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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on June 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
An action on the merits of elected species, drawn to Claims 1-7 and 10-20 is provided below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 1, 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 10-11, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the recess” in line 2. It appears the claim should recite “the loop shaped recess” in order to maintain consistency with “a loop shaped recess” recited in Claim 1, line 9.
Claims 10-11 both recite the limitation “the body” in line 1. It appears the claims should recite “the cup shaped body” in order to maintain consistency with “a cup like body” recited in Claim 1, line 3 while avoiding introducing indefiniteness issues pertaining to the phrase “cup like.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the outer portion of flange” in line 1. It appears the claim should recite “the outer flange portion” in order to maintain consistency with “an outer flange portion” recited in Claim 1, line 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 and 10-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a cup like body” in line 3. Claim 1 also recites the term “the cup-like body” several times thereafter. The term “cup like” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cup like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to require a cup shaped body.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the direction (B)” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the outer edge of the inner flange portion” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the outer edge.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the outer edge of the inner flange portion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the outer edge.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the lower part” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the axial dimension” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the upper surface of the inner flange portion” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the upper surface.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the upper part” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the cavity” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only antecedent basis for “a cavity wall” as recited in Claim 1, line 6.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the outer flange” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only antecedent basis for “an outer flange portion” as recited in Claim 1, line 8.
Clarification is required.
Claims 2, 10-12, and 15-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5, 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapparini US 2011/0185911 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 1, 2024) in view of Middleton et al. US 2007/0267374 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 1, 2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Rapparini discloses a capsule (container 100) capable of preparing a beverage in a beverage preparation device (machine 300) (‘911, FIG. 13) (‘911, Paragraph [0072]). The capsule (container 100) comprises a cup shaped body (container body 101) (‘911, Paragraph [0060]), a cover (closing membrane 107) for closing the cup shaped body (container body 101) and a flange (rim 102) for the cover (closing membrane 107) to seal thereon (‘911, FIG. 9) (‘911, Paragraph [0056]). The cup shaped body (container body 101) is shaped from a paper based sheet (filtering, permeable, thermoformable material) to form a cavity wall containing beverage ingredients (ground coffee) (‘911, Paragraph [0061]). An inner flange portion extends outwardly from the cavity wall (‘911, FIG. 9). A cover (membrane 107) is capable of closing the cup shaped body (container body 101). The flange (rim 102) comprises an outer flange portion. The flange (rim 102) is made of laminates (‘911, Paragraphs [0056] and [0059]), which reads on the claimed outer flange portion being made of moulded polymer based material since laminates are known in the art to be molded (‘911, Paragraph [0005]), i.e. formed out of easily manipulated material. The cover (membrane 107) is sealed directly onto the flange (rim 102) to create a gas barrier seal for the capsule wherein the gas barrier seal provides a substantially gas tight arrangement for the capsule (container 100) (‘911, FIG. 9) (‘911, Paragraph [0068]).
PNG
media_image1.png
917
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rapparini is silent regarding the outer flange portion comprising at least a loop shaped recess enabling the inner flange portion to be received in the polymer based material of the outer flange portion to seal at least partially against a lower surface of the inner flange portion oriented in a direction (B) towards the cavity wall and against an outer edge of the inner flange portion.
Middleton et al. discloses a food container made of a paper based sheet (paperboard) (‘374, Paragraphs [0206]-[0207]). The food container (tray 388) has a body formed from a paper based sheet to form a cavity wall and having an inner flange portion (flange 400) extending outwardly from the cavity wall. A cover (lid 398) closes the body wherein a flange is present for the cover (lid 398) to seal thereon (‘374, FIG. 32) (‘374, Paragraphs [0279]-[0281]). The flange comprises an outer flange portion (encapsulated rim 390) comprising at least a loop shaped recess (channel 392) enabling the inner flange portion (flange 400) to be received in the polymer based material (polymer portion 394) of the outer flange portion (encapsulated rim 390) to seal at least partially against a lower surface of the inner flange portion (flange 400) oriented in a direction B towards the cavity wall and against an outer edge of the inner flange portion (flange 400) (‘374, FIG. 32) (‘374, Paragraphs [0279]-[0281]).
PNG
media_image2.png
656
1041
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Both Rapparini and Middleton et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of food containers made of a paper based sheet having a cover disposed on a flange of the food container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the connection of the cover to the food container of Rapparini such that the outer flange portion of the food container comprises at least a loop shaped recess enabling the inner flange portion to be received in the polymer based material of the outer flange portion to seal at least partially against a lower surface of the inner flange portion oriented in a direction towards the cavity wall and against an outer edge of the inner flange portion as taught by Middleton et al. since the configuration of the claimed connection between the lid and container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed connection between the lid and container was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Middleton et al. teaches that the claimed connection between the cover and the flange of the food container was a known and conventional way to connect the cover to the flange of a food container. Therefore, the claimed connection between the cover and the flange of the food container is an obvious variant of the prior art since Middleton et al. teaches that the claimed cover/flange connection configuration was known.
Further regarding Claim 1, the limitations “for the preparation of a beverage in a beverage preparation device,” “for closing the cup like body,” and “for the cover to seal thereon” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “capsule.” In this regard, applicant’s attention is invited to MPEP § 2114.I. and MPEP § 2114.II. which states features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does in view of Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed in view of Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 2, Rapparini discloses the cavity wall being revolutionary symmetrical (‘911, FIG. 9). Middleton et al. discloses the loop shaped recess (channel 392) being annular (‘374, FIG. 32).
Regarding Claim 3, Middleton et al. discloses the outer flange portion (encapsulated rim 390) prolonging the flange from the outer edge of the inner flange portion both in an outwardly radial direction and in an axial direction (‘374, FIG. 32).
Regarding Claim 4, Middleton et al. discloses a region of the outer flange portion (encapsulated rim 390) extending outwardly and radially beyond the inner flange portion of the body wherein a region of the outer flange portion (encapsulated rim 390) extending outwardly and radially beyond the inner flange portion being thicker than a lower part of the outer flange portion (encapsulated rim 390) sealing against a lower surface of the inner flange portion (‘374, FIG. 32).
Regarding Claim 5, Middleton et al. discloses the outer flange portion (encapsulated rim 390) including an outermost relief (upwardly extending portion 408) which has an axial dimension longer than the axial dimension of the outer flange portion (encapsulated rim 390) outside the outermost relief (upwardly extending portion 408) (‘374, FIG. 32) (‘374, Paragraph [0279]).
Regarding Claim 12, Rapparini discloses that it was well known and conventional in the capsule art to construct the cover from a paper containing sheet ('911, Paragraph [0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the capsule of the FIG. 9 embodiment of Rapparini and construct the cover from a paper containing sheet into the invention of Rapparini in lieu of and/or in addition to the laminate cover disclosed in FIG. 9 since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP § 2144.07). The instantly claimed invention does not provide a non-obvious difference over what was well known in the prior art.
Further regarding Claim 12, the limitations “optionally the cover comprises a gas barrier layer” are optional limitations that the prior art is not required to teach or render obvious.
Regarding Claim 17, Rapparini discloses the beverage ingredients being ground coffee (‘911, Paragraphs [0025], [0061], and [0064]).
Regarding Claim 20, Rapparini modified with Middleton et al. teaches the limitations of the capsule of Claim 1 as enumerated in the rejections of Claim 1 above. Rapparini discloses using the capsule in a beverage preparation device (single serve brewing machines) to prepare a beverage (‘911, Paragraphs [0001] and [0009]).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapparini US 2011/0185911 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 1, 2024) in view of Middleton et al. US 2007/0267374 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 1, 2024) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Capitani US 2014/0083873 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 1, 2024).
Regarding Claims 10 and 18, Rapparini modified with Middleton et al. is silent regarding the paper based sheet of the body comprising at least one oxygen barrier layer made of EVOH.
Capitani discloses a capsule comprising a cup shaped body (tray like body 12) shaped from a paper based sheet to form a cavity wall wherein the paper based sheet comprises at least one oxygen barrier layer made of EVOH (‘873, Paragraph [0046]).
Both Rapparini and Capitani are directed towards the same field of endeavor of coffee capsules comprising a paper based cup shaped body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Rapparini and construct the paper based cup shaped body with at least one oxygen barrier layer as taught by Capitani in order to prevent oxidation of the aromatic substance contained within the cup shaped body (‘873, Paragraph [0046]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the capsule of modified Rapparini and construct the at least one oxygen barrier layer out of EVOH as taught by Capitani since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Capitani teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to construct an oxygen barrier layer that prevents oxidation of the contents of the beverage capsule out of EVOH.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapparini US 2011/0185911 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 1, 2024) in view of Middleton et al. US 2007/0267374 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 1, 2024) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Furneaux US 2007/0259139.
Regarding Claim 11, Rapparini discloses the capsule being made of paper (‘911, Paragraph [0078]). However, Rapparini modified with Middleton et al. is silent regarding the paper bashed sheet of the body comprising at least one sealing layer oriented towards the cavity.
Furneaux discloses a capsule (sachet) comprising a laminated sheet comprising an outer layer of paper and an inner multilayer sealing film (‘139, Paragraph [0050]) comprising sealing layers (‘139, Paragraph [0017]).
Both modified Rapparini and Furneaux are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules. Both beverage capsules of modified Rapparini and Furneaux have a container body made of paper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage capsule of modified Rapparini and construct the body out of at least one sealing layer oriented towards the cavity as taught by Furneaux in order to allow the layers to seal to one another (‘139, Paragraph [0028]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapparini US 2011/0185911 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 1, 2024) in view of Middleton et al. US 2007/0267374 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 1, 2024) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Nakagiri US 2011/0151060.
Regarding Claim 13, Rapparini discloses the cover (membrane 107) being made of a variety of laminates (‘911, Paragraph [0059]). However, Rapparini modified with Middleton et al. is silent regarding the laminate of the cover comprising a sealing layer oriented in a direction B towards the cavity or bottom of the body.
Nakagiri discloses a capsule comprising a cup shaped body (filter portion 10), a cover (lid portion 11) for closing the cup shaped body (filter portion 10), and a flange (flange portion 10b) for the cover (lid portion 11) to seal thereon (‘060, FIG. 3) (‘060, Paragraph [0053]). Nakagiri further discloses the cover (lid portion 11) comprising a sealing layer oriented in direction B towards the cavity or bottom of the body (filter portion 10) (‘060, Paragraph [0062]).
Both modified Rapparini and Nakagiri are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the multilayered laminated cover of modified Rapparini and construct the cover with a sealing layer oriented in direction B towards the cavity or bottom of the body as taught by Nakagiri in order to effectively seal the cover onto the cup shaped body (‘060, Paragraph [0062]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapparini US 2011/0185911 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 1, 2024) in view of Middleton et al. US 2007/0267374 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 1, 2024) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Gerbaulet et al. US 2011/0274794 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 1, 2024).
Regarding Claim 14, Rapparini modified with Middleton et al. is silent regarding the polymer based material for the outer flange portion being an injection mouldable thermoplastic material of polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
Gerbaulet et al. discloses a capsule comprising a polymer based material for the flange being an injection mouldable thermoplastic material of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (‘794, Paragraph [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the capsule of modified Rapparini and incorporate polyethylene terephthalate into the moulded polymer based material of the flange as taught by Gerbaulet et al. because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP § 2144.07). Gerbaulet et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to construct the flange out of an injection moldable thermoplastic material of PET.
Regarding Claim 15, Gerbaulet et al. discloses a capsule comprising a moulded polymer based material being filled with additives such as calcium carbonate, titanium dioxide, fibres, glass beads, and combinations thereof ('794, Paragraph [0028]), which reads on the claimed reinforcing material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Rapparini and incorporate reinforcing material into the moulded polymer based material as taught by Gerbaulet et al. because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP § 2144.07). Gerbaulet et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule to construct the molded polymer based material with reinforcing materials of additives.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapparini US 2011/0185911 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 1, 2024) in view of Middleton et al. US 2007/0267374 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 1, 2024) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Boyd et al. US 2002/0048621 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement field July 1, 2024).
Regarding Claims 16 and 19, Rapparini modified with Middleton et al. is silent regarding the outer flange portion comprising an optically readable barcode that is an identification code.
Boyd et al. discloses a capsule (packet 10) comprising a flange comprising an optically readable barcode that is an identification code (machine interpretable feature 30) (FIG. 2) (‘621, Paragraph [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Rapparini and incorporate an optically readable barcode on the flange of the capsule as taught by Boyd et al. in order to store data including brewing directives such as contact time, contact pattern, fluid volume, fluid temperature, fluid pressure, and/or fluid pass through rate ('621, Paragraph [0030]) to provide specific brewing conditions for the capsule when in use with the machine.
PNG
media_image3.png
312
980
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,060,220. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of the ‘220 patent recites the limitation “wherein a lower part of the annular recess covers and contacts a portion of the lower surface of the inner flange portion and wherein an upper part of the annular recess covers and contacts a portion of an upper surface of the inner flange portion,” which is a more specific embodiment that reads on the claimed limitations of Claim 6 of the instant application that recites “wherein the outer flange portion further extends inwardly in direction R1 by an upper part which seals against the upper surface of the inner flange portion.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eastabrook et al. US 2012/0321756 discloses a capsule comprising a cup shaped body (container 11) made of a polymer laminate material as a layer of polystyrene or polypropylene and a layer of EVOH and/or other barrier material such as a metallic foil (‘756, Paragraph [0036]).
Marina et al. US 2011/0166910 discloses a capsule (pod 152) comprising a cover (cover 160) laminated with sealing polymers (‘910, Paragraph [0046]).
Buffet et al. US 2010/0196545 discloses a capsule comprising a thermoformed or injection molded flexible laminated film material comprising a thermoplastic sealant layer for bonding the sheet to other members of the package and a substantially gas impermeable barrier layer and adhesion layers to improve adhesion between other layers of the laminate and structural layers (‘545, Paragraph [0028]).
Winslow et al. US 2008/0000797 discloses a capsule (sachet) comprising a laminate comprising an outer layer of PET to provide strength and an inner heat seal layer of polypropylene and an intermediate aluminum foil layer for barrier properties (‘797, Paragraph [0008]).
The prior art made of record, cited on an Information Disclosure Statement, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fond et al. US 6,025,000 discloses a capsule comprising a body composed of paper and an oxygen barrier layer of EVOH (‘000, Column 4, lines 15-26).
Winkler et al. US 2012/0058226 discloses a capsule comprising a cover (lid 38) comprising paper and a laminate of paper and foil and a layer of barrier material (‘226, Paragraph [0037]).
Alvarez et al. US 2012/0308691 discloses that capsules were known to be made of a combination of cellulose materials and an EVOH gas barrier layer (‘691, Paragraph [0095]).
Kamerbeek et al. US 2012/0251694 discloses a capsule comprising a flange wherein the flange has an outer flange portion that includes an outermost relief (terminal ring 106) which has an edge portion that is thicker than the rest of the flange (‘694, FIG. 2) to shape the receptacle of the beverage device to receive the capsule (‘694, Paragraph [0081]).
Gerbaulet et al. US 2011/0274794 discloses a capsule comprising a polymer based material for the flange being an injection moldable thermoplastic material of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (‘794, Paragraph [0031]).
Ford EP 0 512 468 discloses a capsule comprising a cup like body, a cover, and a flange wherein the flange further comprises an outer flange portion comprising at least a loop shaped recess enabling the inner flange portion to be received in and the material of the outer flange portion to seal at least partially against a lower surface of the inner flange portion (‘468, FIG. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights