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 Amendments
Amendments
The amendment filed on 04/27/2026 has been entered.
• Claims 1-13 remain pending.
• Claims 1-2, 4,and 7 have been amended.
• Claims 14-16 are newly added.
For the purpose of this Office Action:
• Claims 1-16 are under consideration.
Claim Objections
Applicant's amendments to claim 7 have overcome each outstanding objection.
Specification
Applicant's amendments to the Specification have overcome each outstanding objection.
§112(b) Rejections
Applicant's amendments addressing the §112(b) rejections for claims 2 and 4, as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/27/2026, have overcome each of the rejections.
Claims 2 and 4: the prior indefiniteness arising from the conflicting dual recitation of broader and narrower limitations has been resolved by reciting a single limitation, there by clarifying the scope of the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 refers to the same UV filter using different nomenclature, identifying it as "Bemotrizinol" in two instances and "bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine" in two instances. In the remainder of the claim set (claims 5 and 6), the term "Bemotrizinol" is consistently used. It is therefore recommended that a single naming convention be used throughout the claims to minimize confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
[1] Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spaulding et al. (“Spaulding”) (WO2014168773A1, published 10/16/2014), as evidenced by PubChem (Ensulizole, published 07/21/2019), and PubChem-2 (Octinoxate, 01/28/2022).
With regard to claims 1-7 and 14-15, Spaulding teaches a photoprotective composition comprising at least one photoactive agent selected from the group consisting of bemotrizinol (also referred to as bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxy triazine; para. [0050]), avobenzone, p-aminobenzoic acid (PABA), octisalate, ensulizole (also referred to as 2-phenylbenzimidazole-5-sulphonic acid, as evidenced by PubChem), homosalate, octocrylene, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, and combinations thereof (claim 2; para. [0049], inter alia).
Spaulding further teaches that the at least one photoactive agents is present in an amount of about 0.1 wt.% to about 40 wt.%, based on the total weight of the composition (claim 6; para. [0010]). This range encompasses embodiments in which multiple photoactive agents are present, each within the recited concentration range (claim 6). Accordingly, Spaulding teaches combinations of photoactive agents in various weight ratios, including ratios of about 7.5:1 to about 1:1, wherein the combined total amount by weight of bemotrizinol and avobenzone present in the composition is greater than the amount by weight of the mineral UV filter(s) present. Spaulding expressly teaches bemotrizinol: avobenzone ratios of about 2:1 to about 1:1, which fall within the claimed range (claim 7).
Spaulding further teaches compositions having a critical wavelength of at least 370 nm (claims 17-18; paras. [0070]-[0071]; Table 3), a UVAPF/SPF ratio of at least 1/3 (claim 19; paras. [0076], [0079]; Table 7), and an SPF of at least 30 (Figure 1; paras. [0075]-[0077]; Tables 5-8). Accordingly, Spaulding teaches a composition that is the same as, or substantially identical to, the composition recited in the instant claims. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, the properties of the claimed composition are presumed to be the same as those of the prior art composition. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP §2112.01. Therefore, the limitations of claims 1 and 3 relating to the recited properties are met inherently. For the same reasons, Spaulding teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 14, including compositions having two or more, or all three, of the recited properties.
Spaulding further teaches forming the composition in a single phase by combining components in a single mixing stage (para. [0093]) and mixing solid UV filters (e.g., avobenzone, bemotrizinol) with liquid components and heating as needed (para. [00113]). Thus, Spaulding teaches combining bemotrizinol, avobenzone with at least one additional organic UV filter during formation of the composition, as recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed composition because Spaulding teaches the same components, overlapping concentration ranges, and overlapping ratios, and the claimed invention represents no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
With regard to claims 8, 9 and 16, Spaulding teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the challenge in balancing any number or plurality of characteristics described throughout the reference while achieving such balance without further active ingredients, i.e., such that the photoprotective composition is substantially free of oxybenzone (para. [00105]). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to omit mineral UV filters, as recited in claim 8; omit oxybenzone, octocrylene, and/ octinoxate (also referred to as octyl methoxycinnamate, as evidenced by PubChem-2), as recited in claim 9; and omit octocrylene, as recited in claim 16.
Moreover, Spaulding teaches that the UV absorbing system may comprise any combination of the disclosed UV filters (claim 2; para. [0049], inter alia). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to select subsets of the disclosed filters, including compositions excluding particular filters. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to omit mineral UV filters, as recited in claim 8; omit oxybenzone, octocrylene, and/or octinoxate (also referred to as octyl methoxycinnamate, as evidenced by PubChem-2), as recited in claim 9; and omit octocrylene, as recited in claim 16.
Such omissions constitute routine optimization and/or selection from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions and therefore would have been considered obvious design choices.
With regards to claims 10-13, Spaulding teaches that the composition may be anhydrous (claim 23; paras. [0013], [0017], and [00105], inter alia) or formulated as an emulsion (paras. [0014] and [0093]). Spaulding further teaches compositions comprising additional components, including coloring agent (claim 13; para. [00106]) and various active agents (claims 2; para. [0049], inter alia). The instant specification defines “UV filters” as sunscreen active agents, including organic UV filters (e.g., avobenzone, octocrylene) and mineral UV filters (e.g., zinc oxide, titanium dioxide) (para. 0024). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood UV filters such as avobenzone to constitute active agents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include such known active agents in the compositions of Spaulding, and claim 13 represent no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
[2] Claims 1-9 and 11-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johncock and Claus (“Johncock”) (US11723850B2, published 08/15/2023).
With regards to claims 1-7 and 14-15, Johncock teaches a sunscreen composition comprising bemotrizinol, avobenzone, p-aminobenzoic acid (PABA), meradimate, octisalate, ensulizole, homosalate, octocrylene, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, and combination thereof (claims 1, 6, and 22; cols. 3, 30-32, inter alia).
Johncock further teaches that the at least one photoactive agent is present in an amount of about 0.5 wt.% to about 40 wt.%, based on the total weight of the composition (compositions, para. 1). Johncock also teaches zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide may be used as additional UV filters in amounts ranging from about 0.1% to about 35% by weight (col. 32). These ranges encompass embodiments in which multiple photoactive agents are present, each within the recited concentration range (cols. 3-4, ibid). Accordingly, Johncock teaches combinations of photoactive agents in various weight ratios, including ratios of about 7.5:1 to about 1:1, wherein the combined amount by weight of bemotrizinol and avobenzone is greater than the amount by weight of the mineral UV filters in the composition (compositions, para. 1). Johncock expressly teaches bemotrizinol: avobenzone ratios of about 2.7:1 to about 1:1, which fall within the claimed range (claim 1).
Johncock additionally teaches multiple manufacturing procedures in which UV filters are combined together and prepared either at ambient temperature or heated to between 70-90 °C with stirring (col 47; Examples; inter alia). In one embodiment, Johncock explicitly teaches “ a method for obtaining the composition is to mix together in a suitable container Avobenzone, Bemotrizinol, Octocrylene, Homosalate and Octisalate.” These teaching demonstrate a consistent theme of directly combining the recited UV filters during formation of the composition, consistent with the claimed method of preparing the composition.
Johncock further teaches compositions having a critical wavelength of at least 370 nm (Claim 8) and a UVAPF/SPF ratio of at least 1/3 (Claim 9). Johncock also teaches compositions achieving an SPF of at least 30 (Examples 1-4, inter alia). Accordingly, Johncock teaches a composition that is the same as, or substantially identical to, the composition recited in the instant claims. Where the claimed and prior art compositions are identical or substantially identical, the properties of the claimed composition are presumed to be the same as those of the prior art composition. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP §2112.01. Therefore, the limitations of claims 1 and 3 relating to the recited properties are inherently met. For the same reasons, Johncock satisfies the limitations of claims 2 and 14, including compositions having two or more, or all three, of the recited properties.
In regard to claims 8, 9, and 16, Johncock teaches that the UV absorbing system may comprise any combination of the recited UV filters (claims 1, 6, inter alia). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select subsets of the disclosed filters. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to omit mineral UV filters, such as titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide, as recited in claim 8; omit oxybenzone, octocrylene and/or octinoxate, as recited in claim 9; and omit octocrylene, as recited in claim 16. Such omissions constitute routine selection from a finite number of identified, predictable options and therefore represent obvious design choices.
In regard to claims 11-13, Johncock teaches that the composition may be in the form of an emulsion (claims 13, 14, inter alia) and may comprise at least one coloring agent (claim 6, col. 46, para. 1, ln. 11, inter alai). The instant application identifies coloring agents as including dyes and pigments (para. [0118]). Johncock further teaches compositions comprising a variety of active agents (claim 1, inter alia). The instant specification defines “UV filters” as sunscreen active agents, including organic UV filters (e.g., avobenzone, octocrylene) and mineral UV filters (e.g., zinc oxide, titanium dioxide) (para. 0024). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood UV filters such as avobenzone to constitute active agents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include such known active agents in the compositions of Johncock, and claim 13 represent no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
[3] Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, and 13-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 9-12 of U.S. Patent No. 18/985642 in view of Spaulding et al. (“Spaulding”) (WO2014168773A1, published 10/16/2014).
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, and 13-16 of the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 9-12 of copending Application No. 18/985642 (US20250195381A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as discussed below.
The reference application teaches compositions comprising bemotrizinol and one or more organic UV filters selected from avobenzone, octisalate, Ensulizole, Homosalate, Octocrylene, and mixtures thereof (claims 1 and 5), and further comprising titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide (claim 6), wherein the compositions exhibit the same photoprotective properties and SPF value (claims 2-4). However, the copending application does not explicitly disclose specific compositional ratios or the combination of UV filters during formation of the composition.
Spaulding further teaches that the at least one photoactive agent is present in an amount of about 0.1 wt.% to about 40 wt.% based on the total weight of the composition (claim 6; para. [0010]). This range encompasses embodiments in which multiple photoactive agents are present, each within the recited concentration range (claim 6). Accordingly, Spaulding teaches combinations of photoactive agents in various weight ratios, including ratios of about 7.5:1 to about 1:1, wherein the combined amount by weight of bemotrizinol and avobenzone exceeds the amount by weight of the mineral UV filter(s) present. Spaulding expressly teaches bemotrizinol: avobenzone ratios of about 2:1 to about 1:1, which fall within the claimed range (claim 7). Spaulding additionally teaches forming the composition as a single phase by combining components in a single mixing stage (para. [0093]) and mixing solid UV filters (e.g., avobenzone, bemotrizinol) with liquid components, with heating as needed (para. [00113]). Thus, Spaulding teaches combining bemotrizinol and avobenzone with at least one additional organic UV filter during formation of the composition, as recited in claim 1. Both the instant application (paras. [0010], [0012], [0025], inter alia) and the copending application (paras. [0026], [0081]) define mineral UV filters as including zinc oxides and titanium oxides, corresponding to claims 1-4, 7, and 14-15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed composition because Spaulding teaches the same components, overlapping concentration ranges, and overlapping ratios, and the claimed invention represents no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
As a further point of clarification, paragraph [0053] of the instant application and paragraph [0056] of the copending application each state that the disclosed compositions and methods may “comprise, consist of, or consist essentially of” the recited elements and limitations, together with any additional or optional ingredients, components, or limitations. Accordingly, the addition of iron oxide in the copending application at a ratio of 1:5 relative to bemotrizinol would not exclude or disrupt other preestablished ratios under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Rather, the disclosures contemplate the addition and/or omission of optional components without materially affecting the remaining established ratios or composition parameters.
The copending application further teaches compositions that are free of oxybenzone, octinoxate, and octocrylene (claim 9), anhydrous, in the form of an emulsion, and comprising at least one active agent (claims 10-12), corresponding to instant claims 9-11, 13, and 16.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
[4] Claims 1-4 and 7-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 18/985642 in view of Spaulding et al. (“Spaulding”) (WO2014168773A1, published 10/16/2014).
Claims 1-4 and 7-15 of the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/543309 (US20250195363A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as discussed below.
The reference application teaches a compositions comprising bemotrizinol, avobenzone, organic UV filter, and mineral UV filters (claims 1, 4-7), having the same photoprotective properties and SPF value (claims 1-3). However, the copending application does not explicitly disclose specific compositional ratios or the combination of UV filters during formation of the composition.
Spaulding further teaches that the at least one photoactive agent is present in an amount of about 0.1 wt.% to about 40 wt.% based on the total weight of the composition (claim 6; para. [0010]). This range encompasses embodiments in which multiple photoactive agents are present, each within the recited concentration range (claim 6). Accordingly, Spaulding teaches combinations of photoactive agents in various weight ratios, including ratios of about 7.5:1 to about 1:1, wherein the combined amount by weight of bemotrizinol and avobenzone exceeds the amount by weight of the mineral UV filter(s) present. Spaulding expressly teaches bemotrizinol: avobenzone ratios of about 2:1 to about 1:1, which fall within the claimed range (claim 7). Spaulding additionally teaches forming the composition as a single phase by combining components in a single mixing stage (para. [0093]) and mixing solid UV filters (e.g., avobenzone, bemotrizinol) with liquid components, with heating as needed (para. [00113]). Thus, Spaulding teaches combining bemotrizinol and avobenzone with at least one additional organic UV filter during formation of the composition, as recited in claim 1. Both the instant application (paras. [0010], [0012], [0025], inter alia) and the copending application (paras. [0026], [0081]) define mineral UV filters as including zinc oxides and titanium oxides, corresponding to claims 1-4, 7, and 14-15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed composition because Spaulding teaches the same components, overlapping concentration ranges, and overlapping ratios, and the claimed invention represents no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
The reference also teaches compositions that are free of mineral UV filters (claim 8), free of oxybenzone and/or octinoxate (claim 9), anhydrous (claim 10), in the form of an emulsion (claim 11), comprising at least one coloring agent (claim 12), and comprising at least one active agent (claim 13), corresponding to instant claims 8-13.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
[5] Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 11-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-10, and 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 18/985642 in view of Spaulding et al. (“Spaulding”) (WO2014168773A1, published 10/16/2014).
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 11-15 of the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-10, and 13-15 of copending Application No. 18/543287 (US20250195362A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as discussed below.
The reference application teaches compositions comprising bemotrizinol; at least one additional organic UV filter selected from avobenzone, octisalate, ensulizole, homosalate, octocrylene, and mixtures thereof; and mineral UV filters (claim 1 and 7-8). The reference application further teaches compositions having the same photoprotective properties and SPF value (claims 5 and 6). However, the copending application does not explicitly disclose specific compositional ratios or the combination of UV filters during formation of the composition.
Spaulding further teaches that the at least one photoactive agent is present in an amount of about 0.1 wt.% to about 40 wt.% based on the total weight of the composition (claim 6; para. [0010]). This range encompasses embodiments in which multiple photoactive agents are present, each within the recited concentration range (claim 6). Accordingly, Spaulding teaches combinations of photoactive agents in various weight ratios, including ratios of about 7.5:1 to about 1:1, wherein the combined amount by weight of bemotrizinol and avobenzone exceeds the amount by weight of the mineral UV filter(s) present. Spaulding expressly teaches bemotrizinol: avobenzone ratios of about 2:1 to about 1:1, which fall within the claimed range (claim 7). Spaulding additionally teaches forming the composition as a single phase by combining components in a single mixing stage (para. [0093]) and mixing solid UV filters (e.g., avobenzone, bemotrizinol) with liquid components, with heating as needed (para. [00113]). Thus, Spaulding teaches combining bemotrizinol and avobenzone with at least one additional organic UV filter during formation of the composition, as recited in claim 1. Both the instant application (paras. [0010], [0012], [0025], inter alia) and the copending application (paras. [0026], [0081]) define mineral UV filters as including zinc oxides and titanium oxides, corresponding to claims 1-4, 7, and 14-15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed composition because Spaulding teaches the same components, overlapping concentration ranges, and overlapping ratios, and the claimed invention represents no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
As a further point of clarification, paragraph [0053] of the instant application and paragraph [0051] of the copending application each state that the disclosed compositions and methods may “comprise, consist of, or consist essentially of” the recited elements and limitations, together with any additional or optional ingredients, components, or limitations. Accordingly, the addition of a booster in the copending application at a ratio of 1:10 relative to bemotrizinol would not exclude or disrupt other preestablished ratios under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Rather, the disclosures contemplate the addition and/or omission of optional components without materially affecting the remaining established ratios or composition parameters.
The reference application further teaches compositions that are free of mineral UV filters (claim 9), free of oxybenzone and/or octinoxate (claim 10), in the form of an emulsion (claim 13), comprising at least one coloring agent (claim 14), and comprising at least one active agent (claim 15), corresponding to instant claims 8-9 and 11-13.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the claim amendments. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 USC 102 are withdrawn in favor of the new rejections under 35 USC 103. The amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection set forth in this Final Office Action.
Conclusion
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 ALI M ALAOUIE whose telephone number is 571-272-0844. The examiner can normally be reached Flextime: (M-TH) 7:30 am 6:30 pm.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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, vis it: 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.
/ALI M. ALAOUIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights