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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 12/17/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: in Paragraph 0058, the basis for the amount of azole compound when used in a primer and/or topcoat formulation or composition has been changed from “1000 L” (e.g. as recited in pending claim 5) to “1000 g”, however the original disclosure fails to support the amended basis (as similarly noted in the parent application, U.S. Patent Appl. No. 14/775,166, see the Office Action dated 11/2/2018, Paragraph 3, incorporated herein by reference), particularly given that there is no indication in the original disclosure that 1000 L of the primer and/or topcoat formulation is equal to 1000 g (i.e. no indication that the primer and/or topcoat formulation has a density of 1 g/L).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites, “A substrate coated at least in part with a coating deposited from the coating composition of claim 1” (emphasis added), however, given that claim 1 is directed to “A composition” and not specifically a “coating composition”, “the coating composition of claim 1” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Dependent claims 10-13 do not remedy the above, and hence are indefinite for the same reasons. In addition, dependent claim 11 recites, “The substrate of claim 10, wherein the metal comprises aluminum, iron, copper, zinc, nickel, magnesium and/or an alloy of any of the metals” (emphasis added), however, given that the claimed “any of the metals” utilizes “metals” in plural form versus the metal in singular form, and that the claimed “any of the metals” is different from the instant specification that recites “and/or an alloy of any of these metals” (emphasis added) in Paragraph 0010, it is unclear as to what is meant to be encompassed by “any of the metals” (emphasis added). Further, dependent claim 13 recites, “The substrate of claim 9, wherein the coated substrate comprises part of a coating stack” (emphasis added), however, given that the claim is directed to the “substrate” (or coated substrate) and not the “coating stack” and that the claim does not specifically recite any additional coating(s) beyond the coating recited in claim 9, it is unclear as to what is meant to be encompassed by the claimed “coated substrate comprises part of a coating stack”, particularly given that in looking to the specification, there is no definition or mention of a “coating stack”. Hence, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Claim Interpretation
Consistent with MPEP § 2111, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation wherein “the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” However, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 f.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993.) It is also noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roth (US2010/0151253A1). As discussed in the parent application (U.S. Patent Appl. No. 14/775,166, see Office Action dated 5/9/2018, Paragraph 7, incorporated herein by reference), Roth discloses an aqueous primer composition (as in instant claim 8) to be applied to metal substrates (as in instant claims 9-10) to inhibit surface corrosion, wherein the aqueous primer composition comprises a combination of corrosion inhibitors including: i. one or more of an organic zinc salt, an alkyl- ammonium salt or cycloalkyl-ammonium salt of a mercapto- and/or thio-compound or an alkyl- substituted derivative thereof; and/or ii. the combination of a non-chromate anodic corrosion inhibitor and a cathodic corrosion inhibitor; and/or iii. one or more of an active ingredient such as water soluble corrosion inhibitors, copper complexing agents, and anti-corrosion pigments containing plumb, phosphates, wolframate, zirconate or iron and combinations thereof, with preferred corrosion inhibitor combinations recited in Paragraphs 0123-0124 and including a thiadiazole, particularly 2,5-dimercapto-1,3,4-thiadiazole (reading upon the claimed azole compound as recited in instant claims 1-4) which is specifically utilized in the working examples as a corrosion inhibitor with co-inhibitors (as in instant claim 6) in exemplified primer formulations comprising an epoxy resin (as a binder as in instant claim 1) that are applied to panels of aluminum alloy 2024T3 (i.e. an aluminum-copper alloy as in instant claim 12) to form a coating thereon (as in instant claims 9-12; Entire document, particularly Abstract; Paragraphs 0106-0124; Examples, Tables 1-2 and 5, particularly Examples 5-8 and 13-15). Hence, Roth anticipates instant claims 1-4, 6, and 8-12.
With respect to instant claim 7, Roth discloses that the cathodic corrosion inhibitor is preferably a cation of a rare earth element, examples of which include compounds of neodymium, cerium and lanthanum, such as cerium phosphate (Paragraph 0118, e.g., CePO4), or the cathodic corrosion inhibitor may be combined with the anodic corrosion inhibitor as an individual ionic compound, such as cerium molybdate (i.e., CexMoyOz - a rare earth oxide) with at least one working example utilizing a combination of 2,5-dimercapto-1,3,4-thiadiazole as an azole corrosion inhibitor with cerium molybdate as a combined ionic corrosion inhibitor in an epoxy resin primer composition (Example 6, Tables 1-2), thereby anticipating instant claim 7.
With respect to instant claim 13, the Examiner first notes that the limitation “wherein the coated substrate comprises part of a coating stack” appears to constitute intended end use of the claimed “substrate” or “coated substrate” given that instant claim 13 is directed to the “substrate” and not the “coating stack” and that the claim does not specifically require any additional coating(s) aside from the coating already recited in instant claim 9 from which instant claim 13 depends, nor does the claim provide any additional material or structural limitations to the claimed “substrate” to differentiate the claimed “substrate” from the coated substrate disclosed by Roth. However, it is further noted that Roth specifically discloses that the primed substrate(s) may be formed into a bonded assembly comprising at least two substrates and a bond formed by the cured primer composition and cured adhesive positioned therebetween (Paragraph 0133) reading upon the broadly claimed “part of a coating stack” as in instant claim 13, and/or that the substrate to be coated may be a clad aluminum alloy substrate (Paragraph 0134) which would also read upon the broadly claimed “part of a coating stack” as in instant claim 13, and given that both clad substrates and bonded assemblies are provided in the working examples, Roth anticipates instant claim 13.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urakawa (US2009/0032286A1). Urakawa discloses an epoxy resin composition comprising (A) an oxazolidone ring-containing epoxy resin, (B) a novolac-type epoxy resin, (C) a guanidine derivative, and (D) an imidazole compound (as in instant claims 1-3) in an amount of not more than 0.08 part by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the epoxy resins (A) and (B), particularly 0.005 to 0.08 part by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the epoxy resins (A) and (B) (Abstract, Claims 1 and 4), with an exemplified epoxy varnish composition (Example 4) containing three different epoxy resins (i.e., “a binder comprising an epoxy” as in instant claim 1) and 0.005 part by weight of 2-phenylimidazole (an azole compound as in instant claims 1-3) that based upon the components of the composition of Example 4 (i.e., the epoxy resins, dicyandiamide as component (C), and the 2-phenylimidazole) falls within the claimed 0.5 g/ 1000 L to 70 g/ 1000 L based on total weight of the composition as recited in instant claim 5 (Examples, Tables 1-2). Hence, Urakawa anticipates instant claims 1-3 and 5.
With respect to instant claim 8, the Examiner takes the position that the claimed “formulated as a primer and/or topcoat” constitutes intended end use of the composition of instant claim 1 and does not provide any additional material or structural limitations to the claimed composition to differentiate the claimed composition from the composition disclosed by Urakawa, and given that the composition disclosed by Urakawa is capable of the same intended end use, Urakawa anticipates instant claim 8.
With respect to instant claims 9 and 13, Urakawa discloses that the epoxy resin composition can be coated onto a base material to impregnate the composition therein forming a prepreg (Paragraphs 0051-0053), and given that Urakawa specifically discloses examples wherein the epoxy varnish is used to impregnate a glass cloth to form a prepreg ply, reading upon the claimed “substrate coated at least in part with a coating deposited from the coating composition of claim 1” as in instant claim 9, and then a plurality of the prepreg plies are stacked (“part of a coating stack”) and used to form a copper clad laminate (Examples), Urakawa anticipates instant claim 9 as well as instant claim 13, particularly given the lack of clarity thereof as discussed in detail above.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valko (US2009/0045071A1). Valko discloses an aqueous dispersion coating composition, for applying a coating on aluminum substrates (as in instant claims 9-11), comprising an epoxy resin (“a binder comprising an epoxy” as in instant claim 1), a curing agent, and an azole as a preferred corrosion inhibitor (as in instant claim 1), particularly benzotriazole (i.e., “1H-benzotriazole”; as in instant claims 2-4), wherein typically the azole is present in the aqueous dispersion in amounts as low as 0.001 percent by weight (i.e. 0.001 g/100 g or 10 g/1000000 g), such as 0.001 to 1% by weight based on total weight of the aqueous composition (Abstract, Paragraph 0019, Claims 10-12); and given that Valko discloses that the aqueous composition typically has a solids content of 5 to 25%, preferably 5 to 15% such that the density of aqueous composition based upon the components thereof is close to the density of water (e.g., ~ 1 kg/L), the 0.001% by weight disclosed by Valko falls within the claimed range of 0.5 to 70 g/1000 L based on total weight of the composition as recited in instant claim 5 (Entire document, particularly as noted above). Hence, Valko anticipates instant claims 1-5 and 9-11.
With respect to instant claim 6, Valko discloses that the epoxy resin is a phosphated epoxy resin comprising a mixture of the reaction product of one or more polymeric epoxy compounds with phosphoric acid and with an organophosphonic acid and/or an organo-phosphinic acid (Claim 1), wherein the Examiner takes the position that the phosphoric acid, organo-phosphonic acid and/or an organophosphinic acid read(s) upon the claimed “co-inhibitor” as recited in instant claim 6, and hence Valko anticipates instant claim 6.
With respect to instant claim 8, the Examiner first notes that the limitation “formulated as a primer and/or topcoat” constitutes intended end use of the composition and does not provide any additional material or structural limitations to the claimed composition to differentiate the claimed composition from the composition disclosed by Valko. In addition, given that Valko clearly discloses that the composition may be applied to aluminum substrates that are optionally pretreated with a corrosion-inhibiting treatment (Paragraph 0021) and that the invention overcomes problems with respect to known phosphate epoxy coatings to which adhesives are subsequently applied in order to adhere the aluminum substrates to form structural joints (e.g., “formulated as a primer”; Paragraphs 0002-0003), Valko anticipates instant claim 8.
With respect to instant claim 13, as noted above with respect to instant claim 8, Valko clearly discloses that the aluminum substrates to which the electrodeposition compositions may be applied can be optionally pretreated with a corrosion-inhibitor treatment (i.e., constituting an additional “coating” layer; Paragraph 0021), thereby anticipating instant claim 13, particularly given the lack of clarity thereof as discussed in detail above and that the limitation appears to be directed to the intended end of the claimed “substrate” or “coated substrate” as discussed above.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morgan (USPN 5,061,566). Morgan discloses a corrosion inhibiting composition comprising a polyurethane resin, particularly a fluorinated polyurethane (Abstract, Claim 15; reading upon the claimed “binder comprising…a urethane, and/or fluorinated urethane” as in instant claim 1); a stabilized conductive filler, particularly a stabilized copper powder (Abstract; reading upon the claimed “further comprising a co-inhibitor” as in instant claim 6 given that copper powder is a known corrosion inhibitor in the art); and an azole (Abstract) as an organic corrosion inhibitor (as in instant claim 1), “preferably an aromatic triazole, an imidazole, or a thiazole, and most [preferably] an alkyl substituted aromatic triazole, e.g. tolytriazole and benzotriazole” (i.e. “1H-benzotriazole”; Col. 4, lines 47-61; Claims 12 and 28-29; as in instant claims 2-4), with working examples specifically reading upon the claimed composition as recited in instant claims 1-4 and 6 (Examples 1-3). Hence, Morgan anticipates instant claims 1-4 and 6.
With respect to instant claim 8, it is again noted that the claimed “formulated as a primer and/or a topcoat” constitutes intended end use of the composition and does not provide any additional material or structural limitations to differentiate the claimed composition from the composition disclosed by Morgan, particularly given that Morgan discloses that the coated substrate may be bonded to a second substrate or a gasket, forming an assembled part (reading upon “formulated as a primer”; Col. 6, lines 16-22). Hence, Morgan anticipates instant claim 8.
With respect to instant claims 9-12, Morgan discloses that the corrosion inhibiting coating composition may be used on any solid substrate, e.g., metals such as aluminum or steel (as in instant claims 9-11) , with working examples specifically utilizing a coating composition comprising a fluorinated urethane resin, stabilized copper powder, and tolytriazole or proprietary triazole compound that is spray coated onto an aluminum alloy 3000 series substrate to form a coating layer thereon (Examples 1-2), as well as an example further comprising zinc chromate (Example 3) that is applied to an aluminum alloy AL 2024-class III substrate (i.e. an aluminum copper alloy as in instant claim 12). Hence, Morgan anticipates instant claims 9-12.
With respect to instant claim 13, as noted above, Morgan discloses that the coated substrate may be bonded to a second substrate or a gasket, forming an assembled part (Col. 6, lines 16-22), reading upon the claimed “coating stack”, thereby anticipating instant claim 13, particularly given the lack of clarity thereof as discussed in detail above and that the limitation appears to be directed to the intended end of the claimed “substrate” or “coated substrate” as discussed above.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peffer (US2011/0008625A1). Peffer discloses an aqueous dispersion coating composition for applying an electrodeposition coating to aluminum substrates (Abstract, as in instant claims 9-11), wherein the aqueous dispersion composition comprises a phosphate epoxy resin (“a binder comprising an epoxy” as in instant claim 1), a lanthanide series element or oxide thereof (Paragraphs 0024-0025, Claims 2-3; reading upon the claimed “co-inhibitor” as in instant claim 6, and particularly “comprising a rare earth oxide” as in instant claim 7); and an azole compound as a corrosion inhibitor such as those as recited in Paragraph 0031, particularly benzotriazole (i.e., “1H-benzotriazole”; as in instant claims 1-4), wherein typically the azole is present in the aqueous dispersion in amounts as low as 0.001 percent by weight (i.e. 0.001 g/100 g or 10 g/1000000 g), such as 0.001 to 1% by weight based on total weight of the aqueous composition (Abstract, Paragraph 0031, Claims 12-14); and given that Peffer discloses that the aqueous electrodepositable composition of the invention typically has a solids content of 5 to 25%, preferably 5 to 15% (Paragraph 0033) such that the density of the aqueous composition based upon the components thereof is close to the density of water (e.g., ~ 1 kg/L), the 0.001% by weight disclosed by Peffer falls within the claimed range of 0.5 to 70 g/1000 L based on total weight of the composition as recited in instant claim 5 (Entire document, particularly as noted above and Examples). Hence, Peffer anticipates instant claims 1-7 and 9-11.
With respect to instant claim 8, the Examiner again notes that the limitation “formulated as a primer and/or topcoat” constitutes intended end use of the composition and does not provide any additional material or structural limitations to the claimed composition to differentiate the claimed composition from the composition disclosed by Peffer. In addition, given that Peffer clearly discloses that the composition may be applied to aluminum substrates that are optionally pretreated with a corrosion-inhibiting treatment (Paragraph 0033) and that the invention overcomes problems with respect to known phosphate epoxy coatings to which adhesives are subsequently applied in order to adhere the aluminum substrates to form structural joints (e.g., “formulated as a primer”; Paragraphs 0004-0005), Peffer anticipates instant claim 8.
With respect to instant claim 12, Peffer specifically discloses examples wherein aluminum alloy 2024-T3 panels are utilized as the substrate and are coated with a composition comprising an epoxy resin binder and an azole compound (as in instant claim 1 from which claim 10 ultimately depends), and given that AA 2024-T3 is an aluminum copper alloy, Peffer anticipates instant claim 12 (Examples).
With respect to instant claim 13, as noted above with respect to instant claim 8, Peffer clearly discloses that the aluminum substrates to which the electrodeposition compositions may be applied can be optionally pretreated with a corrosion-inhibitor treatment, particularly a conversion coating composition as in Paragraphs 0039-0041 (i.e., constituting an additional “coating” layer; Paragraphs 0033-0042), thereby anticipating instant claim 13, particularly given the lack of clarity thereof as discussed in detail above and that the limitation appears to be directed to the intended end of the claimed “substrate” or “coated substrate” as discussed above.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth (US2010/0151253A1) as applied above to claims 1-4 and 6-13 and further discussed below. The teachings of Roth are discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference, wherein as noted above, Roth teaches an aqueous primer composition comprises a combination of corrosion inhibitors including triazole derivatives as an active ingredient (Paragraphs 0106-0111), and a rare earth element cation as a cathodic corrosion inhibitor (Paragraph 0118) or cerium molybdate as a combined anodic and cathodic corrosion inhibitor, with preferred corrosion inhibitor combinations recited in Paragraphs 0123-0124 and including a thiadiazole, particularly 2,5-dimercapto-1,3,4-thiadiazole, and/or cerium phosphate or molybdate, that may be incorporated into an aqueous epoxy primer composition (Paragraph 0027-0040) as in the examples (Examples), and although Roth teaches that in general, the “corrosion inhibitor may be used in an amount of about 0.001 to about 15 wt %, such as about 0.5 to 15 wt %, desirably about 1 to about 10 wt %, preferably about 3 to about 7 wt %, based on the total primer composition” (Paragraph 0126), Roth does not specifically teach that the triazole derivatives, particularly 2,5-dimercapto-1,3,4-thiadiazole, as the claimed azole corrosion inhibitor is present in an amount as instantly claimed. However, given that Roth clearly teaches a corrosion inhibitor content as low as “about 0.001” wt% based on the total primer composition and that the aqueous dispersion includes from about 10 to about 60 wt% of the dispersed primer with the aqueous phase representing the balance (Paragraph 0031) such that based upon the components of the primer composition as taught by Roth, particularly as in the examples, the above corrosion inhibitor content as taught by Roth falls within and/or overlaps the claimed azole range of 0.5 g/ 1000 L to 70 g/ 1000 L based on total weight of the composition as recited in instant claim 5, and given that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to utilize any of the corrosion inhibitors taught by Roth or combination thereof, in any amount(s) as taught by Roth, the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 5 would have been obvious over the teachings of Roth given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Alternatively, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valko or Peffer, as applied to claim 1 above and further discussed below.
The teachings of each of Valko and Peffer are discussed in detail above (and incorporated herein by reference) and although the Examiner is of the position that each reference is anticipatory with respect to instant claim 5 for the reasons discussed in detail above, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that the claimed amount of azole compound as recited in instant claim 5 would have been obvious over the teachings of each of Valko or Peffer, particularly in light of the 0.001% by weight of the azole corrosion inhibitor based on total weight of the aqueous composition as discussed above, and/or given that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimum content of azole corrosion inhibitor to provide the desired corrosion inhibiting properties for a particular end use. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 5 (alternatively) would have been obvious over the teachings of Valko or Peffer.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsuda (US2012/0208043A1) discloses a surface treatment solution (B) to be applied as a second treatment layer on a galvanized steel substrate wherein the surface treatment solution (B) comprises an organic resin, such as an epoxy resin or a urethane resin, and a rust-inhibiting additive (Y) that may be selected from various corrosion inhibitors or combinations thereof including (n) one or more organic compounds selected from triazoles, thiols, thiadiazoles, thiazoles, and thiurams, with example thereof including 1,2,4-triazole, 1H-benzotriazole, 5-amino-2-mercapto-1,3,4-thiadiazole, and 2,5-dimercapto-1,3,4-thiadiazole. Ishimaru (USPN 4,438,190A) discloses a photosensitive resin composition, for providing a protective coating on a substrate surface, comprising a urethane resin and a benzotriazole compound in an amount of about 0.001% by weight or more based on the total weight of a photosensitive resin, preferably 0.01 to 3% by weight. Dexter (USPN 4,902,734) discloses acid-curable thermosetting enamels for application to copper or copper-containing alloys, wherein the presence of small amounts of a triazole, particularly benzotriazole or tolutriazole, incorporated into the enamel composition at a content of 0.001 to 0.5%, prevent the discoloration and the decrease in light stability of the coating. Stoffer (USPN 7,759,419) discloses a corrosion resistant coating composition, particularly a self-priming topcoat formulation, comprising one or more organic binders, such as epoxy and/or urethane resin binders, and an effective corrosion-inhibiting amount of a rare earth compound, particularly rare earth oxides, in combination with one or more substantially insoluble extenders and corrosion-inhibiting and/or color pigments such as Carbazole Violet (an azole compound).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787