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 .
The amendment filed October 3, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-15 are pending in the application. Claims 7 and 12 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the chew-out rate is assessed by determining a nitrogen content remaining after a 12-minute chew-out of a fresh sample” at lines 2-3. It is uncertain what is intended by this recitation. More specifically, it is unclear what a fresh sample encompasses. Therefore, the scope of claim 15 is indefinite. For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “a fresh sample” at line 3 of claim 15 is interpreted as “a fresh sample of the coated chewing gum” (emphasis added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunematsu et al. WO 2013183767 (hereinafter “Tsunematsu”) (refer to the corresponding machine translation) in view of Yin et al. CN 113907166 (hereinafter “Yin”) (refer to the corresponding machine translation).
With respect to claim 1, Tsunematsu teaches a coated chewing gum composition (paragraphs [0001], [0019], and [0020]).
Regarding the recitation of comprising vitamin C, vitamin E, and collagen in an amount of from about 6% to about 20% by weight of the coated chewing gum in claim 1, Tsunematsu teaches the coated chewing gum composition comprises ascorbic acid (vitamin C), vitamin E, and collagen (paragraphs [0001], [0003], [0014], [0015], [0017], [0020], [0021], and [0024]).
However, Tsunematsu does not expressly disclose the amount of collagen in the coated chewing gum composition.
Yin teaches a coated health care confection. The confection comprises vitamin C, vitamin E, and 0.001-20g/100 g (0.001-20%) of collagen based on the weight of the product (paragraphs [0001], [0017], [0018], and [0027]; and P10-P11, claims 1 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any portions of the disclosed range, including the instantly claimed range of collagen, from the range disclosed in the prior art with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Tsunematsu and Yin similarly teach coated confections comprising similar ingredients, Tsunematsu teaches the amount of collagen can be appropriately adjusted in consideration of the effect thereof (paragraph [0034]), and Yin teaches the health care composition has uniform content and accurate dosage (paragraph [0033]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. "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 percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages " In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the coated chewing gum comprises a coating and a chewing gum center, and further wherein the vitamin C is included in the chewing gum center and the vitamin E is included in the coating in claim 1, Tsunematsu teaches the coated chewing gum composition comprises a chewing gum center and a coating. Vitamin E is in the coating and ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is present in the center (paragraphs [0003], [0007], [0014], [0015], [0019], [0020], [0024], [0026], and [0035]).
With respect to claim 2, modified Tsunematsu is relied upon for the teaching of the coated chewing gum of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the coated chewing gum comprises collagen in an amount of from about 6.1% to about 18.5% by weight of the coated chewing gum in claim 2, Tsunematsu as modified by Yin teaches the limitation since Tsunematsu teaches the coated chewing gum comprises collagen (paragraphs [0014], [0015], [0017], [0020], and [0021]),Yin is relied upon for the teaching of the collagen content as addressed above in claim 1, and Yin teaches the composition comprises 0.001-20g/100 g (0.001-20%) of collagen (P10-P11, claims 1 and 4). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 3, modified Tsunematsu is relied upon for the teaching of the coated chewing gum of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the coated chewing gum comprises vitamin C in an amount of at least 0.2% by weight of the coated chewing gum in claim 3, Tsunematsu does not expressly disclose the content of ascorbic acid (vitamin C).
Yin teaches a coated health care confection. The confection comprises vitamin E, collagen, and 0.001-5g/100 g (0.001-5%) of vitamin C (antioxidant) based on the weight of the product (paragraphs [0001], [0017], [0018], and [0027]; and P10-P11, claims 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any portions of the disclosed range, including the instantly claimed range of vitamin C, from the range disclosed in the prior art with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Tsunematsu and Yin similarly teach coated confections comprising similar ingredients, Tsunematsu teaches utilizing the antioxidant ascorbic acid in the composition (paragraphs [0003] and [0024]), and Yin teaches the health care composition has good taste and stability (paragraph [0036]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. "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 percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages " In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claim 4, modified Tsunematsu is relied upon for the teaching of the coated chewing gum of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the coated chewing gum comprises vitamin C in an amount of about 0.296% by weight of the coated chewing gum in claim 4, Tsunematsu does not expressly disclose the content of ascorbic acid (vitamin C).
Yin teaches a coated health care confection. The confection comprises vitamin E, collagen, and 0.001-5g/100 g (0.001-5%) of vitamin C (antioxidant) based on the weight of the product (paragraphs [0001], [0017], [0018], and [0027]; and P10-P11, claims 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any portions of the disclosed range, including the instantly claimed quantity of vitamin C, from the range disclosed in the prior art with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Tsunematsu and Yin similarly teach coated confections comprising similar ingredients, Tsunematsu teaches utilizing the antioxidant ascorbic acid in the composition (paragraphs [0003] and [0024]), and Yin teaches the health care composition has good taste and stability (paragraph [0036]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. "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 percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages " In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claim 5, modified Tsunematsu is relied upon for the teaching of the coated chewing gum of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the coated chewing gum comprises vitamin E in an amount of at least 0.1% by weight of the coated chewing gum in claim 5, Tsunematsu does not expressly disclose the content of vitamin E.
Yin teaches a coated health care confection. The confection comprises vitamin C, collagen, and 0.001-5g/100 g (0.001-5%) of vitamin E based on the weight of the product (paragraphs [0001], [0017], [0018], and [0027]; and P10-P11, claims 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any portions of the disclosed range, including the instantly claimed range of vitamin E, from the range disclosed in the prior art with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Tsunematsu and Yin similarly teach coated confections comprising similar ingredients, Tsunematsu teaches the amount of vitamin E can be appropriately adjusted in consideration of the effect thereof (paragraph [0034]), and Yin teaches the health care composition has uniform content and accurate dosage (paragraph [0033]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. "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 percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages " In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claim 6, modified Tsunematsu is relied upon for the teaching of the coated chewing gum of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the coated chewing gum comprises vitamin E in an amount of about 0.167% by weight of the coated chewing gum in claim 6, Tsunematsu does not expressly disclose the content of vitamin E.
Yin teaches a coated health care confection. The confection comprises vitamin C, collagen, and 0.001-5g/100 g (0.001-5%) of vitamin E based on the weight of the product (paragraphs [0001], [0017], [0018], and [0027]; and P10-P11, claims 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any portions of the disclosed range, including the instantly claimed quantity of vitamin E, from the range disclosed in the prior art with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Tsunematsu and Yin similarly teach coated confections comprising similar ingredients, Tsunematsu teaches the amount of vitamin E can be appropriately adjusted in consideration of the effect thereof (paragraph [0034]), and Yin teaches the health care composition has uniform content and accurate dosage (paragraph [0033]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. "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 percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages " In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claim 8, modified Tsunematsu is relied upon for the teaching of the coated chewing gum of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the chewing gum center comprises collagen in an amount of from about 8% to about 25% by weight of the chewing gum center in claim 8, Tsunematsu as modified by Yin teaches the limitation since Tsunematsu teaches the coated chewing gum comprises a coating and a chewing gum center (70% of the composition) and the collagen is present in the center (paragraphs [0014], [0015], [0017], [0019]-[0021], and [0044]),Yin is relied upon for the teaching of the collagen content as addressed above in claim 1, and Yin teaches the composition comprises 0.001-20g/100 g (0.001-20%) of collagen (P10-P11, claims 1 and 4). Thus the amount of collagen in the chewing gum center is about 0.0007% to about 14% (calculated from [70 g center x (0.001 g and 20 g collagen)] x 100). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 9, modified Tsunematsu is relied upon for the teaching of the coated chewing gum of claim 8 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the chewing gum center comprises collagen in an amount of from about 8.33% to about 25% by weight of the chewing gum center in claim 9, Tsunematsu as modified by Yin teaches the limitation since Tsunematsu teaches the coated chewing gum comprises a coating and a chewing gum center (70% of the composition) and the collagen is present in the center (paragraphs [0014], [0015], [0017], [0019]-[0021], and [0044]),Yin is relied upon for the teaching of the collagen content as addressed above in claim 1, and Yin teaches the composition comprises 0.001-20g/100 g (0.001-20%) of collagen (P10-P11, claims 1 and 4). Thus the amount of collagen in the chewing gum center is about 0.0007% to about 14% (calculated from [70 g center x (0.001 g and 20 g collagen)] x 100). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 10, modified Tsunematsu is relied upon for the teaching of the coated chewing gum of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the chewing gum center comprises vitamin C in an amount of at least 0.1% by weight of the chewing gum center in claim 10, Tsunematsu teaches the coated chewing gum comprises a coating and a chewing gum center (70% of the composition) and the ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is present in the center (paragraphs [0003], [0019]-[0020], [0024], and [0044]).
However, Tsunematsu does not expressly disclose the content of ascorbic acid (vitamin C).
Yin teaches a coated health care confection. The confection comprises vitamin E, collagen, and 0.001-5g/100 g (0.001-5%) of vitamin C (antioxidant) based on the weight of the product (paragraphs [0001], [0017], [0018], and [0027]; and P10-P11, claims 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any portions of the range of about 0.0007% to about 3.5% of vitamin C (calculated from [70 g center x (0.001 g and 5 g collagen)] x 100), including the instantly claimed range of vitamin C, from the prior art with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Tsunematsu and Yin similarly teach coated confections comprising similar ingredients, Tsunematsu teaches utilizing the antioxidant ascorbic acid in the composition (paragraphs [0003] and [0024]), and Yin teaches the health care composition has good taste and stability (paragraph [0036]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. "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 percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages " In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claim 11, modified Tsunematsu is relied upon for the teaching of the coated chewing gum of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the chewing gum center comprises vitamin C in an amount of about 0.4% by weight of the chewing gum center in claim 11, Tsunematsu teaches the coated chewing gum comprises a coating and a chewing gum center (70% of the composition) and the ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is present in the center (paragraphs [0003], [0019]-[0020], [0024], and [0044]).
However, Tsunematsu does not expressly disclose the content of ascorbic acid (vitamin C).
Yin teaches a coated health care confection. The confection comprises vitamin E, collagen, and 0.001-5g/100 g (0.001-5%) of vitamin C (antioxidant) based on the weight of the product (paragraphs [0001], [0017], [0018], and [0027]; and P10-P11, claims 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any portions of the range of about 0.0007% to about 3.5% of vitamin C (calculated from [70 g center x (0.001 g and 5 g collagen)] x 100), including the instantly claimed vitamin C content, from the prior art with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Tsunematsu and Yin similarly teach coated confections comprising similar ingredients, Tsunematsu teaches utilizing the antioxidant ascorbic acid in the composition (paragraphs [0003] and [0024]), and Yin teaches the health care composition has good taste and stability (paragraph [0036]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. "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 percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages " In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claim 13, modified Tsunematsu is relied upon for the teaching of the coated chewing gum of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the coated chewing gum is a sugarless chewing gum in claim 13, modified Tsunematsu teaches this limitation since Tsunematsu teaches the composition comprises non-reducing sugar(s) such as sugar alcohols (paragraphs [0007], [0022], [0023], and [0029]).
With respect to claim 14, modified Tsunematsu is relied upon for the teaching of the coated chewing gum of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the collagen is located in the chewing gum center in claim 14, modified Tsunematsu teaches the limitation since Tsunematsu teaches the collagen is present in the center (paragraphs [0014], [0015], [0017], [0019]-[0021], and [0044]).
With respect to claim 15, modified Tsunematsu is relied upon for the teaching of the coated chewing gum of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the coated chewing gum has a chew-out rate that is between 92-98%, wherein the chew-out rate is assessed by determining a nitrogen content remaining after a 12-minute chew-out of a fresh sample of the coated chewing gum in claim 15, it is noted that this recitation relates to functional language. Applicant is reminded that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. See MPEP 2103 and 2111.04.
Absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the coated chewing gum would naturally arrive at this claimed feature since this characteristic is a function of the ingredients present in the coated chewing gum, a coating gum comprising vitamin C, vitamin E, and collagen and their quantities as presently claimed has been shown to be obvious in view of modified Tsunematsu as addressed above in claim 1, and Tsunematsu teaches the coated chewing gum comprising the functional components (vitamin C, vitamin E, and collagen) is capable of efficiently delivering the functional components (paragraphs [0001], [0006], [0014], [0015], [0017], [0020], [0021], and [0024]). Additionally, there is no structural difference between the composition of claim 1 and the composition of modified Tsunematsu. Applicant is reminded the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or a product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP 2111.04.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed October 3, 2025 are acknowledged.
Due to the amendments to the claims, the claim objections in the previous Office Action have been withdrawn (P5). However, the 35 USC 112 rejection above is necessitated by the amendments made to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the cited references fail to disclose or suggest, inter alia, “wherein the coated chewing gum comprises a coating and a chewing gum center, and further wherein the vitamin C is included in the chewing gum center and the vitamin E is included in the coating,” as recited in the amended independent claim. Tsunematsu teaches away from including vitamin C in the solid food center, as it expressly cautions against such inclusion to avoid the Maillard reaction at the contact surface between the solid food and the coating. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Tsunematsu to include vitamin C in the center of the solid food, since Tsunematsu criticizes and discourages this very approach to prevent the Maillard reaction. Yin does not teach a composition with a center and a coating, and thus fails to cure the deficiencies of Tsunematsu (P5-P6).
Examiner disagrees. Modified Tsunematsu teaches the claimed invention. As previously addressed, Tsunematsu teaches the coated chewing gum composition comprises a chewing gum center and a coating. Vitamin E is in the coating and ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is present in the center (paragraphs [0003], [0007], [0014], [0015], [0019], [0020], [0024], [0026], and [0035]). Tsunematsu does not teach away from including vitamin C in the solid food center. In fact, Tsunematsu discourages the inclusion of vitamin C in the coating since Tsunematsu teaches it is preferable that ascorbic acid is not blended in the coating layer (paragraph [0031]). Additionally, Tsunematsu teaches ascorbic acid as a antioxidant and functional components may be added to the solid food (paragraphs [0014], [0021], and [0024]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed composition from the teachings of Tsunematsu. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Although Tsunematsu does not expressly disclose the claimed quantity of collagen, Yin is relied upon for these teaching as addressed above in claim 1. While Yin does not disclose all the features of the presently claimed invention, Yin is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
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 TYNESHA L. MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 PM ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/T.L.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights