DETAILED ACTION
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s response and amendments filed 14 November 2025.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The Applicant’s filing of 14 November 2025 has amended claim 1 to include the limitation, “printing the identity codes (10) on the polymeric film (40) using a printing method selected from solvent-based, water-based, UV curable ink, or thermal transfer overprinting, such that the printed identity codes (10) remain scan-readable after the cartridge (20) is processed through a hot air blower (70) and a 360° circular air knife (80) configured over a conveyor (110) for removal of external impurities and moisture particles from the circumferential surface of the cartridge (20)”.
The Office notes that the portion of the language which reads, “such that the printed identity codes (10) remain scan-readable after the cartridge (20) is processed through a hot air blower (70) and a 360° circular air knife (80) configured over a conveyor (110) for removal of external impurities and moisture particles from the circumferential surface of the cartridge (20)” is a limitation of an Intended Use of the printing. This limitation does not positively recite processing the cartridge through a hot air blower and a circular air knife over a conveyor. This limitation merely recites that the printing is performed in such a way that the printed identity codes possess the capability or property of being scan-readable after these steps are taken.
As the “such that…” language is not deemed to positively recite any particular steps to be carried out, but only a capability/property of the printed identity codes, the Office deems that any rejection by the prior art is not required to disclose or teach a method including of a hot air blower, circular air knife or conveyor acting on the cartridge.
As to what allows the printed identity codes to remain scan-readable after such potential steps are performed, the Office turns to the Applicant’s disclosure. While the specification does provide for the printed matter being scan-readable after such steps are performed (per paragraph 0022), it does not denote any specific features or characteristics of the printing method that allow for this. The specification does provide that “the unique identity codes are printed on the polymeric film by a solvent-based or water-based or UV curable ink or thermal transfer overprint or any other suitable print option for preventing smudging of the identity codes” (paragraph 0019 and similar language in paragraph 0038).
Given this it appears, from the Applicant’s own disclosure, that it is process of printing on a polymeric film via “a solvent-based or water-based or UV curable ink or thermal transfer overprint or any other suitable print option for preventing smudging of the identity codes” that provides the printed identity codes with the capability or property of being scan-readable after being acted on by the hot air blower and circular air knife. Therefore, based on the Applicant’s own disclosure, any prior art which discloses or teaches printing via “a solvent-based or water-based or UV curable ink or thermal transfer overprint or any other suitable print option for preventing smudging of the identity codes” is deemed to possess the capability and property of being printed “such that the printed identity codes (10) remain scan-readable after the cartridge (20) is processed through a hot air blower (70) and a 360° circular air knife (80) configured over a conveyor (110) for removal of external impurities and moisture particles from the circumferential surface of the cartridge (20)”.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujioka (US 2019/0202613 A1) in view of Rusert et al. (US 2003/0131563 A1) hereinafter referred to as Rusert in view of DuCharme, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,200,510 B1) hereinafter referred to as DuCharme in view of Wright (US Patent 3,456,417) in view of Frost et al. (US Patent 8,186,896 B2) hereinafter referred to as Frost and alternatively in further view of Mueller et al. (US Patent 3,564,812) hereinafter referred to as Mueller, Guzman (US 2009/0196959) and Gerrard (US Patent 3,472,923).
Regarding claim 1, Fujioka discloses a method (fig. 6) for marking identity codes (4) on a cartridge (fig. 5), the cartridge (fig. 5) being used to store a material (6; paragraph 0013; fig. 6) therein, the method comprises steps of:
selecting a film (1) of rectangular shape having edges (2a, 3a; fig. 1);
marking two or more unique identity codes (4; has month, day and year codes) on a predefined location (fig. 2 and 5) over the film (1),
printing (paragraph 0034) the identity codes on the film;
rolling the film (1; paragraph 0034) along a length direction (fig. 2) of the film (1) for configuring a hollow cylindrical body (fig. 2; fig. 6 – “form casing portion”) with edges (2a, 3a) attached to form a closing edge (fig. 2), wherein the hollow cylindrical body having two open ends (paragraphs 0012, 0032; claim 2 – “end seal is formed by clips that seal each of the two ends of the casing portion”);
filling the material (fig. 6 – “fill food 6 in casing portion”; paragraph 0037) inside the hollow cylindrical body through one of the open ends by sealing the other end of the hollow cylindrical body; and
sealing the other open end (paragraph 0037) of the filled cylindrical body, thereby configuring the cartridge, wherein after the film is rolled and both ends are sealed (fig. 5; #5; paragraph 0037) to form the cylindrical cartridge (fig. 5), the identity codes (4) are distributed along a circumferential surface of the cartridge, that the identity codes (4) are visible along a circumferential area (fig. 5) of the cylindrical cartridge.
Fujioka teaches having a film that is marked, but fails to disclose the film is a polymeric film with an eye mark.
However, Rusert teaches selecting a polymeric film (50, 52; 90, 92; 120, 134; 170; paragraphs 0081-0082, 0085-0086) with an eye mark (160, 174; paragraphs 0123, 0126) being printed at a predefined location of the polymeric film.
Given the teachings of Rusert (paragraphs 0081-0082, 0123), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Fujioka with the film being a polymeric film and having eye marks as taught by Rusert. Polymeric films allow for the film to be heat sealable and allows the packaged products to be seen easily. Eye marks can help to facilitate intermittent movement, heat sealing steps, and cut-off as the web is processed through the form, fill, and seal machine as it allows for sensors to detect the progress of the film through such machines.
Fujioka discloses marking two or more unique identity codes (4; has month, day and year codes) on a predefined location (fig. 2 and 5) over the film (1), but does not disclose having the codes in two or more rows along a width direction of the polymeric film, each row being spaced across the width such that the identity codes are arranged to occupy distinct portions across the width of the film; the identity codes are distributed along a circumferential surface of the cartridge, such that at least one identity code is scan-readable from any radial orientation around the cartridge.
However, DuCharme teaches having the two or more unique identity codes (50; col. 2 lines 13-19; col. 6 lines 6-14; col. 10 lines 6-14 – “bar codes”) in two or more rows (fig. 1; col. 7 lines 44-49; Two or more print heads 32 are located on opposite sides of the film thus creating at least two rows) along a width direction of the film, each row being spaced across the width such that the identity codes are arranged to occupy distinct portions across the width of the film (fig. 1; col. 7 lines 44-49; Having two or more pint heads 32 located on opposite sides will result in the identity codes arranged to occupy distinct portions across the width of the film); the identity codes are distributed along a circumferential surface of the cartridge, such that at least one identity code is scan-readable (col. 10 lines 6-14 – “bar codes”) from any radial orientation around the cartridge (fig. 1; col. 7 lines 44-49; Having two or more pint heads 32 located on opposite sides will result in one identity code being scan-readable from any radial orientation around the cartridge)
Given the teachings of DuCharme, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Fujioka to have the codes in two or more rows along the width direction of the film. Doing so would make it easier for a user to see the information regardless of the orientation of the package.
The Office deems Fujioka to disclose filling the material (fig. 6 – “fill food 6 in casing portion”; paragraph 0037) inside the hollow cylindrical body through one of the open ends by sealing the other end of the hollow cylindrical body; and sealing the other open end (paragraph 0037) of the filled cylindrical body, thereby configuring the cartridge. Wherein the Applicant may argue that this method step is not disclosed, the Office further points to Wright.
Wright teaches filling the material (col. 3 line 65 – col. 4 line 44; col. 4 line 59 – col. 5 line 18) inside the hollow cylindrical body (24; figs. 2a-2d, 3a-3e) through one of the open ends (figs. 2b, 3b – top end) by sealing (via 28) the other end (fig. 2c, 3b – bottom end) of the hollow cylindrical body; and sealing the other open end (figs. 2d, 3d-3e) of the filled cylindrical body, thereby configuring the cartridge.
Given the teachings of Wright, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Fujioka to have the method steps of filling and sealing of Wright. Fujioka is already concerned about the problem of filling and sealing a tubular casing. Wright teaches how this can be accomplished in such a way that a desired and measured amount of material is selectively deposited into each section of the casing allowing for more uniformity of products.
Fujioka as modified by DuCharme above is deemed to disclose a printing the identity codes in such a manner as to prevent smudging (DuCharme - col. 2 lines 26-28; col. 7 lines 22-23; col. 8 lines 56-58; col. 9 line 63 – col. 10 line 3), but does not specifically disclose printing the identity codes on the polymeric film using a printing method selected from solvent-based, water-based, UV curable ink, or thermal transfer overprinting, such that the printed identity codes remain scan-readable after the cartridge is processed through a hot air blower and a 360° circular air knife configured over a conveyor for removal of external impurities and moisture particles from the circumferential surface of the cartridge.
However, Frost teaches printing (col. 4 lines 2-20) identity codes (col. 10 lines 40-44) on the polymeric film (col. 10 lines 22-39) using a printing method selected from solvent-based, water-based, UV curable ink, or thermal transfer overprinting (col. 7 lines 23-38 – A thermal transfer printer is the technology used for performing thermal transfer overprinting), such that the printed identity codes remain scan-readable after the cartridge is processed through a hot air blower and a 360° circular air knife configured over a conveyor for removal of external impurities and moisture particles from the circumferential surface of the cartridge (See Claim Interpretation above – Because Frost teaches thermal transfer overprinting, it is deemed to produce printed identity codes with the property of being scan-readable after being processed through a hot air blower and a circular air knife)
Given the teachings of Frost, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Fujioka to make use of the thermal transfer overprinting of Frost. Such technology known to produce high resolution graphics on a variety of substrates in a cost-effective manner.
Wherein the Applicant may argue that Frost is not specifically teaching thermal transfer overprinting, the Office alternatively previously took official notice (13 February 2025) that thermal transfer overprinting was notoriously known in the art of package making before the time of effective filing and was widely known for applying bar codes and best buy dates to products. Doing so allows for high quality printing on flexible packaging surfaces which is a problem Fujioka is concerned with. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
As noted in the Claim Interpretation section above, the Office does not deem the steps of “the cartridge is processed through a hot air blower and a 360° circular air knife configured over a conveyor for removal of external impurities and moisture particles from the circumferential surface of the cartridge” to be positively recited.
However, wherein the Applicant may argue that these steps are positively recited, the Office alternatively points to the following prior art references as teaching such limitations.
Fujioka as modified by Wright teaches a conveyor (Wright – figs. 1-3).
Given the teachings of Wright it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to incorporate the conveyor of Wright with the invention of Fujioka. Both are concerned with the problem of rolling and filling a film into a package. Doing so would ensure the packages were generated quickly through automated rollers and uniformly by having the processes be repeatable by the machine.
Fujioka as modified by Wright teaches a conveyor but fails to disclose wherein a hot air blower is configured on a conveyor for removing external impurities from the circumferential area of the cartridge when the hot air blower performs air blowing operation on the cartridge.
However, Mueller teaches wherein a hot air blower (220, 228; col. 13 line 64 – col. 14 line 1) is configured on a conveyor (50; fig. 9) for removing external impurities from the circumferential area of the cartridge (42; i.e. containers) when the hot air blower performs air blowing operation on the cartridge.
Given the teachings of Mueller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the conveyor of Fujioka as modified by Wright to include the hot air blowers of Mueller. All the cited references are concerned with the problem of creating packages for consumer use. Mueller teaches that it was known in the art to provide hot air to containers for packages so that they were sterilized which is beneficial for improving product safety.
Fujioka as modified by Wright teaches a conveyor but fails to disclose wherein the cartridge is passed through a 360° circular air knife configured arranged on the conveyor and the circular air knife is operated for removing moisture particles from the circumferential area of the cartridge.
However, Guzman discloses wherein the cartridge (paragraph 0027 – “packages”) is passed through an air knife (paragraph 0027) configured arranged on the conveyor (paragraph 0027 – “indexing conveyor”) and the air knife is operated for removing moisture particles from the circumferential area of the cartridge (paragraph 0027).
Given the teachings of Guzman it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the method of the conveyor of Fujioka as modified by Wright to include an air knife for removing moisture particles. Fujioka and Guzman are both concerned with the problem of packaging food for sale. Excess moisture is well-known to be damaging to boxes such packages might be placed in or a harboring point for bacteria, neither of which is desirable. As such, having a mechanism to remove this potential hazard is suggested by Guzman and makes the combination obvious.
Fujioka as modified by Wright and Guzman discloses an air knife, but does not specifically disclose a 360° circular air knife.
However, Gerrard teaches an air knife that is a 360° circular air knife (12; col. 2 lines 29-56 and/or 44; col. 7 lines 16-40).
Given the teachings of Gerrard, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the air knife of Fujioka as modified by Wright and Guzman be a 360° circular air knife. Fujioka, Wright and Gerrard are all concerned with the problem of a tubular product manufacturing. Thus, an air knife being used on such a tubular product would be better suited to match the same shape in the form of a circular knife. As noted in Gerrard (col. 7 lines 29-39), such an air knife is helpful in promoting smooth and trough-free passage of the tubing around the mandrel. This would mean that it would be better suited to allowing the tubular film to advance through the conveyor.
Additionally see MPEP 2111.05 regarding limitations of “Printed Matter” with regards to the printed contents of the identity codes and eye marks. The claim does not present a functional relationship between the substrate and the printed matter other than being a support for it. As such, the exact content of printed matter is deemed to have no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 4, Fujioka as modified by DuCharme discloses wherein the identity codes (Fujioka – 4; DuCharme - 50; col. 2 lines 13-19; col. 6 lines 6-14; col. 10 lines 6-14 – “bar codes”) are two-dimensional quick response codes or barcodes (DuCharme - col. 10 lines 6-14 – “bar codes”) or human-readable data (Fujioka - 4; fig. 5) or alphanumeric codes (Fujioka - 4; fig. 5) or alphabetic codes.
Additionally see MPEP 2111.05 regarding limitations of “Printed Matter”. The claim does not present a functional relationship between the substrate and the printed matter other than being a support for it. As such, the exact content of printed matter is deemed to have no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 5, Fujioka as modified by Ducharme discloses wherein the identity codes (Fujioka – 4; DuCharme - 50; col. 2 lines 13-19; col. 6 lines 6-14; col. 10 lines 6-14 – “bar codes”) include the identification data of the cartridge (Fujioka – fig. 5; DuCharme - 50; col. 2 lines 13-19; col. 6 lines 6-14) such as a batch number and/or manufacturing and expiry dates (Fujioka – 4; paragraph 0025) and/or a lot number and/or a manufacturing code and/or a unique identification number or any such information linked with the cartridge (DuCharme - 50; col. 2 lines 13-19; col. 6 lines 6-14).
Additionally see MPEP 2111.05 regarding limitations of “Printed Matter”. The claim does not present a functional relationship between the substrate and the printed matter other than being a support for it. As such, the exact content of printed matter is deemed to have no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 6, Fujioka as modified by DuCharme above is deemed to disclose wherein the unique identity codes are marked on the polymeric film for preventing smudging of the unique identity codes (DuCharme - col. 2 lines 26-28; col. 7 lines 22-23; col. 8 lines 56-58; col. 9 line 63 – col. 10 line 3), but does not specifically disclose the unique identity codes are marked on the polymeric film using a printing method selected from solvent-based, water-based, UV curable ink, or thermal transfer overprinting for preventing smudging of the unique identity codes.
However, Frost teaches the unique identity codes (col. 10 lines 40-44) are marked (col. 4 lines 2-20) on the polymeric film (col. 10 lines 22-39) using a printing method selected from solvent-based, water-based, UV curable ink, or thermal transfer overprinting (col. 7 lines 23-38 – A thermal transfer printer is the technology used for performing thermal transfer overprinting) for preventing smudging of the unique identity codes (See Claim Interpretation above - Because Frost teaches thermal transfer overprinting, it is deemed to produce printed identity codes with the property of preventing smudging).
Given the teachings of Frost, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Fujioka to make use of the thermal transfer overprinting of Frost. Such technology known to produce high resolution graphics on a variety of substrates in a cost-effective manner.
Wherein the Applicant may argue that Frost is not specifically teaching thermal transfer overprinting, the Office alternatively previously took official notice (13 February 2025) that thermal transfer overprinting was notoriously known in the art of package making before the time of effective filing and was widely known for applying bar codes and best buy dates to products. Doing so allows for high quality printing on flexible packaging surfaces which is a problem Fujioka is concerned with. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Regarding claim 7, Fujioka as modified by Rusert above discloses wherein the polymeric film (Rusert - 50, 52; 90, 92; 120, 134; 170; paragraphs 0081-0082, 0085-0086) is a High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) paper or a Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) material or any other material including paper (Rusert - paragraphs 0034, 0081-0082 – “polypropylene” is a known low-density plastic of 0.895-0.93 g/cm3. “nylon” has a comparable density of 1.14 g/cm3. “polyethylene” is known to come in both HDPE and LDPE varieties.).
Regarding claim 8, Fujioka as modified by Rusert discloses a contrast between the identity codes and the polymeric film (Fujioka – #4; fig. 5), but does not specifically disclose wherein the polymeric film is having a white background thereon to provide colour contrast between the identity codes and the polymeric film.
However, the Office previously took official notice (13 February 2025) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the polymeric film is having a white background thereon to provide colour contrast between the identity codes and the polymeric film. Having characters on a white background is a notoriously well-known feature of virtually all printed media. Doing so generally provides the best contrast for darker (e.g. black) lettering. Given the invention of Fujioka is designed to allow people to see the codes, this would make it easier for a human to read the lettering as is standard practice.
The Applicant’s previous response with regard to official notice in this claim is inadequate. Firstly, the Applicant did not specifically state that they traversed the statement of official notice. Secondly, Applicant argues “the claimed white background is not merely aesthetic. It is a functional design element that ensures optical clarity and contrast for both machine and human readability of the codes after cylindrical formation.” This argument is inadequate because it ignores the rationale made by the Office in support of the official notice. The Office did not argue that it was an “aesthetic” consideration. The Office specifically noted that a white background was a notoriously well-known feature in virtually all printed media to provide for better contrast. This was further supported by the fact that Fujioka was designed to allow people to read the codes and thus it would be easier for a human to read them on a white background. If anything, the Applicant’s arguments support the Office’s position. The Applicant does not present any argument that would render the choice of a white background non-obvious when considered against the widely-known and adopted usage of such in the art well before the effective file date. For these reasons, the Applicant’s apparent traversal of official notice is deemed inadequate and therefore taken to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Regarding claim 9, Fujioka discloses wherein the open ends of the cylindrical body (fig. 5) are sealed by folded crimps or rolled crimps (Fujioka - #5, paragraphs 0032, 0037) or wire ties or a staple machine or a glue or an adhesive tape.
Regarding claim 10, Fujioka discloses wherein the identity codes (4) are configured over the polymeric film in an asymmetric manner (fig. 5 – They are not in the center of the package).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Applicant’s arguments often rely on the deficiencies of individual references rather than the claimed combination as a whole. The Office deems the cited combination of references to teach the obviousness of the claimed combination for the reasons provided above.
With regards to DuCharme, the Applicant argues that it is a method of printing on sausage casings and not a package and its drying steps make it so that it does not read on the newly amended language with regards to scan-readable after processing through a hot air blower and air knife. The Office notes that DuCharme is primarily used to demonstrate that the prior art was concerned with locating the printed, unique codes on multiple sides and in multiple rows of a cylindrical product, thus increasing the readability regardless of orientation. This teaching is appliable to both Fujioka and Ducharme because both are concerned with the problem of printing identifiable information on a cylindrical film product. For this reason, DuCharme and Fujioka are deemed to be analogous art.
Ducharme is deemed to address spatial code positioning for radial visibility because it prints scan-readable (i.e. bar codes) on opposite sides of the tubular film and thus would be visible regardless of the orientation since an observer can always see at least one side of the tubular cartridge.
The newly amended subject matter regarding the scan-readability of the printing is deemed to be more acutely taught by Frost as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments directed toward, Rusert, Guzman, Gerrard and Wright appear to largely address claim elements which those references are not being relied upon to teach.
As noted in the Claim Interpretation section above, the Applicant’s newly amended subject matter is deemed to recite a property of the printing that it would still be scan-readable after hypothetically undergoing the steps of being processed through a hot air blower and an air knife. As detailed above, based on the Applicant’s own disclosure, this property is brought about as a direct result of the printing being performed by “solvent-based, water-based, UV curable ink, or thermal transfer overprinting”. Frost is deemed to teach this type of printing method (i.e. thermal transfer overprinting) for the combination of prior art. Thus Frost is deemed to teach the newly amended subject matter. Alternatively, the previous statement of official notice regarding thermal transfer printing is deemed to teach this as well. The Applicant’s arguments do not address Frost or its teachings and the Office deems the prior art of record as combined above to disclose the newly amended claim 1.
The Applicant argues that claims 2 and 3 have been drawn into claim 1, however, the way the claim is drafted does not positively recite those features (see Claim Interpretation). However, the Office has provided an alternative rejection in the event that the Applicant may argue that those method steps are positively recited.
The remainder of the Applicant’s amendments rely on the arguments of claim 1 and thus the rejections are maintained for those claims.
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 ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights