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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-35 are pending in the instant application.
Domestic Benefit
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for domestic benefit based on the U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/194,509, filed May 28th, 2021. Claims 1-35, presently under examination, are fully supported by this application and will be evaluated with an effective filing date of May 28th, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on February 22nd, 2024 has been fully considered by the examiner, except where marked with a strikethrough.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any of the errors of which Applicant may become aware of in the specification.
Drawings
Acknowledgement is made of the drawings received November 21st, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 26-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a composition comprising nootkatone, does not reasonably provide enablement for a composition comprising a derivative or analogue of nootkatone. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Pursuant to In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), one considers the following factors to determine whether undue experimentation is required: (1) The breadth of the claims, (2) The nature of the invention, (3) The state of the prior art, (4) The level of one of ordinary skill, (5) The level of predictability in the art, (6) The amount of direction provided by the inventor, (7) The existence of working examples and (8) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Nature of the invention:
The invention is drawn to a composition, with an intended use as a bug or insect repellent composition, comprising nootkatone or an analogue or derivative thereof and a carrier.
Breadth of the invention:
The scope of the claimed invention is very broad, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would readily be able to envisage myriad compounds recognized as analogues or derivatives of nootkatone. Further, the composition allows for an array of additional compositional ingredients, resulting in a plethora of possible distinct compositions.
State of the prior art and predictability in the art:
The invention is directed to a composition comprising a genus of compounds, and therefore is chemical in nature. Per MPEP 2164.03, “The “predictability or lack thereof” in the art refers to the ability of one skilled in the art to extrapolate the disclosed or known results to the claimed invention. If one skilled in the art can readily anticipate the effect of a change within the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, then there is predictability in the art. On the other hand, if one skilled in the art cannot readily anticipate the effect of a change within the subject matter to which that claimed invention pertains, then there is lack of predictability in the art. Accordingly, what is known in the art provides evidence as to the question of predictability. In particular, the court in In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223-24, 169 USPQ 367, 369-70 (CCPA 1971), stated:
[I]n the field of chemistry generally, there may be times when the well-known unpredictability of chemical reactions will alone be enough to create a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of a particular broad statement put forward as enabling support for a claim. This will especially be the case where the statement is, on its face, contrary to generally accepted scientific principles. Most often, additional factors, such as the teachings in pertinent references, will be available to substantiate any doubts that the asserted scope of objective enablement is in fact commensurate with the scope of protection sought and to support any demands based thereon for proof. [Footnote omitted.]
The scope of the required enablement varies inversely with the degree of predictability involved, but even in unpredictable arts, a disclosure of every operable species is not required. A single embodiment may provide broad enablement in cases involving predictable factors, such as mechanical or electrical elements. In re Vickers, 141 F. 2d 522, 526-27, 61 USPQ 122, 127 (CCPA 1944); In re Cook, 439 F.2d 730, 734, 169 USPQ 298, 301 (CCPA 1971). However, in applications directed to inventions in arts where the results are unpredictable, the disclosure of a single species usually does not provide an adequate basis to support generic claims. In re Soll, 97 F.2d 623, 624, 38 USPQ 189, 191 (CCPA 1938). In cases involving unpredictable factors, such as most chemical reactions and physiological activity, more may be required. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970) (contrasting mechanical and electrical elements with chemical reactions and physiological activity). See also In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 496, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1991). This is because in art areas having a high degree of uncertainty (i.e. the unpredictable arts) it is not reasonably predictable from the disclosure of one species, what other species will work.”
Level of ordinary skill in the art:
An ordinary artisan in the area of lead compound development with an intended use of repelling insects would have experience in synthesizing chemical compounds for particular activities. The synthesis of new lead compounds, while complex, is routine in the art. The process of finding new compounds that demonstrate a particular function is well known. Additionally, while high throughput screening assays can be employed, developing a functional product, as claimed, prior to synthesizing and testing compounds is generally not well-known or routine, given the complexity of such chemical applications.
The amount of direction provided and working examples:
Applicant has provided several examples sufficiently disclosing compositions employing nootkatone. No example has been provided in which a derivative or analogue of nootkatone has been employed. Further, the instant specification does not provide sufficient guidance for a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand which derivatives or analogues of nootkatone would be suitable for use within the context of the instant claims. As noted above, a myriad of compounds are readily envisaged by a person having ordinary skill in the art to be categorized as a derivative and/or analogue of nootkatone. No definition has been provided in the instant specification, however, that would instruct a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand the suitable scope of derivatives or analogues of nootkatone suitable for use with the instant invention, nor would it be readily understood based on the instant disclosure the motivation for employing a derivative or analogue of nootkatone rather than nootkatone itself.
Within the specification, “specific operative embodiments or examples of the invention must be set forth. Examples and description should be of sufficient scope as to justify the scope of the claims.” Markush claims must be provided with support in the disclosure for each member of the Markush group. Where the constitution and formula of a chemical compound is stated only as a probability or speculation, the disclosure is not sufficient to support claims identifying the compound by such composition or formula. See MPEP 608.01(p).
MPEP § 2164.01 (a) states, “A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F. 2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).” That conclusion is clearly justified here that Applicant is not enabled for the inclusion of derivatives and/or analogues of nootkatone in the instant claimed compositions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-21, 24, and 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradbury et. al. (US 2020/0093123 A1; cited on Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed February 22nd, 2024; hereinafter referred to as Bradbury) as evidenced by Alkamuls Product Data Sheet (Alkamuls EL-620 Product Data Sheet, Rhodia, March 2012; hereinafter referred to as Alkamuls Product Data Sheet) and Majewska et. al. (“Lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus) Essential Oil: Extraction, Composition, Bioactivity and Uses for Food Preservation – a Review”; Pol. J. Food. Nutr. Sci., 2019; hereinafter referred to as Majewska).
Regarding Claim 1, at Page 11, Paragraph 0116, Bradbury teaches a composition comprising nootkatone and a carrier.
Regarding Claim 2, Bradbury teaches several compositions comprising nootkatone, a carrier, and a dispersing agent. For example, at Page 15, Table 2, under ECS-F-579, Bradbury discloses a composition comprising nootkatone, water as a carrier, and Alkamuls EL620. As evidenced by Alkamuls Product Data Sheet, Alkamuls EL620 is a known dispersing agent, as under “Standard Applications”, Alkamuls Product Data Sheet teaches Alkamuls EL620 is “Used as dispersant”.
Regarding Claim 3, at Page 8, Paragraph 0083, Bradbury teaches inclusion of viscosity modifiers including carboxymethylcellulose and polyvinylpyrrolidone, each of which are recited at instant Claim 3.
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 7, Bradbury teaches several compositions as noted above that further comprise a solvent. For example, the composition noted above, at Page 15, at Table 2, under ECS-F-579, Bradbury discloses the composition comprises benzyl alcohol, a solvent recited at instant Claim 5 and an essential oil compound recited at instant Claim 7, in addition to the components previously mentioned.
Regarding Claim 6, Bradbury teaches several compositions comprising isopropyl alcohol (an alternative name for 2-propanol, as recited at instant Claim 6). For example, the composition noted above, at Page 15, Table 2, under ECS-F-579, Bradbury teaches inclusion of isopropyl alcohol in addition to the components noted above.
Regarding Claim 8, at Page 15, Table 2, under ECS-F-6276, Bradbury teaches a composition comprising nootkatone, isopropyl alcohol, and geraniol, as recited at instant Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, at Page 15, Table 2, under ECS-F-628, Bradbury teaches a composition comprising nootkatone, isopropyl alcohol, and lemongrass oil. At the Abstract, Majewska teaches lemongrass oil comprises citral, as recited at instant Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, at Page 15, Table 2, under ECS-F-542, Bradbury teaches a composition comprising nootkatone and benzyl alcohol with no water present.
Regarding Claim 12, the aforementioned compositions are all free from N,N-dimethyl-m-toluamide.
Regarding Claim 13, Bradbury teaches several compositions comprising nootkatone within the disclosed ranges. For example, at Page 15, Table 2, under ECS-F-579, Bradbury teaches a composition comprising 5.0% nootkatone. Per MPEP 2131.03, I., “"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
Regarding Claim 14, Bradbury teaches several compositions comprising the dispersing agent Alkamuls EL620, as noted above, within the disclosed ranges. For example, at Page 15, Table 2, under ECS-F-579, Bradbury teaches a composition comprising 10 % Alkamuls EL620. Per MPEP 2131.03, I., “"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
Regarding Claim 15, Bradbury teaches several compositions comprising a solvent within the disclosed ranges. For example, at Page 15, Table 2, under ECS-F-579, Bradbury teaches a composition comprising 10% isopropyl alcohol. Per MPEP 2131.03, I., “"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
Regarding Claim 16, Bradbury teaches several compositions comprising an essential oil compound within the disclosed ranges. For example, at Page 15, Table 2, under ECS-F-579, Bradbury teaches a composition comprising 4.0% benzyl alcohol. Per MPEP 2131.03, I., “"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
Regarding Claim 17, Bradbury teaches at Page 15, Table 2, under ECS-F-6276 a composition comprising 1.00% geraniol. This is within the instantly recited range. Per MPEP 2131.03, I., “"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
Regarding Claims 18 and 21, at Page 15, Table 2, under ECS-F-513, Bradbury discloses a composition meeting each of the recited limitations. This composition comprises 1% nootkatone, 4% solvent, wherein the solvent is benzyl alcohol, 10% dispersing agent, wherein the dispersing agent is Alkamuls EL620, and 63.7% carrier, wherein the carrier is water. Each of these components fall within the range recited at instant Claim 18. Per MPEP 2131.03, I., “"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
Regarding Claims 19 and 24, at Page 15, Table 2 under ECS-F-513, Bradbury discloses a composition meeting each of the recited limitations. This composition comprises 1% nootkatone, 10% solvent, wherein the solvent isopropyl alcohol, 4% of a synergist or functional enhancer, wherein the synergist or functional enhancer is benzyl alcohol, as recited at instant Claim 24, and 63.7% carrier, wherein the carrier is water. Each of these components fall within the range recited at instant Claim 19. Per MPEP 2131.03, I., “"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
Regarding Claim 20, at Page 15, Table 2, under ECS-F-579, Bradbury discloses a composition meeting each of the recited limitations. This composition comprises 5.0% nootkatone, 10.0% solvent, wherein the solvent is isopropyl alcohol, 10.0% dispersing agent, wherein the dispersing agent is Alkamuls EL620, 4.0% synergist or functional enhancer, wherein the synergist or functional enhancer is benzyl alcohol, and 59.7% carrier, wherein the carrier is water. Each of these components falls within the range cited at instant Claim 20. Per MPEP 2131.03, I., “"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
Regarding Claims 26-29, Bradbury teaches at example 6 a method of repelling mosquitoes. At Paragraph 0191, Bradbury discloses testing treatments comprising 1% nootkatone. At Paragraph 0192, Bradbury teaches the formulation with 1% w/w nootkatone resulted in 70% repellency against mosquito landings and 85% repellency against probings. Increasing nootkatone concentration to 2% w/w and 5% w/w nootkatone resulted in landing repellency of 90% and probing repellency of 100%. At Page 3, Paragraph 0021, Bradbury teaches the method of repelling is suitable by applying the treatment to surfaces including a plant, a portion of a plant, harvested plant material, skin, hair, fur scales, feathers, an article of clothing, a collar, a shoe, furniture, bedding, a net, a table, a bench, a desk, a pathway, a carpet, a floor board, a head board, a curtain, a window sill, a mantelpiece, a work surface, a door, a wall molding, a wall, a sheet of glass, or any surface of a vehicle, a tent, a wall, a floor, a waste bin, or a water surface. Further, at Page 3, Paragraph 0021, Bradbury teaches application to a surface by an aerosol with a spray nozzle, a spray gun, a pump sprayer, a trigger sprayer, a pressurized spraying device, a sponge, a brush, a roller, an irrigation spray, or a crop duster helicopter or airplane.
Regarding Claims 30-33, at Page 25, Claim 13, Bradbury teaches a method of preventing a pest infestation comprising applying an emulsion of any of claims 1 to 12 to a surface. The aforementioned compositions read on the limitations of the compositions of Claims 1 to 12. At Claim 15, Bradbury teaches the composition is suitable for preventing a tick infestation. At Claims 14 and 16, Bradbury teaches applying the composition to the surface in the same manner as instantly claimed.
Claims 1, 10-13, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Golblum et. al. (US 2015/0250166 A1; cited on Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed February 22nd, 2024; hereinafter referred to as Goldblum).
Regarding Claim 1, Goldblum teaches insect repellant compositions comprising nootkatone and a carrier. For example, at Page 44, Paragraph 0372, Goldblum teaches a composition containing 10% nootkatone and 0.1% butylated hydroxytoluene in isopropanol as the carrier.
Regarding Claim 10, the composition taught at Page 44, Paragraph 0372 is free from water.
Regarding Claim 11, the composition taught at Page 44, Paragraph 0372 is free from an emulsifier.
Regarding Claim 12, the composition taught at Page 44, Paragraph 0372 is free from N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide.
Regarding Claim 13, the composition taught at Page 44, Paragraph 0372 comprises 10% nootkatone. Per MPEP 2131.03, I., “"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
Regarding Claims 26-27, at Page 40, Paragraph 0356, Goldblum teaches applying a composition comprising 10% nootkatone and 0.1% butylated hydroxytoluene in isopropanol to filter paper resulted in repellency of bed bugs.
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradbury et. al. (US 2020/0093123 A1; cited on Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed February 22nd, 2024; hereinafter referred to as Bradbury).
As noted above, Claim 18, from which Claim 22 depends is anticipated by Bradbury.
Bradbury does not teach a specific embodiment of a composition with a carrier selected from the group recited instantly at Claim 22.
At Page 11, Paragraph 0116, Bradbury teaches embodiments of the composition can include a carrier, including an alcohol such as ethanol, which is recited instantly at Claim 22. Further, at Page 11, Paragraph 0117, Bradbury states, “In some applications, a carrier can be present in an amount that is at greater than about 60%, about 70%, about 80%, about 90%, about 95%”. Each of these values read on the range for a carrier recited at instant Claim 18.
Applying KSR exemplary rationale B, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the composition taught by Bradbury at Page 15, Table 2, under ECS-F-513, disclosing a composition meeting each of the recited limitations. This composition comprises 1% nootkatone, 4% solvent, wherein the solvent is benzyl alcohol, 10% dispersing agent, wherein the dispersing agent is Alkamuls EL620, and 63.7% carrier, wherein the carrier is water by substituting ethanol for water as the carrier, as Bradbury teaches this amount of ethanol as a carrier in these compositions is suitable. This would result in the practice of Claim 22 with reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 23, 25, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradbury in view of Golblum et. al. (US 2015/0250166 A1; cited on Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed February 22nd, 2024; hereinafter referred to as Goldblum).
As noted above, Claim 18, from which Claim 23 depends, is anticipated by Bradbury.
Bradbury does not teach the inclusion of polyvinyl pyrrolidone as a dispersing agent.
Bradbury, at Page 8, Paragraph 0083, teaches polyvinyl pyrrolidone is suitable for inclusion as a viscosity modifier in a range from 0.1 – 10% w/w.
At page 4, Paragraph 0029, Goldblum teaches the inclusion of polyvinyl pyrrolidone as a dispersing agent.
Therefore, polyvinyl pyrrolidone was known in the art as a dispersing agent suitable for use in insect repellant compositions, as taught by Goldblum, and Bradbury teaches inclusion of polyvinyl pyrrolidone in amounts ranging from 0.1 to 10% of a composition. Therefore, applying KSR exemplary rationale B, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute polyvinyl pyrrolidone for Alkamuls EL620, the dispersant in the composition taught by Bradbury at Page 15, Table 2, under ECS-F-513, resulting in the practice of Claim 23 with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 25, at Page 15, Table 2, under ECS-F-579, Bradbury discloses a composition comprising 5.0% nootkatone, 10.0% solvent, wherein the solvent is isopropyl alcohol, 10.0% dispersing agent, wherein the dispersing agent is Alkamuls EL620, 4.0% synergist or functional enhancer, wherein the synergist or functional enhancer is benzyl alcohol, and 59.7% carrier, wherein the carrier is water.
Motivated by the teaching of the prior art of Goldblum that nootkatone-containing compositions can comprise up to 90% isopropyl alcohol, as taught for example, at Page 58, Claim 1, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the water carrier taught by Bradbury for isopropyl alcohol, already included as a solvent in the composition. Further, as noted above, substitution for polyvinyl pyrrolidone for Alkamuls EL620 would have been undertaken with reasonable expectation of success, and the amount could be reduced to a range of 1 to 5%, which would be reasonably achieved through routine optimization. Per MPEP 2144.05, II., A., “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.” Taken together, this would result in the practice of Claim 25 with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 34-35, Goldblum teaches at Page 1, Paragraph 0010, that the disclosed compositions are useful in repelling ticks. Similarly, at Page 2, Paragraph 0021, Bradbury teaches the disclosed compositions are useful in repelling ticks. Further, at Claims 14 and 16, Bradbury teaches applying the composition to the surface in the same manner as instantly claimed. Therefore, applying KSR exemplary rationale B, it would be prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the composition obviated by Bradbury in view of Goldblum for the compositions taught individually by Bradbury or Goldblum. Taken together, this would result in the practice of Claims 34-35 with reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Claims 1-35 are rejected.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JOHN BURKETT whose telephone number is (703)756-5390. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jeffrey Murray can be reached at (571) 272-9023. 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.
/D.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1624
/JEFFREY H MURRAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1624