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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-2 and 7-17, drawn to an activatable temperature exposure indicator having a response temperature, classified in at least G01K1/02.
II. Claims 19-20, 22-26, 29 and 32, drawn to a method of making an activatable temperature exposure indicator including at least dispensing bonding material which blocks migration of microcapsules into a wick, classified in at least Y10S277/922.
III. Claims 39-40, drawn to an activatable environmental exposure indicator having a response condition, classified in at least G01N21/77.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
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 at least (1) obtains. Specifically, the process of Group II may make the product of Group I or another and materially different product such as at least a product not requiring a response temperature (i.e. the product of Group III alternative embodiments including at least chemical / humidity / radiation responses).
Inventions I and III are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j).
In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. Specifically, the invention of Group III may have a response condition selected from a group including at least an exposure to: particular chemical, oxygen, ammonia, radiation, electromagnetic or humidity.
Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass fully overlapping subject matter (Invention I requires at least a response temperature; Invention III requires a response condition which may include at least in the alternative “an exposure to a particular chemical, an oxygen exposure, an ammonia exposure, …an exposure to at least a predetermined amount of radiation of a particular type, an predetermined electromagnetic exposure, a humidity exposure, an exposure to a …” see at least claim 40 depending from and further limiting claim 39; please note that claim 39 is even broader than this) and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions II and III 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 at least (1) obtains. Specifically, the process of Group II may make the product of Group III or another and materially different product such as at least the product of Group I.
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 search for the separate inventions as described above will require searching different classifications, separate electronic resources, employing different search queries, and a different field of search for each. Specifically, the separate inventions will require a search in in the CPC sub classifications detailed above (at least G01K1/02 for Group I, at least Y10S277/922 for Group II and at least G01N21/77 for Group III) since as a result of these separate classifications the separate inventions have obtained separate status in the art.
Additionally, a variety of textual differences (relating to at least the activatable temperature exposure indicator having a response temperature for Group I, at least the placing and dispensing steps for Group II and at least the environmental exposure indicator having an alternatively claimed response condition with at least chemical/humidity/radiation etc. response for Group III) will need to be searched in appropriate databases corresponding to the differences in the Groups as described above.
As such a serious search burden is indicated.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these 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.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
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.
During a telephone conversation with Andrew Reibman (Reg. No. 47893; at 212-536-4074) on 15 JUN 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-2 and 7-17. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claims 19-20, 22-26, 29, 32 and 39-40 of nonelected Groups II and III are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 17 are 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.
Specifically, claim 15 recites “a range bounded by −15 degrees Celsius (C) and 100 35 degrees C.” (emphasis added).
Similarly, claim 17 recites “a range bounded by 40 degrees Celsius (C) and 110 115 degrees C.” (emphasis added).
It is unclear what the bounds of these ranges is required to be due to the double recitation (assumed to be type-O or other minor editing error) of the upper ends of the ranges.
As bester understood, based on the specification (see [0026] and [0020] of the instant publication for claims 15 and 17 respectively) the terms will be considered as “a range bounded by −15 degrees Celsius (C) and 35 degrees C.” for claim 15 and “a range bounded by 40 degrees Celsius (C) and 115 degrees C.” for claim 17.
However, positive in claim recitation of the precise metes and bounds applicant intends to limit by these terms is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20080056329; hereinafter Smith) in view of Prusik et al. (US 5709472; hereinafter Prusik).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches an activatable temperature exposure indicator having a response temperature (100; abstract; see figs. 4 and 5), comprising:
a substrate (114; [0047]);
a wick physically coupled to or contained in the substrate (110; [0047]; [0049] – note that the disclosure references the wick incorrectly as 108 in some places);
an indicator region, on or adjacent to a first end of the wick (108; see figs. 4 and 5 showing the window for viewing/indication is on a rightward -as drawn- end of the wick); and
a bonding material (112; “heat-fusible indicator material” [0044]) containing a plurality of microcapsules ([0099]) disposed on or adjacent to a second end of the wick, opposite the first end (see fig. 5 showing this configuration; see [0044] and [0099] teaching that “microcapsules containing a heat-fusible substance can be applied to the label wicking material at least on one end”);
wherein the bonding material has a liquefaction temperature (see [0092] in view of [0099] regarding the heat-fusible indicator material liquification/melting temperature(s)) higher than the response temperature ([0092] “the material melts and can flow at temperatures elevated above the threshold temperature”),
wherein each microcapsule of the plurality of microcapsules contains an indicator material microencapsulated ([0099] “microcapsules containing a heat-fusible substance”) in an activatable shell ([0099] teaches activation “by applying sufficient pressure on the microcapsule-containing portion of the indicator”),
wherein the indicator material is configured to liquefy responsive to exposure to a temperature at or above the response temperature ([0092]; see also at least [0093]; especially that the “indicator material to be employed can be selected according to its melting point and the excess temperature exposure it is desired to indicate”),
wherein the activatable shells are configured to contain the indicator material when liquefied ([0099] “microcapsules containing a heat-fusible substance can be applied to the label wicking material at least on one end. Such an indicator can remain inactive for an extended shelf life, without responding to excess temperatures”),
wherein the activatable shells are configured to [activate] in response to an application of an activation action exceeding a predetermined activation threshold ([0099] teaches that the microcapsules “can be activated when desired by applying sufficient pressure”), releasing the indicator material ([0099]),
wherein the indicator material is configured to permeate pores of the wick and migrate along the wick into the indicator region ([0044]; see also [0037]) when liquefied and released from the microcapsules ([0099]), producing an observable change in the indicator region ([0092] “the heat-fusible indicator material will melt at a desired temperature, migrate along wick 110 and provide a visible appearance change at viewing window 108”; see also [0044]),
wherein the bonding material couples the microcapsules to the wick without filling pores of the wick (see fig. 5 in view of [0099] showing and teaching that the bonding material 112 is outside the wick 110), and
wherein the bonding material facilitates migration of liquefied indicator material into the wick ([0092]; [0099]; [0044] teaching this migration of the indicator material into the wick), and blocks migration of the microcapsules into the wick (see [0099] “microcapsules containing a heat-fusible substance … can remain inactive for an extended shelf life, without responding to excess temperatures”; see at least fig. 5 showing this configuration).
Smith does not directly state that the activation of the activatable shells is specifically via rupture.
However, Prusik teaches a time temperature indicator (abstract; see figs. 1-5; please note that figs. 1-3 of the Smith reference are from Prusik) and specifically that “The capsules can be ruptured” (col. 8, lines 16-17).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the indicator release microcapsules of Smith with the specific knowledge of using the specifically rupturing indicator release microcapsules of Prusik. This is because such rupture of the microcapsules allows for release of the indicator material at a desired time. This is important in order to provide this utility to an end user (see col. 6, ¶ at 11 of Prusik and [0099] of Smith).
Regarding claim 2, Smith teaches that the wick and the bonding material containing the microcapsules are laminated between the substrate (114) and a sealing layer (102; [0047] “Base layer 114 can be heat-sealed to upper layer 102 to provide a perimeter seal 116”; see figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 7, Smith teaches that the observable change is a change in a color state selected from a group consisting of: a change of reflectivity, a change in transparency, a change in hue, a change in chroma, a change in apparent color, and combinations thereof ([0038]; see also [0101] teaching at least a “color change from white to red will become visible”).
Regarding claim 9, Smith teaches that the activation action is a stress (see [0099] teaching that the shell of the microcapsules activated when sufficient pressure is applied).
Smith and Prusik lack direct teaching that the stress is specifically compressive and the predetermined activation threshold is selected from a group consisting of: a stress exceeding 0.1 psi a stress exceeding 0.5 psi, a stress exceeding 1 psi, a stress exceeding 2 psi, a stress exceeding 5 psi, a stress exceeding 10 psi, and a stress exceeding 15 psi.
However, Smith does disclose that the microcapsules are “activated when desired by applying sufficient pressure on the microcapsule-containing portion of the indicator” ([0099]; further, Prusik teaches that “indicator is activated by light finger pressure to rupture the capsule” – col. 4, ¶ at 11- is known in the art as well as that the device may be “activated only after sufficient pressure is applied on the microcapsule portion” – col. 6, ¶ at 11).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the application of pressure/stress as an activation action of Smith and Prusik with any generally known stress thresholds and pressure type such as claimed here. This is because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (applying pressure/stress to the microcapsules as an activation action), discovering the optimum or workable ranges (compressive stresses exceeding 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10 and 15 psi as here) involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (result of the applied pressure/stress is activation by rupturing the microcapsules where the optimum value of the pressure/stress is found by routine skill) involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-B).
Additionally, it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements (here the direction of the pressure applied i.e. compressive or shear stress) are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B).
Regarding claim 10, Smith teaches that the activation action is a stress (see [0099] teaching that the shell of the microcapsules activated when sufficient pressure is applied).
Smith and Prusik lack direct teaching that the stress is specifically shear and the predetermined activation threshold is selected from a group consisting of: a stress exceeding 0.1 psi a stress exceeding 0.5 psi, a stress exceeding 1 psi, a stress exceeding 2 psi, a stress exceeding 5 psi, a stress exceeding 10 psi, and a stress exceeding 15 psi.
However, Smith does disclose that the microcapsules are “activated when desired by applying sufficient pressure on the microcapsule-containing portion of the indicator” ([0099]; further Prusik teaches that “indicator is activated by light finger pressure to rupture the capsule” – col. 4, ¶ at 11- is known in the art as well as that the device may be “activated only after sufficient pressure is applied on the microcapsule portion” – col. 6, ¶ at 11).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the application of pressure/stress as an activation action of Smith and Prusik with any generally known stress thresholds and pressure type such as claimed here. This is because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (applying pressure/stress to the microcapsules as an activation action), discovering the optimum or workable ranges (shear stresses exceeding 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10 and 15 psi as here) involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (result of the applied pressure/stress is activation by rupturing the microcapsules where the optimum value of the pressure/stress is found by routine skill) involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-B).
Additionally, it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements (here the direction of the pressure applied i.e. compressive or shear stress) are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B).
Regarding claim 11, Smith teaches that the activation action is a stress ([0099]).
Smith and Prusik lack direct teaching that that the activation action is a thermal stress combined with a compression stress or shear stress, the thermal stress configured to reduce the predetermined activation threshold of the compression stress or the shear stress.
However, Prusik does disclose that the microcapsules are that the device may be “activated only after sufficient pressure is applied on the microcapsule portion” (emphasis added - col. 6, ¶ at 11; further Prusik teaches that “indicator is activated by light finger pressure to rupture the capsule” – col. 4, ¶ at 11- is known in the art; see also [0099] of Smith) and the combination of this pressure/stress with thermal energy application (col. 11, ¶ with heading “EXAMPLE 3” teaches that “wall material made from gelatin.”).
Official Notice is taken that gelatin softens with heat because its protein chains form a network that traps water, giving it a firm, gel-like texture. This network is stable at low temperatures. As you increase the temperature, the protein chains gain kinetic energy, which loosens the bonds between them. This breaks down the network, allowing the gelatin to soften.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the application of pressure/stress as an activation action of Smith and Prusik combined with thermal stress to soften or weaken the wall bonds of the microcapsules thereby reducing the pressure/stress required to rupture. This is because such a combination of temperature/thermal and pressure/stress allows for providing a design indicated release of the dye/colorant into the wick as desired by an end user. This is important in order to meet end user requirements.
Additionally, it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements (here the direction of the pressure applied i.e. compressive or shear stress) are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B).
Regarding claim 12, Smith teaches that the bonding material comprises a material selected from a group consisting of: a polymer having side-chain crystallinity, polymeric materials, an alkane, a wax, an alkane wax, and combinations thereof ([0092] teaches various waxes).
Regarding claim 13, Smith teaches that the indicator material is selected from a group consisting of a polymer having side-chain crystallinity, polymeric materials, an alkane, a wax, an alkane wax, dyes, leuco dyes, chemical pigments, particles containing copper, particles containing silver, particles containing graphite, particles containing conductive metals, particles containing conductive non-metal materials, and combinations thereof (see [0093] regarding dyes and pigments; see e.g. claim 8 “the indicator material comprises a colored alkane wax”).
Regarding claim 14, Smith teaches that the activatable shells comprise a material selected from a group consisting of: a protein, a gel, a polyurea formaldehyde, a polymelamine formaldehyde, a wax material, an emulsion, and combinations thereof.
However, Prusik teaches a time temperature indicator (abstract; see figs. 1-5) and specifically that “The capsules were composed of 85% core material (alkanes and dye) and 15% wall material made from gelatin.” (col. 11, ¶ with heading “EXAMPLE 3”).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the indicator release microcapsules of Smith with the specific knowledge of using the microcapsules with at least a gelatin wall of Prusik. This is because such a gel/gelatine wall for the microcapsules allows for release of the indicator material at a desired time via for instance a pressure based rupture. This is important in order to provide this utility to an end user (see col. 6, ¶ at 11 of Prusik and [0099] of Smith).
Regarding claim 15, Smith (as best understood see 112(b) section above) teaches that the response temperature is defined within a range bounded by −15 degrees Celsius (C) and 100 35 degrees C ([0092] teaches “a material having a melting point at or near the predetermined temperature threshold” and gives examples including melting points of “dodecane (-12º C.); tridecane (-6º C.); tetradecane (7º C.); pentadecane (10º C.); hexadecane (18º C.); heptadecane (21º C.); octadecane (28º C.); nonadecane (34º C.)”).
Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (melt/liquification point of material for indicating a threshold/response temperature), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
Regarding claim 16, Smith lacks direct and specific teaching that the liquefaction temperature of the bonding material is greater than the response temperature of the activatable temperature exposure indicator.
However, Prusik teaches a time temperature indicator (abstract; see figs. 1-5) and specifically that “The capsules were composed of 85% core material (alkanes and dye) and 15% wall material made from gelatin.” (col. 11, ¶ with heading “EXAMPLE 3”).
Official Notice is taken that gelatin softens with heat because its protein chains form a network that traps water, giving it a firm, gel-like texture. This network is stable at low temperatures. As you increase the temperature, the protein chains gain kinetic energy, which loosens the bonds between them. This breaks down the network, allowing the gelatin to soften.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the indicator release microcapsules of Smith with the specific knowledge of using the microcapsules with at least a gelatin wall as a bonding material which has a higher melting/liquification temperature than the exposure temperature of Prusik. This is because such a gel/gelatine wall for the microcapsules allows for release of the indicator material at a desired time via, for instance, a pressure-based rupture. This is important in order to provide this utility to an end user (see col. 6, ¶ at 11 of Prusik and [0099] of Smith).
Regarding claim 17, Smith (as best understood see 112(b) section above) teaches that the liquefaction temperature of the bonding material is defined within a range bounded by 40 degrees Celsius (C) and 110 115 degrees C ([0092] teaches “a material having a melting point at or near the predetermined temperature threshold” and gives an example including a melting point of “heneicosane (40.5 º C.)”).
Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (melt/liquification point of material for indicating a threshold/response temperature), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20080056329; hereinafter Smith) in view of Prusik et al. (US 5709472; hereinafter Prusik) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Baughman et al. (US 4646066, hereinafter Baughman).
Regarding claim 8, Smith and Prusik lack direct and specific teaching that the observable change is a change in an electrical property selected from a group consisting of: a change in conductivity, a change in resistance, a change in impedance, a change in capacitance, and combinations thereof.
However, Baughman teaches an activatable environmental exposure indicator (11; abstract; see figs. 1 and 2 and col. 5, ¶ at 5) with an observable change which is an electrical property (see col. 3, ¶ at 3 as well as col. 5, ¶ at 5) where the electrical property is disclosed to be selected from a group consisting of: a change in conductivity, a change in resistance, a change in impedance, a change in capacitance, and combinations thereof (see at least col. 3, ¶ at 3 “the electrical property can be capacitance, inductance, or conductance” as well as col. 2, ¶ at 51 “impedance of an electrical circuit depends on its inductance, resistance, and capacitance”).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the knowledge regarding an indicator having an observable change of Smith and Prusik with the specific knowledge of using the indicator having an observable change where the change is an electrical property selected from a group consisting of: a change in conductivity, a change in resistance, a change in impedance, a change in capacitance, and combinations thereof of Baughman. This is because such an electrical change allows for a device which is “particularly useful for monitoring the condition of perishable materials” (abstract of Baughman; see also col. 1, ¶ at 32 of Prusik and abstract of Smith regarding perishable product monitoring). This is important “because it can be located with the perishable inside a packaging material during both storage and interrogation” (abstract of Baughman).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP COTEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/PHILIP L COTEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights