-reducing and non-oxidizing aqueous composition onto the fibers, wherein the non-reducing and non-oxidizing aqueous composition comprises one or more alkalizing agent and has an alkaline pH. Specifically, the pH of the non-reducing and non-oxidizing aqueous alkaline composition is in the range of 7.5 to 12 (copending claim 8). The alkalizing agent may be selected from a number of ammonium salts (copending claim 10), which will exist as both ammonium and ammonia in solution. The copending claims differ from the instant claims in that they do not recite a particulate thickening agent, as recited in instant claim 1. However, Bouchara, throughout the reference teaches a cosmetic composition for treating keratin fibers and a process for permanently reshaping keratin fibers (abstract; p. 5, lines 19-30). The treatment of Bouchara gives the hair satisfactory cosmetic properties in terms of softness, feel and disentangling (p. 7, lines 5-7). Bouchara specifically teaches the composition to contain one or more inorganic thickeners in the form of particles, which reads on the inorganic particulate thickening agent of claim 1. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the inorganic particulate thickener of Bouchara into the reshaping composition of the copending claims since such thickeners are routine and known in the art of permanent keratin reshaping as taught by Bouchara. Both the copending claims and Bouchara teach compositions for reshaping keratin. “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.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection over Kaneoka and Bouchara have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schneider and Bouchara.
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 SUSANNAH S ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0112. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5 (Flex).
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, Sue X Liu can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/SUSANNAH S ARMSTRONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights