DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges that claims 3, 12 and 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration. In light of the new ground(s) of rejection(s) set forth below, the following action is made non-final.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Applicant’s attention is respectfully directed to the section of the originally filed specification titled “Precursors of Example 7, illustrative Example 8, Example FL-9 and Skin Layers 1 to 6:” (page 29, lines 22-34), wherein it is noted that all the precursors appear to comprise IBOA, 0.04 pph photoinitiator (i.e., OMNIRAD 651), HDDA, DCPA, fumed silica particles (AEROSIL R972) and glass bubbles (GB K15). Of the above-noted precursors, only EX-7 comprises the IBOA and none of the precursors comprises DCPA (see Tables 2-3). Further, the photoinitiator OMNIRAD 651 was contained at 0.16 pph and not 0.04 pph. None of SL-1 to SL-6 contains the GB K15 component. SL-2 to SL-6 do not contain the AEROSIL R972 component. Clarification is earnestly requested to clear up these discrepancies.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 9/10/2026, with respect to the objections to claims 7-8 as set forth in paragraphs 5-6 of the action mailed 6/10/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 7-8 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 9/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth in paragraph 8 of the action mailed 6/10/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 9/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in paragraph 10 of the action mailed 6/10/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 9/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as set forth in paragraph 12 of the action mailed 6/10/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada et al. (US 2013/0244020 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 1 and 13, Terada teaches a pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) layer (adhesive film) formed from a bubble-containing thermally conductive resin composition comprising an acrylic polymer (first (meth)acrylate copolymer) comprising an alkyl (meth)acrylate as a main monomer (para 0015, 0022-0025). The alkyl (meth)acrylate is selected from, inter alia, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (branched alkyl (meth)acrylate) in an amount of 60 to 99 weight% (at least 55 weight percent) (para 0026-0029).
The acrylic polymer also comprises polar group-containing monomers and polyfunctional monomers as copolymerizable monomers towards improved cohesion and adhesion (para 0030), the former of which is selected from, inter alia, (meth)acrylic acid monomer units in an amount of 1 to 30 weight%, which overlaps that presently claimed (15 to 40 weight percent), towards a balance of PSA properties and high shearing force; and the latter of which is selected from, inter alia, hexanediol (meth)acrylate (crosslinking monomer having more than one (meth)acrylate group) in an amount of 0.01 to 2 weight%, which overlaps that presently claimed (0.1 to 5 weight percent), towards a balance of PSA properties and cohesion (para 0031-0034).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
The PSA layer is provided on a substrate (adhesive system), which comprises a surface treated with a primer coating (primer composition, current claim 13) (para 0100). Terada discloses that the PSA layer is cured via activation energy beam while disposed on the substrate (para 0098), Terada does not require that the “application” of the PSA layer to the substrate is accomplished with heat or radiation. The presently claimed/disclosed invention permits the further (meth)acrylate copolymer to be present at 0 percent by weight (i.e., not more than 5 percent by weight). See also page 8, line 27 to page 9, line 2 of the specification as originally filed, which discloses that the adhesive is “free” of the further (meth)acrylate copolymer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to employ the polar group-containing monomers and polyfunctional monomers as copolymerizable monomers in the presently claimed proportions towards a balance of PSA properties and high shearing force as required by the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.
Regarding claim(s) 2, as noted above, Terada teaches the acrylic polymer comprises the (meth)acrylic acid monomer units in an amount that overlaps that presently claimed (greater than 15 to 40 weight percent).
Regarding claim 5, Terada teaches that the PSA layer thickness is 300 to 1000 mm (0.3 to 1 mm) (par a0093).
Regarding claim(s) 6, as noted above, Terada teaches that the PSA is a bubble-containing thermally conductive resin composition comprises bubbles (foam) (para 0053-0054).
Regarding claims 8-9, Terada teaches that the bubble-containing thermally conductive resin composition comprises two or more acrylic polymers (para 0025). As noted above, Terada also instructs that the polar group-containing monomers and polyfunctional monomers comprise the acrylic polymers and the PSA towards the balance of PSA properties and high shearing force.
Indeed, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the PSA layer of Terada with two or more acrylic polymers in the presently claimed proportions (65 to 99 weight percent, 1 to 35 weight precent), and each comprising the polar group-containing monomers and polyfunctional monomers in the presently claimed proportions, based the balance of PSA properties and high shearing force required of the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.
Regarding claims 10-11, Terada does not explicitly disclose a PSA film comprising two layers of PSA layers adjacent to each other (current claim 10), or three PSA layer in a skin-core-skin multilayer adhesive structure (current claim 11).
However, Terada does instruct that the bubble-containing thermally conductive resin layer, when used a PSA layer comprises multiple layers (para 0093 and 0095). Terada also teaches that the PSA sheet comprises substrate-less PSA sheets comprising only a PSA layer (para 0082).
Indeed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, and as suggested via Terada, to employ a two layer PSA adhesive film comprising two layers of the bubble-containing thermally conductive resin, which thereby provides first and second adhesive layers comprising the presently claimed first (meth)acrylate polymer as in the present invention; or a three layer PSA film comprising three layers of the bubble-containing thermally conductive resin, which thereby provides a core layer comprising the presently claimed first (meth)acrylate polymer as in the present invention.
Alternatively, for example,
Terada teaches the double-sided PSA sheet (14) of Fig. 2(a) comprising substrate (5) with PSA layers (6) on opposing surfaces of substrate (5), and wherein all of the layers (5) and (6) comprise the bubble-containing thermally conductive resin composition, and thus all of the layers (5) and (6) comprise the presently claimed first (meth)acrylate copolymer. Thus, within a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the claimed invention, the PSA sheet (14) teaches the presently claimed adhesive film (given the two PSA layers (6)) with the “core” comprising the first (meth)acrylate copolymer, regardless of whether the substrate (5) is adhesive or not.
Regarding claim(s) 18, as noted above, the alkyl (meth)acrylate is selected from, inter alia, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada et al. (US 2013/0244020 A1) in view of Okada et al. (US 2013/0137813 A1).
Regarding claim 4, while Terada does not disclose a storage modulus for the PSA layer.
However, does teach a dried PSA having a storage modulus after pre-drying of 1 MPa or smaller over a range of -15 to 25 ℃ at 1 Hz (para 0014), which overlaps that presently claimed (more than 0.5 MPa) towards adequate wettability and adhesive strength (para 0092).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the PSA layer of Terada with the presently claimed storage modulus towards said PSA layer demonstrating the wettability and adhesive strength required of the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada et al. (US 2013/0244020 A1) in view of Levens (US 4223067).
Regarding claim 7, as noted above in the rejection of current claim 1 and 6, Terada teaches that the PSA is a bubble-containing thermally conductive resin composition comprises bubbles, but is silent to the bubbles comprising 2 to 12 weight percent of polymeric microspheres or glass bubbles. However, even though Terada discloses the content of the bubbles in terms of volume% rather than weight percent, the reference does instruct that the bubbles are included in a volume% based on the balance of adhesion, unevenness followability and shearing force (para 0054).
In addition, Levens teaches a PSA layer comprising an acrylic polymer and glass microbubbles that allows the PSA layer to conform and adhere to rough and uneven surfaces (abstract).
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) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having
the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room
temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference
teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room
temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired
boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a
catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.
“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more
ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325
U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to select glass bubbles for the bubbles of the Terada invention for the reasons disclosed in Terada as in the present invention.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada et al. (US 2013/0244020 A1) in view of Engler et al. (WO 2019193514 A1).
Regarding claims 15-17, as noted above, Terada teaches that the PSA layer is provided on a substrate surface treated with a primer coating towards increasing the adhesiveness between the substrate and the PSA, which said substrate is formed from, inter alia, olefin polymers, polyamides, PET, etc. (para 0097).
Terada is silent to the primer coating comprising a polyamide and a polyacrylate, wherein the adhesive film does not react with the primer composition to form covalent bonds.
However, Engler teaches a medical article (100) comprising a silicone gel adhesive (130) on a substrate (120) (abstract), which said substrate (120) comprises, inter alia, a polymeric film such as, inter alia, polyurethanes, polyester or polyether amide films (page 14, lines 11-25) and which said silicone gel adhesive (130) comprises a PSA acrylic polymer (page 1, lines 13-32; page 7, line 9 to page 9, line 10).
Engler continues to teach a primer layer between the substrate and the adhesive layer towards strong adherence and to provide a modified surface chemistry to the surface to which they are applied; and include coating material such as a combination of poly(meth)acrylates and polyamides (page 14, lines 29-35).
The Applicant is respectfully reminded that,
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) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having
the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room
temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference
teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room
temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired
boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a
catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.
“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more
ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325
U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to employ a combination of poly(meth)acrylate- and polyamide-based materials as instructed via Engler for the primer coating of Terada as in the present invention.
Further, given that the laminate of Terada/Engler teaches a PSA layer/primer coating formed from the same components as presently claimed, it reasonable to conclude that the PSA layer of the cited prior art would not react with the primer coating to form covalent bonds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 9/10/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11,13 and 18 over Terada et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 and claim 7 over Terada et al. in view of Levens under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in paragraphs 15 and 17 of the action mailed 6/10/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
To the Applicant’s first point, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant and submits that, while Terada discusses several classes of components as satisfying the disclosed polar group-containing monomer, and its proportional overlap with the presently claimed (meth)acrylic acid monomer, Terada does specifically teach carboxyl group-containing monomers such as (meth)acrylic acid. Acknowledging that the disputed prior art rejections are not anticipation rejections, the Examiner respectfully reminds the Applicant that, according to MPEP 2131.02, wherein it is instructed that
“A genus does not always anticipate a claim to a species within the genus. However,
when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated no matter how many
other species are additionally named. Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Inter. 1990) (The claimed compound was named in a reference which also disclosed 45
other compounds. The Board held that the comprehensiveness of the listing did not
negate the fact that the compound claimed was specifically taught. The Board compared
the facts to the situation in which the compound was found in the Merck Index, saying
that “the tenth edition of the Merck Index lists ten thousand compounds. In our view,
each and every one of those compounds is described’ as that term is used in 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a), in that publication.”).
Examiner’s emphasis.
Continuing, the Examiner concedes that one skilled in the art would recognize the differences (e.g., acid-base character as expanded on in the discussion below) in the various classes of monomers encompassed by Terada’s polar group-containing monomer, and would therefore recognize the wisdom of selecting one class of monomer over the other; for example, the merits of choosing a carboxyl group-containing monomer (i.e., an acidic monomer) versus an amino group-containing monomer (i.e., a basic monomer). Indeed, selection of the (meth)acrylic acid as the polar group-containing monomer, which is a widely recognized acidic monomer employed in acrylic PSA polymers, would have been an obvious choice for the reason(s) acknowledged by the Applicant (e.g., polarity); and given that Terada further discloses a weight% of the polar group-containing monomer overlapping that presently claimed, Terada clearly teaches or renders obvious the presently claimed (meth)acrylic acid monomer at 15 to 40 weight percent.
In addition, the inventive examples conspicuously disclose the use of acrylic acid as a monomer comprising the acrylic polymers (para 0116). Terada also instructs one skilled in the art that crosslinking agents are added to the PSA compositions such as polyisocyanates (para 0076). The Examiner notes that carboxyl group-containing monomers such as acrylic acid are established in the art as providing functional groups to an acrylic polymer to provide crosslinking sites for reaction with isocyanate-based crosslinking agents as evidenced via US 2006/0154097 A1 Amano et al. (see para 0011, 0037, 0050, 0071-0072 therein).
Furthermore, the Examiner submits that the Applicant’s contention that “the 1 to 30 weight percent...is therefore a limit on the total amount of a member of that heterogeneous class, not a disclosure of the amount of (meth)acrylic acid monomer units required by claim 1” is at odds with itself given that the (meth)acrylic acid monomer is conspicuously a member of that heterogeneous class (Examiner’s emphasis). Thus, the presently claimed proportions of the recited (meth)acrylic acid monomer is obvious over Terada. Moreover, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that the “upper end” of Terada’s 1 to 30 weight% is necessary to teach the presently claimed 15 to 40 weight percent given that the middle of Terada’s range is identical to the lower range presently claimed.
Therefore, and without further clarification from the Applicant, the Examiner concludes that the obviousness of the presently recited proportions of the (meth)acrylic acid monomer over Terada are in accord with MPEP 2144.05.
Turning now to the Applicant’s second point, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that the prior art rejections were cited in a manner requiring a “modification” of Terada. Instead, Terada was only cited in regards to what the reference specifically disclosed. Thus, there is nothing in Terada’s contemplation of employing (meth)acrylic acid in the presently required proportions that would render the disclosed Terada invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, nor denying any reasonable expectation of success, as required by the portions of the MPEP cited by the Applicant.
In regard to the Applicant’s opinions of the Asker C hardness, the Examiner respectfully submits that the Asker C hardness of 37 as disclosed in Example 1 of Terada is less than 75% of Terada’s upper limit of 50, and thus the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s characterization that the Asker C hardness of said Example 1 is approaching Terada’s maximum. Also, Ogawa was not cited to remedy Terada in regard to the proportion of the (meth)acrylic acid. Further, as cited above, Terada specifically discloses that the (meth)acrylic acid monomer is present in amounts that overlap that presently claimed, and thus instructs the skilled artisan that ranges that may, or may not, be suitable for the totality of Ogawa’s invention, are not discredited from employment in Terada.
Moreover, the Applicant has not remarked on Examples 1 and 6 of Ogawa, which provide acrylic acid in proportions identical to that presently claimed, and within the disclosed range of Terada, and still manage PSA properties even though Comparative Example 1, which has less acrylic acid than Examples 1 and 6, demonstrates lower relative PSA adhesive force. Therefore, the Examiner submits that the evidence of record alleged by the Applicant does not support the Applicant’s opinions that the proportional ranges for the (meth)acrylic acid specifically disclosed in Terada would render Terada unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or deny the invention Terada a reasonable expectation of success.
Also, the caution in regard to an increase in the cohesive force in Terada is mentioned when the amount of the polar group-containing monomer is used in excess of 30 weight%, and not necessarily the values in the secondary Ogawa reference. Indeed, Ogawa’s invention does not have dominion over the choices employed in Terada towards provide PSA properties to the inventive PSA layers of the primary reference, especially when Terada specifically discloses (meth)acrylic acid in proportions identical to that presently claimed that are outside the disclosures of Ogawa and the inventive examples of Terada itself.
The "test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference... Rather, the test is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art", In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871,881 (CCPA 1981) and that
"combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their
specific structures", In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USP 224, 226 (CCPA).
Also,
The “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot
merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” (In re
Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967)).
With respect to the thermally conductive particles of Terada, and the choice of the polar group-containing monomers, the Examiner respectfully reminds the Applicant that,
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one
having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.
Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S.
975 (1989). Examiner’s emphasis.
In this spirit, the Examiner acknowledges that Terada expresses a preference for basic thermally conductive particles such as aluminum hydroxide and boron nitride (para 0045), and thus a preference for employing non-carboxyl group-containing monomers towards minimizing acid-base reactions between the particles and the acrylic polymer when basic particles are employed (para 0031). However, Terada also discloses other thermally conductive particles that do not provide basic functionality such as, inter alia, silicon dioxide, and thus one skilled in the art would have been apprised to employ (meth)acrylic acid as a comonomer in instances when the basic particles are not used.
The Examiner respectfully acknowledges the Applicant’s allegations that the presently claimed invention demonstrates criticality in rebuttal of the obviousness of the presently claimed as recited in at least current claim 1. However, attention is directed to MPEP 716.02(d), which states that whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “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 occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
The Applicant has not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire claimed range of 15 to 40 weight percent for the recited (meth)acrylic acid monomer. Inventive Examples Ex-1 to Ex-6 and IE-8 list the acrylic acid (AA) monomer as present in an amount of 15 to 20 wt%, which denies any evidence that the alleged criticality is demonstrated for AA proportions from 20 to 40 wt% as required by the claimed invention. The Examiner notes that the presently claimed crosslinking monomer appears to be claimed as part of the recited first (meth)acrylate copolymer in an amount of 0.1 to 5 weight percent based on the weight of said first (meth)acrylate copolymer. However, the data in Table 2 demonstrates that the crosslinking monomer (HDDA) is given in pph per 100 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylate copolymer. The upper limit of the data has the HDDA at 0.20 pph, which provides no data for the HDDA at or anywhere near the upper limit of 5 weight presently claimed for the recited crosslinking monomer having more than one (meth)acrylate group. Similarly, the scope of the linear or branched alkyl (meth)acrylate monomer extends to a lower limit of 55 weight percent while said data discloses 2-ethylehxyl acrylate (2-EHA) at a lower limit 80.00 wt.%.
Thus, it is unclear via a comparison of the presently claimed invention of at least current claim 1 and the presently disclosed data if the criticality, as alleged, would be present over the entire scope of the presently claimed invention.
Turning now to current claim 7, Terada/Levens conspicuously instruct one skilled in the art as to the motivation for inclusion of glass microbubbles in acrylic PSA compositions; that is, towards a balance of adhesion, unevenness followability and shearing force. Indeed, one skilled in the art would have been well apprised to translate the volume% of the microbubbles into their respective wt.% based on the wt.% that would provide the desired balance of adhesion, unevenness followability and shearing force as required by the intended application. For example, an amount of microbubbles that occupied a certain volume% of a PSA layer and provided the balance of adhesion, unevenness followability and shearing force as required by the application would contribute a certain wt.% of the PSA layer and vice versa. Such a unit translation would be within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 9/10/2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 4 over Terada et al. in view of Ogawa et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 and claims 15-17 over Terada et al. in view of Kalgutkar et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in paragraphs 16 and 18 of the action mailed 6/10/2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK D DUCHENEAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7053. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 PM - 5:00 PM.
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, Alicia A Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/FRANK D DUCHENEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 10/13/2026
