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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response to a Nonfinal rejection filed June 11, 2025. Claims 1, 3-13, 19-20 and 22-23 are currently pending.
The previous 112b rejections are WITHDRAWN to Applicant’s amendments.
The previous 103 rejections of claim 2 and 21 are WITHDRAWN due to Applicant’s cancellation.
Claims 14-18 are WITHDRAWN due to a previous restriction requirement.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 19-20 are REJECTED for the reasons set forth in the Office Action dated March 21, 2025.
New claims 22 and 23 are REJECTED for the reasons set forth below.
This action is final.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A curable coating comprising a mixture of:
a resin component comprising a polyol,
a solvent, and
an organotin catalyst,
the resin component further comprises
at least one high Tg hydroxyl-functional polymer and at least one low Tg hydroxyl-functional polymer; wherein the high Tg is greater than 25°C and the low Tg is less than 20°C;
wax particles;
silica particles;
and a curing agent comprising an aliphatic isocyanate.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aklian et al. (US 20090068366) in view of Garcia et al. (US 6436540).
Regarding claim 1, Aklian et al. disclose a coating composition comprising a polyester polyol component, a mixture of a hard acrylic polyol and a soft acrylic polyol, and an aliphatic isocyanate (claim 1 and 5), thereby reading on two different hydroxy functional polymers, polyol, and curing agent respectively. Aklian et al. define hard acrylic polyol as an acrylic polyol with a glass transition temperature above 20°C and soft acrylic polyol as an acrylic polyol with a glass transition temperature below 20°C [0014], thereby reading on the high Tg and low Tg hydroxyl functional polymers. Aklian et al further disclose in Table 1 and 2 the composition comprises a solvent and a catalyst (DABCO T-12 is a dibutyltin dilaurate catalyst as seen in data sheet provided).
Aklian et al. is silent on the coating comprising wax and silica particles as recited in the instant claim.
Garcia et al. teach a coating composition comprising a polyurethane solution containing a polyol intermediate and dispersant agent and a polyisocyanate (claim 8). Garcia et al. teach silica is added to reduce the gloss of a coating surface and wax is added to increase scratch and mar resistance [col 8, line 37-col 9, line 20]. Aklian et al. is also concerned about abrasion resistance and teaches further additives such as pigments may be added ([0002], [0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it to add the silica and wax as taught by Garcia et al. to the composition of Aklian et al. with reasonable expectation that the coating properties would be improved.
Regarding claim 2, Aklian et al. disclose the coating is applied to aircrafts or aerospace applications [0007-0008], thereby reading on a curable coating mimics a textured surface on a vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, Aklian et al. disclose the amount of high Tg hydroxyl functional is 70 weight percent, lying outside the claimed range, and the low Tg hydroxy functional polyol is 20 weight percent, lying within the claimed range, based on the total amount of polyol present in the polyol component (Table 1).
However, Aklian et al. also disclose the hard acrylic polyol is present at 40 to 80 weight percent and the soft acrylic polyol is present at 10 to 40 weight percent based on total solids weight of the polyol used in the polyol component [0014], thereby overlapping with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Aklian et al.
Regarding claim 6 and 11, Aklian et al. is silent on the composition comprising the wax particle as recited in the claim.
Garcia et al. teach suitable waxes include a polyethylene wax includes MPD-611, the examiner believes it is MPP-611, which has a maximum particle size of 22 microns, a mean particle size of 5-8 microns, lying outside the claimed range, and a melting point of 109-115°C as seen in the data sheet, thereby overlapping the claimed range. Garcia et al. teach polyethylene wax have the best balance of toughness for scratch and mar resistance [col 9, line 1-19]. Aklian et al. is also concerned about abrasion resistance ([0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it to add the silica and wax as taught by Garcia et al. to the composition of Aklian et al. with reasonable expectation that the resistance would improve. Regarding the particle size, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Thus, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, the slight difference in particle size of the wax of Garcia et al. and the claimed range is negligible.
Regarding claim 9, Aklian et al. disclose the composition comprises polyester polyol (claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Aklian et al. is silent on the coating comprising silica particles as recited in the instant claim.
Garcia et al. teach the silica particles have an average particle size in the range of 3 to 12 microns, examples including a surface treatment silica. Garcia et al. further teach an example of the silica filler is Syloid C-907, which has an oil absorption of 300g/100g as evidenced by the data sheet attached, thereby lying within the claimed ranges. Garcia et al. teach silica is added to reduce the gloss of a coating surface [col 8, line 37-63]. Aklian et al. teach the coating may be used to restore the aesthetic qualities of the surface [0003]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the silica of Garcia et al. to the coating composition of Aklian et al. with reasonable expectation that the surface qualities will be improved.
Regarding claim 13, Aklian et al. disclose in Table 1 the composition comprises a pigment.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aklian et al. (US 20090068366) in view of Garcia et al. (US 6436540) in further view of Rihan et al. (US 9309434).
The composition disclosed in claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Aklian et al. is silent on the resin component comprising a castor oil as recited in the instant claim.
Rihan et al. teach a curable coating comprising a polyisocyanate and an unsaturated fatty acid ester polyol that is a castor-oil based polyol (claim 1 and 2). Rihan et al. also teach the ester polyol may have 2-4 hydroxy group, thereby overlapping the claimed range of the hydroxyl functionality of the instant claim [col 3, line 19-57]. Rihan et al. is silent on the molecular weight of the castor oil derivative. However, Rihan et al. teach Polycin M-365 may be used, which is also listed as a suitable example in instant specification [0022]. Therefore, the molecular weight would also be expected to overlap with the instant claim. Rihan et al. offer the motivation that the mixture has unexpectedly improved scratch resistance [col 2, line 47-62]. Aklian et al. is also interested in providing a coating that is strong and durable [0013]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the castor oil derivative of Rihan et al. with the coating of Aklian et al. with reasonable expectation that the durability would improve.
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aklian et al. (US 20090068366) in view of Garcia et al. (US 6436540) in further view of Kanzaki et al. (JP 201312903).
The composition disclosed in claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 10, Aklian et al. is silent on the coating further comprising a castor oil.
Kanzaki et al. teach a coating formed from a resin urethane composition formed from a polyester polyol (claim 1). Kanzaki et al. teach a natural oil derivative formed from castor oil is added and teaches in Synthesis Example 7 a castor oil derivative with a hydroxyl equivalent of 309 was formed, thereby lying within the claimed range ([0051-0052], [0071]). Kanzaki et al. offer the motivation that the castor oil provides good interlayer adhesion [0052]. Aklian et al. is also concerned about improving interlayer adhesion [0011]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the castor oil derivative of Kanzaki et al. with the coating of Aklian et al. with reasonable expectation that the interlayer adhesion would improve.
Regarding claim 22, Aklian et al. is silent on the coating further comprising a UV stabilizer.
Kanzaki et al. teaches a UV stabilizer may be added to the coating composition [0049], thereby reading on the instant claim 22. Aklian et al. also teaches a coating composition (claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a UV stabilizer as taught by Kanzaki et al. with the coating of Aklian et al. since both are related to coating compositions.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aklian et al. (US 20090068366) in view of Garcia et al. (US 6436540) and in further view of Li et al. (US 20080305266).
The composition disclosed in claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Aklian et al. does not teach the curing agent is free of an aromatic isocyanate as recited in the instant claim.
Li et al. teach a polyurethane coating mixture comprising an aliphatic isocyanate and a polyol (claim 1, abstract). Li et al. also teach the composition may be substantially free of aromatic isocyanates [0028]. Li et al. offer the motivation that aliphatic isocyanates have lower relative toxicity and UV durability [0028]. Aklian et al. is also concerned with UV resistance [0013]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the aromatic isocyanate of Aklian et al. as taught by Li et al. with reasonable expectation that the UV resistance would improve and toxicity would decrease.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aklian et al. (US 20090068366) in view of Garcia et al. (US 6436540) and Yu et al. (US 20050277732).
Regarding claim 1, Aklian et al. disclose a coating composition comprising a polyol component comprising an acrylic polyol, thereby reading on the polyol of the instant claim, and a polyester polyol, thereby reading on the hydroxy functional polymer, and an aliphatic isocyanate (claim 1 and 5). Aklian et al further disclose in Table 1 and 2 the composition comprises a solvent and a catalyst (DABCO T-12 is a dibutyltin dilaurate catalyst as seen in data sheet provided).
Aklian et al. does not teach the polyester polyol comprising a polyester polyol with a different Tg.
Yu et al. teach a coating composition comprising a polyester polyol (claim 1). Yu et al. offer the motivation that the polyester polyol provides excellent adhesion and corrosion resistance [0028]. Furthermore, it is noted that a mixture of polyester polyols with different Tg will result in a broad processing window. Aklian et al. is also concerned about improving interlayer adhesion [0011]. Regarding Tg of the hydroxy functional polymers, since the polyester polyols are different compounds, it would be expected that one polyester polyol has a higher Tg than the other. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the polyester polyol of Yu et al. with the coating composition of Aklian et al. with reasonable expectation that the adhesion would improve.
Aklian et al. is silent on the coating comprising wax and silica particles as recited in the instant claim.
Garcia et al. teach a coating composition comprising a polyurethane solution containing a polyol intermediate and dispersant agent and a polyisocyanate (claim 8). Garcia et al. teach silica may be added to reduce the gloss of a coating surface and wax may be added to increase scratch and mar resistance [col 8, line 37-col 9, line 20]. Aklian et al. is also concerned about abrasion resistance and teaches further additives such as pigments may be added ([0002], [0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it to add the silica and wax as taught by Garcia et al. to the composition of Aklian et al. with reasonable expectation that the resistance would improve.
Regarding claim 2, Aklian et al. disclose the coating is applied to aircrafts or aerospace applications [0007-0008], thereby reading on a curable coating mimics a textured surface on a vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, Aklian et al. disclose the amount of polyester polyol is 5 to 30 weight percent, thereby overlapping the claimed range [0014].
Regarding claim 5, Aklian et al. define hard acrylic polyol as an acrylic polyol with a glass transition temperature above 20°C and soft acrylic polyol as an acrylic polyol with a glass transition temperature below 20°C [0014], thereby reading on the high Tg and low Tg hydroxyl functional polymers. Furthermore, Aklian et al. disclose the hard acrylic polyol is present at 40 to 80 weight percent and the soft acrylic polyol is present at 10 to 40 weight percent based on total solids weight of the polyol used in the polyol component [0014], thereby overlapping with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Aklian et al.
Regarding claim 6 and 11, Aklian et al. is silent on the composition comprising the wax particle as recited in the claim.
Garcia et al. teach suitable waxes include a polyethylene wax includes MPD-611, the examiner believes it is MPP-611, which has a maximum particle size of 22 microns, a mean particle size of 5-8 micron, lying outside the claimed range, and a melting point of 109-115°C as seen in the data sheet, thereby overlapping the claimed range. Garcia et al. teach polyethylene wax have the best balance of toughness for scratch and mar resistance [col 9, line 1-19]. Aklian et al. is also concerned about abrasion resistance ([0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it to add the silica and wax as taught by Garcia et al. to the composition of Aklian et al. with reasonable expectation that the resistance would improve. Regarding the particle size, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Thus, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, the slight difference in particle size of the wax of Garcia et al. and the claimed range is negligible.
Regarding claim 9, Aklian et al. disclose the composition comprises polyester polyol (claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Aklian et al. is silent on the coating comprising silica particles as recited in the instant claim.
Garcia et al. teach the silica particles have an average particle size in the range of 3 to 12 microns, examples including a surface treatment silica. Garcia et al. further teach an example of the silica filler is Syloid C-907, which has an oil absorption of 300g/100g as evidenced by the data sheet attached, thereby lying within the claimed ranges. Garcia et al. teach silica is added to reduce the gloss of a coating surface [col 8, line 37-63]. Aklian et al. teach the coating may be used to restore the aesthetic qualities of the surface [0003]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the silica of Garcia et al. to the coating composition of Aklian et al. with reasonable expectation that the surface qualities will be improved.
Regarding claim 13, Aklian et al. disclose in Table 1 the composition comprises a pigment.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aklian et al. (US 20090068366) in view of Garcia et al. (US 6436540) and Yu et al. (US 20050277732) and in further view of Rihan et al. (US 9309434).
The composition disclosed in claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Aklian et al. is silent on the resin component comprising a castor oil as recited in the instant claim.
Rihan et al. teach a curable coating comprising a polyisocyanate and an unsaturated fatty acid ester polyol that is a castor-oil based polyol (claim 1 and 2). Rihan et al. also teach the ester polyol may have 2-4 hydroxy group, thereby overlapping the claimed range of the hydroxyl functionality of the instant claim [col 3, line 19-57]. Rihan et al. is silent on the molecular weight of the castor oil derivative. However, Rihan et al. teach Polycin M-365 may be used, which is also listed as a suitable example in instant specification [0022]. Therefore, the molecular weight would also be expected to overlap with the instant claim. Rihan et al. offer the motivation that the mixture has unexpectedly improved scratch resistance [col 2, line 47-62]. Aklian et al. is also interested in providing a coating that is strong and durable [0013]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the castor oil derivative of Rihan et al. with the coating of Aklian et al. with reasonable expectation that the durability would improve.
Claims 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aklian et al. (US 20090068366) in view of Garcia et al. (US 6436540) and Yu et al. (US 20050277732) and in further view of Kanzaki et al. (JP 201312903).
The examiner will refer to the English translation of Kanzaki et al. provided in this Office Action.
The composition disclosed in claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 7, 8, and 10, Aklian et al. is silent on the coating further comprising a castor oil.
Kanzaki et al. teach a coating formed from a resin urethane composition formed from a polyester polyol (claim 1). Kanzaki et al. teach a natural oil derivative formed from castor oil is added and teaches in Synthesis Example 7 a castor oil derivative with a hydroxyl equivalent of 309 was formed, thereby lying within the claimed range ([0051-0052], [0071]). Kanzaki et al. offer the motivation that the castor oil provides good interlayer adhesion [0052]. Aklian et al. is also concerned about improving interlayer adhesion [0011]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the castor oil derivative of Kanzaki et al. with the coating of Aklian et al. with reasonable expectation that the interlayer adhesion would improve.
Regarding claim 22, Aklian et al. is silent on the coating further comprising a UV stabilizer.
Kanzaki et al. teaches a UV stabilizer may be added to the coating composition [0049], thereby reading on the instant claim 22. Aklian et al. also teaches a coating composition (claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a UV stabilizer as taught by Kanzaki et al. with the coating of Aklian et al. since both are related to coating compositions.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aklian et al. (US 20090068366) in view of Garcia et al. (US 6436540) and Yu et al. (US 20050277732) and in further view of Li et al. (US 20080305266).
The composition disclosed in claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Aklian et al. does not teach the curing agent is free of an aromatic isocyanate as recited in the instant claim.
Li et al. teach a polyurethane coating mixture comprising an aliphatic isocyanate and a polyol (claim 1, abstract). Li et al. also teach the composition may be substantially free of aromatic isocyanates [0028]. Li et al. offer the motivation that aliphatic isocyanates have lower relative toxicity and UV durability [0028]. Aklian et al. is also concerned with UV resistance [0013]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the aromatic isocyanate of Aklian et al. as taught by Li et al. with reasonable expectation that the UV resistance would improve and toxicity would decrease.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aklian et al. (US 20090068366) in view of Garcia et al. (US 6436540) and Kanzaki et al. (JP 201312903).
The examiner will refer to the English translation of Kanzaki et al. provided in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 19, Aklian et al. disclose a coating composition comprising a polyol component comprising an acrylic polyol, wherein the acrylic polyol comprises a mixture of hard and soft acrylic polyol, and a polyester polyol, and an aliphatic isocyanate (claim 1 and 5). Aklian et al. define hard acrylic polyol as an acrylic polyol with a glass transition temperature above 20°C and soft acrylic polyol as an acrylic polyol with a glass transition temperature below 20°C [0014], thereby overlapping with the claimed ranges of the high Tg acrylic polyol. Aklian et al further disclose in Table 1 and 2 the composition comprises a solvent, pigment, and a catalyst (DABCO T-12 is a dibutyltin dilaurate catalyst as seen in data sheet provided). Aklian et al. also disclose no reactive amines are present in the composition (Table 1 and 2).
Aklian et al. is silent on the composition comprising wax and silica particles as recited in the instant claim.
Garcia et al. teach a coating composition comprising a polyurethane solution containing a polyol intermediate and dispersant agent and a polyisocyanate (claim 8). Garcia et al. teach surface treated silica having an average particle size in the range of 3 to 12 microns, may be added to reduce the gloss of a coating surface and wax particles having a mean particle size of 10 to 12 microns may be added to increase scratch and mar resistance [col 8, line 37-col 9, line 20]. Aklian et al. is also concerned about abrasion resistance and teaches further additives such as pigments may be added ([0002], [0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it to add the silica and wax as taught by Garcia et al. to the composition of Aklian et al. with reasonable expectation that the resistance would improve.
Aklian et al. is silent on the coating comprising a castor oil and UV stabilizer.
Kanzaki et al. teach a natural oil derivative formed from castor oil is added and teaches in Synthesis Example 7 a castor oil derivative with a hydroxyl equivalent of 309 was formed, thereby lying within the claimed range ([0051-0052], [0071]). Kanzaki et al. offer the motivation that the castor oil provides good interlayer adhesion [0052]. Aklian et al. is also concerned about improving interlayer adhesion [0011]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the castor oil derivative of Kanzaki et al. with the coating of Aklian et al. with reasonable expectation that the interlayer adhesion would improve.
Kanzaki et al. teaches a UV stabilizer may be added to the coating composition [0049], thereby reading on the instant claim 19. Aklian et al. also teaches a coating composition (claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a UV stabilizer as taught by Kanzaki et al. with the coating of Aklian et al. since both are related to coating compositions.
Regarding claim 20, Aklian et al. disclose a soft acrylic polyol, with a glass transition temperature below 20°C [0014], is present in the composition (Table 1, claim 1 and 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states “Aklian is specifically concerned with tie coats rather than top coats. The main consideration in Aklian et al. is interlayer adhesion, and is therefore not applicable to a topcoat composition”.
The examiner disagrees. First, Aklian et al. teach additives may be added in the tie coat composition [0018]. Second, the examiner directs attention Scholten et al. (US 20070092738). Scholten et al. teach a tie coating comprising additives such as wax particles, silica particles, and castor oil [0242-0251]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the wax particles and silica particles to the composition of Aklian et al..
Applicant states “There would be no reason to include a UV light stabilizer in a coating composition that is used to form a tie layer that is covered by a topcoat layer.”
In response, the examiner directs attention to the abstract and paragraph [0045] of Kanzaki et al. wherein Kanzaki et al. teach the coating comprises an underlayer using a radically polymerizable resin composition, thereby reading on the definition of a tie-coat. Kanzaki et al. teach the UV stabilizer is used for the radically polymerizable resin composition as cited in [0045]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a UV stabilizer as taught by Kanzaki et al. with the composition of Aklian et al. since both are related to tie coats.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763