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 .
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the non-final Office Action dated March 24, 2026 was submitted on June 23, 2026. Claims 1, 8, 13, 16 and 19 were amended. Claims 2, 9 and 18 were canceled. Claims 21 and 22 were added. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-17 and 19-22 are currently pending.
The amendments to claims 1 and 8 have overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 1, 3-8, 10-17, 19 and 29 (¶¶ 6-7 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1 and 8 have also overcome the prior art rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 10-17, 19 and 29 (¶¶ 12-39 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection of these claims have been made as detailed below. New claims 21 and 22 have also been addressed below.
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.
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, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maata (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0084299 A1, cited in previous Office Action) in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,378,763 B1, cited in previous Office Action), Reed et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,801,899 B1, cited in previous Office Action) and either of Price (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0371140 A1) or Joo (U.S. Patent No. 4,504,350).
Regarding claim 1, Maata discloses a method of making a container (FIG. 2 of Maata, sealed package; Abstract of Maata, method of manufacturing sealed package), comprising: providing at least two laminated bodies each made of a cellulose body and a laminate or layer that is laminated on at least part of the cellulose body (FIG. 2, [0033] of Maata, material of cover #2 consists of cardboard or paper based material #6 with a coating layer #7; FIG. 4, [0040] of Maata, coating layer #7 and sealing layer #8 form laminate on cardboard or paper layer #6 of cover #2; FIG. 2, [0048] of Maata, bottom part #1 of package made from coated cardboard or paper), adjoining the at least two laminated bodies at interface sections thereof so that they together enclose an inner volume which is at least partially delimited by the laminate (FIG. 2 of Maata, lid #2 and bottom part of package #1 adjoined to form inner volume holding product #11; laminate on cover would necessarily partially delimit inner volume of container), and joining the at least two laminated bodies by ultrasonic welding and/or induction sealing of the interface sections to form the container ([0013] of Maata, cover sealed to bottom part of package using ultrasonic welding or induction sealing).
Maata does not specifically disclose that the two laminated bodies are rigid bodies each made of a rigid cellulose body. Moreover, Maata discloses that the cover #2 and the lower part #1 of the package are each made from cardboard or paper-based material ([0033], [0048] of Maata) but does not specifically disclose the bodies as being “rigid”. The cardboard or paper layer of the cover #2 and lower part #1 of the package would, however, necessarily possess some “rigidity” and would impart that rigidity to the laminated bodies. In addition, Nelson discloses that the paperboard body ply is made of a relatively thick and stiff paperboard (5:11-12 of Nelson). Nelson therefore provides motivation to use a stiff or rigid paperboard material.
Maata also does not specifically disclose that the bottom part of the package comprises a laminate that is laminated on at least part of the cellulose body. Moreover, Maata discloses that the bottom part #1 of the package can made from coated cardboard or paper ([0048] of Maata) but does not specifically disclose that the coating on the cardboard or paper layer is a laminate (i.e., a multi-layer coating). Nelson discloses a container constructed of at least one body ply and at least one liner ply wherein the body ply is formed of paperboard (3:5-7 of Nelson) and the liner ply is formed from a seal layer, a moisture-barrier layer and an adhesive layer (5:59-60 of Nelson). According to Nelson, the liner provides resistance to the passage of liquids and gasses (5:64-66 of Nelson). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the paper container of Maata with a multilayer liner as disclosed in Nelson. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to provide resistance to the passage of liquids and gasses as taught by Nelson (5:64-66 of Nelson).
Neither Maata nor Nelson disclose that each of the at least two laminated rigid bodies has a bending stiffness between 400 Nm and 3500 Nm. Moreover, Nelson discloses that the paperboard is relatively thick and stiff (5:11-12 of Nelson) but does not disclose specific bending stiffness values. Reed, however, discloses improved bending stiffness paperboards for packaging applications (Abstract of Reed). According to Reed, the higher the bending stiffness of the paperboard the more rigid the packaging material will be and the greater the resistance to loading or crushing forces (1:26-29 of Reed). Reed therefore establishes that bending stiffness is a variable which achieves a recognized result (i.e., improving the rigidity and resistance to loading or crushing forces) (1:26-29 of Reed). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the bending stiffness of the paperboard material in the modified method, including providing material having a bending stiffness between 400 Nm and 3500 Nm as recited in claim 1. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Maata does not specifically disclose that each of the at least two laminated rigid bodies has a three-dimensional form having a wall section delimiting an open body volume. Moreover, Maata discloses that the lower part of the package has a three-dimensional form having a wall section delimiting an open body volume (FIG. 2 of Maata, lower part #1 of package has a three-dimensional form) but does not disclose cover #2 also having a three-dimensional form having a wall section delimiting an open body volume. Price, however, discloses paper-based containers wherein the lid or closure also has a three-dimensional form having a wall section delimiting an open body volume (Abstract, [0052], FIGS. 2A-2C of Price). Joo similarly discloses paper-based containers having a cap which also has a three-dimensional form having a wall section delimiting an open body volume (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Joo). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a paper based closure or cap having a three dimensional form having a wall section delimiting an open body volume in the modified method since Price and Joo each establish that it was known to use such closures in methods of making containers. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3, Maata discloses that the at least two laminated rigid bodies each have a circumferential flange section forming the interface sections (FIG. 2 of Maata, flange #10 of lower part #1 of package forms interface with cover #2).
Regarding claim 4, Maata discloses that the interface sections are each laminated with the laminate so that the laminate allows for joining the at least two laminated rigid bodies (FIG. 4, [0039] of Maata, laminate of plastic layer #8 and coating layer #7 seal cover #2 to lower part #1 of package).
Regarding claim 6, Maata does not specifically disclose that at least one of the rigid cellulose bodies comprises a see-through hole that is covered by the laminate. Nelson, however, discloses providing the container with a window for viewing the product therein (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Nelson) wherein the window is formed by an opening in the body ply of the container and the liner extends across the aperture (Abstract of Nelson). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a window in the container in the modified process. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for viewing the product inside the package as taught by Nelson (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Nelson).
Regarding claim 7, Maata discloses that a food product is provided in the inner volume before or after joining the at least two laminated rigid bodies ([0018] of Maata, package can be used for packaging of foods).
Regarding claim 8, Maata discloses container (FIG. 2 of Maata) comprising at least two laminated bodies each made of a cellulose body (FIG. 2, [0033] of Maata, material of cover #2 consists of cardboard or paper based material #6; FIG. 2, [0048] of Maata, bottom part #1 of package made from cardboard or paper) and a laminate or layer laminated on at least part of the cellulose body (FIG. 4, [0040] of Maata, coating layer #7 and sealing layer #8 form laminate on cardboard or paper layer #6 of cover #2; FIG. 2, [0048] of Maata, bottom part #1 of package made from coated cardboard or paper), wherein the at least two laminated bodies are joined at interface sections thereof so that the at least two laminated bodies together enclose an inner volume of the container that is at least partially delimited by the laminate (FIG. 2 of Maata, lid #2 and bottom part of package #1 adjoined to form inner volume holding product #11; laminate on cover would necessarily partially delimit inner volume of container).
Maata does not specifically disclose that the two laminated bodies are rigid bodies each made of a rigid cellulose body. Moreover, Maata discloses that the cover #2 and the lower part #1 of the package are each made from cardboard or paper-based material ([0033], [0048] of Maata) but does not specifically disclose the bodies as being “rigid”. The cardboard or paper layer of the cover #2 and lower part #1 of the package would, however, necessarily possess some “rigidity” and would impart that rigidity to the laminated bodies. In addition, Nelson discloses that the paperboard body ply is made of a relatively thick and stiff paperboard (5:11-12 of Nelson). Nelson therefore provides motivation to use a stiff or rigid paperboard material.
Neither Maata nor Nelson disclose that each of the at least two laminated rigid bodies has a bending stiffness between 400 Nm and 3500 Nm. Moreover, Nelson discloses that the paperboard is relatively thick and stiff (5:11-12 of Nelson) but does not disclose specific bending stiffness values. Reed, however, discloses improved bending stiffness paperboards for packaging applications (Abstract of Reed). According to Reed, the higher the bending stiffness of the paperboard the more rigid the packaging material will be and the greater the resistance to loading or crushing forces (1:26-29 of Reed). Reed therefore establishes that bending stiffness is a variable which achieves a recognized result (i.e., improving the rigidity and resistance to loading or crushing forces) (1:26-29 of Reed). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the bending stiffness of the paperboard material in the modified method, including providing material having a bending stiffness between 400 Nm and 3500 Nm as recited in claim 8. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Maata does not specifically disclose that each of the at least two laminated rigid bodies has a three-dimensional form having a wall section delimiting an open body volume. Moreover, Maata discloses that the lower part of the package has a three-dimensional form having a wall section delimiting an open body volume (FIG. 2 of Maata, lower part #1 of package has a three-dimensional form) but does not disclose cover #2 also having a three-dimensional form having a wall section delimiting an open body volume. Price, however, discloses paper-based containers wherein the lid or closure also has a three-dimensional form having a wall section delimiting an open body volume (Abstract, [0052], FIGS. 2A-2C of Price). Joo similarly discloses paper-based containers having a cap which also has a three-dimensional form having a wall section delimiting an open body volume (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Joo). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a paper based closure or cap having a three dimensional form having a wall section delimiting an open body volume in the modified method since Price and Joo each establish that it was known to use such closures in methods of making containers. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Maata discloses that the interface sections are circumferential flanges (FIG. 2 of Maata, flange #10 of lower part #1 of package forms interface with cover #2).
Regarding claim 11, Maata does not specifically disclose that at least one of the rigid cellulose bodies comprises a see-through hole that is covered by the laminate, wherein the see-through hole. Nelson, however, discloses providing the container with a window for viewing the product therein (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Nelson) wherein the window is formed by an opening in the body ply of the container and the liner extends across the aperture (Abstract of Nelson). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a window in the container in the modified process. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for viewing the product inside the package as taught by Nelson (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Nelson).
Regarding claim 14, Maata does not specifically disclose that the laminate of each rigid body has a material thickness T of 25 µm<T<150 µm. Nelson, however, discloses that the liner ply #14 of the container has a thickness close to 1 mil (i.e., 25.4 mm) (6:10-12 of Nelson). Nelson therefore suggests using a liner ply (i.e., laminate) for the lower part of the package having a thickness of 25.4 mm. While Maata does not disclose the thickness of the coating layer #7 for the cover #2, Maata discloses that the coating layer acts as a barrier layer ([0033] of Maata). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cover layer of the modified container with a liner having a thickness as taught by Nelson (i.e., 25.4 mm) since Nelson discloses that such liners have barrier properties (5:64-66 of Nelson).
Regarding claim 15, Maata discloses that the inner volume is at least partially filled with a food product ([0018] of Maata, package can be used for packaging of foods).
Regarding claim 16, Maata discloses that the circumferential flange section extends in a step-free manner (FIG. 2 of Maata, circumferential flange does not have steps).
Regarding claim 17, Maata discloses that the at least two laminated rigid bodies are joined by induction sealing ([0039] of Maata, cover sealed using induction sealing).
Regarding claim 19, Nelson discloses that the see-through hole is provided at a wall section of the rigid cellulose body delimiting the inner volume (FIG. 1 of Nelson).
Regarding claim 20, Maata discloses that the circumferential flanges extend in a step-free manner (FIG. 2 of Maata, circumferential flanges forming interface sections do not have steps).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maata in view of Nelson, Reed and either of Price or Joo as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shinohara et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,605,178 B1, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 5, Maata does not disclose that the ultrasonic welding is carried out with a frequency in a range of 15 kHz to 30 kHz. Shinohara, however, discloses an ultrasonic sealing method for sealing food packaging materials with a heat-welding layer on a paper layer (Abstract, 6:22-34 of Shinohara). According to Shinohara, ultrasonic welding is carried out at a frequency range of 20 to 60 kHz (5:46-48 of Shinohara). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a frequency range of 20 to 60 kHz in the modified method since Shinohara establishes that it was known to use such a frequency range for ultrasonic sealing of paper packaging materials (5:46-48, 6:22-34 of Shinohara). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maata in view of Nelson, Reed and either of Price or Joo as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of D’Amato (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0087714 A1, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 12, Maata does not specifically disclose that a largest extension E of the see-through hole is E ≤ 20 mm. Moreover, Nelson discloses forming a window in the container to view the product contained therein (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Nelson) but does not disclose the size of the window. D’Amato, however, discloses a food container comprising at least one inspection window (Abstract of D’Amato). According to D’Amato, the windows may have different shapes and sizes and may be arranged in different ways (FIGS. 2-8, [0038] of D’Amato). D’Amato specifically discloses a series of increasingly smaller windows arranged vertically to determine the level of food in the container (FIG. 2 of D’Amato). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a window in the modified container having a maximum dimension of 20 mm since D’Amato establishes that windows of diminishing size can be used to view the contents of the container. In addition, D’Amato establishes that windows can be formed in various shapes, sizes and arrangements as a matter of design choice. As set forth in the MPEP, changes relating to size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maata in view of Nelson, Reed and either of Price or Joo as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Deshwal et al. (“An overview of paper and paper based food packaging materials: health safety and environmental concerns”, J. Food Sci. Technol. (October 2019) 56(10):4391–4403, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6801293/pdf/13197_2019_Article_3950.pdf, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 13, Maata does not disclose that the rigid cellulose body has a material thickness B of 200 µm < B < 1200 µm. Deshwal, however, discloses paper and paperboard containers made from paper having a thickness between 100 and 2500 microns (rigid boxes) or 200 to 1200 microns (folding cartons) (pg. 4397 of Deshwal). Since Deshwal establishes that it was known to make paperboard containers from paperboard having such thicknesses, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use paperboard having such thicknesses for the modified container. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Deshwal therefore clearly teaches thickness ranges (i.e., 1000 – 2500 and 300-1200 microns) that overlaps with that recited in claim 13 (i.e., 200 to 1200 µm) which would render the claimed thickness range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “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) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that the references cited in the previous Office Action do not suggest that each of the laminated bodies has a 3-D form having a wall section delimiting an open volume as recited in claims 1 and 8 (pg. 7, 1st full ¶ of the amendment). The Office Action, however, is relying upon the newly cited Price and Joo references to address this limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the closest prior art is to Maata. Maata discloses a method of making a container (FIG. 2 of Maata, sealed package; Abstract of Maata, method of manufacturing sealed package), comprising: providing at least two laminated bodies each made of a cellulose body and a laminate or layer that is laminated on at least part of the cellulose body (FIG. 2, [0033] of Maata, material of cover #2 consists of cardboard or paper based material #6 with a coating layer #7; FIG. 4, [0040] of Maata, coating layer #7 and sealing layer #8 form laminate on cardboard or paper layer #6 of cover #2; FIG. 2, [0048] of Maata, bottom part #1 of package made from coated cardboard or paper), adjoining the at least two laminated bodies at interface sections thereof so that they together enclose an inner volume which is at least partially delimited by the laminate (FIG. 2 of Maata, lid #2 and bottom part of package #1 adjoined to form inner volume holding product #11; laminate on cover would necessarily partially delimit inner volume of container), and joining the at least two laminated bodies by ultrasonic welding and/or induction sealing of the interface sections to form the container ([0013] of Maata, cover sealed to bottom part of package using ultrasonic welding or induction sealing). Neither Maata, however, nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest a method as recited in claim 1 or a container as recited in claim 8 wherein at least one of the two laminated rigid bodies further comprises a neck portion having a dispense opening, wherein the neck portion is integral with the at least one of the laminated rigid bodies.
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 CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights