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 .
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 1, 3, 5, 8-12, 20, 29, 37, 64, 67, 69, 82, 85, 86, 101, 108 and 111 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebert et al. (US 5,407,966 – cited previously).
With respect to independent claim 1, Ebert et al. discloses a latent curable volume expandable polymer composition (abstract) comprising:
an organic acid component, wherein the organic acid component comprises a first organic acid, a second organic acid, and optionally one or more additional organic acids (col. 4, l. 30-59, wherein Ebert et al. explicitly discloses the organic acid foaming agents disclosed can be used in the form of mixtures);
said polymer composition does not contain a blowing agent besides the organic acid component (col. 4, l. 60-68, wherein no additional blowing agent is disclosed and/or suggested as included); and
wherein said polymer composition, when being heated to an activation of expansion temperature above 23oC but below 250oC, (i) undergoes volume expansion due to decarboxylation of the first organic acid and/or second organic acid and/or optionally present one or more additional organic acids; (ii) develops adhesion; and (iii) cures (col. 5, l. 29-39, wherein the polymer compositions are disclosed as heated to temperatures above room temperature and undergo volume expansion to produce a foamed product, see further explanation below).
Ebert et al. discloses wherein the foaming agent includes organic acids in the form of carboxylic acids, and, further, wherein such can be used in the form of mixtures and in quantities of 0.01-10% by weight (col. 4, l. 30-59). The reference additionally provides examples wherein various weight percents of such organic acid foaming agents are used with an additional acid in various ratios, including 1:1 to 1:4 (col. 7, l. 38-col. 8, l. 40). Although silent to explicitly providing for wherein such a ratio is that of the foaming agent in the form of a mixture of the first organic acid and the second organic acid, given the weight percent range of foaming agent presence disclosed by Ebert et al. as well as the disclosure therein for the use of a mixture of organic acids, and, thus, an implied ratio of a first organic acid to a second organic acid, it is the position of the Office that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize an optimal ratio of the first organic acid to the second organic acid to provide for in the foaming agent of Ebert et al. in order to effectively foam the thermoplastic therewith since it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed ratio of the first organic acid to the second organic acid as critical, as further exemplified by the extensiveness thereof, and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by providing for a ratio of first organic acid to second organic acid of 10:1 to 1:10 as instantly claimed. Since the organic acid combination of Ebert et al. is suggested to provide for volume expansion of the polymer composition, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of using a ratio of first organic acid to second organic acid as presently claimed, and, as such, the determination of optimal ratio of first organic acid to second organic acid would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
With regard to the requirement for said polymer composition not containing a blowing agent besides the organic acid component, Ebert et al. discloses additional additives for the composition and does not disclose and/or require the inclusion of an additional blowing agent (col. 4, l. 60-68, wherein no additional blowing agent is disclosed and/or suggested as included). As such, it is the position of the Office that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the polymer composition of Ebert et al. to not contain a blowing agent besides the organic acid component therein as such is not deemed necessary for volume expansion. The omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). Herein, the function of an additional blowing agent is not needed and/or desired as the organic acid component is used for such a purpose.
With regard to the limitation “when being heated to an activation of expansion temperature above 23oC but below 250oC, undergoes volume expansion due to decarboxylation of the first organic acid and/or second organic acid and/or optionally present one or more additional organic acid; develops adhesions; and cures,” the Examiner notes, claim 1 is drawn to a composition and the noted limitations are drawn to certain characteristics that such a composition is to exhibit when heated to an activation temperature. Claim 1 does not require actual heating of the composition. The limitations reciting such heating and undergoing of volume expansion due to decarboxylation are limitations of intended use of the claimed composition. Nonetheless, Ebert et al. explicitly provides for a polymer composition that includes a first organic acid and second organic acid, and, further, provides for the same organic acids disclosed by Applicant. As such, at least one of the first organic acid and/or second organic acid would be expected to act in the manner as claimed, i.e., undergo volume expansion due to decarboxylation of the first organic acid and/or second organic acid, develops adhesion and cures, when being heated to an activation of expansion temperature above 23oC but below 250oC since it has been held “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. See MPEP 2112.01(1), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 1 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934). If there is any difference between the above noted properties of the polymer composition of Ebert et al. and that of the instant claims, the difference would have been minor and obvious.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Ebert et al. discloses wherein the first organic acid and/or the second organic acid and/or the optionally present one or more additional organic acids independently of one another have a molecular weight of at more 300 g/mol (col. 4, l. 37, wherein acetoacetic acid, an organic acid disclosed by Applicant to meet such criteria in [0070] and [0072] of the specification as filed, is disclosed; for purposes of this office action, acetoacetic acid is considered the first organic acid).
With respect to dependent claim 5, Ebert et al. discloses wherein the content of the organic acid component is at least 5.0 wt% relative to the total weight of the polymer composition (col. 4, l. 55-59, wherein quantities up to 10% are disclosed).
With respect to dependent claim 8, Ebert et al. discloses wherein the organic acid component essentially consists of (the Examiner notes, “essentially consists of” is being considered as consists essentially of) the first organic acid and the second organic acid (col. 4, l. 55-59, wherein the foaming agents are used in the form of mixtures thereof).
With respect to dependent claim 9, Ebert et al. discloses wherein the organic acid component comprises one or more additional organic acids (col. 4, l. 55-59, wherein mixtures thereof are suggested, thereby suggesting an additional organic acid).
With respect to dependent claim 10, Ebert et al. discloses wherein the first organic acid and/or the second organic acid and/or the optionally present one or more additional organic acids independently of one another are hydrocarbons comprising no functional groups other than those recited (col. 4, l. 30-53, wherein at least acetoacetic acid, i.e., the first organic acid and an organic acid disclosed by Applicant to meet such criteria in [0070] and [0072] of the specification as filed, is disclosed).
With respect to dependent claim 11, Ebert et al. discloses wherein the first organic acid is selected from the group as claimed (col. 4, l. 30-53, wherein at least acetoacetic acid, i.e., the first organic acid and an organic acid disclosed by Applicant to meet such criteria in [0070] and [0072] of the specification as filed, is disclosed).
With respect to dependent claim 12, Ebert et al. discloses wherein the second organic acid is selected from the group as claimed (col. 4, l. 30-53, wherein malonic acid, an acid disclosed by Applicant as such in the specification as filed, is disclosed).
With respect to dependent claim 20, Ebert et al. discloses wherein the first organic acid and/or the second organic acid and/or is an aromatic monocarboxylic acid as claimed (col. 4, l. 30-54, wherein at least benzoylacetic acid is disclosed).
With respect to dependent claim 29, Ebert et al. discloses wherein the first organic acid and/or the second organic acid and/or the optionally present one or more additional organic acids is an aromatic monocarboxylic acid; the reference further suggests dicarboxylic acids (col. 4, l. 30-54, wherein at least benzoylacetic acid is disclosed). Although silent to wherein one of such organic acids is an aromatic tricarboxylic acid as claimed, it is the position of the Office that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to try such as a foaming agent in the polymer composition of Ebert et al. as such would be expected to share similar chemical behavior regarding acidity, chelation, and carboxylic acid reactivity to those organic acids explicitly disclosed by Ebert et al. and clearly envisaged as a suitable alternative thereto as at least one the first/second/optional organic acid therein.
With respect to dependent claim 37, Ebert et al. discloses wherein the first organic acid and the second organic acid and the second organic acid and the optionally present one or more additional organic acids are selected from the group as claimed (col. 4, l. 30-54).
With respect to dependent claim 64, Ebert et al. discloses wherein the foaming agent includes carboxylic acids, and, further, wherein such can be used in the form of mixtures and in quantities of 0.01-10% by weight (col. 4, l. 30-59). The reference additionally provides examples wherein various weight percents of such organic acid foaming agents are used with an additional acid in various ratios, including 1:1 to 1:4 (col. 7, l. 38-col. 8, l. 40). Although silent to explicitly providing for wherein such a ratio is that of the foaming agent in the form of a mixture of the first organic acid and the second organic acid, given the weight percent range of foaming agent presence disclosed by Ebert et al. and disclosure therein of the use of a mixture of organic acids, and, thus, an implied ratio of a first organic acid to a second organic acid, it is the position of the Office that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize an optimal ratio of the first organic acid to the second organic acid to provide for in the foaming agent of Ebert et al. in order to effectively foam the thermoplastic therewith since it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed ratio of the first organic acid to the second organic acid as critical and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by providing for a ratio of first organic acid to second organic acid of 1:3 to 1:1.1 as instantly claimed. Since the organic acid combination of Ebert et al. is suggested to provide for volume expansion of the polymer composition, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of using a ratio of first organic acid to second organic acid as presently claimed, and, as such, the determination of optimal ratio of first organic acid to second organic acid would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
With respect to dependent claim 67, Ebert et al. discloses the polymer composition as set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 5, wherein such is used to produce foamed mouldings (col. 5, l. 29-39) and further suggested to be cut as required and/or used for the production of large covers (col. 7, l. 25-35). Although silent to explicitly starting wherein such is “dry to the touch” at room temperature, since Ebert et al. provides for a composition as claimed by claims 1 and 5, the polymer composition of Ebert et al. would be expected to act in the manner as claimed, i.e., be dry to the touch at room temperature since it has been held “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. See MPEP 2112.01(1), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 1 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934). If there is any difference between the above noted properties of the polymer composition of Ebert et al. and that of the instant claims, the difference would have been minor and obvious. Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 USC 102 and 103. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 USC 103 and for anticipation under 35 USC 102.” See MPEP 2112(111) and In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
With respect to dependent claim 69, Ebert et al. discloses wherein the polymer composition is heat curable (col. 1, l. 57-67, wherein the polymer composition is subjected to heat for production of the product therefrom). Furthermore, Ebert et al. provides for a composition as claimed by claim 1 and therefore, the polymer composition of Ebert et al. would be expected to act in the manner as claimed, i.e., be heat curable since it has been held “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. See MPEP 2112.01(1), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 1 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934). If there is any difference between the above noted properties of the polymer composition of Ebert et al. and that of the instant claims, the difference would have been minor and obvious. Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 USC 102 and 103. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 USC 103 and for anticipation under 35 USC 102.” See MPEP 2112(111) and In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
With respect to dependent claims 82, 85 and 86, Ebert et al. discloses wherein the polymer composition comprises a polymer selected from the group as claimed (col. 5, l. 66- col. 6, l. 6; col. 7, l. 6-18).
With respect to dependent claim 101, Ebert et al. discloses the polymer composition which comprises neither sodium carbonate nor sodium hydrogencarbonate as there is no disclosure and/or requirement thereof. As such, it is the position of the Office that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the polymer composition of Ebert et al. to not contain either compound as such is not deemed necessary for inclusion. The omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
With respect to dependent claim 108, Ebert et al. discloses a method for volume expansion of a polymer composition according to claim 1 comprising the step of heating the polymer composition to the activation of expansion temperature (col. 5, l. 29-39).
With respect to dependent claim 111, Ebert et al. discloses wherein the first organic acid and/or the second organic acid and/or the optionally present one or more additional organic acids is one as claimed (col. 4, l. 30-54).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 08/03/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US patent no. 11,834,588 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the objections to the abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments made thereto. The abstract objection as set forth in the previous office action has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejections, as set forth in the previous office action, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1. The 35 USC 112 rejections, as set forth therein, have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims as unpatentable over Ebert have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes the claims have been amended to clarify the nature of the claimed polymeric materials is for forming compositions that are latent foaming, adhering and curing.
Applicant asserts, in other words, the claimed compositions are applied to a surface prior to exposure to the claimed expansion temperature and are later exposed to elevated temperatures in the range of the expansion temperature at which time the material foams, forms adhesive qualities and cures.
The Examiner notes, the composition claimed in claim 1 is a curable composition that contains the claimed components that exhibits certain properties. There is nothing in the claims that requires the composition to be applied to a surface prior to exposure to the claimed expansion temperature and are later exposed to elevated temperatures in the range of the expansion temperature at which time the material foams, forms adhesive qualities, and cures.
All is required by the claims is that the claimed composition “when being heated” to a certain temperature expands, and that the claimed composition “develops adhesion; and cures.”
In other words, and contrary to the applicants’ arguments, the claimed limitations are drawn to a composition that exhibits certain characteristics when heated to the activation temperature. The claims do not require a method, nor the active step of heating.
The claims do not require actual heating of the composition or actual application to a surface. The limitations reciting such heating, foaming and application are mere limitations of intended use of the claimed compositions and are met if the composition disclosed in the reference is capable of being used for intended application. The disclosed composition is inherently capable for the claimed use because the disclosed composition is believed to be substantially identical to the composition disclosed in the instant specification and as claimed.
Applicant further states no teachings have been identified to suggest the specific combination of acids in the claimed ratios.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the ratios are explicitly addressed in the rejection above as the examples of Ebert provide ratios of acids used; the disclosure further provides a limited disclosure of suitable acids, from which use of a combination of the specific acids is clearly envisaged.
The applicants further argue that “(1) The materials in Ebert are foamed upon extrusion at temperatures above 220oC - 330oC. The materials as claimed would thus develop adhesive qualities within the extruder, which would cause the material to adhere to the interior of the extruder causing undesirable build-up of material in the extruder.” This argument is irrelevant to the claimed composition. As discussed above, the claims are drawn to a composition and NOT to its use or a process of foaming the composition.
Applicant further asserts “(2) Even if the polymeric adhesives claimed were capable of extrusion at 220oC - 330oC the material would foam, adhere and cure as claimed upon extrusion. As a result, the ability of the claimed material to foam and cure at a later time to bond two surfaces would be eliminated.”
The Examiner maintains, the processing of the compositions disclosed in the reference is irrelevant to the claimed composition. If the disclosed compositions is capable of being adhesive (via processing at any condition) it meets the limitation of the claimed composition.
Applicant has not identified why the compositions as disclosed by Ebert are any different from the compositions as claimed. While the composition claimed may be intended for a particular use that may not be disclosed by Ebert, as discussed above, the claims are drawn to a composition that exhibits some properties and that would exhibit some other properties when heated to specific temperatures. There is nothing on the record that suggests that the compositions of Ebert would not exhibit such properties when heated to the claimed temperatures (such as at 220oC). Actual heating and foaming is not required by the claims. As such, the rejections are maintained for at least the reasons above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4,330,635 discloses a curable volume expandable polymer composition comprising an organic acid component, wherein the organic acid component comprises organic acids; wherein said polymer composition, when being heated to an activation of expansion temperature above room temperature, undergoes volume expansion due to decarboxylation of the organic acids.
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 Angela M DiTrani Leff whose telephone number is (571)272-2182. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 5712724137. 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.
/Angela M DiTrani Leff/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
ADL
09/30/26
