DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 8 are pending in the instant application and are being examined on the merits in the instant application.
Advisory Notice
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
All rejections and/or objections not explicitly maintained in the instant office action have been withdrawn per Applicants’ claim amendments and/or persuasive arguments.
Priority
The instant Application is 371 of PCT/JP2022/042810 filed 11/18/2022 and claims priority to JP-2021-196461 filed 12/02/2021.
The U.S. effective filing date has been determined to be 11/18/2022, the filing date of the PCT/JP2022/042810. Applicant's claim for a foreign priority date of, 12/02/2021, the filing date of document JP-2021-196461, is acknowledged, however no English translation of the foreign priority document such that the examiner can confirm written description (112(a)) support therein.
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 1, 5, 7 and 8 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 1 includes the formula (1) which has undefined variables and recites “(B) 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone” which appears to be a species of Formula (1). It is unclear what the recited Formula (1) should be considered. Appropriate clarification is require. If Applicant intends to cancel the Formula (1) in claim 1, 37 CFR 1.121 (c)(2) makes clear that: “The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters.” Claims 5, 7 and 9 inherit and do nothing to clarify the above discussed issue with claim 1, and are rejected for the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAKOTO (WO-2012/057123-A11; published 05/03/2012; English Language machine translation relied on herein) in view of IRIYAMA (US-2012/0183481-A1; published July 2012; with priority to PCT/JP2010/066998 published as WO-2011/040496-A12).
Applicants Claims
Applicant claims a cosmetic composition comprising: (A) a Thuja orientalis seed extract, an amount of the component (A) blended is 0.01 to 3 mass% with respect to the total amount of the cosmetic; (B) 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone, an amount of the component (B) blended is 0.8 to 8 mass% with respect to a total amount of cosmetic; and (C) water (instant claim 1). Applicant claims the component (A) is hydrolyzed Thuja orientalis seed extract (instant claim 5). Applicant claims the amount of component (A) is 0.1 to 1.5 mass% with respect to the total amount of the cometic composition (instant claim 8). Applicant further claims the inclusion of a water-soluble thickener (instant claim 7).
Determination of the scope
and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01)
MAKOTO teaches that: “Provided in the present invention is a material which is produced by processing a material extracted from a plant seed using an organic solvent, and which is highly effective in promoting collagen production, promoting hyaluronan production, and diminishing the appearance of wrinkles. The collagen production promoter related to the present invention is characterized by being obtained through a process in which: an extracted material containing an oil component is extracted from a seed of a plant belonging to the family Cupressaceae and the genus Platycadus by using an organic solvent; part or all of the solvent is removed from the extracted material by distillation; an aqueous alkali solution having a concentration of 0.5-15 N is added and mixed; acid treatment is performed; and the resultant material is subsequently washed with water.” [emphasis added](abstract, see whole document). And that: “The seed of the plant used in the present invention is a seed of a plant belonging to the genus Konotegasiwa. Of these, it is preferable to use seeds of Platycladus orientalis.” (p. 3, §Description-of-Embodiments, 2nd paragraph)(instant claim 1, item (A)). The examiner notes that Platycaladus orientalis is synonymous with Thuja orientalis which is also known as Konotegasiwa or Hakushinin the latter being known from Chinese Medicine (p. 3, §Description-of-Embodiments, paragraphs 2-4). The examiner further notes that MAKOTO teaches alkali treatment of the seed extract (p. 4, paragraphs 2-4) which results in a hydrolyzed product (instant Specification, p. 4, 2nd paragraph)(instant claim 5).
MAKOTO teaches the seed extract is included in topical cosmetics as an anti-wrinkle agent, and “When preparing a composition for external use on the skin, it is preferable to add 0.0001 to 20% by mass, particularly 0.001 to 2% by mass, as a liquid component, of an accelerator or an anti-wrinkle agent as an active ingredient. preferable.” [emphasis added](p. 4, last three paragraphs). MAKOTO teaches the inclusion of thickener, specifically carboxyvinyl polymer and Acrylic acid alkyl methacrylate polymer (p. 8, bottom §(Table 3), lines 4-5). MAKOTO teaches the inclusion of water (p. 5, 3rd paragraph)(instant claim 1, item C).
Ascertainment of the difference between
the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the rejected claims and the teachings of MAKOTO is that MAKOTO does not expressly teach (B) a cyclic carboxamide derivative, and particularly 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)2-imidazolidinone (instant claims 1-3, item B).
IRIYAMA teaches heparanase activity inhibitors comprising, as an active ingredient, a cyclic carboxamide derivative of Formula (I)(title, abstract, see whole document). And particularly that: “The present invention relates to an external preparation for skin containing a cyclic carboxamide derivative of formula (I) as an active ingredient, and particularly to a heparanase inhibitor that, when used as a cosmetic, inhibits activation of heparanase in the skin, inhibits skin alteration occurring with failure of control of growth factors, by supporting heparan sulfate, and allows the condition of youthful skin to be maintained, while also exhibiting a whitening effect.” ([0001]).
IRIYAMA teaches that: “(3) A heparanase activity inhibitor of (1), wherein the cyclic carboxamide derivative is one or more selected from the group consisting of 2-imidazolidinone, 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone and 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-pyrrolidone.” [emphasis added]([0020])(instant claims 1-3, item B).
IRIYAMA teaches that: “Since the heparanase activity inhibitor of the invention can efficiently inhibit heparanase activity, it can be used as an active ingredient in a wrinkle improving agent, for example, to prevent or suppress formation of wrinkles (particularly large wrinkles), and may also be suitably used as a skin whitener that is effective for preventing or suppressing pigmentation including skin spots, freckles and loss of skin clarity.” ([0021]).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a cosmetic composition comprising a Platycaladus orientalis (syn. Thuja orientalis) seed extract including water and a thickener, as suggested by MAKOTO, and further to include a cyclic carboxamide derivative such as 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone for promotion of youthful and healthy looking skin, as suggested by IRIYAMA ([0043]). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the cyclic carboxamide derivative with the composition of MAKOTO because it is generally considered to be prima facie obvious to combine compounds, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a composition that is to be used for an identical purpose. The motivation for combining them flows from their having been used individually in the prior art, and from the being recognized in the prior art as useful for the same purpose. As shown by the recited teachings, instant claims are no more than the combination of conventional components of topical skin cosmetic compositions. It therefore follows that the instant claims define prima facie obvious subject matter. Cf. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 848, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention because it would have required on more than an ordinary level of skill to combine a cyclic carboxamide derivative such as 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone with the cosmetic compositions of MAKOTO. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: “Any prima facie case of obviousness is more than overcome by surprising and unexpected results provided in the Specification as filed. Specifically, Table 1 provides evidence of superiority of Examples 2-9, each of which contains the Thuja orientalis seed extract and 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone within the amounts recited in amended claim 1, in odor evaluation at high temperature over Comparative Examples 1-2, which contain the Thuja orientalis seed extract within the amounts recited in amended claim 1, while not containing 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone recited in amended claim 1. Specifically, Examples 2-9 have superior A or AA grades in the odor evaluation at high temperature, while Comparative Examples 1-2 have unacceptable D grade in the odor evaluation at high temperature, for details of the grades, see paragraph [0044] of the Specification as filed. Considering that the Office admits on page 8 of the Office Action, that "MAKOTO does not expressly teach (B) a cyclic carboxamide derivative, and particularly l-(2-hydroxyethyl)2-imidazolidinone," Comparative Examples 1-2 correspond to the compositions of Makoto. Thus, Table 1 provides evidence of superiority of Examples 2-9, each being the scope of amended claim 1, in the odor evaluation at high temperature over the closest prior art, i.e. Makoto. Such superiority cannot be expected based on the cited references. Thus, the evidence of superiority of Examples 2-9, each being the scope of amended claim 1, in the odor evaluation at high temperature over Comparative Examples 1-2 constitutes surprising and unexpected results.” (paragraph bridging pp. 5-6). And that: “As explained in paragraph [0005] of the Specification as filed, the inventors found that a Thuja orientalis seed extract may generate an unpleasant odor in a high-temperature environment. The present application solves this unpleasant odor problem. The cited references neither recognize this unpleasant odor problem, nor provide a solution for this problem.” (p. 5, 2nd paragraph). And further that: “In contrast, Table 1 of the Specification provides evidence that the present inventors successfully solved the unpleasant odor problem by adding l-(2-hydroxyethyl)2-imidazolidinone to the Thuja orientalis seed extract.” (p. 5, 3rd paragraph).
In response the examiner argues that: “Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected.” (MPEP §716.02). In the instant case the compound l-(2-hydroxyethyl)2-imidazolidinone was known in a cosmetic composition as a heparanase activity inhibitor, IRIYAMA teaching that: “Since the heparanase activity inhibitor of the invention can efficiently inhibit heparanase activity, it can be used as an active ingredient in a wrinkle improving agent, for example, to prevent or suppress formation of wrinkles (particularly large wrinkles), and may also be suitably used as a skin whitener that is effective for preventing or suppressing pigmentation including skin spots, freckles and loss of skin clarity.” [emphasis added]([0021]). And MAKOTO teaches that: “Provided in the present invention is a material which is produced by processing a material extracted from a plant seed using an organic solvent, and which is highly effective in promoting collagen production, promoting hyaluronan production, and diminishing the appearance of wrinkles. The collagen production promoter related to the present invention is characterized by being obtained through a process in which: an extracted material containing an oil component is extracted from a seed of a plant belonging to the family Cupressaceae and the genus Platycadus by using an organic solvent; part or all of the solvent is removed from the extracted material by distillation; an aqueous alkali solution having a concentration of 0.5-15 N is added and mixed; acid treatment is performed; and the resultant material is subsequently washed with water.” [emphasis added](abstract, see whole document). MAKOTO teaches that: “The seed of the plant used in the present invention is a seed of a plant belonging to the genus Konotegasiwa. Of these, it is preferable to use seeds of Platycladus orientalis.” (p. 3, §Description-of-Embodiments, 2nd paragraph). "Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof." (MPEP §716.02(c)(II).
MPEP §716.02(b) makes clear the burden is on Applicant to establish that results are unexpected and significant: “The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance."” And MPEP §716.02(b) makes clear that: “ Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.”
In the instant case Applicant suggest that they found that the Thuja orientalis seed extract of MAKOTO, when at a high temperature resulted in an unpleasant odor - According to the studies of the present inventors, it has been found that a Thuja orientalis seed extract may generate an unpleasant odor in a high-temperature environment. Then, it has been surprisingly found that generation of an unpleasant odor can be suppressed by combining a specific cyclic carboxamide derivative with a Thuja orientalis seed extract. The present invention is based on these findings.” (p. 1, [0005]). It is unclear what exactly “a high-temperature environment” is or how this relates to a cosmetic formulation. The examiner further argues that MAKOTO clearly teaches including “Appropriate amount Fragrance” (see, e.g., p. 9, line 4). Therefore the results do not appear to be of any practical significance as cosmetics/personal care compositions commonly include aromatics/fragrance/odor absorbers/odor eliminators components to alter the odor of the same (see, e.g., US 2007/0243221 A1 – [0126] & [0129]; and US 2019/0046422 A1 – [0002]-[0037], Examples 20-21[0257]-[0264]) or “an aroma chemical” (instant Specification, p. 11, [0039]). Additionally, both JP-2005-179226-A (inventors Masahiro Ota & Noritoshi Maeda), and DE-2746650-A1 (Hinrich Möller) previously cited, also teach inclusion of fragrances in topical compositions for skin treatment which also include Thuja orentialis seed extract and 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone, respectively.
Although the record may establish evidence of secondary considerations which are indicia of nonobviousness, the record may also establish such a strong case of obviousness that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 769, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 (1989); Richardson-Vicks, Inc., v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1484, 44 USPQ2d 1181, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Applicant is reminded that the submission of objective evidence of patentability does not mandate a conclusion of patentability in and of itself. In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 2 USPQ2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application Nos. 18/036,755 (claims 1-10, hereafter ‘755); 18/686,007 (claims 1-10, hereafter ‘007); 18/693,158 (claims 1-11, hereafter ‘158); 18/695,084 (claims 1-8, hereafter ‘084); 18/699,486 (claims 1-6, hereafter ‘486); 18/705,975 (claims 1-11, hereafter ‘975); 18/706,991 (claims 11-15, hereafter ‘991); 18/711,955 (claims 1-11, hereafter ‘955); 18/719,582 (claims 1-6, hereafter ‘582); 18/726,477 (claims 1-8, hereafter ‘477); 18/726,502 (claims 1-11, hereafter ‘502); and 18/726,524 (claims 1-10, hereafter ‘524) in view of MAKOTO (WO-2012/057123-A1; published 05/03/2012; English Language machine translation relied on herein).
The instant claims are discussed above.
Each of copending application nos. ‘755, ‘007, ‘158, ‘084, ‘486, ‘975, ‘991, ‘955, ‘582, ‘477, ‘502 and ‘524 claim compositions for topical (external) use comprising a cyclic carboxamide derivative, and particularly 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)2-imidazolidinone (instant claims 1-3, item B).
The difference between the instantly rejected claims and the claims of copending ‘755 is that the claim of copending ‘755 do not expressly claim the inclusion of items (A) a Thuja orientalis seed extract or (C) water, or the amount of 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)2-imidazolidinone.
The difference between the instantly rejected claims and the claims of copending ‘007 is that the claim of copending ‘007 do not expressly claim item (A) a Thuja orientalis seed extract, or the amount of 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)2-imidazolidinone.
The difference between the instantly rejected claims and the claims of copending ‘158 is that the claim of copending ‘158 do not expressly claim item (A) a Thuja orientalis seed extract.
The difference between the instantly rejected claims and the claims of copending ‘084 is that the claim of copending ‘084 do not expressly claim item (A) a Thuja orientalis seed extract.
The difference between the instantly rejected claims and the claims of copending ‘975 is that the claim of copending ‘975 do not expressly claim item (A) a Thuja orientalis seed extract.
The difference between the instantly rejected claims and the claims of copending ‘991 is that the claim of copending ‘991 do not expressly claim the inclusion of items (A) a Thuja orientalis seed extract or (C) water, or the amount of 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)2-imidazolidinone.
The difference between the instantly rejected claims and the claims of copending ‘955 is that the claim of copending ‘955 do not expressly claim item (A) a Thuja orientalis seed extract.
The difference between the instantly rejected claims and the claims of copending ‘582 is that the claim of copending ‘582 do not expressly claim the inclusion of items (A) a Thuja orientalis seed extract or (C) water, or the amount of 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)2-imidazolidinone.
The difference between the instantly rejected claims and the claims of copending ‘477 is that the claim of copending ‘477 do not expressly claim the inclusion of items (A) a Thuja orientalis seed extract or (C) water, or the amount of 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)2-imidazolidinone in mass%.
The difference between the instantly rejected claims and the claims of copending ‘502 is that the claim of copending ‘502 do not expressly claim the inclusion of items (A) a Thuja orientalis seed extract or (C) water, or the amount of 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)2-imidazolidinone in mass%..
The difference between the instantly rejected claims and the claims of copending ‘524 is that the claim of copending ‘524 do not expressly claim the inclusion of items (A) a Thuja orientalis seed extract or (C) water, or the amount of 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)2-imidazolidinone in mass%.
MAKOTO teaches a cosmetic compositions comprising a Platycaladus orientalis (syn. Thuja orientalis) seed extract including water and a thickener, as discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding the amount of the cyclic carboxamide derivative such as 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)2-imidazolidinone in the copending claims that do not expressly include the same, it would have been prima facie obvious to optimize the amount in an external (topical) skin cosmetic (MPEP §2144.05-II).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the instantly rejected claims are an obvious variant of the claims of copending application nos. ‘755, ‘007, ‘158, ‘084, ‘486, ‘975, ‘991, ‘955, ‘582, ‘477, ‘502 and ‘524 because the each claim compositions for topical (external) use comprising a cyclic carboxamide derivative, and particularly 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)2-imidazolidinone (instant claims 1-3, item B), and it would have been prima facie obvious to include A) a Thuja orientalis seed extract (and (C) water), as suggested by MATOKO for skin effect of improving wrinkles. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the claims of copending application nos. ‘755, ‘007, ‘158, ‘084, ‘486, ‘975, ‘991, ‘955, ‘582, ‘477, ‘502 and ‘524 and produce the instantly rejected claim because in order to produce an improved topical cosmetic skin cosmetic composition. Furthermore, the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the invention of the instantly rejected claims because it would have required no more than an ordinary level of skill to combine the seed extract of MATOKO (and water) with the copending claims to produce a topical cosmetic skin cosmetic composition.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant provide no additional arguments over the ODP rejections beyond the surprising/unexpected results addressed above.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 8 are pending and have been examined on the merits. Claims 1, 5, 7 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); Claims 1, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103; and claims are provisionally rejected based on obvious-type double patenting over claims of copending Application Nos. 18/036,755; 18/686,00; 18/693,158; 18/695,084; 18/699,486; 18/705,975; 18/706,991; 18/711,955; 18/719,582; 18/726,477; 18/726,502 and 18/726,524. No claims allowed at this time.
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 IVAN A GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-5868. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5 PM PST.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on (571) 272-0827. 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.
/IVAN A GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/TIGABU KASSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
1 Of record as cited by Applicant in IDS dated 05/02/2024, citation No. A7.
2 Of record as cited by Applicant in IDS dated 05/02/2024, citation No. A6.
Prosecution Insights