DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 06/02/2026. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
3. The objection to claim 4 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claim 9 is obviated by Applicant's cancellation.
All 35 U.S.C. 102/103 and 112(b) rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.8 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 limitation of “and wherein if the air freshening solid article comprises an isothiocyanate, the isothiocyanate is a cross-linking agent” is not taught by primary reference Kataoka. Specifically, Kataoka is directed to a gel-like resin molded object containing allyl isothiocyanate as an active ingredient (“it is necessary to control the volatilization rate of allyl isothiocyanate on use by setting the volatilization duration period of time of allyl isothiocyanate according to the purposes”), not a cross-linking agent. Furthermore, there would be no motivation to modify the allyl isothiocyanate to be used as a cross-linking agent because this functionality switch of the allyl isothiocyanate would render the allyl isothiocyanate not an active ingredient, which would render Kataoka unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kataoka (EP 1142959 A1, cited in prior office action).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 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 “wherein if the air freshening solid article comprises an isothiocyanate, the isothiocyanate is a cross-linking agent”. There is no mention within the specification that if the solid article comprises isothiocyanate, that the isothiocyanate has to be a cross-linking agent. That is, the cross-linking agent could be one of isocyanates, isothiocyanates, isocyanurates, oligoisocyanates, polyisocyanates, oligoisothiocyanates, polyisothiocyanates, and any derivatives thereof. A cross-linking agent such as an isocyanate could be selected (which has support as directly mentioned above), but the composition could additionally comprise isothiocyanate without the cross-linking agent function. The specification does not disclose an alternative function for an isothiocyanate that could be disclaimed. The limitation requires any present isothiocyanate to be a cross-linking agent, which is not supported by the original disclosure and thus, is new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8 and 10-20 are rejected as dependent thereon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
6. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kataoka et al. (EP 1142959 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kataoka teaches an air freshening solid article for sustained delivery of volatile materials in an interior space (Table 6, 6th composition, see drawing below), comprising;
one or more non-aqueous air freshening volatile materials (mentha oil, Table 6) in a chemically cross-linked gel (polyol and isocyanate mixture, Table 6), the solid article comprising from 3% to 85%, by total weight of the solid article, of the one or more non-aqueous volatile materials comprising a perfume (20% mentha oil, Table 6) and from 15% to 97%, by total weight of the solid article, of the chemically cross-linked gel (80% polyol and isocyanate mixture, Table 6);
wherein the chemically cross-linked gel is formed by mixing one or more polyols or derivatives thereof with a cross-linking agent at a weight ratio of from 1:0.1 to 1:0.8 (60:40 weight ratio is 1:0.67, Table 6, 6th composition); wherein if the air freshening solid article comprises an isothiocyanate, the isothiocyanate is a cross-linking agent (isothiocyanate is not present in the Table 6 6th composition below).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation of “wherein the solid article is characterized by a thermal conductivity of from 0.16 W/mK to 0.2 W/mK”, the Applicant attributes the thermal conductivity as directly stemming from the polyol-to-crosslinker weight ratio (p.4, line 23 of the instant Specification). Given the non-aqueous volatile material (mentha oil) taught by Kataoka is also at a wt % that is between the disclosed range of the instant Specification (p.2, 3rd paragraph), it is apparent that there is no difference in structure to Applicant’s disclosed solid article. Thus, the 6th molded gel composition in Table 6 (highlighted above) inherently should have a thermal conductivity value of the disclosed 0.16 W/mK to 0.2 W/mK range and is thus rejected on anticipatory grounds.
Therefore, the instantly recited limitation of "wherein said solid article is characterized by a thermal conductivity of from 0.16 w/mK to 0.2 W/mK" is necessarily present in the teachings of Kataoka.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§ 2112 - 2112.02.
Therefore, in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solid article of Kataoka have a thermal conductivity of from 0.16 w/mK to 0.2 W/mK since the solid article of Kataoka appears to be substantially similar (the polyol-to-crosslinker ratio is within the disclosed range of from 1:0.1 to 1:0.8, specifically being 1:0.67, Table 6, 6th composition), and the non-aqueous volatile material (mentha oil) taught by Kataoka is also at a wt % that is between the disclosed ranges of the instant Specification).
The limitation of “wherein the interior space is subject to temperature fluctuations of at least 5°C” is directed to the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Kataoka and the gel-like resin composition of Kataoka is capable of being placed in an interior space with temperature fluctuations of at least 5°C. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, [0032] mentions potential interior spaces that the composition can be used in, namely refrigerators or a house/building room. With this variable applicability of the location (each correlating with an ambient temperature), the composition can be used in an ambient temperature fluctuation of 5°C.
Assuming arguendo, comfortable room temperature is conventionally known to have values ranging from 20°C to 25°C, which is a 5°C temperature fluctuation, but rooms can have varying ambient temperatures as long as the occupant sets it to be (e.g., 0°C to 40°C).
Per MPEP 2114,II, claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Kataoka teaches wherein the weight ratio is from 1:0.15 to 1:0.75 (60:40 ratio in Table 6, 6th composition is 1:0.67).
Regarding the limitation of “wherein said solid article is characterized by a thermal conductivity of from 0.16 W/mK to 0.19 W/mK”, the Applicant attributes the thermal conductivity as directly stemming from the polyol-to-crosslinker weight ratio (p.4, line 23 of the instant Specification). Given the non-aqueous volatile material (mentha oil) taught by Kataoka is also at a wt % that is between the disclosed range of the instant Specification, it is apparent that there is no difference in structure to Applicant’s disclosed solid article. Thus, the 6th molded gel composition in Table 6 (highlighted above) inherently should have a thermal conductivity value of the disclosed 0.16 W/mK to 0.19 W/mK range and is rejected on anticipatory grounds.
Therefore, the instantly recited limitation of "wherein said solid article is characterized by a thermal conductivity of from 0.16 w/mK to 0.19 W/mK" is necessarily present in the teachings of Kataoka.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§ 2112 - 2112.02.
Therefore, in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solid article of Kataoka have a thermal conductivity of from 0.16 w/mK to 0.19 W/mK since the solid article of Kataoka appears to be substantially similar (the polyol-to-crosslinker ratio is within the disclosed range of from 1:0.1 to 1:0.8, specifically being 1:0.67, Table 6, 6th composition, and even the non-aqueous volatile material (mentha oil) taught by Kataoka is also at a wt % that is between the disclosed ranges in the instant Specification).
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the solid article is characterized by a Day 1 Weight Loss Ratio of less than 2, the Day 1 Weight Loss Ratio being a ratio of a weight loss of the solid article at about 35 °C for one day to a weight loss of the solid article at about 21 °C for one day” is directed to the function of the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Kataoka and the gel-like resin composition of Kataoka is capable of having a Day 1 weight loss ratio of less than 2. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, in the instant Specification the Day 1 weight loss ratio being less than 2 is attributed directly and only to the “improved characteristics” of the solid article (p.5, 2nd paragraph), to which said improved characteristics are from the inherent thermal conductivity range directly affected by the polyol-to-crosslinker weight ratio as described in p.4, 3rd paragraph of the instant Specification.
Per MPEP 2114,II, claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Assuming arguendo, because the Day 1 Weight Loss Ratio has no mention of the environmental factors the composition is exposed to (temperature, humidity, pressure, time of exposure, etc.) the disclosed composition is fully capable of reaching this ratio value of less than 2 simply due to adjusted environmental parameters during this testing and subsequent ratio calculation.
Regarding claim 5, Kataoka teaches wherein said one or more polyols or derivatives thereof are selected from the group consisting of polyols (polyol, Table 6).
Regarding claim 6, Kataoka teaches wherein said cross-linking agent is a polyisocyanate (polyisocyanate, Table 6).
Regarding claim 7, Kataoka teaches wherein the solid article is a tablet (gel-like resin composition is molded into cylindrical container 1, Fig. 6, meaning the gel-like resin composition is molded to a cylinder, i.e., a cylindrical tablet).
Regarding claim 8, Kataoka teaches wherein the solid article has a first central evaporative surface (due to the cylindrical shape of the molded gel-like resin composition in container 1 of Fig. 6, the first central evaporative surface would be the upward facing circular surface of the mold), a second central evaporative surface (opposite, downward facing circular surface of the mold), and a peripheral evaporative surface between the first and second central evaporative surfaces (curved, lateral surface of the mold).
Regarding claim 10, Kataoka teaches wherein the weight ratio is 1:0.25 to 1:0.75 (60:40 ratio in Table 6, 6th composition is 1:0.67).
Regarding the limitation of “wherein said solid article is characterized by a thermal conductivity of from 0.16 W/mK to 0.18 W/mK”, the Applicant attributes the thermal conductivity as directly stemming from the polyol-to-crosslinker weight ratio (p.4, line 23 of the instant Specification). Given the non-aqueous volatile material (mentha oil) taught by Kataoka is also at a wt % that is between the disclosed range of the instant Specification, it is apparent that there is no difference in structure to Applicant’s disclosed solid article. Thus, the 6th molded gel composition in Table 6 (highlighted above) inherently should have a thermal conductivity value of the disclosed 0.16 W/mK to 0.18 W/mK range and is rejected on anticipatory grounds.
Therefore, the instantly recited limitation of "wherein said solid article is characterized by a thermal conductivity of from 0.16 w/mK to 0.18 W/mK" is necessarily present in the teachings of Kataoka.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§ 2112 - 2112.02.
Therefore, in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solid article of Kataoka have a thermal conductivity of from 0.16 w/mK to 0.18 W/mK since the solid article of Kataoka appears to be substantially similar (the polyol-to-crosslinker ratio is within the disclosed range of from 1:0.1 to 1:0.8, specifically being 1:0.67, Table 6, 6th composition, and even the non-aqueous volatile material (mentha oil) taught by Kataoka is also at a wt % that is between the disclosed ranges in the instant Specification).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation of “wherein said interior space is subject to temperature fluctuations of from 5°C to 50°C” is directed to the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Kataoka and the gel-like resin composition of Kataoka is capable of being placed in an interior space with temperature fluctuations of from 5°C to 50°C. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, [0032] mentions potential interior spaces that the composition can be used in, namely refrigerators or a house/building room. With this variable applicability of the location (each correlating with an ambient temperature), the composition can be used in an ambient temperature fluctuation of 5°C.
Assuming arguendo, comfortable room temperature is conventionally known to have values ranging from 20°C to 25°C, which is a 5°C temperature fluctuation, but rooms can have varying ambient temperatures as long as the occupant sets it to be (e.g., 0°C to 40°C).
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “wherein the Day 1 Weight Loss Ratio is less than 1.8” is directed to the function of the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Kataoka and the gel-like resin composition of Kataoka is capable of having a Day 1 weight loss ratio of less than 1.8. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, in the instant Specification the Day 1 weight loss ratio being less than 2 is attributed directly and only to the “improved characteristics” of the solid article (p.5, 2nd paragraph), to which said improved characteristics are from the inherent thermal conductivity range directly affected by the polyol-to-crosslinker weight ratio as described in p.4, 3rd paragraph of the instant Specification.
Per MPEP 2114,II, claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Assuming arguendo, because the Day 1 Weight Loss Ratio has no mention of the environmental factors the composition is exposed to (temperature, humidity, pressure, time of exposure, etc.) the disclosed composition is fully capable of reaching this ratio value of less than 1.8 simply due to adjusted environmental parameters during this testing and subsequent ratio calculation.
Regarding claim 14, Kataoka teaches wherein the one or more polyols or derivatives thereof comprises castor oil (Table 6).
Regarding claim 15, Kataoka teaches wherein the cross-linking agent comprises a polyisocyanate (polyisocyanate, Table 6).
7. Claims 4, 13, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka et al. (EP 1142959 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 8 above.
Regarding claim 4, Kataoka teaches wherein the one or more non-aqueous volatile materials are present in an amount ranging from 15% to 75% (20% mentha oil, Table 6), but fails to teach wherein the one or more non-aqueous air freshening volatile materials further comprises a deodorizing agent.
However, Kataoka mentions that “The gel-like resin molded object composition… can also be used in combination with… known deodorants for preventing bad smell” ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Table 6, 6th composition of Kataoka by further incorporating a deodorant as suggested by Kataoka, because doing so would prevent bad smell (Kataoka, [0037]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, modified Kataoka teaches wherein the one or more non-aqueous air freshening volatile materials are present in an amount ranging from 20% to 60% by total weight of the solid article (mentha oil, 20%, Table 6).
Regarding claim 16, Kataoka mentions that the gel composition is molded to whatever the shape of the container is ([0008]), exemplified by a cylindrical container embodiment shown in Fig. 6 with an open end (vent holes 3, Fig. 6). Even if the container is non-polygonal, the container and gel are circular to a degree, thus failing to teach wherein the solid article is a tablet having a non-circular and non-polygon shape.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the container (and thus, by extension, the molded gel composition shape) as desired, including non-cylindrical and non-polygonal shapes according to decorative preferences, because “the configuration of the… container is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (MPEP 2144.04.B).
Regarding claim 19, Kataoka teaches the first (upward facing circular surface of the mold, Fig. 6) and second evaporative surfaces (opposite, downward facing circular surface of the mold), but fails to mention wherein each of the first and second central evaporative surfaces is characterized by an evaporative surface area of greater than 2 cm2 and/or less than 200 cm2.
Kataoka repeatedly mentions how the volatilization rate of the active ingredient (i.e., mentha oil or allyl isothiocyanate) can be controlled based on the container the molded gel-like resin composition is contained in (e.g., [0008]), also attributing the vent hole number (i.e., exposure surface area from the container to the environment) to a volatilization rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed evaporative surface area of greater than 2 cm2 and/or less than 200 cm2 through routine optimization via manipulation of the container dimensions (i.e., directly correlated to the exposed, upper circular surface area of the molded gel-like resin composition) in order to control the volatilization rate of the drug (i.e., mentha oil), because it is known in the art that a greater surface area yields a higher interface/contact area with the environment.
Assuming arguendo, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed evaporative surface area of greater than 2 cm2 and/or less than 200 cm2 through routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success via changing the size of the container (which inherently changes the molded gel-like composition), because “mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability” (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Regarding claim 20, Kataoka teaches the first (upward facing circular surface of the mold, Fig. 6) and second evaporative surfaces (opposite, downward facing circular surface of the mold), but fails to mention wherein each of the first and second central evaporative surfaces is characterized by an evaporative surface area of greater than 6 cm2 and/or less than 60 cm2.
Kataoka repeatedly mentions how the volatilization rate of the active ingredient (i.e., mentha oil or allyl isothiocyanate) can be controlled based on the container the molded gel-like resin composition is contained in (e.g., [0008]), also attributing the vent hole number (i.e., exposure surface area from the container to the environment) to a volatilization rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed evaporative surface area of greater than 6 cm2 and/or less than 60 cm2 through routine optimization via manipulation of the container dimensions (i.e., directly correlated to the exposed, upper circular surface area of the molded gel-like resin composition) in order to control the volatilization rate of the drug (i.e., mentha oil), because it is known in the art that a greater surface area yields a higher interface/contact area with the environment.
Assuming arguendo, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed evaporative surface area of greater than 6 cm2 and/or less than 260 cm2 through routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success via changing the size of the container (which inherently changes the molded gel-like composition), because “mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability” (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
8. Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka et al. (EP 1142959 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Granger et al. (US 20100044468 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Kataoka teaches wherein the solid article is a tablet (gel-like resin composition is molded into cylindrical container 1, Fig. 6, meaning the gel-like resin composition is molded to a cylinder, i.e., a cylindrical tablet) having a first central evaporative surface (the first central evaporative surface would be the upward facing circular surface of the mold), a second central evaporative surface (opposite, downward facing circular surface of the mold), and a peripheral evaporative surface between the first and second central evaporative surfaces (curved, lateral surface of the mold).
Kataoka fails to teach wherein at least one of the first central evaporative surface and the second central evaporative surface is textured.
Granger teaches a fragrance dispenser (150, Fig. 18) with fragrance canisters (158, Fig. 18 and Fig. 30) containing a fragrance gel (220, Fig. 30) having a first central evaporative surface that the volatile fluid evaporates from (interior surface 224, Fig. 30), where the evaporative surface is undulated 224, Fig. 30 and [0089]) in order to increase the evaporative surface area, and by extension, increase the volatilization rate ([0089]).
Kataoka and Granger are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the volatilization of gel-based fragrance compositions with a first central evaporative surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first central evaporative surface of Kataoka by incorporating an undulation feature on the first central evaporative surface as taught by Granger, because doing so would increase the evaporative surface area (and by extension, increase the volatilization rate, Granger, [0089]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights