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 .
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 20 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.
With respect to claim 20, the claim recites “wherein the decorative layer is located in between the base layer and the polyurethane layer, in contact with each of those two layers”. However, claim 1, which claim 20 ultimately depends from, recites “(a) a polyurethane layer having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface… (c) a base layer having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, wherein the first surface of the base layer is in contact with the second surface of the polyurethane layer”. It is unclear how the decorative layer can be located between the base layer and the polyurethane layer and contact both those layers given that claim 1 requires the base layer be in contact with the polyurethane layer.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (US 2010/0032082 A1, “Ho”) in view of Hütt (US 2012/0308773 A1).
With respect to claims 1-2 and 6, Ho discloses a multilayer film 10 having a first polyurethane layer 12, a second thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) layer 14, and a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) layer 16 ([0040], Fig. 1). A releasable (i.e., removable) carrier web or liner 18 is atop the polyurethane layer 12, and the PSA layer 16 has a releasable liner 20 to protect it ([0040]). The first polyurethane layer 12 is made by a method (i) involving the use of a polyester polyol or polycarbonate polyol ([0042], [0045]); thus, the first polyurethane layer 12 is a polyester-based polyurethane or polycarbonate-based polyurethane. The polyurethane layer 12 is at least partially crosslinked ([0048], [0053]) and therefore corresponds to the claimed polyurethane layer (a). The PSA layer 16 corresponds to the claimed adhesive layer (d).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Ho does not disclose wherein the releasable carrier web or liner 18 has a corona treated or plasma treated surface.
Hütt teaches a matt layer having good release effect (i.e., a releasable layer) ([0010]) which is subjected to a corona treatment having a surface tension of 35-50 mN/m ([0065]) in order to provide a layer having desired surface roughness, adhesive strength, and releasing behavior ([0019]).
Ho and Hütt are analogous inventions in the field of multilayer structures having releasable layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the release carrier of Ho to be subjected to a corona treatment having a surface tension of 35-50 mN/m as taught by Hütt in order to provide a release layer having desired surface roughness, adhesive strength, and releasing behavior (Hütt, [0019]). The modified release carrier of Ho in view of Hütt corresponds to the claimed removable cover film having a corona treated surface.
Regarding the film being a decorative film, there is no explicit disclosure from Ho in view of Hütt regarding the film being a decorative film. However, Ho discloses the film is used to protect painted surfaces of vehicle parts (Abstract), which is considered decorative. Alternatively, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Ho in view of Hütt regarding the film being a decorative film, given that Ho in view of Hütt discloses an identical film made from identical layers made from identical materials as that presently claimed, it is clear the film of Ho in view of Hütt would necessarily inherently function as a decorative film, absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 3, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Ho in view of Hütt regarding a peel strength of the removable cover film being 0.15-1.0 N/50mm, given that Ho in view of Hütt discloses an otherwise identical film made from identical layers made from identical materials as that presently claimed, it is clear the peel strength of the removable cover film of Ho in view of Hütt would necessarily inherently have a peel strength of 0.15-1.0 N/50 mm, absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 4, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Ho in view of Hütt regarding a surface tension of the surface of the removable cover film opposite to the corona treated surface being less than 40 mN/m, given that Ho in view of Hütt discloses an otherwise identical film made from identical layers made from identical materials as that presently claimed, it is clear the surface tension of the surface of the removable cover film opposite to the corona treated surface would necessarily inherently be less than 40 mN/m, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (US 2010/0032082 A1, “Ho”) in view of Hütt (US 2012/0308773 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2019/0225838 A1, “Suzuki”).
With respect to claim 5, while Ho in view of Hütt discloses the use of a release liner that is a polyester (Ho, [0074]), Ho in view of Hütt does not disclose wherein the polyester is polyethylene terephthalate.
Suzuki teaches a multilayer film having a release liner ([0007]). Suzuki further teaches polyesters include polyethylene terephthalate (PET) ([0033]) and exemplifies a PET release liner ([0176]).
Ho in view of Hütt and Suzuki are analogous inventions in the field of multilayer films having release liners.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the release liner of Ho in view of Hütt to be made from PET as taught by Suzuki and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to claim 7, while Ho in view of Hütt discloses the multilayer film is colored by including a pigment or other coloring agent in one or more of its layers (Ho, [0055]), Ho in view of Hütt does not disclose wherein the base layer has a multilayer structure including a decorative layer.
Suzuki teaches a laminate having first and second sheets ([0027]). The sheets are made from resin films and include polyurethanes ([0034-0035]). The sheets include supplemental layers including a colored layer or printed layer (i.e., decorative layer) in order to provide a desirable appearance ([0045]).
Ho in view of Hütt and Suzuki are analogous inventions in the field of multilayer laminates having polyurethane substrates and pressure sensitive adhesives.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyurethane layer 14 of Ho in view of Hütt to contain supplemental layers including a colored layer or printed layer (i.e., a decorative layer) as taught by Suzuki in order to provide a multilayer article having desired appearance (Suzuki, [0045]).
With respect to claim 8, Ho in view of Hütt does not disclose wherein the decorative film is a roll which has been wound.
Suzuki teaches a multilayer film having a release liner ([0007]) that is wound into a roll in order to provide a handleable item that is conveniently stored and transported ([0005]).
Ho in view of Hütt are analogous inventions in the field of multilayer films having release liners.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer film of Ho in view of Hütt to be wound into a roll as taught by Suzuki in order to provide a handleable multilayer film that is conveniently stored and transported (Suzuki, [0005]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (US 2010/0032082 A1, “Ho”) in view of Hütt (US 2012/0308773 A1) and Suzuki et al. (US 2019/0225838 A1, “Suzuki”) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ono et al. (WO 2020/110035 A1, “Ono”)
With respect to claims 19-20, while Ho in view of Hütt and Suzuki discloses the use of a decorative layer as set forth in the above rejection of claim 7, Ho in view of Hütt and Suzuki does not disclose wherein the decorative layer is a coloring layer comprising a binder resin and a colorant.
Ono teaches a decorative film for a vehicle exterior (page 1, “The present disclosure relates to a decorative film for a vehicle exterior”). The decorative film has the structure shown in Fig. 2 below where the layer 209 is a protective layer, layer 207 is a decorative layer, and layer 205 is a resin layer (page 22, [0133]). The protective layer 209 is made from (meth)acrylic resin (page 11, “A material of the protective layer… is not limited to the following, but as the material of the protective layer… polyurethane… can be used”); thus, the protective layer 209 corresponds to the claimed base layer. The resin layer 205 is made from a polyurethane resin (page 3, “The resin layer of the decorative film… can include… a polyurethane resin”), and therefore corresponds to the claimed polyurethane layer. The decorative layer 207 is a color layer (page 10, “Examples of the decorative layer… include… a color layer”) which is made from a pigment (i.e., colorant) dispersed in a binder resin (page 10, “As a material of the color layer… a quinacridone pigment such as quinacridone red is dispersed in a binder resin”).
PNG
media_image2.png
274
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ho in view of Hütt and Suzuki and Ono are analogous inventions in the field of articles having a multilayer structure including a polyurethane layer and having a coloring layer that is used with vehicle body parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative layer of Ho in view of Hütt and Suzuki to be made from a binder resin and a colorant and be placed between the base layer and the polyurethane layer as taught by Ono and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Ho in view of Hütt, Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Ho with Hütt. Specifically, Applicant argues that Ho discloses forming the polyurethane layer on a liner which serves as a casting substrate such that the liner 18 has served its purpose and is then removed. Applicant further argues Ho identifies no deficiencies or problems with the liners and does not disclose a need for modifying the liner, and that the liner already performs its intended function. Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to corona-treat a process carrier that is discarded during manufacturing because that step adds cost and processing time without having any identified benefit. Applicant further argues the corona treatment of Hütt solves a problem that does not exist in Ho, and that Hütt is in a different field of endeavor than Ho. Applicant argues Hütt and Ho are non-analogous art, and that Hütt is not pertinent to the problem which Applicant has identified. Applicant lastly argues that even if the combination of Ho and Hütt was proper, the combination would not have all the features of claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues Ho’s liner 18 modified by the corona treatment of Hütt would be discarded and therefore the combination of references would not have a removable cover film having a corona treated surface in contact with the first surface of the polyurethane layer. The examiner disagrees for the following reasons.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine Ho with Hütt, this is not found persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is motivation to combine Ho and Hütt. While Ho discloses the use of a releasable carrier web or liner, Ho does not disclose a corona treated surface. However, Hütt teaches a matt layer having good release effect (i.e., a releasable layer) ([0010]) which is subjected to a corona treatment having a surface tension of 35-50 mN/m ([0065]) in order to provide a layer having desired surface roughness, adhesive strength, and releasing behavior ([0019]); one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Ho’s release liner to be corona treated in order to provide a release liner having desired surface roughness, adhesive strength, and releasing behavior.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Ho discards its release liner 18 after forming the polyurethane layer, this is not found persuasive. The examiner acknowledges Ho discloses making its polyurethane on a discardable carrier layer. However, Applicant is not claiming a process, but is instead claiming a product, and therefore it is irrelevant how Ho makes its polyurethane layer. Further, the fact remains that Ho also discloses the use of a carrier web or liner 18 that is releasably bonded to protect the surface of the polyurethane layer 12 ([0040], Fig. 1); therefore, Ho uses a removable carrier layer that is present when the final article is formed. Hütt teaches a matt layer having good release effect (i.e., a releasable layer) ([0010]) which is subjected to a corona treatment having a surface tension of 35-50 mN/m ([0065]) in order to provide a layer having desired surface roughness, adhesive strength, and releasing behavior ([0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Ho’s release liner 18 to be corona treated in order to provide a release liner having desired surface roughness, adhesive strength, and releasing behavior.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Ho does not identify any deficiencies or need for improvements for the releasable liner, that the corona treatment of Hütt solves a problem that does not exist in Ho, and that Hütt does not address the same problem as Applicant, this is not found persuasive. While there is no statement from Ho that the carrier layer can be improved or has any deficiencies, this is irrelevant because it is not necessary that a reference identify any or all defects or improvements that can be made to materials. The fact remains that Hütt teaches a matt layer having good release effect (i.e., a releasable layer) ([0010]) which is subjected to a corona treatment having a surface tension of 35-50 mN/m ([0065]) in order to provide a layer having desired surface roughness, adhesive strength, and releasing behavior ([0019]); one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Ho’s release liner to be corona treated in order to provide a release liner having desired surface roughness, adhesive strength, and releasing behavior. Additionally, Hütt discloses that the use and advantageous releasing effect of the film is not in any way limited to the cold seal adhesive cited ([0073]). It is also noted that “obviousness under 103 is not negated because the motivation to arrive at the claimed invention as disclosed by the prior art does not agree with appellant’s motivation”. In re Dillon, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Tomlinson, 150 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Further, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
In response to Applicant’s argument that performing a corona treatment step on a removable liner adds to the cost and time of the process, this is not found persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art may be motivated to pursue the desirable properties taught by one reference, even if that means foregoing the benefit taught by another reference. In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016). A given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages and this does not necessarily obviate a motivation to combine the references. See, e.g., Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See Winner, 202 F.3d at 1349 n.8 “The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Here, there is a benefit gained by performing a corona treatment step on the releasable liner 18 of Ho, the benefit being a release layer having desired surface roughness, adhesive strength, and releasing behavior (Hütt, [0019]).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Hütt is in a different field of endeavor than Ho, and that Ho and Hütt are non-analogous art, this is not found persuasive. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Ho and Hütt are analogous inventions and in the same field of endeavor as the present application; Ho, Hütt, and the present invention are drawn to multilayer articles having removable carrier layers.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Ho in view of Hütt does not disclose the invention of claim 1 because Ho’s liner is discarded and therefore not present, this is not found persuasive. The examiner acknowledges Ho discloses making its polyurethane on a discardable carrier layer. However, the fact remains that Ho also discloses the use of a carrier web or liner 18 that is releasably bonded to protect the surface of the polyurethane layer 12 ([0040], Fig. 1); therefore, Ho uses a removable carrier layer that is present when the final article is formed and is subsequently removed afterwards. Hütt teaches a matt layer having good release effect (i.e., a releasable layer) ([0010]) which is subjected to a corona treatment having a surface tension of 35-50 mN/m ([0065]) in order to provide a layer having desired surface roughness, adhesive strength, and releasing behavior ([0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Ho’s release liner 18 to be corona treated in order to provide a release liner having desired surface roughness, adhesive strength, and releasing behavior. Thus, Ho in view of Hütt does disclose the use of a release liner that is present and is corona treated as required by claim 1.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 7, Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to add a decorative layer to Ho in view of Hütt because Ho is drawn to a transparent paint protective film that is applied over an existing painted surface, and that Ho’s purpose is to protect the underlying paint while allowing the paint to remain visible. Applicant argues adding a decorative layer, such as a colored layer or printed layer, to Ho would obscure the underlying painted surface and defeat Ho’s purpose. Applicant further argues neither Ho nor Hütt are drawn to articles whose purposes require improved appearance, and that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for adding a decorative layer. The examiner disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to add a decorative layer because Ho is drawn to a transparent paint protective film applied over an existing painted surface, and that neither Ho nor Hütt are drawn to articles whose purposes require improved appearance, this is not found persuasive. Ho discloses “it may be desirable for the multilayer film to be colored. The multilayer film may be colored, for example, by including a pigment or other coloring agent in one or more of its layers” (Ho, [0055]). Thus, Ho does not exclude nor discourage the use of decorative layers containing pigments, but rather encourages its use in certain applications. Further, “obviousness under 103 is not negated because the motivation to arrive at the claimed invention as disclosed by the prior art does not agree with appellant’s motivation”. In re Dillon, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Tomlinson, 150 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Further, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). It is irrelevant if Ho or Hütt explicitly disclose a need for additional decoration.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to add a decorative layer, this is not found persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is motivation to combine Ho and Hütt with Suzuki. While Ho discloses the multilayer film is colored by including a pigment or other coloring layer (Ho, [0055]), Ho in view of Hütt does not disclose the decorative layer as claimed. Suzuki teaches a laminate having first and second sheets ([0027]) made from resin films including polyurethanes ([0034-0035]) and using supplemental layers including a colored layer or printed layer (i.e., a decorative layer) in order to provide a desirable appearance ([0045]). Ho in view of Hütt and Suzuki are analogous inventions in the field of multilayer laminates having polyurethane substrates and decorative features. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a supplemental colored layer as taught by Suzuki in the article of Ho in view of Hütt in order to provide an article having desirable appearance (Suzuki, [0045]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven A Rice whose telephone number is (571)272-4450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday/Wednesday 07:30-12:30 and 20:30-22:30; Tuesday/Thursday/Friday 07:30-16:30 Eastern.
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 E 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.
/STEVEN A RICE/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights