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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 23 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 23 January 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 is 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. Base claim 1 requires a monomer of formula (1) having CZ1Z2 adjacent to the moiety -COOM. Formula (2) of claim 2 includes the structure Rf adjacent to -COOM which is defined as a fluorine containing alkylene group that does not necessarily include the CZ1Z2 adjacent to -COOM. As such, claim 2 does not include all the limitations of 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2021/100835 A1 (“Yamanaka”).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier publication date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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)(1)(A); or (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed.
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.
The applied reference has a common inventor and applicant 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). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) 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) if the same invention is not being claimed; 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 in the reference 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.
The citations below are to US 2022/0282007, presumed to be a translation of WO 2021/100835 A1.
As to claims 1, 2, and 4, Yamanaka teaches obtaining an aqueous dispersion of a fluorine containing elastomer in an aqueous dispersion (paras. 1098-1099). Yamanaka teaches polymerizing fluorine containing monomers in water (para. 1094-1095) in the presence of a polymer QA in solution QA-2. As shown at paras. 1090-1091, this polymer QA is a homopolymer, thus having 50 mol % of more as required by claim 4, of monomer CF2=CFOCF2CF2COOH, which meets formula (1) where R is a linking group, Z1 and Z2 are each F, M is H. This monomer also meets formula (2) of claim 2 where Rf is a perfluoroalkylene group having 2 carbon atoms, and M is H.
As to claim 3, Yamanaka teaches polymer QA has Mw in the recited range (para. 1091).
As to claim 5, Yamanaka teaches adding polymer QA in an amount calculated as approximately 0.05 wt % based on the aqueous medium (paras. 1094).
As to claim 6, the example of Yamanaka teaches addition of APS, an initiator, in an amount calculated as approximately 0.37 % of the fluorine containing monomers (paras. 1095-1096).
As to claim 7, Yamanaka teaches no fluorine surfactants added (paras. 0005, 1094-1097).
As to claims 8-10, Yamanaka teaches the elastomer is a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene, and vinylidene fluoride (para. 1095), and thus has -CH2- units due to the presence of vinylidene fluoride.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2021/100836 A1 (“Nanba”).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier publication date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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)(1)(A); or (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed.
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.
The applied reference has a common inventor and applicant 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). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) 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) if the same invention is not being claimed; 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 in the reference 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.
The citations below are to US 2022/0282008, presumed to be a translation of WO 2021/100836 A1.
As to claims 1, 2, and 4, Nanba teaches obtaining an aqueous dispersion of a fluorine containing elastomer in an aqueous dispersion (para. 1255). Nanba teaches polymerizing fluorine containing monomers in water (para. 1250-1251) in the presence of a polymer QA in solution QA-2. As shown at paras. 1246-1247, this polymer QA is a homopolymer, thus having 50 mol % of more as required by claim 4, of monomer CF2=CFOCF2CF2COOH, which meets formula (1) where R is a linking group, Z1 and Z2 are each F, M is H. This monomer also meets formula (2) of claim 2 where Rf is a perfluoroalkylene group having 2 carbon atoms, and M is H.
As to claim 3, Nanba teaches polymer QA has Mw in the recited range (para. 1247).
As to claim 5, Nanba teaches adding polymer QA in an amount calculated as approximately 0.05 wt % based on the aqueous medium (paras. 1250).
As to claim 6, the example of Nanba teaches addition of APS, an initiator, in an amount calculated as approximately 0.37 % of the fluorine containing monomers (paras. 1251-1253).
As to claim 7, Nanba teaches no fluorine surfactants added (paras. 0179, 1250-1253).
As to claims 8-10, Nanba teaches the elastomer is a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene, and vinylidene fluoride (para. 1250), and thus has -CH2- units due to the presence of vinylidene fluoride.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0303732 (“Tsuchiya”).
The applied reference has a common inventor and applicant 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). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) 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) if the same invention is not being claimed; 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 in the reference 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.
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.
As to claims 1, 2, and 4, Tsuchiya teaches a preparation of a fluoroelastomer in aqueous dispersion (paras. 0594-0598),by polymerizing fluorine monomer (para. 0594) in aqueous medium in the presence of a polymer A. Polymer A is a homopolymer of CF2=CFOCF2CF2COOH (para. 0591), which meets formula (1) of claim 1 where R is -OCF2-, Z1 and Z2 are each F, M is H, and meets formula (2) of claim 2 where Rf is fluoroalkylene containing 2 carbon atoms and M is H. The homopolymer meets the recitation of claim 4.
As to claim 3, Tsuchiya teaches polymer A having weight average molecular weight in the recited range (para. 0591).
As to claim 5, Tsuchiya teaches adding the polymer in an amount calculated as approximately 1 wt% of the aqueous medium (paras. 0594-0596).
As to claim 6, Tsuchiya teaches the use of initiator APS, in an amount calculated as approximately 1.7 % of the monomers used ((paras. 0594-0595).
As to claim 7, Tsuchiya teaches polymerizing without fluorinated surfactant (para. 0235, 0594-0595, showing no fluorinated surfactants added).
As to claim 8, Tsuchiya teaches polymerizing tetrafluoroethylene (para. 0594).
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/218620 A1 (“Yoneda”).
The citations below are to US 2022/0259337, presumed to be a translation of WO 2020/218620 A1.
As to claims 1 and 2, Yoneda teaches a method for producing an aqueous dispersion of a fluoropolymer (abstract) by polymerizing fluoromonomers in an aqueous medium in the presence of a polymer (I) (para. 0448).
Specfically, Yoneda teaches forming a fluoroelastomer by this method (para. 0844).
Yoneda teaches the polymer (I) is formed from a monomer of general formula (I)
PNG
media_image1.png
17
124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(paras. 0093-0094), which formula includes the recited formula (1). While not exemplified, Yoneda teaches that preferred embodiments of the polymer formed from monomer (I) include monomer (2a)
PNG
media_image2.png
22
111
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where A is an anionic group (para. 0236, 0237, specifically monomers such as CF2=CF-O-CFF2COOM and other similar compounds (paras. 0243-0247), where M is the same as defined the same as recited (para. 0209). These compounds meet formula (1) and formula (2) of claims 1 and 2. Given that Yoneda teaches the polymer having the recited monomer is a preferred polymer for use in polymerizing fluoropolymers, it would be an obvious modification to employ this polymer as suggested by Yoneda.
As to claim 3, Yoneda teaches the recited weight average molecular weight (para. 0300).
As to claim 4, Yoneda teaches the recited content of monomer (I) as a preferred amount, in particular homopolymers of the monomer (Para. 0298).
As to claim 5, Yoneda teaches the use of polymer (I) in the range of 0.0001 to 2 % by weight based on the dispersion (para. 0849), which includes the recited range.
As to claim 6, Yoneda teaches the recited amount of initiator in forming fluroelastomer (para. 0851).
As to claim 7, Yoneda teaches polymerizing in the absence of fluorine containing surfactant (para. 0449).
As to claims 8-10, Yoneda teaches a preferred fluoroelastomer of vinylidene fluoride, tetrafluoroethylene, and hexafluoropropylene (para. 0848), which has -CH2- in the main chain due to the presence of vinylidene fluoride.
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 and 2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/319,177 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claims 2 and 4 include all of the limitations required by claims 1 and 2, respectively, where a perfluoroelastomer is a fluorine containing elastomer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 3-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/319,177 in view of WO 2020/218620 A1 (“Yoneda”).
The discussion of copending claim 2 is incorporated by reference. Copending claim 2 does not recite the further features of claims 3-8. However, Yoneda teaches similar method of preparing an aqueous dispersion of a fluoroelastomer (para. 0844) in the presence of a polymer having monomers of the type including the monomer of claim 2 (abstract). Yoneda teaches the recited weight average molecular weight of the polymer as required by claim 3 (para. 0300), the recited content of monomer (I) as a preferred amount, in particular homopolymers of the monomer as required by claim 4 (Para. 0298), the use of polymer (I) in the range of 0.0001 to 2 % by weight based on the dispersion (para. 0849) as required by claim 5, the recited amount of initiator in forming fluoroelastomer (para. 0851) as required by claim 6, and polymerizing in the absence of fluorine containing surfactant (para. 0449) as required bv claim 7. Yoneda teaches forming perfluoroelastomer using tetrafluoroethylene as required by claim 8 (para. 0868). As such, the further limitations of claims 3-8 are obvious modifications given that Yoneda teaches these parameter for forming elastomers using the same type of polymer dispersant.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,492,171 in view of WO 2020/218620 A1 (“Yoneda”).
As to claims 1 and 2, patented claim 7 teaches a method for producing a fluoropolymer by polymerizing fluoromonomers in aqueous medium in the presence of a polymer (I) formed of monomers having a formula meeting formula (1) and (2) of claims 1 and 2.
Patented claim 7 does not state the fluoropolymer is a fluorine containing elastomer, or that the product is an aqueous dispersion thereof. However, Yoneda teaches similar method of preparing an aqueous dispersion of a fluoroelastomer (para. 0844, teaching latex of a fluoroelastomer) by polymerizing fluorinated monomers in the presence of a polymer having monomers of the type including the monomer of claim 7 (abstract, para. 0844). Given the similarity in the process of patented claim 7 and that of Yoneda, it is an obvious modification to obtain a fluorinated elastomer aqueous dispersion as Yoneda teaches the same method can be used to produce such a dispersion.
Patented claim 7 does not recite the further features of claims 3-10. However, Yoneda teaches similar method of preparing an aqueous dispersion of a fluoroelastomer (para. 0844) in the presence of a polymer having monomers of the type including the monomer of patented claim 7 (abstract). Yoneda teaches the recited weight average molecular weight of the polymer as required by claim 3 (para. 0300), the recited content of monomer (I) as a preferred amount, in particular homopolymers of the monomer as required by claim 4 (Para. 0298), the use of polymer (I) in the range of 0.0001 to 2 % by weight based on the dispersion (para. 0849) as required by claim 5, the recited amount of initiator in forming fluoroelastomer (para. 0851) as required by claim 6, and polymerizing in the absence of fluorine containing surfactant (para. 0449) as required by claim 7. Yoneda further teaches a preferred fluoroelastomer of vinylidene fluoride, tetrafluoroethylene, and hexafluoropropylene (para. 0848), which has -CH2- in the main chain due to the presence of vinylidene fluoride as required by claims 8-10.
As such, the additional limitations of claims 3-10 are an obvious modification suggested by Yoneda on variants on a method similar to patented claim 7.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,503,527 in view of WO 2020/218620 A1 (“Yoneda”).
As to claims 1 and 2, patented claim 3 teaches a method for producing a fluoropolymer by polymerizing fluoromonomers in aqueous medium in the presence of a polymer (I) formed of monomers having a formula meeting formula (1) and (2) of claims 1 and 2.
Patented claim 3 does not state the fluoropolymer is a fluorine containing elastomer, or that the product is an aqueous dispersion thereof. However, Yoneda teaches similar method of preparing an aqueous dispersion of a fluoroelastomer (para. 0844, teaching latex of a fluoroelastomer) by polymerizing fluorinated monomers in the presence of a polymer having monomers of the type including the monomer of claim 7 (abstract, para. 0844). Given the similarity in the process of patented claim 3 and that of Yoneda, it is an obvious modification to obtain a fluorinated elastomer aqueous dispersion as Yoneda teaches the same method can be used to produce such a dispersion.
Patented claim 3 does not recite the further features of claims 3-10. However, Yoneda teaches similar method of preparing an aqueous dispersion of a fluoroelastomer (para. 0844) in the presence of a polymer having monomers of the type including the monomer of patented claim 3 (abstract). Yoneda teaches the recited weight average molecular weight of the polymer as required by claim 3 (para. 0300), the recited content of monomer (I) as a preferred amount, in particular homopolymers of the monomer as required by claim 4 (Para. 0298), the use of polymer (I) in the range of 0.0001 to 2 % by weight based on the dispersion (para. 0849) as required by claim 5, the recited amount of initiator in forming fluoroelastomer (para. 0851) as required by claim 6, and polymerizing in the absence of fluorine containing surfactant (para. 0449) as required by claim 7. Yoneda further teaches a preferred fluoroelastomer of vinylidene fluoride, tetrafluoroethylene, and hexafluoropropylene (para. 0848), which has -CH2- in the main chain due to the presence of vinylidene fluoride, and thus teaches the structures of claims 8-10.
As such, the additional limitations of claims 3-10 are an obvious modification suggested by Yoneda on variants on a method similar to patented claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764