DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed June 9th, 2026 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 11-12 have been added.
The Section 112, 2nd paragraph rejections made in the Office action mailed June 9th, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 102 rejections over Kaiga made in the Office action mailed June 9th, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 103 rejections over Kaiga (as the primary reference) made in the Office action mailed June 9th, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 102 rejections over Choi made in the Office action mailed June 9th, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 103 rejections over Choi in view of Kim (and optionally Sakakura) made in the Office action mailed June 9th, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 103 rejections over Choi in view of Lee (and optionally Sakakura) made in the Office action mailed June 9th, 2026 have been maintained due to Applicant’s arguments being unpersuasive. The rejections have been reapplied and updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the maintained rejection filed June 9th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 1 over Choi, optionally in view of Sakakura, and further in view of Lee and/or Kim should been withdrawn because the weight average molecular weight of Kim is outside the claimed range. The Examiner disagrees.
The rejection was over Lee and/or Kim, meaning the rejection over Lee was not reliant on the rejection over Kim. Applicant admits Lee’s ranges are identical and/or entirely within the claimed ranges. Therefore, the rejection over Choi, optionally in view of Sakakura, (further) in view of Lee is maintained.
The only feature not explicitly taught by Choi/Lee is the cooling function. However, the fibers of Choi(/Lee) being formed by a high-density polyethylene and HDPE colorant masterbatch blend that is extruded then quench cooled (but not too rapidly) followed by stretching/drawing steps, wherein a high density polyethylene with a melt flow of about 0.6-1.1 g/10 min [0056], as part of a range of 0.5 to 5 g/10 min [0023], and a cooling rate (take-up speed) of 0.4 m/s (24 m/min) [0056], as part of a range of greater than 0.4, preferably 0.4 to 1 m/s (24-60 m/min) would inherently form a HDPE fiber comprising a crystallinity of at least 60%, likely about 65% as evidenced by White (Interaction of melt spinning and drawing variables on the crystalline morphology of…HDPE and LDPE fiber) [pgs. 2545-2546 & Fig. 3], that provides a cooling ability/thermal conductivity, wherein Kim evidences that a crystallinity of greater than 60% inherently allows for lattice vibration/phonon effected heat transfer [0029-0030].
Furthermore, a double patenting rejection over U.S. Patent No. 12,571,134 B2 is available.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 11-12 (Group II) directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process such as one not requiring a color masterbatch as claimed.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 11-12 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, Applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should Applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, Applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the Examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, Applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the Examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR 2019-0000540 A) (hereinafter “Choi”), optionally in view of Sakakura et al. (JP 2003-301324 A) (hereinafter “Sakakura”), (and further) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2092934 B1) (hereinafter “Lee”) {using U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0049378 A1 as a translation document}, wherein claims 9-10 are evidenced by White (Interaction of melt spinning and drawing variables on the crystalline morphology of…HDPE and LDPE fiber) and Kim et al. (KR 2020-0036171 A) (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-8, Choi teaches a high-strength dope dyed high-density polyethylene fiber [0010, 0022], improving over prior art ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibers [0003] and polypropylene fibers [0004], wherein the polyethylene fiber having excellent color and UV durability as well as high-strength, flexibility, and softness [0017] comprises 95-99 wt% high-density polyethylene and 1 to 5 wt% high-density polyethylene color masterbatch comprising 5 to 20 wt% of a color pigment [0007-0009, 0024-0027, 0054], such that the multifilament yarn/fiber-level pigment weight ranges from 0.0005 to 0.01 wt% (each example inherently being within the claimed wt% range), wherein an extrusion temperature is 200-270 °C, a take-up speed is 300 to 1000 m/min, the yarn is quench cooled, and stretched at a draw ratio of preferably but not limited to 4 to 6 times [0028-0032, 0054], wherein a tensile strength of 6.0 g/d or higher is provided by a melt flow index of 0.5 to 5 g/10 min [0023, 0043-0044], wherein multiple examples comprise each of these features and also a shrinkage rate at 100 °C of 4-5% [0056-0057, Table 1] and comparative examples 3 and 5-6 comprising an alternative melt flow rate of 20 g/10 min and extrusion temperatures above and below the desired temperature range, respectively, still comprise tensile strengths of 2.0 g/d and 3-5 g/d, respectively, and heat shrinkages of 4% and 3%, respectively [0059-0062, Table 2], wherein it would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention form a (functional/dyed) fabric from the multifilament yarn formed.
Although the prior art does not disclose the expression as claimed for at least L*, a*, or b*, crystallinity, or tensile modulus for the yarn and a cooling coefficient or thermal conductivity for the functional fabric, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Choi teaches an invention with a substantially similar method of making, structure, and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical method of making, structure, and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Further regarding claims 1-2, in the event that it would not have been inherent to the yarn of Choi or obvious in view of Choi alone to provide yarns comprising L*, a*, or b* values meeting the expression as claimed:
Sakakura teaches that while conventionally polyolefin fibers, such as polyethylene and polypropylene, are not inherently “dyeable” and as such are dope-dyed via pigment inclusion, which can lead to uneven distribution of pigment along the length of the fiber/yarn forming streaks during weaving or knitting processes, which is significantly improved by melt-blending [0002-0003, 0018], wherein optimizing the melt flow rate, the mixing ratio of the polymer to the masterbatch polymer of the same type containing the pigment, and the extrusion processing elements provides the desired uniformity [0016-0020], wherein uniformity is measured by using 20 samples arbitrarily along the length ΔL* value of more than 0.8 would lead to noticeable streaking and with a color difference of 1.59 being clearly visible to the naked eye [0007, 0009, 0025], wherein ΔL* for examples 1-6 are in the range of 0.33 to 0.69 wherein the given Lmax* and Lmin* values provide calculated normalized color values for the claimed expression as being in the range of about 1.1 to 2.6 with an approximate standard deviation of 0.08 to 0.17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a melt-blended polyolefin fiber having values for L* (and obviously a* and b*) along the length that would that would inherently or optimizably as a result effective variable satisfy the claimed expression. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize and quantify/measure the uniformity of the melt-blended pigment color along the yarn length in order to prevent streaking and/or color change visible to the human eye.
Further regarding claims 5-7, Lee evidences/teaches a high-density polyethylene yarn that provides cut resistant fabrics, improved over prior art ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibers, wherein the cut resistance is provided by a weight average molecular weight is 80,000 to 180,000, a Mw/Mn (polydispersity) is more than 5 and less than 9, which leads to a tensile modulus of 100 to 250 g/d (about 88 to 220 cN/dtex) to decrease stiffness and prevent pilling/cut resistance from decreasing, lower than a previously desired 300 g/d or greater (265 cN/dtex) and tensile strength of 11 g/d to 18 g/d providing a cut index of 5 or more [0047-0056, 0067-0068, 0078-0083], and a dry heat shrinkage at 100 °C of more than 2.5% and 6.0% or less to increase wearability and prevent deformation [0057-0058], and a melt index, generally inversely related to the molecular weight, is in the range of 0.3 to 3 g/10min which allows smooth flow through an extruder without lowering the tensile strength below 11 g/d [0078-0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an alternative method of replacing UHMWPE fibers to optimize for strength, specifically cut-resistance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand options for providing cut resistance at the same level while maintaining the same draw ratio and/or desired values related to fabrics usable therefore (i.e. shrinkage at 100 °C, MFI/MFR) [Lee].
Further regarding claims 9-10, Choi(/Lee) teaches the fibers(/fabric) being formed by a (high-density) polyethylene and HDPE colorant masterbatch blend that are extruded then quench cooled (but not too rapidly) followed by stretching/drawing steps, comprising the high density polyethylene blend having a melt flow of about 0.6-1.1 g/10 min [0056], as part of a range of 0.5 to 5 g/10 min [0023], and a cooling rate (take-up speed) of 0.4 m/s (24 m/min) [0056], as part of a range of greater than 0.4, preferably 0.4 to 1 m/s (24-60 m/min) would inherently form a HDPE fiber comprising a crystallinity of at least 60%, likely closer to about 65% based on the chosen melt flow and cooling rate (take-up speed) as evidenced by White [pgs. 2545-2546 & Fig. 3], that provides a cooling ability/thermal conductivity, wherein Kim evidences that a crystallinity of greater than 60% inherently allows for lattice vibration/phonon effected heat transfer [0029-0030], specifically at a rate within or overlapping the claimed ranges [0018, 0043, 0053].
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,569,015 (hereinafter ‘015) in view of Choi et al. (KR 2019-0000540 A) (hereinafter “Choi”), Sakakura et al. (JP 2003-301324 A) (hereinafter “Sakakura”), and optionally Fukushima et al. (JP 2017-150952 A) (hereinafter “Fukushima”).
Regarding claims 1-10, ‘015 teaches a polyethylene yarn forming a functional cooling sensation fabric having a cooling sensation and thermal conductivity within the claimed ranges [claims 5-6] comprising a polydispersity between 5 and 12 [claim 1] and a weight average molecular weight of 90,000 to 400,000 g/mol [claim 6], a melt index of 0.1 to 5 g/mol [claim 1], a degree of crystallinity of 60% to 90% [claim 1], a tensile strength of 10 to 20 g/d [claim 7], and an initial modulus of 100 to 300 g/d (~cN/dtex), and a (dry) shrinkage is 1% to 5% [unclaimed].
However, a dope dyed polyethylene yarn comprising a pigment and color matching along the length (or a melt index) as claimed is not taught.
Choi teaches a high-strength dope dyed high-density polyethylene fiber [0010, 0022], improving over prior art ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibers [0003] and polypropylene fibers [0004], wherein the polyethylene fiber having excellent color and UV durability as well as high-strength, flexibility, and softness [0017] comprises 95-99 wt% high-density polyethylene and 1 to 5 wt% high-density polyethylene color masterbatch comprising 5 to 20 wt% of a color pigment [0007-0009, 0024-0027, 0054], such that the multifilament yarn/fiber-level pigment weight ranges from 0.0005 to 0.01 wt% (each example inherently being within the claimed wt% range), wherein an extrusion temperature is 200-270 °C, a take-up speed is 300 to 1000 m/min, the yarn is quench cooled, and stretched at a draw ratio of preferably but not limited to 4 to 6 times [0028-0032, 0054], wherein a tensile strength of 6.0 g/d or higher is provided by a melt flow index of 0.5 to 5 g/10 min [0023, 0043-0044], wherein multiple examples comprise each of these features and also a shrinkage rate at 100 °C of 4-5% [0056-0057, Table 1] and comparative examples 3 and 5-6 comprising an alternative melt flow rate of 20 g/10 min and extrusion temperatures above and below the desired temperature range, respectively, still comprise tensile strengths of 2.0 g/d and 3-5 g/d, respectively, and heat shrinkages of 4% and 3%, respectively [0059-0062, Table 2], wherein it would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention form a (functional/dyed) fabric from the multifilament yarn formed.
Sakakura teaches that while conventionally polyolefin fibers, such as polyethylene and polypropylene, are not inherently “dyeable” and as such are dope-dyed via pigment inclusion, which can lead to uneven distribution of pigment along the length of the fiber/yarn forming streaks during weaving or knitting processes, which is significantly improved by melt-blending [0002-0003, 0018], wherein optimizing the melt flow rate, the mixing ratio of the polymer to the masterbatch polymer of the same type containing the pigment, and the extrusion processing elements provides the desired uniformity [0016-0020], wherein uniformity is measured by using 20 samples arbitrarily along the length ΔL* value of more than 0.8 would lead to noticeable streaking and with a color difference of 1.59 being clearly visible to the naked eye [0007, 0009, 0025], wherein a normalized color value (ΔL/Lavg) expression or equivalent thereof taken at points along the length as claimed would be well-within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, Fukushima teaches a desired limit of the color change of a fiber, wherein the color difference is measured as ΔE, wherein
Δ
E
=
Δ
L
*
2
+
Δ
a
*
2
+
Δ
b
*
2
, wherein minimizing ΔE would require minimizing the expression for each of L*, a*, and b*.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a dope dyed polyethylene yarn comprising L*, a*, and b* values that meet a normalized different value along the long equal or equivalent to the claimed expression. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a non-post-treated multifilament yarn providing excellent color durability [Choi] with a fiber that does not streak or provide a color difference visible to the human eye [Sakakura] that would require minimizing each of L*, a*, and b* [Fukushima].
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,571,113 (hereinafter ‘113) in view of Choi et al. (KR 2019-0000540 A) (hereinafter “Choi”), Sakakura et al. (JP 2003-301324 A) (hereinafter “Sakakura”).
Regarding claims 1-10, ‘113 teaches a polyethylene yarn forming a functional cooling sensation fabric having a cooling sensation and thermal conductivity within the claimed ranges [claims 7-8] having a polydispersity index of 5 or more and 20 or less, a weight average molecular weight of 90,000 to 400,000 g/mol [claim 5], a strength of 1.5 to 10 g/d, an initial modulus of 30 to 80 g/d (~cN/dtex) [claim 2], and a (dry) shrinkage is 1% to 5% [unclaimed], and a crystallinity of 60% to 85% [claim 3].
However, a dope dyed polyethylene yarn comprising a pigment and color matching along the length as claimed is not taught.
Choi teaches a high-strength dope dyed high-density polyethylene fiber [0010, 0022], improving over prior art ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibers [0003] and polypropylene fibers [0004], wherein the polyethylene fiber having excellent color and UV durability as well as high-strength, flexibility, and softness [0017] comprises 95-99 wt% high-density polyethylene and 1 to 5 wt% high-density polyethylene color masterbatch comprising 5 to 20 wt% of a color pigment [0007-0009, 0024-0027, 0054], such that the multifilament yarn/fiber-level pigment weight ranges from 0.0005 to 0.01 wt% (each example inherently being within the claimed wt% range), wherein an extrusion temperature is 200-270 °C, a take-up speed is 300 to 1000 m/min, the yarn is quench cooled, and stretched at a draw ratio of preferably but not limited to 4 to 6 times [0028-0032, 0054], wherein a tensile strength of 6.0 g/d or higher is provided by a melt flow index of 0.5 to 5 g/10 min [0023, 0043-0044], wherein multiple examples comprise each of these features and also a shrinkage rate at 100 °C of 4-5% [0056-0057, Table 1] and comparative examples 3 and 5-6 comprising an alternative melt flow rate of 20 g/10 min and extrusion temperatures above and below the desired temperature range, respectively, still comprise tensile strengths of 2.0 g/d and 3-5 g/d, respectively, and heat shrinkages of 4% and 3%, respectively [0059-0062, Table 2], wherein it would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention form a (functional/dyed) fabric from the multifilament yarn formed.
Sakakura teaches that while conventionally polyolefin fibers, such as polyethylene and polypropylene, are not inherently “dyeable” and as such are dope-dyed via pigment inclusion, which can lead to uneven distribution of pigment along the length of the fiber/yarn forming streaks during weaving or knitting processes, which is significantly improved by melt-blending [0002-0003, 0018], wherein optimizing the melt flow rate, the mixing ratio of the polymer to the masterbatch polymer of the same type containing the pigment, and the extrusion processing elements provides the desired uniformity [0016-0020], wherein uniformity is measured by using 20 samples arbitrarily along the length ΔL* value of more than 0.8 would lead to noticeable streaking and with a color difference of 1.59 being clearly visible to the naked eye [0007, 0009, 0025], wherein a normalized color value (ΔL/Lavg) expression or equivalent thereof taken at points along the length as claimed would be well-within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, Fukushima teaches a desired limit of the color change of a fiber, wherein the color difference is measured as ΔE, wherein
Δ
E
=
Δ
L
*
2
+
Δ
a
*
2
+
Δ
b
*
2
, wherein minimizing ΔE would require minimizing the expression for each of L*, a*, and b*.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a dope dyed polyethylene yarn comprising L*, a*, and b* values that meet a normalized different value along the long equal or equivalent to the claimed expression. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a non-post-treated multifilament yarn providing excellent color durability [Choi] with a fiber that does not streak or provide a color difference visible to the human eye [Sakakura] that would require minimizing each of L*, a*, and b* [Fukushima].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0392296 A1) (18/248,390) and Lee et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,503,530 B2) also teach polyethylene yarns comprising weight average molecular weight and polydispersity ranges that, even at the narrowest, partially to entirely overlap or fall within the currently claimed ranges.
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 JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 September 8th, 2026
Prosecution Insights