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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed September 20, 2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 are pending in the application. Claims 1-12 will be examined.
Priority
This application is a National Stage Entry of PCT/IN2022/050280 filed March 22, 2022, which claims benefit to India Foreign Application No. 202141012166 filed March 22, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt of Information Statements filed September 20, 2023 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 12 are 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 2 recites “carboxylic acids are selected from a group comprising formic acid, acetic acid…ferulic acid and their salts”. As the claim is written, the claim can be interpreted as the inclusion of all of the carboxylic acids claimed in the composition. However, the use of the phrase “selected from a group” and “and” is Markush language, which suggests that the listing of carboxylic acids are in the alternative. The use of the term “comprising” is open-ended and contrary to proper Markush language. As such, the carboxylic acid listed are being interpreted as a Markush grouping, which should be a closed grouping, limited to the carboxylic acids listed. The claims should be written as: “carboxylic acids are selected from a group consisting of formic acid, acetic acid…ferulic acid and their salts”.
Regarding claim 2, line 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if phenols, salicylic acid…gallic acids, and their salts are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is dependent from claim 2 and is therefore, also rejected.
Claim 4 recites “plant growth hormones are selected from a group comprising auxin, cytokinin… and Jasmonic acid”. As the claim is written, the claim can be interpreted as the inclusion of all of the plant growth hormones claimed in the composition. However, the use of the phrase “selected from a group” and “and” is Markush language, which suggests that the listing of carboxylic acids are in the alternative. The use of the term “comprising” is open-ended and contrary to proper Markush language. As such, the plant growth hormones listed are being interpreted as a Markush grouping, which should be a closed grouping, limited to the plant growth hormones listed. The claims should be written as: “plant growth hormones are selected from a group consisting of auxin, cytokinin… and Jasmonic acid”.
Claim 5 is dependent from claim 4 and is therefore, also rejected.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the phenolic compounds are selected from a group comprising phenols, polyphenols… and phenol containing substances”. As the claim is written, the claim can be interpreted as the inclusion of all of the phenolic compounds claimed in the composition. However, the use of the phrase “selected from a group” and “and” is Markush language, which suggests that the listing of phenolic compounds are in the alternative. The use of the term “comprising” is open-ended and contrary to proper Markush language. As such, the phenolic compounds listed are being interpreted as a Markush grouping, which should be a closed grouping, limited to the phenolic compounds listed. The claims should be written as: “wherein the phenolic compounds are selected from a group consisting of phenols, polyphenols… and phenol containing substances”.
Claim 7 is dependent from claim 6 and is therefore, also rejected.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " wherein the melatonin and carboxylic acid with phenolic compounds are in a ratio of 1:55" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is dependent from claim 3. Claim 3 recites wherein the carboxylic acids are selected from a group comprising formic acid, acetic acid…aromatic phenols and phenolic acids…phenolic precursors…ferulic acid, and their salts. There is no recitation of “carboxylic acid with phenolic compounds”. Claim 3, as written, recites a list of other compounds that are included in the composition, including phenolic compound, but does not indicate they are used in combination with carboxylic acid compounds.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN 105503415A, Translation) in view of El-Kereamy Presentation (2020, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources).
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims an agricultural composition comprising melatonin in a concentration ranging from 1gm/acre to 5 gm/acre; and carboxylic compounds in a concentration ranging from 5 gm/acre to 100 gm/acre; wherein the composition enhances crop yields and decreases biotic or abiotic stress.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12, Gao teaches a small-molecular envelope efficient fertilizer of the purple sweet potato anthocyanin content, comprising the following components by weight parts: fermenting soybean meal protein powder, 4.5-4.6; fermented rice bran 38-40; rotten plant powder 20-23; silicate microbial inoculum 0.5-0.6; wollastonite 1.3-1.4; carboxymethyl cellulose sodium 0.3-0.4; biomass carbon, 3.1-3.2; dried lobster sauce powder 2.5-2.6; fermenting the burdock slag powder 9-10; fermented cabbage residue 11-12; 3.6-4 aluminum starch octenyl succinate; amino-oligosaccharide 1.2-1.3; melatonin 1.1-1.2; succinic acid dioctyl ester sodium sulfonate 1.8-1.9; brucea javanica oil 2.2-2.3; fermented wheat bran 34-35; curing the tea pulp, 25-26; of dehydrated vegetable powder, 5-5.2; of collagen powder 3-4; prohexadione-calcium 1.3-1.4; ammonium citrate 1.2-1.3; jasmine 1.1-1.2; phenylalanine 1.15 -1.25 (claim 7, 0.05% to 25%, phenolic compound), proper amount of oxygen-enriched alkaline magnetized water, proper amount of water (adjuvant) (page 2, paragraph 8).
Gao teaches the small-molecular envelope efficient fertilizer preparation method of the purple sweet potato anthocyanin content, comprising the following steps: adding citric acid ammonium (carboxylic acid), methyl jasmonate, phenylalanine (phenolic compound), melatonin (melatonin), and 2 times of the total weight of the oxygen-rich alkaline magnetized water (adjuvant), mixing and stirring uniformly, by machine-processing 0.3h to obtain the small-molecular compound liquid for further use, the small-molecular compound, brucea javanica oil, fermented soybean meal protein powder, stirring for 25 min with high pressure homogenizer, obtaining rich complex for use of functional small molecule (page 3, paragraph 8-page 4, paragraph 1).
Gao teaches the use of oxygen-enriched alkaline magnetized water and citric acid ammonium, methyl jasmonate, phenylalanine, melatonin, obtained by performing nanometre functional small molecule compound in taro cultivation fertilizer has quick release, which is convenient for absorbing purple, promoting the purple sweet potato anthocyanin synthesis (page 3, paragraph 6).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Gao does not specifically disclose the concentration of melatonin in a concentration ranging from 1 gram/acre to 5 gm/acre and carboxylic compounds in a concentration ranging from 5 gm/acre to 100 gm/acre, as claimed in claim 1, the melatonin and carboxylic acid with phenolic compounds are in a ratio of 1:55, as claimed in claim 8, or the adjuvant(s) and/or surfactant(s) are in a concentration ranging from 5 gm/acre to 25 gm/acre, as claimed in claim 10. It is for this reason the El-Kereamy Presentation is added as a secondary reference.
The El-Kereamy Presentation teaches PGRs (plant growth regulators) role in preventing fruit disorder. El-Kereamy teaches that PGRs are applied to navel oranges at 16-48 g/acre, tangerine hybrid 20-40 g/acre and Valencia oranges at 40-80 g/acre (slide 21). The El-Kereamy Presentation teaches in the slide entitled “Increase fruit set by Gibberellic Acid (GA3)” application is 1-40 g/acre at bloom and for lemons/limes is 10-32 g/acre (slide 26).
Finding a prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gao and the El-Kereamy Presentation to determine the concentration of melatonin, carboxylic compound, and adjuvants to be used in the composition. Gao teaches a small-molecular envelope efficient fertilizer of the purple sweet potato anthocyanin content, comprising the following components by weight parts: melatonin 1.1-1.2; succinic acid dioctyl ester sodium sulfonate 1.8-1.9; brucea javanica oil 2.2-2.3; fermented wheat bran 34-35; curing the tea pulp, 25-26; of dehydrated vegetable powder, 5-5.2; of collagen powder 3-4; prohexadione-calcium 1.3-1.4; ammonium citrate 1.2-1.3; jasmine 1.1-1.2; phenylalanine 1.15 -1.25, proper amount of oxygen-enriched alkaline magnetized water, and proper amount of water. The El-Kereamy presentation gives guidance to the amount of plant growth regulators to use in prevent fruit disorder and increase fruit set. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the guidance of the El-Kereamy presentation to determine result effective amounts of plant growth regulators to use in the composition, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007). In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to experiment with the amount of melatonin, carboxylic compound and adjuvant in the composition to optimize the efficacy of the composition, including promotion of purple sweet potato anthocyanin synthesis, in an effective amount. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Regarding the melatonin and carboxylic acid with phenolic compounds are in a ratio of 1:55, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use experimentation and optimization to determine the weight ratio of melatonin and carboxylic acid with phenolic compounds in the composition. Gao teaches that melatonin is 1.1-1.2% of the composition. Succinic acid dioctyl ester sodium sulfonate is 1.8-1.9% of the composition and phenylalanine is 1.15 -1.25% of the composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the weight ratio of melatonin, succinic acid, and phenylalanine in the composition to optimize the efficacy of the composition, including promotion of purple sweet potato anthocyanin synthesis, in an effective amount. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Kostopoulou Publication (2015, Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, Kostopoulou et al.) in view of the Sarrou Publication (2015, Journal of Essential Oil Research, Sarrou et al.) and the El-Kereamy Presentation (2020, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources).
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims an agricultural composition comprising melatonin in a concentration ranging from 1gm/acre to 5 gm/acre; and carboxylic compounds in a concentration ranging from 5 gm/acre to 100 gm/acre; wherein the composition enhances crop yields and decreases biotic or abiotic stress.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Kostopoulou et al. teach ascorbic acid (AsA) and melatonin (Mel) are known molecules participating in stress resistance.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, the effect of exogenous application of 0.5 mM AsA, 1 µM Mel and their combination on various stress responses in leaves and roots of Citrus aurantium L. seedlings grown under 100 mM NaCL was investigated (Abstract). Kostopoulou et al. teach that as a result of the combined AsA + Mel application the phenols levels increased by 15.9% in roots compared to NaCl (page 158, col. 1, 3.5 Total phenols ascorbic acid, glutathione and antioxidant capacity, paragraph 1).
Kostopoulou et al. teach treatments with AsA + Mel under saline conditions decreased leaf MDA levels by 27.5%, 38.7%, and 27.7%, respectively, compared to NaCl treatments (page 157, col. 2, 3.2, Electrolyte leakage, malondialdehyde, total chlorophyll and carotenoid concentration, paragraph 1).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Kostopoulou et al. do not specifically disclose the concentration of melatonin in a concentration ranging from 1 gram/acre to 5 gm/acre and carboxylic compounds in a concentration ranging from 5 gm/acre to 100 gm/acre, as claimed in claim 1, the composition further comprises plant growth hormones or adjuvants, as claimed in claim 4 or the concentration of the plant growth hormones, as claimed in claim 5, the adjuvants and/or surfactants are selected from anionic, non-ionic and cationic surfactants, as claimed in claim 9, or the adjuvant(s) and/or surfactant(s) are in a concentration ranging from 5 gm/acre to 25 gm/acre, as claimed in claim 10. It is for this reason the Sarrou Publication and the El-Kereamy Presentation (2020, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources) are added as secondary references.
Sarrou et al. teach an investigation was carried out in order to estimate the biochemical changes occurring in bitter orange (Citrus aurantium L.) leaves in response to Melatonin (MEL), gibberellic acid (GA) and salicylic acid (SA) treatments.
Regarding claim 4, Sarrou et al. teach 15 µMEL, 1 mMSA and 1.44 mMGA increased the total leaf phenolic and flavonoid content and enhanced FRAP and DPPH activity of leaf methanolic extracts. Salicylic acid and GA promoted the leaf essential oil content and affected significantly the concentration of limonene, linalool and linalyl acetate (Abstract).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Sarrou et al. teach all solutions contained 1% v/v of the surfactant Foli Guard (page 1, col. 2, paragraph 1).
The teachings of the El-Kereamy Presentation with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is hereby incorporated and are therefore applied in the instant rejection as discussed above.
Finding a prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kostopoulou et al., Sarrou et al. and the El-Kereamy Presentation to determine the concentration of melatonin, carboxylic acid and adjuvant to use in the herbicidal composition. Kostopoulou et al. teach the effect of exogenous application of 0.5 mM AsA + 1 µM Mel and their combination on various stress responses in leaves and roots of Citrus aurantium L. seedlings grown under 100 mM NaCL. Kostopoulou et al. teach that as a result of the combined AsA (ascorbic acid) + Mel (melatonin) application the phenols levels increased by 15.9% in roots compared to NaCl. Sarrou et al. teach 15 µMEL (melatonin), 1 mMSA (salicylic acid) and 1.44 mMGA (gibberellic acid) increased the total leaf phenolic and flavonoid content and enhanced FRAP and DPPH activity of leaf methanolic extracts. The El-Kereamy presentation gives guidance to the amount of plant growth regulators to use in prevent fruit disorder and increase fruit set in citrus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the guidance of the El-Kereamy presentation to determine result effective amounts of plant growth regulators to use in the composition, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to experiment with the amount of melatonin, carboxylic compound and adjuvant in the composition to optimize the efficacy of the composition, including increasing the phenolic content in leaves and roots of Citrus aurantium, in an effective amount. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kostopoulou et al. and Sarrou et al. and add plant growth hormones to the composition. Kostopoulou et al. teach that as a result of the combined AsA (ascorbic acid) + Mel (melatonin) application the phenols levels increased by 15.9% in roots compared to NaCl. Sarrou et al. teach 15 µMEL (melatonin), 1 mMSA (salicylic acid) and 1.44 mMGA (gibberellic acid) increased the total leaf phenolic and flavonoid content and enhanced FRAP and DPPH activity of leaf methanolic extracts. Salicylic acid and GA promoted the leaf essential oil content and affected significantly the concentration of limonene, linalool and linalyl acetate. Each of the prior art references teach that melatonin combined with ascorbic acid and melatonin, salicylic acid, and gibberellic, alone, increase the phenol levels in Citrus aurantium. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine melatonin, ascorbic acid, salicylic acid, and gibberellic acid that is known to increase phenol levels in Citrus aurantium, with a reasonable expectation of success. In view of In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (C.C.P.A. 1980), it is prima facie obvious to combine two or more compositions each of which is taught by prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in prior art, thus claims that requires no more than mixing together two or three conventional plant growth regulators/plant growth stimulators set forth prima facie obvious subject matter.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/551,823 (‘823) in view of the El-Kereamy Presentation. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each is drawn to a plant growth stimulating composition comprising aliphatic or aromatic carboxylic acids, plant growth hormones, and adjuvants. Each claims melatonin in the composition (claim 1, instant application; claims 1 and 4, copending Application No. ‘823). Each claims the specific carboxylic acids (claims 2 and 6, instant invention; claims 2 and 3, copending Application No. ‘823). Each claims the composition further comprises plant growth hormones (claims 3 and 4, instant application, claim 4, copending Application No. ‘823). Each claims the plant growth hormones are in a concentration range from 0.05% to 10% (claim 5, instant application; claim 1, copending Application No. ‘823). Each claims the composition is formulated as a solid, liquid, or spray (claim 11, instant invention; claim 7, copending Application No. ‘823). Each claims the phenolic precursors include phenylalanine, capsaicin, and valine (claim 12, instant invention; claim 10, copending Application No. ‘823). Copending Application No. ‘823 does not specifically claim the concentration of melatonin of 1 gm/acre to 5 gm/acre and the concentration of carboxylic acid of 5 gm/acre to 100 gm/acre. It is for this reason the El-Kereamy Presentation is added as a secondary reference. The teachings of the El-Kereamy Presentation with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is hereby incorporated and are therefore applied in the instant rejection as discussed above. The El-Kereamy presentation gives guidance to the amount of plant growth regulators to use in prevent fruit disorder and increase fruit set in citrus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the guidance of the El-Kereamy presentation to determine result effective amounts of plant growth regulators to use in the composition, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to experiment with the amount of melatonin and carboxylic compound in the composition to optimize the efficacy of the composition, in a result effective amount. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results. For these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the instant claims are an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of copending application ‘823.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andriae M Holt whose telephone number is (571)272-9328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-4:30 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, 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, 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.
/ANDRIAE M HOLT/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614