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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/20/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that the figures of Han cannot be relied upon because they are not drawn to scale, however, Han clearly displays the concentric arc marked by a ring. Furthermore, one would have to assume a more complex arrangement than that displayed in the figures. Further still, MPEP 2125 II recites that figures are unreliable in regards to proportions of relative elements and measurements, not their arrangement as the art is applied. Indeed, MPEP 2125 I recites that drawings can be relied upon as prior art and that “the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together.” Applicant argues that the extra cavities and bores within Han would render it unable to meet the limitation of claim 1 because not each and every bore is on the circular arc. However, the claim states “Each die insert comprises a plurality of working bores… wherein each of the plurality of working bores are disposed along a circular arc centered at the rotation axis that passes through a center of the respective die insert.” As comprising does not omit other elements such as a 2nd plurality of working bores, the pair of bores in Han would meet the claim. Considering the 2 disposed on the arc as the plurality described in the claim and the remaining inner and outer bores as part of a different plurality, the claim would still be met. Applicant argues that modifying Klaer with Han would change its mode of operation, but this presumes that Klaer would eliminate the inner and outer bores and arrange them both on the same concentric circle, but Han clearly demonstrates it is possible to have inner and outer bores in addition to 2 bores arranged with the 2 bores on the same concentric circle.
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 4 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.
The term “standard fixation” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what standard the fixation is held or how one would determine whether the standard is met.
This was interpreted to mean any configuration that allowed an insert to be placed within the recess.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-6, 17-20, 22, 24, 25 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 Han (CN 202573048).
As to claims 1 and 25, Han teaches a tableting device [Fig 1, 2] comprising a rotary turret with a rotation axis [Fig 1-2] including: - an upper receptacle body (12) provided with reciprocating upper punches (31),- a lower receptacle body (table below 13) provided with reciprocating lower punches (32), - a die table (18), - die inserts (14);wherein the die table (11) is provided with receiving recesses, in which the die inserts are arranged [Fig 1, 2, 5]; wherein the die insert (14) and the receiving recesses have a complementary form [Fig 2]; wherein each die insert (14) comprises at least one circular cylindrical outer surface with a die insert outer diameter (N), the at least one circular cylindrical outer surface facing an inner surface of the corresponding receiving recess [Fig 3-5], wherein each die insert (14) comprises a pair of working bores (141), in which a pair of directly adjacent upper punches (12, 13) respectively reciprocate in use, and in which a corresponding pair of directly adjacent lower punches (14, 15) respectively reciprocate in use [0008, Fig 1-8]. Han teaches that a circular arc of the rotation axis passes through a center of the respective die insert [Fig 1-8] but does not explicitly state that each of the pair of working bores are disposed along the circular arc. Han teaches a rotary tableting press [Abstract, 0002, 0004] wherein each die insert contains 4 bores ie a pair a bores and 2 further bores that are arranged around the same pitch circle wherein 1 pair is disposed along the circular arc centered at the rotation axis and substantially equally spaced about the rotation axis as this allows for more tablets to be produced simultaneously [0010, 0022, Fig 2, 5]. As to claim 2, Klaer teaches each upper (12, 13) or lower (14, 15) punch comprises a single tip (the top and bottom edges of the punches that are received in the bore) adapted to reciprocate within the corresponding working bore [0086-0090, Fig 2-8]. Han teaches the die inserts (14) are inserted into the receiving recesses of the table as they are 2 parts as depicted in [Fig 1] and would have to be inserted at some point [Fig 1].
Furthermore, omission of an element and its function, in this case the extra bores in Han and their capacity to make tablets, is generally recognized to be obvious see MPEP 2144.04 II A.
As to claim 3, Han teaches each upper or lower punch is a single piece [Fig 3-5].
As to claim 4, Han teaches a die insert (14) fixed with the recess of the table [Fig 1]. As it is not noted to be unconventional, it is presumable standard tooling.
As to claim 5, Han teaches the pair of working bores is a pair of through bores opening on an upper and a lower face of the corresponding die insert [Fig 1, 2].
As to claim 6, Han teaches the die table comprises an upper and a lower face, wherein each die insert upper face is flush with the die table upper face [Fig 1, 2].
As to claim 14, Han the barrel diameter of the punches is less than 45% of the die insert outer diameter [Fig 3-5]
As to claim 17, Han teaches each die insert is a single piece [Fig 5].
As to claim 18, Han teaches the die insert is adapted to be inserted in a direction parallel to the rotation axis [Fig 1, 2].
As to claim 19, Han teaches the at least one circular cylindrical outer surface encircles the pair of working bores [Fig 5].
As to claim 20, Han teaches the inner surface is a closed surface [Fig 1, 2].
As to claim 22, Han teaches the number of lower or upper punches is a positive integer multiple of the number of die inserts [Fig 1, 2, 5].
As to claim 24, Han teaches the center of each part of the working bores on each die insert is disposed along the circular arc centered at the rotation axis [Fig 1, 2].
Claims 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (CN 202573048).
As to claim 10, Han teaches each die insert comprises 4 working bores [Fig 1-5], however, elimination of a part and it’s function, in this case the extra tablet capacity created by the extra bores and punches, is generally recognized to be obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 II A.
As to claim 11, Han teaches wherein the number of working bores four times the number of die inserts but eliminating the extra 2 bores per die insert to obtain twice the number of die inserts is just an omission of an element and its function. Elimination of a part and it’s function, in this case the extra tablet capacity created by the extra bores and punches, is generally recognized to be obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 II A.
Claims 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (CN 202573048) in view of Kramer (US 2008/0145468).
As to claims 7 and 8, Han teaches a circular cylindrical surfaces but does not explicitly state wherein the at least one circular cylindrical outer surface comprises a first circular cylindrical outer surface and a second cylindrical outer surface positioned below said first circular cylindrical outer surface, said first and second circular cylindrical outer surfaces having the same outer diameter and each die insert comprises an annular outer groove positioned between the first and the second circular cylindrical outer surfaces.
Kramer teaches a rotary tablet press [abstract] wherein the die contains cutouts sections (12 but also lower one above 29) ie a recess/annular outer groove positioned between 2 outer surfaces with the same outer diameter [0019-0021], as this configuration had proven successful in a rotary press and allowed for the inserts to be rotated 180 degrees [0019-0021]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Han and had the at least one circular cylindrical outer surface comprises a first circular cylindrical outer surface and a second cylindrical outer surface positioned below said first circular cylindrical outer surface, said first and second circular cylindrical outer surfaces having the same outer diameter and each die insert comprises an annular outer groove positioned between the first and the second circular cylindrical outer surfaces, as suggested by Kramer, this configuration had proven successful in a rotary press and allowed for the inserts to be rotated 180 degrees.
Claims 9, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (CN 202573048) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
As to claims 9 and 13, Han does not explicitly state each die insert (40) has an outer lateral surface, the dimensions of which meet the requirements of standard ISO 18084:2011(E) and wherein the diameter of the at least one outer surface (44, 46) is a value selected from 38.1, 30.16, 24 or 21 mm.
On Page 9 of specification applicant provides that ISO 18084:2011(E) is prior art, indeed the standard was published in 2011 and such dimensions are noted as standard tooling. AAPA notes that ISO 18084:2011(E) teaches the diameter of the at least one outer surface (44, 46) is a value selected from 38.1, 30.16, 24 or 21 mm [Table 2, Page 10]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Han and had the die insert (40) has an outer lateral surface, the dimensions of which meet the requirements of standard ISO 18084:2011(E) and wherein the diameter of the at least one outer surface (44, 46) is a value selected from 38.1, 30.16, 24 or 21 mm, as suggested by AAPA, in order to meet the dimensions of standard tooling.
As to claim 14, Han teaches a barrel portion that is less than 45% of the die insert outer diameter, see above.
Alternatively, On Page 9 of specification applicant provides that ISO 18084:2011(E) is prior art, indeed the standard was published in 2011 and such dimensions are noted as standard tooling. AAPA notes that ISO 18084:2011(E) teaches each upper or lower punch comprises a barrel portion for guiding said punch in the respective upper or lower receptacle body, said barrel portion comprising a cylindrical outer surface with a barrel diameter (D1), wherein the barrel diameter is approximately 49% of the die insert outer diameter (N). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Han and the barrel diameter be 49% of the die insert outer diameter, as suggested by AAPA, in order to meet the dimensions of standard tooling. 49% is so close to 45% that one of ordinary skill the art would expect them to have the same properties, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
As to claim 16, Han does not explicitly state the diameter of the lower or upper punch tip is lower than or equal to the barrel diameter (D1).
On Page 9 of specification applicant provides that ISO 18084:2011(E) is prior art, indeed the standard was published in 2011 and such dimensions are noted as standard tooling. AAPA notes that ISO 18084:2011(E) teaches the diameter of the lower or upper punch tip is lower than or equal to the barrel diameter [Table 1, Table 2 Page 9,10]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Han and had the diameter of the lower or upper punch tip is lower than or equal to the barrel diameter (D1), as suggested by AAPA, in order to meet the dimensions of standard tooling.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (CN 202573048) in view of Facchini (IT 1238958).
As to claim 12, Han teaches the recesses have inner circular cylindrical inner surface but does not explicitly state each receiving recess, the inner surface is a first circular cylindrical inner surface positioned above a second circular cylindrical inner surface of said recess, said first and second surfaces having the same diameter.
Facchini teaches the rotary tablet punch device [Abstract] the recess contains 2 separate surfaces with the same diameter [Fig 3] which allows for a feeding channel that feeds material to the bores to form into tablets [0023-0025]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Han and had each receiving recess (32), the inner surface is a first circular cylindrical inner surface (34) positioned above a second circular cylindrical inner surface (36) of said recess (32), said first (34) and second (36) surfaces having the same diameter, as suggested by Facchini, in order to provide a feeding channel to provide material to be tableted.
Claims 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (CN 202573048) in view of Schikowski (US 2009/0269433).
As to claims 15 and 23, Han does not explicitly state the barrel diameter (D1) is less than 14 mm, more preferably less than 12.5 mm.
Schikowski teaches a punch for a rotary press wherein the shaft, ie barrel portion is less than 12 mm [0022] as punches with these dimensions lowered noise emission and wear [0015]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Han and had the barrel diameter be 12 mm, as suggested by Schikowski, in order to lower noise emission and wear.
Claims 1-6, 10, 11, 17-20, 22, 24, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaer (US 2019/0099972) in view of Han (CN 202573048).
As to claims 1 and 25, Klaer teaches a tableting device (2) comprising a rotary turret with a rotation axis [Fig 1-8] including: - an upper receptacle body (17) provided with reciprocating upper punches (10, 12, 13),- a lower receptacle body (19) provided with reciprocating lower punches (11, 14, 15), - a die table (18), - die inserts (16);wherein the die table (30) is provided with receiving recesses, in which the die inserts are arranged; wherein the die inserts and the receiving recesses (18) have a complementary form; wherein each die insert (16) comprises at least one circular cylindrical outer surface (44, 46) with a die insert outer diameter (N), the at least one circular cylindrical outer surface (44, 46) facing an inner surface of the corresponding receiving recess, wherein each die insert (16) comprises a pair of working bores (32, 33), in which a pair of directly adjacent upper punches (12, 13) respectively reciprocate in use, and in which a corresponding pair of directly adjacent lower punches (14, 15) respectively reciprocate in use [0086-0090, Fig 2-8]. Klaer teaches that a circular arc of the rotation axis passes through a center of the respective die insert [Fig 1-8] but does not explicitly state that each of the pair of working bores are disposed along the circular arc.
Han teaches a rotary tableting press [Abstract, 0002, 0004] wherein each die insert contains 4 bores ie a pair a bores and 2 further bores that are arranged around the same pitch circle wherein 1 pair is disposed along the circular arc centered at the rotation axis and substantially equally spaced about the rotation axis as this allows for more tablets to be produced simultaneously [0010, 0022, Fig 2, 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Klaer and had 1 pair is disposed along the circular arc centered at the rotation axis, as suggested by Han, in order to be produce more tablets simultaneously.
As to claim 2, Klaer teaches each upper (12, 13) or lower (14, 15) punch comprises a single tip (the top and bottom edges of the punches that are received in the bore) adapted to reciprocate within the corresponding working bore [0086-0090, Fig 2-8].
As to claim 3, Klaer teaches each upper (12, 13) or lower (14, 15) punch is a single piece [0086-0090, Fig 2-8].
As to claim 4, Klaer teaches according to wherein the pair of working bores is arranged circumferentially about the rotation axis [Fig 2-8].
As to claim 5, Klaer teaches the pair of working bores is a pair of through bores opening on an upper and a lower face of the corresponding die insert [Fig 2-8].
As to claim 6, Klaer teaches the die table comprises an upper and a lower face, wherein each die insert upper face is flush with the die table upper face [Fig 2].
As to claim 10, Klaer teaches each die insert comprises only two working bores [Fig 2].
As to claim 11, Klaer teaches wherein the number of working bores is twice the number of die inserts [Fig 2].
As to claim 14, the barrel diameter of the punches is less than 45% of the die insert outer diameter [Fig 2]
As to claim 17, Klaer teaches each die insert is a single piece [Fig 2-8].
As to claim 18, Klaer teaches the die insert is adapted to be inserted in a direction parallel to the rotation axis [Fig 2-8].
As to claim 19, Klaer teaches the at least one circular cylindrical outer surface (44, 46) encircles the pair of working bores (42) [Fig 2-8].
As to claim 20, Klaer teaches the inner surface is a closed surface [Fig 2-8].
As to claim 22, Klaer teaches the number of lower or upper punches is a positive integer multiple of the number of die inserts [Fig 2-8].
As to claim 24, Klaer teaches the center of each part of the working bores on each die insert is disposed along the circular arc centered at the rotation axis [Fig 2-8]. This feature would also be additionally taught by Han and incorporated in the combination of Klaer and Han.
Claims 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaer (US 2019/0099972) in view of Han (CN 202573048), as applied to claims 1-6, 10, 11, 17-20, 22, 24, 25 above, and in further view of Kramer (US 2008/0145468).
As to claims 7 and 8, Klaer teaches a circular cylindrical surfaces but does not explicitly state wherein the at least one circular cylindrical outer surface comprises a first circular cylindrical outer surface and a second cylindrical outer surface positioned below said first circular cylindrical outer surface, said first and second circular cylindrical outer surfaces having the same outer diameter and each die insert comprises an annular outer groove positioned between the first and the second circular cylindrical outer surfaces.
Kramer teaches a rotary tablet press [abstract] wherein the die contains cutouts sections (12 but also lower one above 29) ie a recess/annular outer groove positioned between 2 outer surfaces with the same outer diameter [0019-0021], as this configuration had proven successful in a rotary press and allowed for the inserts to be rotated 180 degrees [0019-0021]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Klaer and had the at least one circular cylindrical outer surface comprises a first circular cylindrical outer surface and a second cylindrical outer surface positioned below said first circular cylindrical outer surface, said first and second circular cylindrical outer surfaces having the same outer diameter and each die insert comprises an annular outer groove positioned between the first and the second circular cylindrical outer surfaces, as suggested by Kramer, this configuration had proven successful in a rotary press and allowed for the inserts to be rotated 180 degrees.
Claims 9, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaer (US 2019/0099972) in view of Han (CN 202573048), as applied to claims 1-6, 10, 11, 17-20, 22, 24, 25 above, and in further view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
As to claims 9 and 13, Klaer does not explicitly state each die insert (40) has an outer lateral surface, the dimensions of which meet the requirements of standard ISO 18084:2011(E) and wherein the diameter of the at least one outer surface (44, 46) is a value selected from 38.1, 30.16, 24 or 21 mm.
On Page 9 of specification applicant provides that ISO 18084:2011(E) is prior art, indeed the standard was published in 2011 and such dimensions are noted as standard tooling. AAPA notes that ISO 18084:2011(E) teaches the diameter of the at least one outer surface (44, 46) is a value selected from 38.1, 30.16, 24 or 21 mm [Table 2, Page 10]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Klaer and had the die insert (40) has an outer lateral surface, the dimensions of which meet the requirements of standard ISO 18084:2011(E) and wherein the diameter of the at least one outer surface (44, 46) is a value selected from 38.1, 30.16, 24 or 21 mm, as suggested by AAPA, in order to meet the dimensions of standard tooling.
As to claim 14, Klaer teaches a barrel portion that is less than 45% of the die insert outer diameter, see above.
Alternatively, On Page 9 of specification applicant provides that ISO 18084:2011(E) is prior art, indeed the standard was published in 2011 and such dimensions are noted as standard tooling. AAPA notes that ISO 18084:2011(E) teaches each upper or lower punch comprises a barrel portion for guiding said punch in the respective upper or lower receptacle body, said barrel portion comprising a cylindrical outer surface with a barrel diameter (D1), wherein the barrel diameter is approximately 49% of the die insert outer diameter (N). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Klaer and the barrel diameter be 49% of the die insert outer diameter, as suggested by AAPA, in order to meet the dimensions of standard tooling. 49% is so close to 45% that one of ordinary skill the art would expect them to have the same properties, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
As to claim 16, Klaer does not explicitly state the diameter of the lower or upper punch tip is lower than or equal to the barrel diameter (D1).
On Page 9 of specification applicant provides that ISO 18084:2011(E) is prior art, indeed the standard was published in 2011 and such dimensions are noted as standard tooling. AAPA notes that ISO 18084:2011(E) teaches the diameter of the lower or upper punch tip is lower than or equal to the barrel diameter [Table 1, Table 2 Page 9,10]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Klaer and had the diameter of the lower or upper punch tip is lower than or equal to the barrel diameter (D1), as suggested by AAPA, in order to meet the dimensions of standard tooling.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaer (US 2019/0099972) in view of Han (CN 202573048), as applied to claims 1-6, 10, 11, 17-20, 22, 24, 25 above, and in further view of Facchini (IT 1238958).
As to claim 12, Klaer teaches the recesses have inner circular cylindrical inner surface but does not explicitly state each receiving recess (32), the inner surface is a first circular cylindrical inner surface (34) positioned above a second circular cylindrical inner surface (36) of said recess (32), said first (34) and second (36) surfaces having the same diameter.
Facchini teaches the rotary tablet punch device [Abstract] the recess contains 2 separate surfaces with the same diameter [Fig 3] which allows for a feeding channel that feeds material to the bores to form into tablets [0023-0025]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Klaer and had each receiving recess (32), the inner surface is a first circular cylindrical inner surface (34) positioned above a second circular cylindrical inner surface (36) of said recess (32), said first (34) and second (36) surfaces having the same diameter, as suggested by Facchini, in order to provide a feeding channel to provide material to be tableted.
Claims 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaer (US 2019/0099972) in view of Han (CN 202573048), as applied to claims 1-6, 10, 11, 17-20, 22, 24, 25 above, and in further view of Schikowski (US 2009/0269433).
As to claims 15 and 23, Klaer does not explicitly state the barrel diameter (D1) is less than 14 mm, more preferably less than 12.5 mm.
Schikowski teaches a punch for a rotary press wherein the shaft, ie barrel portion is less than 12 mm [0022] as punches with these dimensions lowered noise emission and wear [0015]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Klaer and had the barrel diameter be 12 mm, as suggested by Schikowski, in order to lower noise emission and wear.
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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights