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 .
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on December 11, 2024 and January 17,2025 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The IDS listed NPL reference A79 “A new Reaction of N-vinylcarbazole…” by Pielichowski is missing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “a reaction temperature of about 200 °C or less or about 100 °C or less.”
MPEP 2175, “Broader Range/Limitation And Narrow Range/Limitation in Same Claim” states “A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.”
“about 100 °C or less” is completely subsumed by “about 200 °C or less”. Reciting both “about 200 °C or less” and “about 100 °C or less” in the alternative (with a “or”) makes the invention unclear for what the Applicant is actually seeking for protection.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Under MPEP 2117 “II. IMPROPER MARKUSH GROUPING” a claim that recites a list of alternatives (a Markush grouping) must satisfy two criteria to be proper:
A. "Single Structural Similarity" - Members of a Physical, Chemical, or Art-Recognized Class
Members of a Markush group share a "single structural similarity" when they belong to the same recognized physical or chemical class or to the same art-recognized class.
B. Common Use Flows From Substantial Structural Feature [AltContent: rect]
Where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as explained in subsection II.A, above, the members of the Markush grouping may still be considered to be proper where the alternatives share a substantial structural feature that is essential to a common use.
Claim 8 recites that “the organic compound comprises…” a list of alternatives includes: “a terephthalate, an isophthalate, a bisphenol A or derivative thereof, 4,4-methylene diphenyl (MDI), a trifunctional terephthalate, a tris-phenolic core, a isocyanurate, a phosphazene, a siloxane, a isocorbide, a naturally occurring product, or a combination of any two or more thereof.” These recited alternatives do not belong to a single recognized physical or chemical class. Specific synthetic chemical classes , for example, phosphazene, siloxane, isocyanurate, etc., are grouped together within a same category of “a naturally occurring product”. In addition, the term “a naturally occurring product” encompasses millions or even countless of structurally different or similar chemicals that could bear no single structural similarity. Furthermore, the instant Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence showing that all chemical members of this widely covered chemicals group, especially the entire “naturally occurring products”, possess the same flame-retardant characteristics or perform such functionality within the claimed composition.
As a result, the listing of alternatives as well as “a naturally occurring product” in Claim 8 constitutes an improper Markush grouping.
And furthermore, the term “a naturally occurring product” in the Claim 8 is so expansive and ill-defined that a PHOSITA can not determine the metes and bounds of the claim. Without explicit definition and proper boundaries in the specification, it would be impossible to determine for a PHOSITA which “naturally occurring product” falls within or outside the scope of the claimed flame-retardant composition. Claim 8 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 9 depends on Claim 8, leading to the fact that Claim 9 incorporates all the limitations of Claim 8, therefore lacks the same indefiniteness and improper Markush grouping issues stated above, and therefore is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-7, 10-12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,429,859 A (Meyers et al.) (submitted by applicant on 12/11/2024), hereafter referred as Meyers.
Meyers is directed to the same core reaction chemistry claimed in the instant Application – the reaction product of a sulfur halide (sulfur monochloride, S2Cl2, or sulfur dichloride SCl2) and an organic compound bearing carbon-carbon unsaturation (cyclopentadiene or dicyclopentadiene), produced under reaction conditions “The reaction temperature most suitable for the preparation of the polymers is about 20oC, but the temperature may range to about room temperature or above for periods of from about 2 to 24 hours” (Meyers, col. 2, lines 25-36), and useful as a flame retardant “This invention relates to novel dichloroalicyclic sulfide polymers and to a method of preparing same which comprises reacting a diunsaturated alicyclic compound such as cyclopentadiene with a sulfur chloride to obtain the corresponding dichloroalicyclic sulfide polymers having an average molecular weight of at least 10,000.” (Meyers, Abstract).
Meyers’ Claim 1 recites substantially the same subject matter “Thermoplastic flame-retardant polymers obtained by reacting diunsaturated alicyclic compounds selected from the group consisting of cyclopentadiene, dicyclopentadiene, and the halogen or lower alkyl substituted cyclopentadienes or dicyclopentadiene with a sulfur chloride to obtain linear dichloroalicyclic sulfide polymers having an average molecular weight of at least 10,000.” (Meyers, col. 4, line 71 – col. 5 line 2, Claim 1)
Regarding Claims 1 -3:
Meyers discloses a flame-retardant composition “Thermoplastic flame-retardant polymers obtained by reacting diunsaturated alicyclic compounds selected from the group consisting of cyclopentadiene, dicyclopentadiene, and the halogen or lower alkyl substituted cyclopentadienes or dicyclopentadiene with a sulfur chloride to obtain linear dichloroalicyclic sulfide polymers having an average molecular weight of at least 10,000.” (Meyers’ Claim 1, col. 4 line 80 – col. 5 line 2) comprising a polymer that is a reaction product of a mixture of a chalcogenide halide (sulfur chloride, i.e., sulfur monochloride S2Cl2 or sulfur dichloride SCl2.) (Note: sulfur is a chalcogen) and an organic compound comprising an unsaturated carbon-carbon bond (cyclopentadiene or dicyclopentadiene, each expressly described as “diunsaturated,” (Meyers, col. 2, line 9), i.e., containing carbon-carbon double bonds under reaction conditions “The reaction temperature most suitable for the preparation of the polymers is about 20 oC, but the temperature may range to about room temperature or above for periods of from about 2 to 24 hours. In any event, the reaction temperature and time is maintained to ensure a reaction between the cyclodiene and the sulfur chloride so as to obtain addition of the sulfur and chlorine atoms to the double bonds of the ring and to insure a high molecular weight.” (Meyers, col. 2, lines 33-42).
Meyers further discloses that the “sulfur chloride” reagent is expressly “either sulfur monochloride or sulfur dichloride” (Meyers, col. 2, lines 28-29), reading directly on the instant Application’s claim 1’s “sulfur monochloride” and “a sulfur dihalide.”
As to the instant Application’s disclosure of “a selenium monohalide, a selenium dihalide, a selenium tetrahalide” (selenium halides) that Meyers does not expressly teach, the “sulfur halides” and “selenium halides” belong to the same Markush group, and a Markush group is anticipated by a single prior species falling within the group. MPEP 2131, "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001),
Therefore, every element of Claim 1-3 is therefore disclosed by Meyers.
Regarding Claims 4-6:
“Cyclopentadiene, dicyclopentadiene” as used in Meyers’ (Meyers, Claim 1, col. 4 line 80 – col. 5 line 2), are cyclic dienes possessing carbon-carbon double bonds. Meyers repeatedly refers to the “double bonds of the ring” being consumed in the reaction with sulfur chloride (Meyers, col. 2, lines 41-42) “addition of the sulfur and chlorine atoms to the double bonds of the ring…”. This anticipates the “carbon-carbon double bond” option of Claim 4.
Meyers expressly and repeatedly characterizes its “cyclopentadiene, dicyclopentadiene” reactant as a “diunsaturated alicyclic compound” (Meyers, Abstract, Claims 1 and 11, and col. 1, line 19), i.e., a compound having two carbon-carbon unsaturations. This is precisely what Claim 5 requires.
As to the use of “a carbon-carbon triple bond” claimed in the Claim 4 and “at least three unsaturated carbon-carbon bonds” claimed in the Claim 6 by the instant Application, as per MPEP 2131.02(1) “Genus-Species Situations”: "A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus." Because Meyers explicitly teaches the species (double bonds) – which is a species falling directly inside the claimed genus, therefore it inherently destroys the novelty of the broader generic claim as written by the instant Application’s Claims 4-6.
Regarding Claim 7:
Cyclopentadiene and dicyclopentadiene are each a “cyclic olefin” within the plain meaning of that term (a cyclic hydrocarbon bearing carbon-carbon double bond unsaturation), and are described by Meyers as “cyclic diolefins” (Meyers, col. 2, lines 17-19) “The cyclopentadienes for purposes of this invention may be characterized as cyclic diolefins”. This anticipates the “cyclic olefin” option of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 10:
Meyers’ Example 1 discloses exactly this process step “To a solution of 67.3 parts by weight (1.02 M) of cyclopenta-diene in 300 parts by weight of methylene chloride in a one liter, three necked, round bottom flask which was equipped with a thermometer, dropping funnel, and a magnetic stirrer, was added a solution of 107.8 parts by weight (1.02 M) of freshly distilled sulfur dichloride in 300 parts by weight of methylene dichloride over a period of one hour while the temperature was maintained at about -20 oC.” (Meyers, Example 1, col. 3, lines 60-68). This is the admixing of a monomeric mixture of the chalcogenide (sulfur) halide and the unsaturated organic compound under suitable reaction conditions, precisely as claimed in the Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11:
Meyers’ Example 1 discloses the use of “methylene chloride” (Meyers, col. 3, lines 62-63) or Example 3 “methylene dichloride” (Meyers, col. 4, line 39), both organic solvents. Meyers additionally discloses a broader list of suitable organic solvents “methylene chloride, tetrachloroethane, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, chlorobenzene, nitrobenzene, fluorotrichloromethane, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, petroleum ether, and the like.” (Meyers, col. 2, lines 50-53, also Claim 14 at col. 6, lines 29-34)
Regarding Claims 12:
Meyers teaches conducting the reaction conditions at “about -20oC… range to about room temperature or above” (Meyers, col. 2, lines 35-36), and its working examples are conducted at approximately -20oC to room temperature. (Meyers, Examples 1 and 3, col, 3, lines 68-74, and col. 4, lines 45-46). Every temperature Meyers discloses or uses in his examples falls well within the instant Application Claim 12’s limitation of “about 200oC or less or about 100oC or less”, anticipates Claim 12’s broad, open-ended temperature ceiling.
Regarding Claim 19:
Meyers expressly teaches combining its flame-retardant polymer with a base material to form molded, coated, or laminated articles “The poly(dichloroalicyclic sulfide) polymers of this invention have improved mechanical properties and may be used in preparing coatings, laminates, adhesives, and various molded articles.” (Meyers, col. 1, lines 24-27).
Furthermore, Meyers Example 2 discloses combining the polymer with a metal oxide base material (MgO/ZnO) and press-molding a consolidated, flame-resistant plug that “MgO and … ZnO and pressed into a … die … to obtain a consolidated plug. …, the flame test showed that the polymer was flame retardant in that it immediately stopped burning when removed from a flame.” (Meyers, Example 2). This anticipates the instant Application’s Claim 19 “A flame resistant substrate comprising a base material combined with the flame-retardant composition of Claim 1”.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites the identical subject matter of Claim 1 in “A processing for producing” form. Meyers’ process in his Claim 11 (Meyers, col. 6, lines 14-19) recites the corresponding process “A process for preparing thermoplastic flame-retardant polymers which comprises reacting approximately one mole of a diunsaturated alicyclic compound selected from the group consisting of cyclopentadiene, dicyclopentadiene, and the halogen or lower alkyl substituted cyclopentadienes or dicyclopentadiene with about one mole of a sulfur chloride to obtain linear dichloroalicyclic sulfide polymers having an average molecular weight of at least 10,000.”
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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,429,859 A (Meyers et al.), hereafter referred as Meyers (submitted by applicant on 12/11/2024), in view of US 11,015,023 B2 (Pyun et al.) (submitted by applicant on 12/11/2024), hereafter referred as Pyun.
Meyers discloses “unsaturation of the dienes” (Meyers, col. 2 line 62) and “reacting diunsaturated alicyclic compounds” (Meyers, Claim 1), and especially “to the double bonds of the ring” (Meyers, col. 2 line 40-41) for crosslinking reactions, Meyers is silent as to the use of bisphenol-A-derivative or isocyanurate comonomers as the organic compounds.
Here, Pyun is in the same field of endeavor (sulfur-based flame-retardant copolymers) and expressly teaches the use of a bisphenol-A-derivative organic comonomer bearing reactive unsaturation/epoxide functionality reacted with the sulfur copolymer. The comonomers include “… diglycidyl bisphenol A ethers, mono- or polyglycidyl(cyclo)alkyl ethers, mono- or polyepoxy(cyclo)alkane compounds…” (Pyun, col. 6, lines 19-20), “… bisphenol A di(meth)acrylates,…” (Pyun, col. 7, line 13)
Furthermore, the Meyers’ reference notes that other variations are acceptable “… there are other variations and modifications which can be resorted to…”. (Meyers, col. 4, lines 65-70)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to substitute the dienes of Meyers’ with the bisphenol A and its derivatives taught by Pyun because Pyun’s prior art reference establishes that these specific comonomer chemistries are already known for imparting or enhancing flame-retardant characteristics (note: bisphenol-A derivatives being well known char-promoting/flame-retardant building blocks.) Substituting a known, functionally equivalent flame-retardant comonomer for the cyclopentadiene comonomer of Meyers’ is the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results. MPEP 2144.05, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 13 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,429,859 A (Meyers et al.), hereafter referred as Meyers (submitted by applicant on 12/11/2024), in view of US 11,732,076 B2 (Ding et al.), hereafter referred as Ding.
Meyers teaches conducting the reaction conditions at “about -20oC… range to about room temperature or above” (Meyers, col. 2, lines 35-36), and its working examples are conducted at approximately -20oC to room temperature. (Meyers, Examples 1 and 3, col, 3, lines 68-74, and col. 4, lines 45-46). The instant Application Claim 13’s limitation of “from about 50oC to about 100oC” is outside of Meyers’ disclosed temperature range. Ding, however, is in the same field of endeavor (flame retardancy of the copolymer resin obtained by crosslinking the cyclic diene-based copolymer with S2Cl2), discloses “The reaction can be conducted by adding a mixture of the monomers to a mixture of the catalyst and solvent over a period ranging from 5 minutes to several hours, at a temperature from −100° to +120° C., …, , or from 50° C. to 80° C.” (Ding, col. 11, lines 46-48; col. 5, lines 40-44). In general, the optimal or a workable range, in this case the reaction temperature, to optimize reaction, is considered a matter of routine experimentation optimization for a PHOSITA. AFurthermore, Meyers does disclose that “at room temperature or above” (Meyers, col. 2, lines 35-36) to show that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to try and experiment different reaction temperatures, such as 50oC-100oC, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 14 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,429,859 A (Meyers et al.), hereafter referred as Meyers(submitted by applicant on 12/11/2024), in view of US 11,015,023 B2 (Pyun et al.), hereafter referred as Pyun (submitted by applicant on 12/11/2024).
Meyers does not teach the use of “sulfur-derived copolymers, such as a poly(sulfur-random-styrene)” to combine with its sulfur-chloride reaction mixture.
However, Pyun expressly discloses preparing sulfur-derived copolymers, including “poly(sulfur-random-(1,3-diisopropenylbenzene) (poly(S-r-DIB)) copolymer” (Pyun, col. 11, lines 24-25), a poly(sulfur-random-styrene)-type copolymers, for use in flame retardant compositions of the same general type. And Pyun’s applications Example 6 “In other embodiments, the DIB30 sulfur copolymer of Example 1… In some embodiments, the sulfur copolymer is produced by providing elemental sulfur, heating the elemental sulfur into molten sulfur, and adding organic comonomers to the molten sulfur, thereby forming the sulfur copolymer.” (Pyun, col. 12, lines 51-60).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill (PHOSITA) to incorporate Pyun’s sulfur-derived copolymer (e.g., poly(sulfur-random-styrene)) into Meyers’ sulfur-chloride reaction mixture, as both are well-known sulfur-based flame retardant polymer chemistries, and combining the known flame-retardant sulfur copolymer components in a common reaction mixture is the predictable combination of known elements to a PHOSITA, motivated by Pyun’s own teaching that such elemental-sulfur copolymers promote a “higher carbon char content” and are “inexpensive” reactive to other sulfur sources. (Pyun, col. 4, lines 7-9)
Claim 15-18 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,429,859 A (Meyers et al.), hereafter referred as Meyers, in view of US 11,015,023 B2 (Pyun et al.), hereafter referred as Pyun.
Meyers teaches that its sulfur-chloride polymer chemistry is self-extinguishing and fire-retardant in a directly comparable molded article: “the polymers of this invention are particularly outstanding in that they are self-extinguishing due to the high percentage of chlorine.” (Meyers, col. 1, lines 38-40) “… the flame test showed that the polymer was flame retardant in that it immediately stopped burning when removed from a flame.” (Meyers, Example 2, col. 4, lines 32-34).
Meyers does not, however, explicitly recite the specific phrase or vocabulary “charring layer”, nor does it explicitly quantify specific char metrics such as LOI, UL94 rating (V-0, V-1, V-2, etc.), or heat release capacity (HRC).
Pyun, however, is directed to the identical objective of the instant Application - namely, sulfur-based, non-halogenated-alternative flame-retardant polymer composition. Pyun explicitly teaches that incorporating sulfur-based crosslinked polymer materials forms a protective “charring layer” upon exposure to heat/flame, which acts as a physical thermal barrier preventing further combustion and flame spread (Pyun, Abstract, and col. 4, lines 53-55, 15-28; and col. 9, lines line 19-21). Pyun further quantifies this flame-retardant char formation using standard industry metrics, including “UL94-V rating of V-1 or V-0” ratings and elevated LOI values (Pyun, col. 4, lines 44-45).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the effective filing date to apply the teaching of Pyun regarding protective char layer formation to the sulfur-based polymer compositions of Meyers. Both Meyers and Pyun address the same fundamental problem: enhancing and maximizing the flame retardancy of polymer materials. Applying Pyun’s mechanism of protective char formation to Meyers’ sulfur-chlorine-based polymer materials represents the application of a known technique to a known product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143, Section I “(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; ”). A PHOSITA would reasonably expect that optimizing Meyers’ polymer system to form a protective char layer as taught by Pyun would yield the expected result of improved thermal shielding/barrier and leading to self-extinguishing performance.
Regarding Claim 18, Meyers teaches the limitations as discussed above. Further, Meyers does not teach while Pyun teaches the recited “<400 J/gK heat release capacity” (HRC) which is a property inherent to, or, at minimum, obviously obtainable through routine Micro Scale Combustion (MSC) calorimetry testing, as shown by Pyun’s Tables 1-2 (Pyun, col. 11 lines 56-65 and col. 12 lines 1-10), of a sulfur-chlorine polymer of Claims 1-17 above. The instant Application does not identify any showing of critically unexpected results tied specifically to this numerical threshold that would distinguish the claimed composition from the combination of Meyers’ and Pyun’s. Meyers’ chlorine/sulfur-containing char-forming polymers show self-extinguishing property when the fire is removed from the polymers. Pyun specifically discloses the use of MSC as the testing tool to characterize the obtained flame-retardant polymer materials. Heat Release Capacity (HRC) is an inherent property of any flame-retardant materials, and Pyun discloses his HRC data which is lower than “<400 J/gK” (Pyun, col. 11 lines 56-65 and col. 12 lines 1-10). A PHOSITA at the effective date of filing would have been motivated to perform standard MSC (Micro Scale Combustion) testing, or sometimes called pyrolysis-combustion flow calorimetry or more simply called “pyrolysis” (Pyun, Table 1, col. 11, line 55), per ASTM D7309, on the polymer of Meyers to determine its HRC value, because MSC is a known analytical technique in the art. The instant Application does not demonstrate any critically unexpected results associated with the specific numerical threshold of “<400 J/gK” . Therefore, a PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in carrying out routine testing to arrive the claimed HRC value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARD SHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3101. 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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/G.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/HEIDI R KELLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights