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 .
This action is NON-FINAL.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14-18 are pending.
Withdrawn Rejections
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8, 5th line, the term “and” should be deleted; and claim 12, ln. 7, the term “neopentyl” is misspelled as “neopencil”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 depends from claim 7, which has been cancelled. For the purposes of applying prior art, claim 8 is being construed as being dependent from claim 1.
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, 3-4, 6, 10, 12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘007 (US 11,260,007).
Lee ‘007 teach throughout the reference a cosmetic composition comprising a ceramide, phytosphingosine, cholesterol, a fatty acid and purified water.
Regarding claim 1, Lee ‘007 teach a cosmetic composition comprising ceramide-accommodating particles, comprising a ceramide, cholesterol, a fatty acid and purified water (col. 3, ln. 11-16; col. 4, ln. 29-40 and 43-45; Tables 1-2, 4; Claims 1 and 7). Lee ‘007 teach that the ceramide is included at 0.001 to 10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the entire composition (col. 3, ln. 30-33; Claim 4). The cosmetic composition further includes an oil-phase ingredient, including cholesterol and a fatty acid, wherein the oil-phase ingredient is included in the composition to help to form ceramide-accommodating particles as well as stabilizing the ceramide (col. 4, ln. 29-40). The oil-phase part may be included at 20 parts by weight or less, for example, 10 parts by weight or less, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the entire composition (col. 7, ln. 7-17).
The instant specification teaches that the ceramides according to Lee ‘007 contain fatty acids having a chain length of 14 to 36 carbon atoms ([72]).
Regarding the instantly claimed sterols, Lee ‘007 teach that the oil phase comprises cholesterol (col. 4, ln. 29-40).
Regarding the instantly claimed surfactant, fatty alcohol and oil, Lee ‘007 teach that the composition of the present invention may further include one or more oil-phase ingredients selected from the group consisting of cholesterol, a neutral lipid, a fatty acid, a fatty alcohol, an oil, and a wax (col. 4, ln. 29-36).
Regarding the concentration of surfactant, Lee ‘007 teach that the cosmetic composition may include various lipids, fatty acids, fatty acid esters, soybean glyceride, silicone-based oils, ester-based oils, etc., comprising surfactant properties (col. 4, ln. 41 to col. 6, ln. 24). Lee ‘007 further teach that the cosmetic composition is in an oil-in-water or water-in-oil formulation (col. 6, ln. 48-50).
Regarding the concentration of fatty alcohol, Lee ‘007 teach that the oil-phase part may be included at 20 parts by weight or less, for example, 10 parts by weight or less, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the entire composition (col. 7, ln. 7-25).
Regarding the concentration of oil, Lee ‘007 teach that the oil-phase part may be included at 20 parts by weight or less, for example, 10 parts by weight or less, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the entire composition (col. 7, ln. 7-10).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to determine through routine experimentation the optimum or workable concentration ranges for the ceramide, cholesterol, fatty acid, water, surfactant, fatty alcohol and oil.
Regarding claims 3-4, Lee ‘007 teach that the ceramide may be one or more selected from the group consisting of ceramide EOP, ceramide NS, ceramide NP, ceramide AS, ceramide EOS, ceramide NDS, ceramide AP, glucosylceramide, and omega-hydroxy ceramide, but the present invention is not limited thereto (col. 3, ln. 11-16).
Regarding claim 6, Lee ‘007 teach that the fatty acids include palmitic acid, stearic acid and behenic acid (col. 4, ln. 43-45).
Regarding claim 10, Lee ‘007 teach that the fatty alcohol may be one or more selected from the group consisting of C16 to C22 cetyl alcohol, cetearyl alcohol, stearyl alcohol, and behenyl alcohol, but the present invention is not limited thereto (col. 4, ln. 45-48).
Regarding claim 12, Lee ‘007 teach the neutral lipid may include squalane (col. 4, ln. 40-41). The ester-based oil includes polyglyceryl-2 triisostearate, ethylhexyl isononanoate, isostearyl isostearate, neopentyl glycol dicaprate, neopentyl glycol diethylhexanoate, octyldodecyl isostearate, and pentaerythrityl tetraethylhexanoate (col. 5, ln. 8-30), the triglyceride-based oil includes caprylic/capric triglyceride (col. 5, ln. 31-37).
Regarding claim 14, Lee ‘007 teach that the cosmetic composition of the present invention may further include all kinds of ingredients that can be used in conventional cosmetics, such as a moisturizer, a thickener, a UV protection agent, a neutralizing agent, a fragrance, a preservative, an antioxidant, and a pigment (col. 6, ln. 11-15).
Regarding claim 15, Lee ‘007 teach the moisturizer may include one or more selected from the group consisting of glyceryl, butylene glycol, propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, diglycerin, pentylene glycol, isoprene glycol, and erythritol (col. 6, ln. 16-24).
Regarding claim 16, Lee ‘007 teach examples comprising 5 parts by weight glycerin + 5 parts by weight dipropylene glycol, or 10 parts by weight glycerin (Tables 1-2, 4).
Regarding claim 17, Lee ‘007 teach that the thickener is a polymer for adjusting viscosity and may be a polymer derived from plants, animals, or microorganisms or a synthetic polymer. For example, the thickener may be selected from the group consisting of an acrylate/C10-C30 alkyl acrylate crosspolymer, guar gum, xanthan gum, natto gum, ethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, sodium polyacrylate, glyceryl polyacrylate, and hydroxypropyl cellulose, but the present invention is not limited thereto (col. 6, ln. 25-33).
Regarding claim 18, Lee ‘007 teach that the cosmetic composition according to the present invention may be a formulation having a viscosity of 0.1 to 40,000 cps (col. 6, ln. 1-3; Claim 10). Lee ‘007 also teach examples of compositions comprising 0.2 parts by weight or more of polymer (Tables 1-2, 4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare compositions according to Lee ‘007 comprising a ceramide, cholesterol, a fatty acid, a moisturizer, a fatty alcohol, an oil, a polyol, a polymer, and a preservative, wherein the specific components are selected from the compounds taught by Lee ‘007, and the concentration of the components is within the ranges taught.
The examiner respectfully points out the following from MPEP 2144.05: “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed.Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the present application is directed to a skin moisturizing external composition comprising a lipid mixture of a ceramide having long-chain fatty acids, a sterol, and a long-chain fatty acid-components structurally similar to the intercellular lipids of the skin-as active ingredients for improving the skin barrier. The composition further comprises a surfactant, a fatty alcohol, and an oil in specific weight ranges to achieve excellent emulsification stability and low skin irritation. Applicant asserts that Lee, on the other hand, is directed to a cosmetic composition comprising particles containing a ceramide and phytosphingosine, wherein a coating membrane with a multi-layered lamellar structure is formed on the outside of the ceramide particles by using phytosphingosine, thereby achieving formulation stability with a high content of ceramide and providing a skin barrier recovery effect.
The examiner respectfully argues that the instant claims recite an external composition comprising the claimed components, but the claims do not distinguish the type of composition from the compositions according to Lee ‘007 Also, Lee ‘007 teach that the ceramides are major lipids constituting the lamellar structure of the intercorneocyte lipid and are well known to play an essential role in the functioning as the permeability barrier of the skin. Therefore, the compositions according to Lee ‘007 are used for the same purpose as the compositions of the instant claims.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is characterized in that it comprises a lipid mixture of long-chain ceramide, a sterol, and a long-chain fatty acid-structurally similar to skin lipids-as active ingredients for skin barrier improvement. However, Lee is characterized by forming particles in which ceramide is entrapped within a membrane formed by phytosphingosine. Lee does not teach or suggest, either directly or indirectly, the concept of combining ceramide, a sterol, and a fatty acid to create a lipid mixture that mimics the structure of skin intercellular lipids.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the structure of the composition mimicking the structure of skin intercellular lipids) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The examiner respectfully argues that the instant claims recite a composition comprising a list of components. Lee ‘007 also teach a skin moisturizing composition comprising the same components as instantly claimed. Therefore, the composition as instantly claimed is obvious in view of Lee ‘007.
Applicant further argues that Lee includes phytosphingosine as an essential ingredient (0.001 to 5 parts by weight) and does not include a surfactant.
The examiner respectfully argues that the instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising”, which is open-ended and inclusive of non-recited elements. Therefore, the claims do not exclude the presence of phytosphingosine. Also, Lee ‘007 teach numerous components that have surfactant properties, including lipids, fatty acids, fatty acid esters, soybean glyceride, etc.
Applicant further argues that Lee teaches that the oil-phase part may be included at 20 parts by weight or less with respect to 100 parts by weight of the entire composition. Lee does not provide detailed composition ratios for individual oil-phase components such as fatty alcohols or oils, but rather provides only an overall oil-phase ratio. Applicant asserts that claim 1 specifies: ceramide at 2 to 16 wt%; sterol at 1 to 8 wt%; long-chain fatty acid at 1 to 8 wt%; surfactant at 3.6 to 7.2 wt%; fatty alcohol at 3.3 to 12 wt%; and oil at 9 to 19 wt%. The sum of these oil-phase components in the present invention ranges from approximately 20.9 to 70.2 wt%, which is substantially higher than the maximum of 20 parts by weight for the oil-phase part in Lee.
The examiner respectfully argues that the sum of components recited above and in claim 1 is 19.9 to 70.2 wt.%. As noted by Applicant, Lee ‘007 teach that the oil-phase part may be included at 20 parts by weight, which is within the range claimed.
The examiner respectfully points out the following from MPEP 2144.05: “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed.Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Applicant further asserts that the present application produces a conventional emulsion with particle sizes too small to be visually confirmed, as demonstrated in Figure 2 of the specification. The present application thus has a markedly different physical form from the macroemulsion of Lee.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., the physical form of the claimed composition) is not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would understand from Lee that phytosphingosine must be included for ceramide formulation stability, and would have no reason to remove phytosphingosine and instead rely on a surfactant, fatty alcohol, and oil for stabilization.
The examiner respectfully argues that the instant claims do not exclude the presence of phytosphingosine.
Applicant also argues that the specification demonstrates through comparative experiments that the claimed ranges of surfactant and fatty alcohol are critical to achieving emulsification stability.
The examiner respectfully argues that the data in Example 1 of the instant specification is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. Example 1 comprises only one composition with specific concentration amounts for the ceramide, cholesterol, fatty acid, fatty alcohol, surfactant, oil and water. The specification does not provide examples of other compositions with the components at other concentrations within the claimed ranges. A single concentration is generally not representative of the concentration ranges being claimed. Also, Example 1 recites cholesterol, whereas the instant claims recite sterol. The single species is not representative of the entire genus of sterols. Further, Example 1 does not teach which fatty acid, surfactant, fatty alcohol or oil was used. Therefore, it is not clear whether the components of Example 1 are within the scope of the instant claims or whether the Example is representative of the claimed lists of different components.
Applicant asserts that these results demonstrate that the specific weight ranges of surfactant (3.6 to 7.2 wt%) and fatty alcohol (3.3 to 12 wt%) of amended claim 1 are critical for achieving emulsification stability.
The examiner respectfully argues that Example 1 of the specification only provides one composition comprising 5.68 wt.% surfactant and 5.28 wt.% fatty alcohol. It is not clear that compositions comprising 3.6 wt.% surfactant and 3.3 wt.% fatty alcohol, or 7.2 wt.% surfactant and 12 wt.% fatty alcohol would have the same properties as Example 1. Also, it is not clear what components were used as the surfactant, fatty acid, fatty alcohol or oil.
Applicants also argue that in addition to the emulsification stability demonstrated above, the present application achieves the following superior technical effects as demonstrated in the specification. Applicant asserts that the combined effects-stable emulsification of high-content long-chain ceramide, excellent skin barrier recovery, significant itching alleviation, and zero skin irritation-are unexpected results that would not have been predicted from Lee.
The examiner respectfully argues that the specification did not compare against the compositions according to Lee ‘007 to show that the compositions of Lee ‘007 would not result in similar efficacy.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘243 (US 9,744,243).
Lee ‘243 teach throughout the reference an emulsion cosmetic composition comprising a ceramide, a sterol, a fatty acid, a fatty alcohol, an emulsifier, an oil and purified water.
Regarding claim 1, Lee ‘243 teach a multi-lamellar emulsion composition for skin external application, which comprises: 15-22 wt % of lipid components comprising, based on the total weight of the composition, 3-4 wt % of long-chain amide and sterol and 12-18 wt % of fatty acid and fatty alcohol; 6-10 wt % of an emulsifier based on the total weight of the composition; 12-18 wt % of oil based on the total weight of the composition; and a balance of purified water, wherein the ratio of the content of the long-chain amide to that of the sterol is 0.1-1.8:1 by weight, the ratio of the content of the lipid components to the emulsifier is 1.8-3.0:1 by weight, and the sum of the contents of the lipid components and the emulsifier is 21-32 wt % based on the total weight of the composition (col. 2, ln. 34-46; Claim 1). Lee ‘243 teach that the long-chain amide includes ceramides, such as natural ceramides, including ceramide-1 (ceramide EOP), ceramide-2 (ceramide NS), ceramide-3 (ceramide NP), ceramide-3B, ceramide-4 (ceramide AS), ceramide-5 (ceramide AS), and ceramide-6 (ceramide AP) (Claim 2); and the sterol is at least one compound selected from the group consisting of cholesterol, cholesteryl sulfate, cholesteryl acetate, cholesteryl stearate, cholesteryl isostearate, cholesteryl hydroxystearate, and phytosterol (Claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare compositions according to Lee ‘243 comprising 3-4 wt % of a ceramide having long-chain fatty acids and a sterol, 12-18 wt % of fatty acid and fatty alcohol; 6-10 wt % of an emulsifier based on the total weight of the composition; 12-18 wt % of oil based on the total weight of the composition; and a balance of purified water.
Regarding claims 3-4, Lee ‘243 teach that the long-chain amide includes ceramides, such as natural ceramides, including ceramide-1 (ceramide EOP), ceramide-2 (ceramide NS), ceramide-3 (ceramide NP), ceramide-3B, ceramide-4 (ceramide AS), ceramide-5 (ceramide AS), and ceramide-6 (ceramide AP) (col. 3, ln. 3-15; Claim 2).
Regarding claim 6, Lee ‘243 teach that the fatty acid that is used in the present invention is palmitic acid, stearic acid, arachidic acid, or a mixture of two or more thereof (col. 3, ln. 24-28; Claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, Lee ‘243 teach that the emulsifier is a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of polyglyceryl-10 distearate, hydrogenated lecithin, glyceryl stearate, and sorbitan stearate (col. 3, ln. 37-52; Claim 6).
Regarding claim 10, Lee ‘243 teach that the fatty alcohol is cetyl alcohol, stearyl alcohol, cetearyl alcohol, behenyl alcohol, or a mixture of two or more thereof (col. 3, ln. 29-36; Claim 7).
Regarding claim 12, Lee ‘243 teach that the dermatologically useful substances may include various oleophilic vegetable oils, liquid paraffin, paraffin wax, squalane, and caprylic/capric triglyceride (col. 3, ln. 59-67).
Regarding claims 14-15, Lee ‘243 teach that generally, emulsion type compositions for skin external application contain an emulsifier in an amount of about 20 wt % based on the weight of oil. In addition, the compositions contain various skin conditioning agents, thickeners, preservatives, antioxidants, fragrances, etc. (col. 1, ln. 18-22). A composition for skin external application according to the present invention is a multi-lamellar emulsion comprising: lipid compounds comprising long-chain amide, sterol, fatty acid and fatty alcohol; an emulsifier; oil; purified water; a thickener; and polyhydric alcohol (col. 2, ln. 65 to col. 3, ln. 2). Lee ‘243 teach that examples of a polyhydric alcohol that may be used in the present invention include glycerin, 1,2-propanediol, 1,3-propanediol, 1,3-butanediol, 1,2-pentanediol, etc. (col. 3, ln. 52-58). See also Tables 1-5.
Regarding claim 14 and 17-18, Lee ‘243 teach that examples of a thickener that may be used in the present invention include carbomer, xanthan gum, and celluloses (col. 3, ln. 52-58). See also Tables 1-5.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare compositions according to Lee ‘243 comprising long-chain amide, sterol, fatty acid and fatty alcohol; an emulsifier; oil; purified water; a thickener; a polyhydric alcohol; and a preservative; wherein the specific components are selected from the compounds taught by Lee ‘243, and the concentration of the components is within the ranges taught.
The examiner respectfully points out the following from MPEP 2144.05: “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed.Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan W Schlientz whose telephone number is (571)272-9924. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through 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, Sue 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.
/N.W.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights