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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 1.114, the Amendment and Response, all filed 6/23/26.
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-40 are new, pending, and have been examined on the merits in this action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/23/26 has been entered.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 2, 3, 8-16, 18, and 19 over Ahlnaes (WO 2009/101261) in view of Bender et al. (US 4,136,207) and Bauer et al. (CA 2,747,569) have been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claims.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 4-6, 17, and 20 over Ahlnaes (WO 2009/101261) in view of Bender et al. (US 4,136,207) and Bauer et al. (CA 2,747,569) and Neufeld (US 2015/0208692) have been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claims.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 7 over Ahlnaes (WO 2009/101261) in view of Bender et al. (US 4,136,207), Bauer et al. (CA 2,747,569) and Osawa (JP 2015092880) Machine Translation has been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 9 and 10 over Ahlnaes (WO 2009/101261) in view of Bender et al. (US 4,136,207) and Bauer et al. (CA 2,747,569) and Ma et al. (CN 103931928) Machine Translation 2014 have been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlnaes (WO 2009/101261) in view of Bender et al. (US 4,136,207) and Bauer et al. (CA 2,747,569).
Regarding Claim 21: Ahlnaes discloses a method for making a composition for animals comprising pulverized wood [abstract; pg. 4, lines 13-23; pg. 6, lines 27 and 28]. Ahlnaes discloses the composition as anti-micro-organistic [pg. 4, lines 13-17; pg. 14, lines 1-11]. Ahlnaes does not the incorporate antibiotics. Ahlnaes discloses animal feed but does not explicitly disclose farm animals or pets. It would have been obvious that the animals of Ahlnaes would have encompassed farm animals and pets as these are the sort of animals for which animal feeds and foods are usually made. Ahlnaes discloses that the composition comprises 0.1 to 5% of the additive [pg. 67, 34 and 35; claim 1]. Ahlnaes discloses wood that pulverized and in ground powder from [pg. 7, lines 13-19] and therefore renders obvious a fibrillated wood particles.
Ahlnaes does not disclose at least 90 wt.% of fibrillated wood particles having a particle size between 50 and 500 micrometers.
Bender discloses forming fibrillated wood particles and using the fibrillated wood for animal feed [col. 8, lines 1-17]. Bender discloses wood particles as fine as sawdust to up to 4 inches as satisfactory [col. 3, lines 46-51].
Bauer discloses wood particles for animal feed and that at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of less than 3mm; or at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of .5mm to 1.5 mm (500 um to 1500 um); or at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of .05mm to .5 mm (50 um to 500 um) depending on the type of feed to which the wood will be incorporated into or for which it would be used [pg. 7, paragraphs 3-5]. Bauer discloses larch wood which is a member of the Family: Pinaceae and Genus: Larix [Abstract].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Ahlnaes to include fibrillated wood particles as in Bender as the particles would have been usable in animal feed.
Further it would have been obvious to modify the particle size of the wood particles of modified Ahlnaes as recited in Bauer in order to keep the wood organoleptically acceptable to the type of feed the wood will be used for or in.
Further it would have been obvious to utilize wood particles with a size of 50 to 500 um as in Bauer since these are sizes appropriate for animal feed and since Bender discloses particle sizes of less than 4 inches as satisfactory for producing fibrillated particles.
Regarding Claim 22: Ahlnaes discloses as discussed above in claim 21. Ahlnaes discloses wood from the family Pinaceae (Pinus, Larix, Tsuga, Abies, Picea, Spruce) and an Aspen Tree (populus) [pg. 56; pg. 60 Table 5A and pg. 62 Table 5C].
Regarding Claim 26: Ahlnaes as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 21. Ahlnaes does not explicitly disclose wherein the fibrillated wood particles inhibit pathogenic bacterial quorum sensing.
However, “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Since Ahlnaes as modified discloses the same method, it would have been obvious that the fibrillated wood would have the same mode or effect on pathogenic bacteria.
Regarding Claim 27: Ahlnaes as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 21.
Ahlnaes does not disclose wherein the fibrillated wood particles reduce an elevated body temperature of the farm animal or pet.
Bauer discloses that the animals are under environmental stress [pg. 6, last paragraph].
However, “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Since Ahlnaes as modified discloses the same method, it would have been obvious that the method would have been effective for animals under heat stress.
Regarding Claim 28: Ahlnaes as modified discloses as discussed above as in claim 21. Ahlnaes discloses the composition as being effective against gram negative and gram positive bacteria [pg. 14; pg. 28, lines 11-18]. Ahlnaes does not explicitly disclose that the composition treats diarrhea.
Bauer discloses that wood from the pine family is used to treat diarrhea [pg. 6, 4th full paragraph].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Ahlnaes to utilize the composition to treat diarrhea as Bauer since Ahlnaes discloses that the composition is anti-microbial and can specifically inhibit E. coli, since E.coli is a known causative agent of diarrhea, and since Bauer discloses that wood from the pine family can treat diarrhea.
Regarding Claim 29: Ahlnaes as modified discloses as discussed above as in claim 21. Ahlnaes discloses the composition as being effective against gram negative and gram positive bacteria [pg. 14; pg. 28, lines 11-18]. Ahlnaes discloses the feed as being effective against E. coli, and S. aureus [pg. 14, lines 1-11].
Regarding Claim 35: Ahlnaes discloses a method for making a composition for animals comprising pulverized wood [abstract; pg. 4, lines 13-23; pg. 6, lines 27 and 28]. Ahlnaes discloses the composition as anti-micro-organistic [pg. 4, lines 13-17; pg. 14, lines 1-11]. Ahlnaes does not the incorporate antibiotics. Ahlnaes discloses animal feed but does not explicitly disclose farm animals or pets. It would have been obvious that the animals of Ahlnaes would have encompassed farm animals and pets as these are the sort of animals for which animal feeds and foods are usually made. Ahlnaes discloses that the composition comprises 0.1 to 5% of the additive [pg. 67, 34 and 35; claim 1]. Ahlnaes discloses wood that pulverized and in ground powder from [pg. 7, lines 13-19] and therefore renders obvious a fibrillated wood particles.
Ahlnaes does not explicitly disclose wherein the fibrillated wood particles inhibit formation of deleterious bacterial metabolites initiated by quorum-sensing communication among the pathogenic bacteria without influencing the viability of the pathogenic bacteria.
However, “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Since Ahlnaes as modified discloses the same method, it would have been obvious that the fibrillated wood would have the same mode or effect on pathogenic bacteria.
Ahlnaes does not disclose at least 90 wt.% of fibrillated wood particles having a particle size between 50 and 500 micrometers.
Bender discloses forming fibrillated wood particles and using the fibrillated wood for animal feed [col. 8, lines 1-17]. Bender discloses wood particles as fine as sawdust to up to 4 inches as satisfactory [col. 3, lines 46-51].
Bauer discloses wood particles for animal feed and that at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of less than 3mm; or at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of .5mm to 1.5 mm (500 um to 1500 um); or at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of .05mm to .5 mm (50 um to 500 um) depending on the type of feed to which the wood will be incorporated into or for which it would be used [pg. 7, paragraphs 3-5]. Bauer discloses larch wood which is a member of the Family: Pinaceae and Genus: Larix [Abstract].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Ahlnaes to include fibrillated wood particles as in Bender as the particles would have been usable in animal feed.
Further it would have been obvious to modify the particle size of the wood particles of modified Ahlnaes as recited in Bauer in order to keep the wood organoleptically acceptable to the type of feed the wood will be used for or in.
Further it would have been obvious to utilize wood particles with a size of 50 to 500 um as in Bauer since these are sizes appropriate for animal feed and since Bender discloses particle sizes of less than 4 inches as satisfactory for producing fibrillated particles.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlnaes (WO 2009/101261) in view of Bender et al. (US 4,136,207) and Bauer et al. (CA 2,747,569) as applied to claim 22 above and in further view of Neufeld (US 2015/0208692).
Regarding 23-25: Ahlnaes as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 22. Ahlnaes discloses a composition for animals comprising pulverized wood [abstract; pg. 4, lines 13-23]. Ahlnaes further discloses oligomers of flavonoids were the similar units are more than 2 but lower than a polymer [pg. 25, lines 26-30].
Ahlnaes does not disclose further comprising an oligomeric procyanidin (claim 23); wherein the oligomeric procyanidin comprises four to eight catechin units (claim 24); wherein the oligomeric procyanidin comprises more than eight catechin units (claim 25).
Neufeld discloses oligomeric procyanidins in an animal feed additive for treatment of animal [abstract]. Neufeld discloses the oligomeric procyanidins in an animal feed in the form of ground pine bark or pine bark extract [0012; 0030].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Ahlnaes to include oligomeric procyanidins as in Neufeld or alternatively that Ahlnaes would have contained oligomeric procyanidins since Neufeld discloses pine bark containing the component.
Regarding Claims 24-25, it would have been obvious that the oligomeric procyanidin would have contained 4-8 or more than 8 catechin units since procyanidins are composed of catechins and calling it oligomeric implies that there are at least more than two catechins.
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range (oligomer) taught by Neufeld overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 30, 31, 35, 36, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schule et al. (ES 2254989) in view of Bender et al. (US 4,136,207) and Bauer et al. (CA 2,747,569).
Regarding Claims 30 and 31: Schule discloses a method for making an additive for animal food [abstract]. Schule discloses fibrillated cellulose/lignocellulose as the feed additive and discloses that the feed additive is present at 0.5% to 8% in animal feed [abstract; pg. 3]. Schule discloses the particle derived from plants. Schule does not require the presence of antibiotics.
Schule does not disclose that the particles are derived from wood.
Schule does not disclose the particle size being 50 um to 500 um.
Bender discloses forming fibrillated wood particles and using the fibrillated wood for animal feed [col. 8, lines 1-17]. Bender discloses wood particles as fine as sawdust to up to 4 inches as satisfactory [col. 3, lines 46-51]. Bender discloses the wood derived from Poplar/Aspen trees [col. 2, lines 39-44].
Bauer discloses wood particles for animal feed and that at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of less than 3mm; or at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of .5mm to 1.5 mm (500 um to 1500 um); or at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of .05mm to .5 mm (50 um to 500 um) depending on the type of feed to which the wood will be incorporated into or for which it would be used [pg. 7, paragraphs 3-5]. Bauer discloses larch wood which is a member of the Family: Pinaceae and Genus: Larix [Abstract].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Schule to include fibrillated wood particles as in Bender as the particles would have been usable in animal feed.
Further it would have been obvious to modify the particle size of the wood particles of modified Schule as recited in Bauer in order to keep the wood organoleptically acceptable to the type of feed the wood will be used for or in.
Further it would have been obvious to utilize wood particles with a size of 50 to 500 um as in Bauer since these are sizes appropriate for animal feed and since Bender discloses particle sizes of less than 4 inches as satisfactory for producing fibrillated particles.
Regarding Claims 35, 36, and 39: Schule discloses a method for making an additive for animal food [abstract]. Schule discloses fibrillated cellulose/lignocellulose as the feed additive and discloses that the feed additive is present at 0.5% to 8% in animal feed [abstract; pg. 3]. Schule discloses the particle derived from plants. Schule does not require the presence of antibiotics.
Schule does not disclose that the particles are derived from wood.
Schule does not disclose the particle size being 50 um to 500 um.
Bender discloses forming fibrillated wood particles and using the fibrillated wood for animal feed [col. 8, lines 1-17]. Bender discloses wood particles as fine as sawdust to up to 4 inches as satisfactory [col. 3, lines 46-51]. Bender discloses the wood derived from Poplar/Aspen trees [col. 2, lines 39-44].
Bauer discloses wood particles for animal feed and that at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of less than 3mm; or at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of .5mm to 1.5 mm (500 um to 1500 um); or at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of .05mm to .5 mm (50 um to 500 um) depending on the type of feed to which the wood will be incorporated into or for which it would be used [pg. 7, paragraphs 3-5]. Bauer discloses larch wood which is a member of the Family: Pinaceae and Genus: Larix [Abstract].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Schule to include fibrillated wood particles as in Bender as the particles would have been usable in animal feed.
Further it would have been obvious to modify the particle size of the wood particles of modified Schule as recited in Bauer in order to keep the wood organoleptically acceptable to the type of feed the wood will be used for or in.
Further it would have been obvious to utilize wood particles with a size of 50 to 500 um as in Bauer since these are sizes appropriate for animal feed and since Bender discloses particle sizes of less than 4 inches as satisfactory for producing fibrillated particles.
Regarding Claim 40: Schule as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 39. Schule discloses feeding to pigs in various phases of life from pregnant sows, lactating sows, rearing or fattening [abstract]. It would have been obvious that piglets would have fallen into the rearing or fattening categories. Schule also discloses high loads of E.coli in piglets since they eat a lot of excrement [pg. 4, 7th paragraph]. Schule discloses that the additive can stop diarrhea through its binding of liquids [pg. 4, 6th paragraph; pg. 6, 4th paragraph].
Schule does not explicitly disclose enterohemorrhagic E.coli.
However, “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schule et al. (ES 2254989) in view of Bender et al. (US 4,136,207) and Bauer et al. (CA 2,747,569) as applied to claim 30 above and in further view of Neufeld (US 2015/0208692).
Regarding Claim 32: Schule discloses as discussed above in claim 30. Schule does not disclose further comprising an oligomeric procyanidin (claim 32); wherein the oligomeric procyanidin comprises four to eight catechin units (claim 33); wherein the oligomeric procyanidin comprises more than eight catechin units (claim 34).
Neufeld discloses oligomeric procyanidins in an animal feed additive for treatment of animal [abstract]. Neufeld discloses the oligomeric procyanidins in an animal feed in the form of ground pine bark or pine bark extract [0012; 0030].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Schule to include oligomeric procyanidins as in Neufeld or alternatively that Schule would have contained oligomeric procyanidins since Neufeld discloses pine bark containing the component.
Regarding Claims 33-34, it would have been obvious that the oligomeric procyanidin would have contained 4-8 or more than 8 catechin units since procyanidins are composed of catechins and calling it oligomeric implies that there are at least more than two catechins.
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range (oligomer) taught by Neufeld overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlnaes (WO 2009/101261) in view of Bender et al. (US 4,136,207) and Bauer et al. (CA 2,747,569) and Ma et al. (CN 103931928) Machine Translation 2014.
Regarding Claim 37: Ahlnaes discloses a method for making a composition for animals comprising pulverized wood [abstract; pg. 4, lines 13-23; pg. 6, lines 27 and 28]. Ahlnaes discloses the composition as anti-micro-organistic [pg. 4, lines 13-17; pg. 14, lines 1-11]. Ahlnaes does not the incorporate antibiotics. Ahlnaes discloses animal feed but does not explicitly disclose farm animals or pets. It would have been obvious that the animals of Ahlnaes would have encompassed farm animals and pets as these are the sort of animals for which animal feeds and foods are usually made. Ahlnaes discloses that the composition comprises 0.1 to 5% of the additive [pg. 67, 34 and 35; claim 1]. Ahlnaes discloses wood that pulverized and in ground powder from [pg. 7, lines 13-19] and therefore renders obvious a fibrillated wood particles.
Ahlnaes does not disclose at least 90 wt.% of fibrillated wood particles having a particle size between 50 and 500 micrometers.
Ahlnaes does not disclose wherein feeding reduces elevated body temperature in the farm animal or pet.
Bender discloses forming fibrillated wood particles and using the fibrillated wood for animal feed [col. 8, lines 1-17]. Bender discloses wood particles as fine as sawdust to up to 4 inches as satisfactory [col. 3, lines 46-51].
Bauer discloses wood particles for animal feed and that at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of less than 3mm; or at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of .5mm to 1.5 mm (500 um to 1500 um); or at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of .05mm to .5 mm (50 um to 500 um) depending on the type of feed to which the wood will be incorporated into or for which it would be used [pg. 7, paragraphs 3-5]. Bauer discloses larch wood which is a member of the Family: Pinaceae and Genus: Larix [Abstract]. Bauer discloses that the animals are under environmental stress [pg. 6, last paragraph].
Ma discloses an animal feed containing pine needles and that the animal feed can improve the immunity and “effectively preventing heat stress” [abstract].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Ahlnaes to include fibrillated wood particles as in Bender as the particles would have been usable in animal feed.
Further it would have been obvious to modify the particle size of the wood particles of modified Ahlnaes as recited in Bauer in order to keep the wood organoleptically acceptable to the type of feed the wood will be used for or in.
Further it would have been obvious to utilize wood particles with a size of 50 to 500 um as in Bauer since these are sizes appropriate for animal feed and since Bender discloses particle sizes of less than 4 inches as satisfactory for producing fibrillated particles.
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art that the method of modified Ahlnaes would have had a heat soothing effect as in Ma since Ma like Ahlnaes also includes derivatives of pine.
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schule et al. (ES 2254989) in view of Bender et al. (US 4,136,207) and Bauer et al. (CA 2,747,569) and Ma et al. (CN 103931928) Machine Translation 2014.
Regarding Claims 37 and 38: Schule discloses a method for making an additive for animal food [abstract]. Schule discloses fibrillated cellulose/lignocellulose as the feed additive and discloses that the feed additive is present at 0.5% to 8% in animal feed [abstract; pg. 3]. Schule discloses the particle derived from plants. Schule does not require the presence of antibiotics.
Schule does not disclose that the particles are derived from wood.
Schule does not disclose the particle size being 50 um to 500 um.
Bender discloses forming fibrillated wood particles and using the fibrillated wood for animal feed [col. 8, lines 1-17]. Bender discloses wood particles as fine as sawdust to up to 4 inches as satisfactory [col. 3, lines 46-51]. Bender discloses the wood derived from Poplar/Aspen trees [col. 2, lines 39-44].
Bauer discloses wood particles for animal feed and that at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of less than 3mm; or at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of .5mm to 1.5 mm (500 um to 1500 um); or at least 95% of the wood has a particle size of .05mm to .5 mm (50 um to 500 um) depending on the type of feed to which the wood will be incorporated into or for which it would be used [pg. 7, paragraphs 3-5]. Bauer discloses larch wood which is a member of the Family: Pinaceae and Genus: Larix [Abstract]. Bauer discloses that the animals are under environmental stress [pg. 6, last paragraph].
Ma discloses an animal feed containing pine needles and that the animal feed can improve the immunity and “effectively preventing heat stress” [abstract].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Schule to include fibrillated wood particles as in Bender as the particles would have been usable in animal feed.
Further it would have been obvious to modify the particle size of the wood particles of modified Schule as recited in Bauer in order to keep the wood organoleptically acceptable to the type of feed the wood will be used for or in.
Further it would have been obvious to utilize wood particles with a size of 50 to 500 um as in Bauer since these are sizes appropriate for animal feed and since Bender discloses particle sizes of less than 4 inches as satisfactory for producing fibrillated particles.
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art that the method of modified Schule would have had a heat soothing effect as in Ma since Ma like modified Schule also includes derivatives of pine.
Response to Arguments
The 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 2, 3, 8-16, 18, and 19 over Ahlnaes (WO 2009/101261) in view of Bender et al. (US 4,136,207) and Bauer et al. (CA 2,747,569) have been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claims.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 4-6, 17, and 20 over Ahlnaes (WO 2009/101261) in view of Bender et al. (US 4,136,207) and Bauer et al. (CA 2,747,569) and Neufeld (US 2015/0208692) have been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claims.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 7 over Ahlnaes (WO 2009/101261) in view of Bender et al. (US 4,136,207), Bauer et al. (CA 2,747,569) and Osawa (JP 2015092880) Machine Translation has been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 9 and 10 over Ahlnaes (WO 2009/101261) in view of Bender et al. (US 4,136,207) and Bauer et al. (CA 2,747,569) and Ma et al. (CN 103931928) Machine Translation 2014 have been withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claims.
In light of the new claims the Examiner maintains the use of Ahlnaes as a primary reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA C TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3733. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-4:00 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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/Felicia C Turner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights