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 .
Response to Amendment
Those objections and rejections that are not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 12-20 are currently pending and rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “opposing parallel walls, each having” on line 3. For matters of form, it is suggested to amend this limitation to recite, “opposing parallel walls, each of the opposing parallel walls having…”
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “each sealing line extending” on line 10. While it is clear that this is referring to “two sealing lines” as recited on lines 9-10, for matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “each sealing line of the two sealing lines extending….”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “an angle of around 15° to 20°” on lines 11-12. This limitation is not seen to be reasonably supported by Applicant’s original disclosure. The specification as filed does not discuss a particular angle of the two sealing lines or the specific range of “around 15° to 20°.” At best, paragraphs 62, 137 and 139 of Applicant’s specification as filed discuss that there is an angle of the V-shaped skip seal that allows for increasing the rigidity of the bag, assisting in allowing the bag to stand up and can allow for better support of a sauce pouch. Figure 15 shows specific angles of 0°, 5°, 10°, 15° and 20° but this figure alone is not seen to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the entire range of “around 15° to 20°” is supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Claims 12-20 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation, “at least 8 micro holes.” This limitation is new matter because while the specification discusses micro-holes generally, there is not seen to be sufficient specificity for the entire range of “at least 8 micro holes.” For example, paragraph 111, 113 and 115 specifically only discuss 4 micro-holes, 8 micro-holes and 12 micro-holes, respectively. Paragraph 119 and 121-124 are similar in this regard. In light of MPEP 2163.05(III), since the specification does not clearly disclose to the skilled artisan that any amount of micro-holes greater than 8 was considered to be part of the claimed invention, it is not seen that the written description requirement has been sufficiently satisfied and therefore the limitation, “at least 8 micro holes” is new matter.
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 and 12-20 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 recites the limitation of “around 15° to 20°” on lines 11-12. The limitation of “around” is seen to be a relative term that has not been defined by the claims or specification, thus making the scope of what can be construed as an angle of “around” 15-20 degrees unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “each sealing line extending partially across the opposing parallel walls from each of the side edges down toward a central region at an angle of around 15° to 20°.” This limitation is not clear as to what has “an angle of around 15° to 20°. That is, it is not clear whether each of the two sealing lines that form the skip seal that have the recited angle, or whether it is “a central region” that has the recited angle. Applicant’s specification does not provide clear guidance in this regard. For example, paragraph 139 only recites, “the sauce pouch was better supported with increased angle of the skip seal” and Figure 15 shows angles of 0°, 5°, 10°, 15° and 20°. It is not clear from this disclosure as to what has the recited angle of 0°, 5°, 10°, 15° and 20°: a central region (i.e. the apex of the chevron) or the two sealing lines that form the skip seal. The limitation is also unclear as to from where the angle has been taken. That is, it is not clear whether the angle is with respect to the seals formed by the edge seal or with respect to another reference point.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “wherein the breachable pouch is further configured to burst along the laser score line entirely once a breach threshold is met, allowing for the sauce therein to be deposited onto produce in the lower compartment.” (see lines 20-23). This limitation is not clear whether the claim is intending to recite that produce is in the lower compartment, or whether the product being in the lower compartment is part of the “configured to” language.
Claims 12-20 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
Claim 18 recites, “wherein each of the series of micro perforations.” This limitation is unclear because the term “each” appears to imply that there is more than one series of micro perforations; however claim 1, line 16 only refers to “a series of micro perforations.”
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.
Claims 1, 13-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies (US 20220153502) in view of Galbasini (US 20140366484) and in further view of Mir (US 20210039855) and in further view of Howell (US 20070065544), Lames (US 20220289458) and Fabisiewicz (US 5209347) and in further view of DiLiberto (US 20110308977), Futase (JP 2004-250013), Holmen (US 20120308690) and Barney (US 5462526).
Regarding claim 1, Davies teaches a stand-up bag “for” microwaving produce (see the abstract; paragraph 28), said bag comprising:
opposing parallel walls, each having a top edge, side edges and a base edge, heat sealed together along each of the top edge, the side edges and the base edge thereby forming an inner compartment (see figure 4 which shows sealing along the side edges and the base edge and along the top edge; see also figure 18 which shows opposing parallel walls that are inherently sealed together for forming the inner compartment; see also figure 22 and paragraph 25 and 59). As shown in figure 4, it would appear that top edges, side edges and bottom edges are shown as sealed together. However, if it could have been construed that Davies was not clear in this regard, then Galbasini teaches a stand-up pouch with multiple compartments and where opposing walls having a top edge, side edges and a base edge are sealed together along a top edge (figure 1, item 16), side edges (figure 1, item 14) and the base edge (see figure 1, near item 13 and the corners of the base edge).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have sealed parallel walls together along a top edge, side edges and the base edge for providing an enclosed pouch, based on conventional expedients for providing standup pouches.
Davies also teaches a skip seal formed by heat sealing the opposing parallel walls, dividing the inner compartment into an upper compartment and a lower compartment (see figure 23, item 2315 and paragraph 61), wherein the skip seal is in a shape of a chevron comprising two seal lines, each sealing line extending partially across the opposing parallel walls from each of the side edges down toward a central region (see figure 23, item 2315). It is noted that figure 23 of Davies shows a V-shaped skip seal that is similar to that shown in Applicant’s figure 14, which paragraph 136 of Applicant’s specification as filed, refers to as a chevron shape.
Davies teaches a breachable sauce pouch contained in the upper compartment (see figure 23, item 2305 and paragraph 57 and 61);
Claim 1 differs from Davies in specifically reciting, “a series of micro perforations formed in one or more of the opposing parallel walls extending from the inner compartment to an exterior surface; and a steam valve situated in one of the opposing parallel walls, extending from the inner compartment to the exterior surface.”
Mir teaches microwavable bags (see the abstract) which can comprise micro perforations in the walls of the package (see figure 1A-1C, item 140 and paragraph 68), which micro perforations are configured and designed to help promote the optimization of various internal atmospheric conditions for preservation of the contents (see paragraph 19 and 70) and which extend from the inner compartment to an exterior surface (see figure 1B, item 140). Mir also teaches that there can be a steam valve in one of the walls (see figure 1B and 1C, item 150 and paragraph 61) for allowing the desired amount of pressure to be released during steam cooking (see paragraph 61 and 62), which can extend from the inner compartment to the exterior surface (see paragraph 42 which discloses that the precision cuts can function as valves; see paragraph 71 which discusses precision cuts as valves that can extend to the exterior; see paragraph 72, “pass through most of or all of the one or more layers”).
To therefore modify Davies, who is also directed to bags used for microwave cooking of produce, and to include micro perforations that extend from the inner compartment to the exterior surface and to also include a steam valve situated in one of the walls, extending from the inner compartment to the exterior surface, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of providing the desired internal atmospheric conditions for preservation of the contents and then to also allow for the desired amount of pressure to be released via a steam valve during heating of the bag.
Claim 1 differs from the above combination in specifically reciting that each of the two sealing lines (of the skip seal) extend at an angle of around 15° to 20°.
It is initially noted that the claim limitation is not clear in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112b.
Nonetheless, Howell (US 20070065544) teaches that the two sealing lines that can also be construed as skip seals, and which are also formed by sealing opposing parallel walls together (see figure 5, item 60a and 60b). The sealing lines extend from each of the side edges at an acute angle toward a central region, which two sealing lines are in a shape of a chevron and which seals each form an angle of less than 90 degrees with the side seals 12a and 12b (see paragraph 25 and figure 1). This therefore encompasses the claimed angle of “around 15-20 degrees.” Howell teaches that such incline can help guide liquid toward a second compartment (see paragraph 25).
Lames (US 20220289458) teaches a seal that can divide an interior into two compartments, and which seal can have a chevron shape (see figure 2B and figure 5A) and where the angle of the seal 112, 512 to the sidewall can be from about 20 to about 70 degrees (see paragraph 71 and 76), which therefore overlaps with the claimed range of “around 15° to 20°.”
Fabisiewicz (US 5209347) also teaches an angle of two side seals that converge toward a chevron shape that can have an angle such as greater or less than 170 degrees, and therefore suggesting that the two seals that form the chevron shape can have an angle of 5 degrees or greater (see column 5, lines 12-28) and therefore encompassing the claimed range.
To therefore modify the combination such that the two sealing lines of the chevron shaped skip seal of Davies each have an angle such as 20 degrees would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because the prior art teaches that such seal angles have been conventionally used to provide a division of an interior of a chamber into two compartments, and because the prior art also teaches that such an angle can help to direct liquid into the lower compartment of the pouch.
Regarding the breachable pouch, the claim differs from Davies in specifically reciting, “the breachable pouch comprising a continuous laser score line along a bottom edge of the breachable pouch.”
However, DiLiberto teaches a heatable bag (see figure 12 and paragraph 56), which contains a breachable sauce pouch (paragraph 56) that can comprise a continuous laser score for weakening the pouch structure to help to rupture the pouch (see paragraph 43-44 and figure 3; and figure 1 and 2, item 122 which is a continuous laser score line). Futase also teaches a packet in an upper compartment of a heatable package (see paragraph 1 of the machine translation and figures 1-3, 5 and 6), which packet comprises a breaking guide at the bottom of the pouch, which breaking guide is formed by a laser beam (see paragraph 5) which can be continuous (see paragraph 5 and figure 3B, item 3b and paragraph 21 and paragraph 23 of the machine translation). Futase teaches that upon heating in a microwave, the packet will burst and release the liquid seasoning over the food in the lower compartment (see paragraph 13 of the machine translation).
DiLiberto and Futase thus teach that it has been conventional to use laser scoring for breaching a pouch within a heatable bag.
If it could have been construed that DiLiberto and Futase did not teach a continuous laser score line along a bottom edge of the breachable pouch, then it is noted that:
Holmen (US 20120308690) teaches a known expedient for providing a pouch that is breachable, is to provide a continuous laser score line (see figure 1 and 2a) along an edge of the pouch (see figure 7, item 124, 130; see the abstract).
Barney (US 5462526) also teaches a rupturable pouch (see figure 1 and 2, item 30) which comprises a bottom edge that can comprise either a peelable seal or can be ruptured using a score line that weakens the edge (see column 5, lines 40-44, 56-62). Barney thus teaches and suggests that score lines and peelable seals have been recognized to have been equally applicable for rupturing a seal upon generation of a particular amount of pressure within the pouch.
To therefore modify Davies, who already teaches a breachable pouch and to use another known way to breach the pouch via pressure, as taught by DiLiberto and Futase, Holmen and Barney, which is to provide a continuous laser score line along a bottom edge, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on another known expedient for breaching a pouch.
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein the breachable pouch is further configured to burst along the laser score line entirely once a breach threshold is met, allowing for the sauce therein to be deposited onto produce in the lower compartment,” this is an intended use limitation that the prior art would have been capable of performing, because the prior art teaches the use of continuous laser score lines which can be breached upon generating the requisite degree of pressure within the pouch (see Holmen) and because Davies already teaches a rupture line that is capable of bursting in its entirety once a desired threshold has been met.
Regarding the new limitation of, “wherein the skip seal maintains a sealing strength, even when the breachable threshold is met,” this is an intended use limitation that the prior art would have been capable of performing, especially because Davies teaches a seal (figure 23, item 2315) that is designed to keep the breachable pouch separated from the food. Since the purpose of Davies’ seal is to keep the pouch separated from the food, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that such a seal would have been capable of remaining intact after breaching of Davies’ pouch for the purpose of keeping the breached pouch separated from the now coated food.
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches a skip seal that provides an acute angle of about 20 degrees and which is formed by sealing the opposing walls together (see Howell) and therefore, it would have been reasonable to expect that the skip seal as taught by the prior art would also supported the opposing parallel walls maintaining an upright position.
Regarding claim 14, as shown in figure 23, Davies teaches the skip seal (2315) is configured to hold the breachable pouch (figure 23, item 2305) in the upper compartment.
Regarding claim 15, Davies teaches that the stand up bag can comprise a bottom gusset (paragraph 52). This is further supported by Galbasini (see figure 1 and paragraph 13)
Regarding claim 16, Davies teaches that the stand-up bag is fabricated from a film comprising polypropylene (see paragraph 41, CPP, OPP). At paragraph 41, Davies also teaches that the pouch and the wall of the bag can be bonded using the same polymer, and where the “laminate” can also include polyamide. Therefore, Davies is teaching and suggesting that the standup bag can also be fabricated from a film that also comprises polyamide.
Further regarding claim 16, if it could have been construed that Davies was not clear in teaching and suggesting to also use polyamide together with polypropylene as part of the stand-up bag’s film structure, then Galbasini teaches microwavable stand-up bags (see at least, the figures and paragraph 13 and 23) and which stand-up bag can be fabricated from a film that can also include polyamide as well as polypropylene (see paragraph 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination and also included polyamide as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, based on known expedients used for a similar purpose of providing a microwavable stand-up bag.
Regarding claim 17, Davies teaches the breachable sauce pouch is fabricated from a film comprising polypropylene and polyester (see figure 8, CPP and PET, i.e. polyethylene terephthalate, which is a polyester).
Regarding claim 19, Mir teaches that the series of micro perforations comprises at least 8 micro holes (see figure 3 and paragraph 97, where there are eight micro perforations 340).
Regarding claim 20, in view of Mir as discussed above with respect to claim 1, the steam valve, as taught by Mir is configured to be opened once a pressure threshold within the internal compartment is met. It is also noted however, that Holmen also supports the use of a steam valve that is configured to be opened once a pressure threshold within the compartment is met (see at least, the abstract).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Davies (US 20220153502) as the primary reference, and in further view of Carespodi (US 20050284789) and Mir (US 20220022685).
Regarding claim 12, it is initially noted that Mir855 teaches rupturable cut sections (see at least, figure 1D and 1E, item 150 and paragraph 61)), which can be laser scored (paragraph 71, 73 and 79) and continuous (see figure 6, item 630 and paragraphs 115-116), and which scores can have a diameter (i.e. width) of 0.1mm (i.e. 100 microns) (see paragraph 134), and which can therefore be construed as “around” 85 microns.
If it could have been construed that this was not the case, then it is further noted that Carespodi further teaches rupturable laser scoring (see at least, paragraph 25), which can be construed as continuous (see figure 3 and 4, item 22) and which laser scoring can have a width of about 75 to 150 microns (see paragraph 38) where about 75 microns is seen to be close to the claimed width of “around 85 microns.” Carespodi further teaches that the variation in the particular width of the laser score can be useful for controlling the strength at which the laser score can be ruptured (see paragraph 38).
Mir685 teaches a slit that is openable and which can have a width such as 0.1mm (see paragraph 51 discussing the venting being substantially through the film; see paragraph 52-53 discussing the slit thickness), and which slit can be laser cut (see paragraph 51) which is equivalent to 100 microns.
To therefore modify the combination, which already teaches a continuous laser score line and to provide a thickness of about 75 microns for example, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of controlling the strength required to rupture the laser score line.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Davies (US 20220153502) as the primary reference, and in further view of Mir (US 20220022685, “Mir685”).
Regarding claim 18, Mir855 teaches micro perforations with a diameter of 1-100 microns or 10-450 microns (see paragraph 123), therefore encompassing the claimed size of “around 75 microns.”
If it could have been construed that claim 18 differs from the combination because the claim specifically recites, “around 75 microns” while Mir855 does not specifically refer to this diameter, then it is noted that Mir685 teaches that it has been conventional in the art of microperforating of a heatable pouch, to use laser perforations to produce micro-holes with a diameter of 76 microns, for example (see paragraph 51 which discloses the microperforations are formed by laser; and see paragraph 55, which discloses the micro perforations are for controlling the atmosphere in the package; see paragraph 58 which discloses that the diameter of the micro perforations should be equal to or greater than the film thickness and where the example discloses a thickness of 76µm and therefore is suggesting a microperforation that can be 76µm, which is seen to be close the claimed diameter (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
To therefore modify the combination, if necessary and to use laser perforation to produce microholes with a 75 micron diameter would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on known expedients for producing micro-perforations used for the same purpose of controlling the atmosphere within the bag and where the diameter of the micro perforations would have been obvious based on the particular type, amount and degree of respiration and preservation desired.
Response to Arguments
On page 20 of the response, Applicant urges that Davies does not teach the first seal positioned on the edge of the container and teaches packet 2305 of Davies can be separated from food 2310 using a partial or perforated seal instead of a continuous seal.
Regarding the sealing arrangement, this argument is not seen to be sufficient in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment to the claims. Regarding the seal against which Davies’ packet rests, this argument is not sufficient to overcome the rejection because the claim does not recite that the skip seal is a continuous seal, but rather only recites that the breachable pouch comprises a continuous score line. Therefore this argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim.
On page 20 of the response, Applicant urges that Davies is also silent as to whether the partial or perforated seal, which can be linked to Applicant’s skip seal has any other function other than separating the packet from the food.
This argument is not persuasive because the claims do not recite that the skip seal adds any rigidity and because adding rigidity would have been an intended use of the claimed seal. That is, the claim requires that the skip seal is formed by sealing the opposing parallel walls and in this regard Davies also teaches that the chevron shaped seal is formed by sealing the opposing walls together and would also have been reasonably expected to have increased some degree of rigidity or stiffness to the container.
Further on page 20 of the response, Applicant urges that Davies teaches that the sauce pouch comprises a peelable seal, the reference does not teach the claimed laser score line, which provides a similar and more convenient means by which a sauce pouch can be manufactured and breached in response to pressure buildup.
These arguments are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
On pages 20-21 of the response, Applicant urges that Davies does not disclose or suggest micro perforations or steam valves and Mir does not teach or suggest that the microwavable container contains a breachable pouch within it. Applicant urges that the presence of a breachable pouch add a layer of complexity in developing the claimed device as not only does the pressure build up within the bag need to be accounted for but also that the breachable pouch bursts entirely along the laser score line while the bag itself remains intact.
These arguments have been considered but are not sufficient to overcome the rejection because Davies already teaches a breachable pouch within a stand-up bag capable of being microwaved. While Davies does not specifically teach the presence of micro perforations and a steam valve, Mir teaches and suggests the desirability of including both of these structural elements as part of a microwaveable pouch. That is, Mir teaches a steam valve for the known purpose of venting steam buildup during microwaving and further teaches micro holes for the purpose of optimizing the internal atmospheric conditions for preservation. Since Davies already teache spackagign produce within the bag, Mir provides a teaching and suggestion to modify Davies for the purpose of preserving the produce prior to use and for relieving steam from the bag during microwaving.
The remainder of Applicant’s remarks on pages 22-24 reiterate those remarks already discussed above, and are not sufficient for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pellingra (US 20130301957) teaches that it has been conventional to use score lines at a bottom edge of a pouch, as well as to use a peelable seal, for the purpose of rupturing the bottom of the pouch (see paragraph 44 and figure 7, item 215, 230).
Butler (US 4226330) also teaches that it has been conventional to provide a line of weakness at a bottom edge of a pouch, which weakness allows for the bottom edge to rupture and release the contents therein (see figure 8-10, item 54, 55 and 91; column 4, lines 7-33; see column 4, lines 29-33).
Inoue (US 20100094242) teaches a known angle for a chevron shaped seal can be 20 degrees (see figure 1, item 102a and paragraph 44).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792