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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In the instant case, the abstract recites implied language. Specifically, line 1 of the abstract recites “The problem is solved by” …. To overcome this objection, it is recommended to omit this phrase.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 5-6, recite “the toner base particles include the binder resin in a proportion of 50% to 95% by mass in the toner base particles”. However, lines 6-7 recite “and include, as the binder resin, an aliphatic polyester-based resin in a proportion of 20% to 70% by mass in the toner base particles”.
These two ranges contradict one another because lines 5-6 limit the proportion of the binder resin to 50% to 95% in the toner base particles, but then lines 6-7 subsequently define the binder resin as an aliphatic polyester-based resin limited to a proportion of 20% to 70% in the toner particles.
In order to overcome this issue, it is recommended to amend lines 6-7 to recite, for example, “and include, as a component of the binder resin, an aliphatic polyester-based resin in a proportion of 20% to 70% by mass in the toner base particles”.
Support for this amendment can be found in at least the examples of the originally filed specification (see [0070]-[0084]).
Claims 2-9 are indefinite because they fully incorporate the subject matter of an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamato et al. (US PGP 2009/0269691 A1).
Yamato teaches a toner comprising toner particles including a binding resin containing a polyester resin, a release agent, and a coloring agent. The toner particles are taught to include the polyester resin in an amount of 40 to 60% by mass in the case of a magnetic toner, or 80 to 95% by mass in the case of a non-magnetic toner ([0159]) (which reads on the corresponding range recited in instant claim 1). The polyester resin is taught to include a polyester resin (1) and a polyester resin (2).
The polyester resin (1) is taught to be a reaction product of a divalent carboxylic acid compound and a divalent alcohol ([0028]). Examples of the divalent carboxylic acid compound are taught to include sebacic acid, adipic acid, and succinic acid ([0029]). Examples of the divalent alcohol are taught to include 1,2-propanediol, 1,3-butanediol, and 2,3-butanediol ([0032]). According to paragraph [0024] of the instant specification, these divalent alcohols are considered to be aliphatic diols having a hydroxy group binding to a secondary carbon atom. Similarly, according to paragraph [0028] of the instant specification, these divalent carboxylic acid compounds are taught to be aliphatic dicarboxylic acid-based compounds.
In other words, the polyester resin (1) includes polyester resins comprising aliphatic carboxylic acid compounds and aliphatic diol compounds as monomer components (which corresponds to the “aliphatic polyester-based resin” recited in instant claim 1, and reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 2).
The mixing proportion of the polyester resin (1) to the polyester resin (2) is taught to be 1/99 to 99/1 by mass ([0078]). In the examples, the Toner 7 of Example 4 contained Resin 3a-2 as the polyester resin binder resin (Table 4). The Resin 3a-2 is taught to comprise 40% by mass of polyester resin (1a) and 60% by mass of polyester resin (2a) (Table 2).
The polyester resin (1a) is taught to include terephthalic acid, fumaric acid, and ethylene glycol as monomer components (Table 1). While the polyester resin (1a) includes an aromatic carboxylic acid compound (i.e., terephthalic acid), paragraph [0027] of the instant specification states that the aliphatic polyester-based resin of the instant application preferably includes an aromatic dicarboxylic-acid based compound, such as terephthalic acid, and an aliphatic dicarboxylic acid-based compound from the viewpoint of durability and low-temperature fixability. Therefore, the polyester resin (1a) of Yamato falls under the Applicant’s definition of “an aliphatic polyester-based resin” even though it contains an aromatic dicarboxylic acid.
According to MPEP § 2111.01, “The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ("[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’" (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).”
Accordingly, the Toner 7 of Example 4 includes an aliphatic polyester-based resin (i.e., the polyester resin (1a)) in a proportion of 40% by mass (which reads on the corresponding range recited in instant claim 1).
The releasing agent is taught to include waxes and is included in the toner particles in an amount of 0.1 to 10% by mass ([0162]-[0163]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 4).
The coloring agent is taught to include known dyes like C.I. Solvent Yellow 114 and C.I. Disperse Red 11 ([0164]). According to paragraph [0041] of the instant specification, these dyes are considered to be sublimable dyes (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1).
The toner is taught to include additives, such as charge controllers and flow modifiers ([0169]). The flow modifier is taught to be externally added to the toner particles ([0175]). In other words, the toner particles include an external additive externally added to surfaces of the toner particles (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1).
The toner is taught to have been combined with a carrier to form a two-component developer ([0173]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 9).
Claims 1, 4-5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US PGP 2011/0104607 A1).
Wang teaches a chemical toner composition including at least one curable amorphous resin and at least one sublimation colorant (Abstract). The sublimation colorant is taught to include sublimation dyes ([0061]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1). The toner composition is taught to further contain one or more crystalline polyester resins ([0024]). The curable amorphous resin and the crystalline polyester resin (collectively, the binder resin) are taught to be present in an amount of 65 to 99 weight% of the toner particles, and the proportion of the crystalline resin to the amorphous resin is taught to be 0:100 to 50:50 ([0037]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1). The toner further includes external additives, such as silicas ([0080]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1).
The toner is taught to contain a wax release agent in an amount of from 1 to 25 weight% of the toner particles ([0086]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 4). The toner is taught to further contain lubricating agents, such as stearates or long chain alcohols like “UNILIN 700” ([0082]). According to paragraph [0052] of the instant specification, “UNILIN 700” includes a fully saturated linear alcohol. The content of the stearate, particularly zinc stearate (which also contains a fully saturated linear alcohol), is taught to be 0.1 to 4 weight% of the toner particle ([0084]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 5).
The crystalline polyester resin is taught to be prepared by a polycondensation process by reacting suitable organic diol(s) and suitable organic diacid(s) ([0028]). Examples of organic diols are taught to include aliphatic diols having from about 2 to about 36 carbon atoms, and examples of organic diacids are taught to include carboxylic acids like adipic acid ([0028]-[0029]).
In other words, the crystalline polyester resin includes polyester resins comprising aliphatic carboxylic acid compounds and aliphatic diol compounds as monomer components (which corresponds to the “aliphatic polyester-based resin” recited in instant claim 1).
In the Example, a toner is prepared by combining a poly(propoxylated bisphenol A co-fumarate) resin emulsion (45.84 wt%), an unsaturated crystalline polyester resin emulsion comprising ethylene glycol and a mixture of dodecanedioic acid and fumaric acid-comonomers (30 wt%), Disperse Blue 359 (a sublimation dye dispersion) (17 wt%), and aluminum sulfate as an aggregating agent (1 wt%) ([0130]).
In other words, the proportion of the binder resin in the toner was about 75.84 wt% (which falls within the corresponding range recited in instant claim 1) and the proportion of an aliphatic polyester-based resin (the unsaturated crystalline polyester resin) was about 30 wt% (which falls within the corresponding range recited in instant claim 1). The toner also contained a sublimable dye (Disperse Blue 359) as the sublimable colorant (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1).
The toner is taught to have been combined with a carrier to form a two-component developer ([0100]-[0103], [0133]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 9).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamato et al. (US PGP 2009/0269691 A1), in view of Inoue et al. (US PGP 2019/0271927 A1).
The teachings of Yamato are discussed above and incorporated herein. Yamato teaches that the toner may further include a crystalline polyester resin as a binding resin ([0081]). However, Yamato appears to be silent to teach or suggest a suitable content for the crystalline polyester resin.
Inoue teaches a toner containing a crystalline polyester resin ([0059]). The content of the crystalline polyester resin in the toner is taught to preferably be 1 mass% to 10 mass%, in view of preventing fog and improving low-temperature fixability and heat-resistance storage stability ([0167]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjusted the content of the crystalline polyester resin of Yamato to fall within the range taught by Inoue, in view of improving the fixability and storage stability of the toner.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamato et al. (US PGP 2009/0269691 A1), in view of Wang et al. (US PGP 2011/0104607 A1).
The teachings of Yamato and Wang are discussed above and incorporated herein. Yamato appears to be silent to teach or suggest a fully saturated linear alcohol as an example of a toner additive.
However, as previously discussed, Wang teaches that, lubricating agents like stearates or long chain alcohols like “UNILIN 700”, can be used as a surface additive for the toner. According to paragraph [0052] of the instant specification, “UNILIN 700” includes a fully saturated linear alcohol. The content of the stearate, particularly zinc stearate (which also contains a fully saturated linear alcohol), is taught to be 0.1 to 4 weight% of the toner particle ([0084]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a lubricating agent, like “UNILIN 700” or zinc stearate, as a surface additive to the toner particles of Yamato, and to have adjusted the content of the lubricating agent to fall within the range taught by Wang, in view of improving the lubricating properties of the toner particles.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamato et al. (US PGP 2009/0269691 A1), in view of Yamada et al. (US PGP 2015/0338756 A1).
The teachings of Yamato are discussed above and incorporated herein. Yamato appears to be silent to teach or suggest fatty acid ketones as examples of suitable waxes.
Similarly to Yamato, Yamada also teaches toner particles containing a wax release agent. Yamada teaches that suitable waxes include dialkyl ketone-based waxes like distearyl ketone ([0082]). The content of the wax in the toner particles is taught to preferably be from 5% by mass to 20% by mass ([0083]).
While Yamada does not describe the dialkyl ketone-based wax as a sol agent, paragraph [0054] of the instant specification discloses that distearyl ketone can function as a sol agent. Accordingly, the distearly ketone of Yamada would inherently function as a sol agent, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a dialkyl ketone-based wax, like distearyl ketone, in the toner particles of Yamato, and to have adjusted the content of the dialkyl ketone-based wax to fall within the range taught by Yamada, in view of controlling the storage capability of the toner particles.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamato et al. (US PGP 2009/0269691 A1), in view of Insalaco (US Pat. No. 3,079,342 A) and Tanikawa et al. (US Pat. No. 6,203,959 B1).
The teachings of Yamato are discussed above and incorporated herein. Yamato appears to be silent to teach or suggest polyvinyl butyral as a suitable example of a binder resin.
Insalaco teaches that it has been standard procedure in xerography to modify toner binder resins with polymeric modifiers to improve the physical properties of toner (Col. 2, lines 35-54). The polymeric modifier, which is mixed in a minor amount with the binder resin, is taught to be a long chain thermoplastic plasticizer including polyvinyl butyral. The content of the resin modifier is taught to preferably be from 2 weight% to 10 weight% of the binder resin composition (Col. 3, lines 46-60).
Additionally, Tanikawa teaches a toner comprising toner particles including a binder resin and a wax (Abstract). The binder resin is taught to include a polyester resin (Col. 10, lines 39-65). In addition to the polyester resin, the binder resin is taught to contain another resinous component in a minor amount (e.g., an amount less than that of the binder resin components). Specific examples of the resinous components are taught to include polyvinyl butyral (Col. 12, lines 1-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a resin modifier, such as polyvinyl butyral, into the binder resin of Yamato, and to have further adjusted the amount of the resin modifier to fall within the range taught by Insalaco, in view of improving the physical properties of the toner.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamato et al. (US PGP 2009/0269691 A1), in view of Amano et al. (US PGP 2020/0292956 A1).
The teachings of Yamato are discussed above and incorporated herein. Yamato appears to be silent to teach or suggest hydrotalcite as a specific example of the external additive.
Amano teaches a toner comprising a toner particle and an external additive including spherical silica particles and hydrotalcite particles (Abstract). The content of the spherical silica particles is taught to preferably be 0.10 mass% to 5 mass% with respect to the mass toner particles ([0048]) and the content of the hydrotalcite is taught to preferably be 0.05 mass% to 1 mass% with respect to the mass of toner particles ([0058]), in view of preventing fogging and improving the fixability of the external additive.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the external additive of Amano, including silica particles and hydrotalcite particles, as the external additive of Yamato’s toner, and to have adjusted the silica particles and hydrotalcite particles to fall within the respectively taught ranges, in view of achieving the benefits taught by Amano.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US PGP 2011/0104607 A1), in view of Wakabayashi et al. (US PGP 2021/0141317 A1).
The teachings of Wang are discussed above and incorporated herein. As discussed above, Wang teaches that the crystalline polyester resin is prepared by a polycondensation process by reacting suitable organic diol(s) and suitable organic diacid(s) ([0028]). Examples of organic diols are taught to include aliphatic diols having from about 2 to about 36 carbon atoms, and examples of organic diacids are taught to include carboxylic acids like adipic acid ([0028]-[0029]).
However, Wang appears to be silent to teach an aliphatic diol having a hydroxy group binding to a secondary carbon atom as a specific example of the organic diol.
Wakabayashi teaches a binder resin including a polyester resin being a polycondensate of an alcohol component and a carboxylic acid component ([0045]). The alcohol component is taught to preferably be an aliphatic alcohol having 2 or more and 6 or less carbon atoms ([0049]). Examples of the aliphatic alcohol are taught to include 1,2-propanediol and 1,3-butanediol ([0051]). Wakabayashi teaches that 1,2-propanediol is preferred as the aliphatic alcohol.
According to paragraph [0024] of the instant specification, 1,2-propanediol is considered to be an aliphatic diol having a hydroxy group binding to a secondary carbon atom.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to used 1,2-propanediol as the organic aliphatic diol in the crystalline polyester resin of Wang, in view of adjusting the physical properties of the toner. The skilled artisan would have been just as motivated to have selected 1,2-propanediol as any of the other suitable aliphatic diols taught by Wang and Wakabayashi, as Wang teaches that suitable aliphatic diols are those having from about 2 to about 36 carbon atoms.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US PGP 2011/0104607 A1), in view of Inoue et al. (US PGP 2019/0271927 A1).
The teachings of Wang are discussed above and incorporated herein. As discussed above, Wang teaches that the proportion of the crystalline resin to the amorphous resin is 0:100 to 50:50 ([0037]). In other words, the content of the crystalline resin ranges from 0 to 50 mass%. However, Wang is silent to teach or suggest examples of the crystalline polyester resin being used in a smaller proportion (e.g., 2 to 10 mass%).
Inoue teaches a toner containing a crystalline polyester resin ([0059]). The content of the crystalline polyester resin in the toner is taught to preferably be 1 mass% to 10 mass%, in view of preventing fog and improving low-temperature fixability and heat-resistance storage stability ([0167]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjusted the content of the crystalline polyester resin of Wang to fall within the range taught by Inoue, in view of improving the fixability and storage stability of the toner.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US PGP 2011/0104607 A1), in view of Yamada et al. (US PGP 2015/0338756 A1).
The teachings of Wang are discussed above and incorporated herein. Wang appears to be silent to teach or suggest fatty acid ketones as examples of suitable waxes.
Similarly to Wang, Yamada also teaches toner particles containing a wax release agent. Yamada teaches that suitable waxes include dialkyl ketone-based waxes like distearyl ketone ([0082]). The content of the wax in the toner particles is taught to preferably be from 5% by mass to 20% by mass ([0083]).
While Yamada does not describe the dialkyl ketone-based wax as a sol agent, paragraph [0054] of the instant specification discloses that distearyl ketone can function as a sol agent. Accordingly, the distearly ketone of Yamada would inherently function as a sol agent, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a dialkyl ketone-based wax, like distearyl ketone, in the toner particles of Wang, and to have adjusted the content of the dialkyl ketone-based wax to fall within the range taught by Yamada, in view of controlling the storage capability of the toner particles.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US PGP 2011/0104607 A1), in view of Insalaco (US Pat. No. 3,079,342 A) and Tanikawa et al. (US Pat. No. 6,203,959 B1).
The teachings of Wang are discussed above and incorporated herein. Wang appears to be silent to teach or suggest polyvinyl butyral as a suitable example of a binder resin.
Insalaco teaches that it has been standard procedure in xerography to modify toner binder resins with polymeric modifiers to improve the physical properties of toner (Col. 2, lines 35-54). The polymeric modifier, which is mixed in a minor amount with the binder resin, is taught to be long chain thermoplastic plasticizer including polyvinyl butyral. The content of the resin modifier is taught to preferably be from 2 weight% to 10 weight% of the binder resin composition (Col. 3, lines 46-60).
Additionally, Tanikawa teaches a toner comprising toner particles including a binder resin and a wax (Abstract). The binder resin is taught to include a polyester resin (Col. 10, lines 39-65). In addition to the polyester resin, the binder resin is taught to contain another resinous component in a minor amount (e.g., an amount less than that of the binder resin components). Specific examples of the resinous components are taught to include polyvinyl butyral (Col. 12, lines 1-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a resin modifier, such as polyvinyl butyral, into the binder resin of Wang, and to have further adjusted the amount of the resin modifier to fall within the range taught by Insalaco, in view of improving the physical properties of the toner.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US PGP 2011/0104607 A1), in view of Amano et al. (US PGP 2020/0292956 A1).
The teachings of Wang are discussed above and incorporated herein. Wang appears to be silent to teach or suggest hydrotalcite as a specific example of the external additive.
Amano teaches a toner comprising a toner particle and an external additive including spherical silica particles and hydrotalcite particles (Abstract). The content of the spherical silica particles is taught to preferably be 0.10 mass% to 5 mass% with respect to the mass toner particles ([0048]) and the content of the hydrotalcite is taught to preferably be 0.05 mass% to 1 mass% with respect to the mass of toner particles ([0058]), in view of preventing fogging and improving the fixability of the external additive.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the external additive of Amano, including silica particles and hydrotalcite particles, as the external additive of Wang’s toner, and to have adjusted the silica particles and hydrotalcite particles to fall within the respectively taught ranges, in view of achieving the benefits taught by Amano.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Boone A Evans whose telephone number is (571)272-1420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Huff can be reached on (571) 272-1385. 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.
/BOONE ALEXANDER EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
03/30/2026
Prosecution Insights