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 . Claims included in prosecution are claims 1-7 and 9-17.
Applicants' arguments in the Request for Continued Examination, filed Nov. 21, 2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 appears to inadvertently recite “crystals” in the penultimate line. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (New)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
1. Claims 1-7, 11, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanzgiri et al. (US 2005/0100517, May 12, 2005) (hereinafter Sanzgiri) in view of Dayan et al. (US 2007/0166251, Jul. 19, 2007) (hereinafter Dayan) and Willemin (US 2008/0159970, Jul. 3, 2008) (hereinafter Willemin).
Sanzgiri teaches a cosmetic composition comprising vitamin B6, vitamin B3, and an organic acid that acts synergistically to enhance skin lightening (Abstract). According to a preferred embodiment the composition comprises: 0.05-10 wt. % vitamin B6 or a derivative thereof; 0.05-10 wt.% vitamin B3 or a derivative thereof; 0.05-20 wt.% at least one organic acid selected from the group consisting of C1-C16 monocarboxylic acids, dicarboxylic acids, polycarboxylic acids, phenolic acids, and esters/salts or other derivatives thereof; and 0.1 to 25 wt.% of a cosmetically acceptable vehicle, wherein the pH of the composition is between 3 and 11 (satisfies pH of claim 1 & 13) (¶ [0019-0025]). The composition may be in the form of emulsions including water-in-oil and oil-in-water (satisfies emulsion of claim 1) (¶ [0027]). An essential ingredient of the composition is niacinamide which is a biologically active form of vitamin B3 (niacinamide of claim 1) (¶ [0030]). Particularly preferred phenolic acids include ferulic acid (satisfies HCA of claim 1 & 15) (¶ [0038]). The composition may comprise sunscreen agents such as salicylates (¶ [0045]). Suitable vehicles include emollients, thickeners, solvents, and humectants (¶ [0059]). Suitable solvents include water (¶ [0062]). Preferred humectants include polyhydric alcohols such as propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol (satisfies claim 6-7) (¶ [0063]). Optional cosmetic ingredients include pharmaceutical ingredients such as antioxidants (satisfies claim 11) (¶ [0079]). In Example 2, the inventive compositions contained 10 wt.% polyhydric alcohols (i.e., co-solvent), 1 wt.% vitamin B3, 1 wt.% ferulic acid, and water (¶ [0085-0089]).
Sanzgiri differs from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the composition contains sodium gluconate.
However, Dayan teaches cosmetic compositions used in methods for treating hyperpigmented skin, which have an enhanced ability to lighten mammalian skin color (Abstract). The compositions comprise a hydroxycinnamic acid (¶ [0002]). The solutions provide an effective delivery of an HCA to lighten the skin and can be formulated with other topically applied active compounds (¶ [0055]). Skin conditioners are suitable topically applied compounds. Suitable skin conditioners include humectants such as propylene glycol and sodium gluconate (¶ [0058]).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. As discussed above, Sanzgiri discloses wherein the composition may comprise humectants. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the composition of Sanzgiri to comprise sodium gluconate, since it is a known humectant for use in skin lightening compositions comprising hydroxycinnamic acids as taught by Dayan.
The combined teachings of Sanzgiri and Dayan do not disclose wherein the composition comprises an amino acid derivative such as phytosteryl/octyldodecyl lauroyl glutamate.
However, Willemin discloses a formulation of cosmetic and/or dermatological active agents, in particular a moisturizer agent, for improving the appearance of keratin materials, in particular the skin (¶ [0002]). Suitable moisturizers or humectants for use include phytosteryl/octyldodecyl lauroyl glutamate (¶ [0328]). Suitable depigmenting agents for use include ferulic acid and vitamin B3 (¶ [0354]). The compositions according to the invention are especially intended for treating skin disorders associated with an impairment in the pigmentation of the skin (¶ [0739]).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. As discussed above, Sanzgiri discloses wherein the composition may comprise humectants. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the composition of Sanzgiri to comprise phytosteryl/octyldodecyl lauroyl glutamate, since it is a known humectant for use in skin care compositions especially intended for treating skin pigmentation disorders that also comprise ferulic acid and vitamin B3 as taught by Willemin.
In regards to the composition comprising propylene glycol/dipropylene glycol, sodium gluconate, phytosteryl/octyldodecyl lauroyl glutamate and since the use of various humectants is known individually, the use of the individual species in combination would have been obvious since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose; the idea for combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding the amounts of niacinamide, HCA, sodium gluconate, and polar emollient recited in instant claim 1, (i.e., about 0.1 % to about 10% & about 0.5% to about 3%), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(A). As discussed above, Sanzgiri’s composition may comprise 0.05-10 wt.% vitamin B3; 0.05-20 wt.% at least one organic acid; and 0.1 to 25 wt.% of a cosmetically acceptable vehicle, where suitable acids include ferulic acid and suitable vehicles include humectants such as sodium gluconate and phytosteryl/octyldodecyl lauroyl glutamate. Accordingly, because the amounts recited in the instant claims overlap with the amounts disclosed by Sanzgiri, the amounts disclosed by Sanzgiri meet the instantly recited limitation.
Regarding claim 2 reciting wherein the composition reduces the appearance of marks on a user’s skin, as discussed above, Sanzgiri discloses wherein the composition is to be applied to the skin and acts to enhance skin lightening. As noted by page 3, lines 23-25 of the instant specification, “marks” encompass hyperpigmentation. As such, since the composition of Sanzgiri may be applied to the skin and enhances skin lightening, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the composition of Sanzgiri would be useable to reduce the appearance of marks on a user’s skin.
Regarding the ratio between the hydroxycinnamic acid and the polar emollient recited in instant claim 4 (i.e., about 1:1 to about 1: 10), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(A). As discussed above, the composition of Sanzgiri in view of Dayan and Willemin composition comprises 0.05-20 wt.% of at least one organic acid such as ferulic acid and may comprise 0.1 to 25 wt.% of a cosmetically acceptable vehicle and suitable vehicles include humectants such as such as phytosteryl/octyldodecyl lauroyl glutamate. Accordingly, the claimed weight ratio would have been obvious from one selecting amounts of ferulic acid and phytosteryl/octyldodecyl lauroyl glutamate from these ranges and arriving at a weight ratio that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding the amount of co-solvent recited in instant claim 5 (i.e., less than 20%), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(A). As discussed above, Sanzgiri’s composition may comprise 0.1 to 25 wt.% of a cosmetically acceptable vehicle and suitable vehicles include humectants such as propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. Accordingly, because the amounts recited in the instant claims overlap with the amounts disclosed by Sanzgiri, the amounts disclosed by Sanzgiri meet the instantly recited limitation.
Regarding the amount of antioxidant recited in instant claim 11 (i.e., about 0.001 % to about 5%), where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). As discussed above, antioxidants are pharmaceutical ingredients, which makes amounts thereof a result effective variable, since amounts directly impact the therapeutic effect. Accordingly, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to have arrived at the claimed amounts of antioxidant to yield the desired antioxidant therapeutic effect.
Regarding the limitation recited in claim 16, the amount of 4-vinylphenol present is descriptive and thus would be a property of the claimed composition. Sanzgiri discloses substantially the same composition comprising: a vitamin B3 compound, ferulic acid, water, a co-solvent, and a pH of between 3.5 and 6. Therefore, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the composition of Sanzgiri would have substantially the same property, comprising less than 1000 ppm 4-vinylphenol, as the composition of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 17 reciting wherein the composition exhibits less than about 10% HCA degradation, as noted by page 7, lines 26-32 of the instant specification, formulating compositions at a low pH and including an antioxidant reduces oxidation and/or degradation of the HCA. As discussed above, Sanzgiri discloses wherein the composition may comprise antioxidants and wherein the composition may have a pH of between 3.5 and 5. Therefore, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the composition of Sanzgiri would have substantially the same property, exhibiting less than about 10% HCA degradation, as the composition of the instant claims.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Sanzgiri, Dayan, and Willemin render obvious claims 1-7, 11, 13, and 15-17.
2. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanzgiri et al. (US 2005/0100517, May 12, 2005) (hereinafter Sanzgiri) in view of Dayan et al. (US 2007/0166251, Jul. 19, 2007) (hereinafter Dayan) and Willemin (US 2008/0159970, Jul. 3, 2008) (hereinafter Willemin) and further in view of Boice et al. (US 2018/0116928, May 3, 2018) (hereinafter Boice).
The teachings of Sanzgiri, Dayan, and Willemin are discussed above where Sanzgiri discloses wherein the composition may comprise thickeners.
The combined teachings of Sanzgiri, Dayan, and Willemin differ from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the composition comprises a low-pH tolerant polymer thickener such as polyacrylate crosspolymer-6.
However, Boice teaches compositions that are useful in treating the signs of ageing in mammals via topical application to the skin (Abstract). Thickeners can be utilized in the composition where suitable thickeners include polyacrylate crosspolymer-6 (¶ [0167]).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. As discussed above, Sanzgiri discloses wherein the composition may comprise thickeners. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the composition of Sanzgiri to comprise polyacrylate crosspolymer-6, since it is a known thickeners for use in skin care compositions as taught by Boice.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Sanzgiri, Dayan, Willemin, and Boice render obvious claims 9-10.
3. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanzgiri et al. (US 2005/0100517, May 12, 2005) (hereinafter Sanzgiri) in view of Dayan et al. (US 2007/0166251, Jul. 19, 2007) (hereinafter Dayan) and Willemin (US 2008/0159970, Jul. 3, 2008) (hereinafter Willemin) and further in view of Carle et al. (US 2021/0346275, Nov. 11, 2021) (hereinafter Carle).
The teachings of Sanzgiri, Dayan, and Willemin are discussed above.
The combined teachings of Sanzgiri, Dayan, and Willemin differ from the instant claims insofar as not explicitly disclosing the exact amount of antioxidant included and wherein the composition comprises sodium sulfite.
However, Carle discloses compositions useful to improve the brightness of skin (Abstract). The composition may include an antioxidant in amounts of 0.0001% to 99.9% by weight (¶ [0023]). Suitable antioxidants include sodium sulfite (¶ [0066]).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. As discussed above, Sanzgiri discloses wherein the composition may comprise antioxidants. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included sodium bisulfite in the composition of Sanzgiri in an amount of 0.001% to 5% by weight, since it is a known and effective antioxidant and amount thereof in skin care compositions as taught by Carle.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Sanzgiri, Dayan, Willemin, and Carle render obvious claims 11-12.
4. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanzgiri et al. (US 2005/0100517, May 12, 2005) (hereinafter Sanzgiri) in view of Dayan et al. (US 2007/0166251, Jul. 19, 2007) (hereinafter Dayan) and Willemin (US 2008/0159970, Jul. 3, 2008) (hereinafter Willemin) and further in view of Pan et al. (US 2018/0116936, May 3, 2018) (hereinafter Pan).
The teachings of Sanzgiri, Dayan, and Willemin are discussed above.
The combined teachings of Sanzgiri, Dayan, and Willemin differ from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the phenolic acid is p-coumaric acid.
However, Pan discloses compositions containing phenolic compounds having synergistic antioxidant benefits (Title). Suitable phenolic compounds include ferulic acid and p-coumaric acid (¶ [0036]). The composition may be topically applied to the skin (¶ [0069]).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. As discussed above, Sanzgiri discloses wherein the composition comprises at least one organic acid such as phenolic acids. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated p-coumaric acid into the composition of Sanzgiri since it is a known and effective phenolic acid for use in skin care compositions as taught by Pan.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Sanzgiri, Dayan, Willemin, and Pan render obvious claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-17 have been considered but are moot because new rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendment have been made. As discussed in the current rejections, Sanzgiri teaches a cosmetic composition comprising vitamin B6, vitamin B3, and an organic acid that acts synergistically to enhance skin lightening but does not expressly disclose wherein the composition contains sodium gluconate. However, Dayan is relied upon for this teaching. Furthermore, Willemin’s teaching in reference to phytosteryl/octyldodecyl lauroyl glutamate is applied to meet the requirements of the new limitation “wherein the polar emollient is an amino acid derivative”.
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.
1. Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,036,298 B2 (hereinafter ‘298).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite a skin care composition comprising: a. about 0.1 % to about 10% of a vitamin B3 compound; b. about 0.1 % to about 10% of a hydroxycinnamic acid; c. water; d. a co-solvent with a Hansen solubility parameter distance of less than 15 from the hydroxycinnamic acid; wherein a pH of the composition is 5.0 or less; wherein the composition is free of hydroxycinnamic acid crystals. The difference between the instant claims and the claims of ‘298 lies in the fact that the claims of ‘298 further recite a method of reducing the appearance of post-acne marks. Thus, the claims of ‘298 are a species of the generic invention of the instant claims. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the composition of the instant claims in the method of ‘298 since they both utilize the same components and actives.
2. Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,882 B2 (hereinafter ‘882).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite a skin care composition comprising: a. about 0.1 % to about 10% of a vitamin B3 compound; b. about 0.1 % to about 10% of a hydroxycinnamic acid; c. water; d. a co-solvent with a Hansen solubility parameter distance of less than 15 from the hydroxycinnamic acid; wherein a pH of the composition is 5.0 or less; wherein the composition is free of hydroxycinnamic acid crystals. The difference between the instant claims and the claims of ‘882 lies in the fact that the claims of ‘882 further recite a method of reducing the appearance of post-acne marks. Thus, the claims of ‘882 are a species of the generic invention of the instant claims. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the composition of the instant claims in the method of ‘882 since they both utilize the same components and actives.
3. Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 280,132 B2 (hereinafter ‘332) in view of Pojasek et al. (US 2010/0278784, Nov. 4, 2010) (hereinafter Pojasek).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite a skin care composition comprising: a. about 0.1 % to about 10% of a vitamin B3 compound; b. about 0.1 % to about 10% of a hydroxycinnamic acid; c. water; d. a co-solvent with a Hansen solubility parameter distance of less than 15 from the hydroxycinnamic acid; wherein a pH of the composition is 5.0 or less; wherein the composition is free of hydroxycinnamic acid crystals. The difference between the instant claims and the claims of ‘332 lies in the fact that the composition of ‘332 further includes a hydrotope such as sodium salicylate.
However, Pojasek discloses methods and compositions for the treatment of aging-related skin conditions (e.g., wrinkles), pigmentation disorders, acne, and scar formation (Abstract). In certain embodiments, an anti-inflammatory agent such as sodium salicylate can be used in the compositions (¶ [0245]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the ‘332 composition to further comprise sodium salicylate motivated by the desire to utilize its anti-inflammatory properties in a skin care composition as taught by Pojasek.
4. Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,119 B2 (hereinafter ‘119) in view of Willemin (US 2008/0159970, Jul. 3, 2008) (hereinafter Willemin).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite a skin care composition comprising: a. about 0.1 % to about 10% of a vitamin B3 compound; b. about 0.1 % to about 10% of a hydroxycinnamic acid; c. water; d. a co-solvent with a Hansen solubility parameter distance of less than 15 from the hydroxycinnamic acid; wherein a pH of the composition is 5.0 or less; wherein the composition is free of hydroxycinnamic acid crystals. The difference between the instant claims and the claims of ‘119 lies in the fact that the composition of ‘119 further includes a sensory improving ingredient such as a sugar alcohol.
However, Willemin discloses a formulation of cosmetic and/or dermatological active agents, in particular a moisturizer agent, for improving the appearance of keratin materials, in particular the skin (¶ [0002]). Suitable moisturizers or humectants for use include xylitol (¶ [0328]). Suitable depigmenting agents for use include ferulic acid and vitamin B3 (¶ [0354]). The compositions according to the invention are especially intended for treating skin disorders associated with an impairment in the pigmentation of the skin (¶ [0739]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the ‘119 composition to further comprise xylitol motivated by the desire to utilize its moisturizing properties in a skin care composition as taught by Willemin.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-17 on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting, Applicants‘ arguments and the amendment have been fully considered and deemed unpersuasive for the reasons that follow. Applicants have not submitted arguments or documentation (i.e. terminal disclaimer) in response to the double patenting rejection. Therefore, the previous rejections of non- statutory double patenting is maintained.
Conclusion
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abdulrahman Abbas whose telephone number is (571)270-0878. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 - 5:30.
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, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/LEZAH ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612