DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the bedding is effective to reduce footpad dermatitis” in lines 2 and 3. “Effective” is a subjective term that renders the scope of the claim indefinite, as the specification does not provide an objective standard for the term in the context of the claim.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm et al. (US 5900038 A, previously disclosed by Applicant 01/13/2025), hereinafter Wilhelm, in view of Bransby (US 6485774 B1, previously disclosed by Applicant 01/13/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Wilhelm discloses a method for reducing footpad dermatitis in domestic animals comprising:
Rearing domestic animals on a bedding comprising a shredded product of a plant of a genus Erianthus (Col. 4, lines 48-50, “The cultivation substrate according to the invention contains comminuted C4 plants in addition to or instead of comminuted knot-grass plants,” and lines 61-64, “Preference is given to a cultivation substrate which contains comminuted C4 plants from the genuses Sorghum, Miscanthus, Andropogon, Coelorhachis, Coix, Cymbopogon, Echinoloa, Erianthus;” Col. 7, lines 10-13, “Since the substrate binds moisture, prevents the formation of bad smells, does not stick together and remains elastic for a long time, it is especially suited as litter in the keeping of animals, especially as cat litter”),
Wilhelm, however, fails to specifically disclose that the shredded product has a bulk density of 50 kg/m3 or more.
Bransby teaches wherein the shredded product has a bulk density of 50 kg/m3 or more (Col. 6, lines 59-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of art of animal bedding before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the shredded Erianthus bedding of Wilhelm with the bulk density of Bransby in order to allow the user to more economically distribute the product, as the bulk density would facilitate economic transport of the bedding. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Wilhelm in view of Bransby discloses the method of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the shredded product has a water retention degree of 200.8% or more, as Wilhelm discloses a bedding for domestic animals that comprises a shredded product of a plant of a genus Erianthus, and Bransby teaches a shredded product for bedding with a bulk density of 50 kg/m3 or more. Therefore, the water retention degree would be an obvious material property of the bedding of Wilhelm in view of Bransby, since the modified reference teaches the material and bulk density which yield the claimed water retention degree.
Regarding claim 3, Wilhelm in view of Bransby discloses the method of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the shredded product has a bulk density of 50 kg/m3 or more and 200 kg/m3 or less (Bransby; Col. 6, lines 59-64).
Regarding claim 4, Wilhelm in view of Bransby discloses the method of claim 1, including a bedding comprising a shredded product of a plant of a genus Erianthus (Wilhelm; Col. 4, lines 48-50, and lines 61-64; Col. 7, lines 10-13), having a bulk density of 50 kg/m3 or more (Bransby; Col. 6, lines 59-64). Given the structure of the bedding material is disclosed by Wilhelm in view of Bransby, the claimed method steps of ammonia reduction where a concentration of ammonia on a surface of the bedding at 2 weeks after rearing the domestic animals is lower than a concentration of ammonia on a surface of a bedding consisting of sawdust at 2 weeks after rearing the domestic animals at a significance level of 5%, would be inherently performed. Similarly, the ammonia concentration on a surface of the bedding at 2 weeks would be an obvious effect of the material of the bedding of Wilhelm in view of Bransby, since the modified reference teaches the material and bulk density.
Regarding claim 5, Wilhelm in view of Bransby discloses the method of claim 1, including a bedding comprising a shredded product of a plant of a genus Erianthus (Wilhelm; Col. 4, lines 48-50, and lines 61-64; Col. 7, lines 10-13), having a bulk density of 50 kg/m3 or more (Bransby; Col. 6, lines 59-64). Given the structure of the bedding material is disclosed by Wilhelm in view of Bransby, the claimed method steps of ammonia reduction where a concentration of ammonia on a surface of the bedding at 2 weeks after rearing the domestic animals is lower than a concentration of ammonia on a surface of a bedding consisting of sawdust at 3 weeks after rearing the domestic animals at a significance level of 1%, would be inherently performed. Similarly, the ammonia concentration on a surface of the bedding at 2 weeks would be an obvious effect of the material of the bedding of Wilhelm in view of Bransby, since the modified reference teaches the material and bulk density.
Regarding claim 6, Wilhelm in view of Bransby discloses the method of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the domestic animals are chickens (Bransby; Col. 2, lines 19-26, “One aspect of the process of the instant invention is to improve on the current hay making process for preserving and feeding forage. In other aspects and embodiments, the process of the present invention is used to improve the production, transport and utilization of herbaceous material as: 1] mulch [either in the field where it is harvested, or elsewhere]; 2] animal bedding, [such as for horses and in chicken houses]”).
Regarding claim 7, Wilhelm in view of Bransby discloses the method of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the plant of a genus Erianthus is Erianthus arundinaceus. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to provide the Erianthus bedding of Wilhelm in view of Bransby with Erianthus arundinaceus, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Additionally, Erianthus arundinaceus is known in the art to be a commonly grown crop due to its strong resistance to diseases and insect pests, drought resistance, cold resistance and barrenness tolerance (Chen, CN 1262674 C, ¶ 0002), and since it has been established that Erianthus can be used as bedding for domestic animals (Wilhelm; Col. 4, lines 48-50, and lines 61-64; Col. 7, lines 10-13), the use of Erianthus arundinaceus would have been a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 8, Wilhelm in view of Bransby discloses the method of claim 1.
Wilhelm discloses wherein the shredded product comprises the stems and leaves of the plant of a genus Erianthus (Col. 4, lines 48-50, and lines 61-64; Col. 5, lines 16-23, “To obtain especially productive C4 plants, the polyploidization methods described above for knot grass may be carried out. Since C4 plants belong to monocotyledonae whose apical meristems are well protected by leaves, the coleoptile is cut shortly above the apical meristem in the embryonal stage, and colchicine is applied to the torso. After a few days the leaf system is built up again by regrowing young leaves”).
Regarding claim 9, Wilhelm in view of Bransby discloses the method of claim 1.
Wilhelm discloses wherein the shredded product comprises does not include the roots of the plant of a genus Erianthus (Col. 5, lines 16-23, details that the removed portions of the C4 plants are above the roots).
Regarding claim 10, Wilhelm in view of Bransby discloses the method of claim 1, including a bedding comprising a shredded product of a plant of a genus Erianthus (Wilhelm; Col. 4, lines 48-50, and lines 61-64; Col. 7, lines 10-13), having a bulk density of 50 kg/m3 or more (Bransby; Col. 6, lines 59-64). Given the structure of the bedding material is disclosed by Wilhelm in view of Bransby, the claimed method steps wherein the rearing of the domestic animals on the bedding is effective to reduce footpad dermatitis in the domestic animals, would be inherently performed.
Regarding claim 11, Wilhelm in view of Bransby discloses the method of claim 1.
Wilhelm discloses wherein the shredded product comprises an additional material selected from the group consisting of woody feedstocks, straw, rice husks, waste mushroom beds, tea grounds, pruned branches and leaves, bagasse, coffee grounds, water absorbing polymers, fully matured compost, recycled paper, gypsum board, porous substances, and mixtures thereof (Col. 6, lines 1-22, “Furthermore, polyacrylamide granules, clay mineral mixtures, ground lava rock, pumice, bentonite, sand, waste paper, fly ash from brown-coal combustion, brown-coal waste and all kinds of fertilizers are suited as additives. Polyacrylamide granules improve the cultivation substrate of the invention in that it possesses a high water storing capacity. Gelling cross-linked polyacrylamide granules, as are e.g. obtainable under the name Polywater-Aqua-Plus.RTM. from Polyplant GmbH, Xanten, are especially advantageous. The addition of clay mineral mixtures to the cultivation substrate of the invention allows the formation of clay-humus complexes. Furthermore, organic additives, such as seeaweed extract, ground castor powder, horn chips, horn meal, blood meal, softwood chips, cotton waste, flax waste, textile waste, coconut fibers and leaf mold, are advantageously suited. A liquid seaweed extract can e.g. be produced according to standard methods on the basis of Ascophyllum nodosum. Seaweed extract can for e.g. be bought under the name Maxicrop Triple.RTM. from Maxicrop International Ltd., Norway”).
Regarding claim 12, Wilhelm in view of Bransby discloses the method of claim 1, including wherein the shredded product comprises the shredded product of the plant of the genus Erianthus (Wilhelm; Col. 4, lines 48-50, and lines 61-64; Col. 7, lines 10-13). However, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the shredded product consists of the shredded product of the plant of the genus Erianthus. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the Erianthus bedding of Wilhelm in view of Bransby such that it consists of the shredded product of the plant of the genus Erianthus in order to simplify the manufacturing process and material sourcing. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on page 1 that “claim 10 does not recite a ‘subjective term’ by using the term ‘effective.’ Instead, the limitation ‘the rearing of the domestic animals on the bedding is effective to reduce footpad dermatitis in the domestic animals’ is a functional limitation. The MPEP recognizes that such functional limitations are appropriate and ‘often used in association with an element, ingredient, or step of a process to define a particular capability or purpose that is served by the recited element, ingredient or step.’ MPEP § 2173.05(g). Indeed, in BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., the Court explained that nothing in indefiniteness law precludes defining a particular claim term by its function and that the breadth of a claim limitation should not be equated with indefiniteness. 875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, the Specification clearly shows an ‘Evaluation of Footpad dermatitis’ as Evaluation 2. The skilled artisan would be able to determine whether the rearing of the domestic animals on the bedding is effective to reduce footpad dermatitis in the domestic animals or not based on the Specification. Thus, the meaning of claim 12 is sufficiently clear and not indefinite,” the Examiner maintains that “effective” is a subjective term that renders the scope of the claim indefinite, as it relates to the limitation, “the bedding is effective to reduce footpad dermatitis.” The question is not if the specification provides an evaluation of footpad dermatitis as argued above, but instead, “effective” renders the scope of the claim indefinite because the specification does not provide an objective standard for the term in the context of the claim. “Effective,” as it relates to claim 10, is not defined or given a definite standard in Evaluation 2, or in any other location in the specification, and is understood to be an indefinite subjective term.
Regarding the argument on page 3 that “Wilhelm does not disclose anything about footpad dermatitis and/or how to reduce footpad dermatitis. Instead, Wilhelm discloses a cultivation substrate that is excellently suited as a peat substitute for gardening and horticulture. Even though Wilhelm mentions that its cultivation substrate can have the alternative use ‘as litter in the keeping of animals, especially as cat litter,’ the technical focus in Wilhelm is on chemical and physical properties like pH, air pore volume, and fertilizer content for plant growth. See Wilhelm, col. 7, Ins. 9-12. The passing mention of litter for animals in Wilhelm does not teach or suggest a method for reducing footpad dermatitis in domestic animals according to the present claims. Wilhelm is simply indicating that its cultivation substrate can be used as an animal litter. Thus, contrary to the suggestion in the rejection, Wilhelm does not disclose a method for reducing footpad dermatitis in domestic animals,” and on page 7 that “As discussed in detail above, Wilhelm includes a variety of materials, such as clay, sand, and/or polymers, that would influence the ammonia reduction level. Indeed, these materials would be expected to cause ammonia accumulation. The rejection, therefore, cannot reasonably take the position that Wilhelm ‘necessarily’ meets the claimed exact statistical benchmarks. Similarly, Wilhelm merely discloses a possible animal litter based on different materials-not a bedding. As a result, it is a significant leap to assert that a material designed to ‘bind moisture’ and ‘prevent bad smells’ would necessarily and inherently reduce a specific medical condition (dermatitis) in poultry or other domestic animals reared on it. The inherent limitation must necessarily be present in the combination of references, buttressed by a reasonable expectation of success. It is not enough to merely show that the limitation ‘possibly’ or ‘probably’ is present. See, e.g., Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A., 865 F.3d 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘the use of inherency in the context of obviousness must be carefully circumscribed because '[t]hat which may be inherent is not necessarily known' and that which is unknown cannot be obvious.’),” the Examiner submits that given the structure of Wilhelm as modified, the claimed method steps recited in the preamble would be inherently performed. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Wilhelm in view of Bransby teaches “rearing domestic animals on a bedding comprising a shredded product of a plant of a genus Erianthus, wherein the shredded product has a bulk density of 50 kg/m3 or more,” and accordingly is understood to necessarily perform the method claimed.
Regarding the argument on page 4 that “As discussed above, the present claims are directed to a method for reducing footpad dermatitis in domestic animals, whereas Wilhelm discloses a cultivation substrate that is excellently suited as a peat substitute for gardening and horticulture. Applicant respectfully submits that methods for reducing footpad dermatitis and peat substitute for gardening and horticulture are not from the same field of endeavor. The MPEP explains that the analysis should consider the ‘reality of the circumstances’ and that these circumstances are to be weighed ‘from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor.’ Id. (citations omitted). The ‘reality of the circumstances’ is that the skilled artisan attempting to produce a method for reducing footpad dermatitis in domestic animals would not have even considered the peat substitutes of Wilhelm. Wilhelm is entirely focused on providing peat with favorable pH, a higher amount of air pores and a higher fertilizer content-not reducing footpad dermatitis in domestic animals. Thus, Wilhelm is not from the same field of endeavor as the claimed method. Wilhelm is also not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors. As explained in the Specification, in the bedding for domestic animals compared to conventional beddings for domestic animals, ammonia is less likely to be left on the surface of the bedding (shredded product) and the onset and progression of footpad dermatitis can be suppressed. See Specification, para. [0025]. Wilhelm does not consider the amount of ammonia on the bedding and does not consider the onset and progression of footpad dermatitis. Wilhelm is directed to a peat substitute that does not consider these aspects of the claimed method. Instead, the cultivation substrate would be expected to retain ammonia. For instance, the formulations disclosed by Wilhelm contain polyacrylamide granules, which are super-absorbent polymers that have high absorption capabilities. See, e.g., Wilhelm, claims 1-12, 17-29, and 30-32. The skilled artisan would understand that such polyacrylamide granules in a bedding would absorb animal urine and slowly release ammonia, which is completely opposite to the desired effect of the claimed method. Similarly, Wilhelm discloses formulations containing sand, clay, shredded waste paper, etc., each of which causes compaction and increases the likelihood of footpad dermatitis. Not only is Wilhelm not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors, but Wilhelm also provides formulations seemingly designed to cause the problems faced by the inventors. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that Wilhelm is non-analogous art,” the Examiner recognizes that it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Wilhelm is in the field of compositions that are suited as litter in the keeping of animals, as detailed in Col. 7, lines 10-13, which is in the same field as the inventor’s endeavor, as the specification of the present application describes the field of endeavor as being drawn to “a bedding, and in particular, to a bedding for domestic animals used for rearing domestic animals.” Therefore, Wilhelm is analogous art.
Regarding the argument on page 5 that “Nevertheless, the rejection suggests that the skilled artisan would somehow be motivated by the allegedly improved economics of transporting shredded Erianthus bedding discussed in Bransby to select a particular bulk density of 50 kg/m3 or more and use that bulk density in the method for reducing footpad dermatitis in domestic animals. Id. Such a roundabout analysis is entirely inappropriate and tainted by hindsight. Bransby attempts to improve bioenergy logistics by chopping and drying switchgrass until the sample has a bulk density of 7.77 lb/ft3, which is roughly 124.46 kg/m3. This coincidentally is greater than 50 kg/m3. Yet switchgrass structurally differs from a plant of a genus Erianthus such that the shredded product will have a different particle morphology and therefore different bulk densities. Switchgrass generally has thinner walls than a plant of a genus Erianthus, which have thicker stems. Thus, the skilled artisan would understand that the bulk density of switchgrass does not provide a reasonable correlation to the bulk density of a plant of a genus Erianthus. Still further, Bransby provides no reason to use its bulk density to reduce footpad dermatitis in domestic animals. The rejection indicates that Bransby provides the motivation ‘to allow the user to more economically distribute the product, as the bulk density would facilitate economic transport of the bedding.’ Office Action of January 27, 2026, page 4. This rationale merely reflects a logistical or commercial consideration relating to shipping and handling efficiency, but does not relate to animal health, moisture management, ammonia control, or any other condition associated with the development of footpad dermatitis. Footpad dermatitis can be influenced by factors, such as litter moisture, ammonia accumulation, and microbial activity. Bransby does not address these factors, nor does it suggest that adjusting bulk density would improve the litter environment in a manner that reduces footpad lesions. Instead, Bransby discusses bulk density only in the context of transport and distribution efficiency, which concerns the economics of packaging and shipping rather than the functional performance of the material as bedding. The motivation identified in the rejection, therefore, is unrelated to the method of the present claims,” the Examiner recognizes that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Bransby is relied upon to teach a shredded product has a bulk density of 50 kg/m3 or more as detailed in Col. 6, lines 59-64. The Examiner further recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to provide the shredded Erianthus bedding of Wilhelm with the bulk density of Bransby is found in Bransby, as the art describes the bulk density as allowing the user to more economically distribute the product, as the bulk density would facilitate economic transport of the bedding. As recognized above, the teaching, suggestion, or motivation is not required to be a specific teaching claimed in the present application, but instead, may be found in either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since economic transport of the bedding is a clear logistical benefit set forth by Bransby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of art of animal bedding before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the shredded Erianthus bedding of Wilhelm with the bulk density of Bransby.
Regarding the argument on page 6 that “Bransby explicitly teaches that achieving higher bulk density is a direct result of the ‘fineness of chop.’ Wilhelm, however, seeks to produce a higher amount of air pores in its peat substitutes, ‘which is of importance to an optimum plant growth, as well as a high water retaining capacity [that] could not be achieved with formerly known substitutes.’ Wilhelm, col. 2, lns. 26-29. If the skilled artisan chopped the Erianthus materials into the fine particles required to meet the bulk density (i.e., 50 kg/m3 or more) based on Bransby, the skilled artisan would effectively fill the air pores that Wilhelm identifies as the primary improvement over traditional peat. Similarly, the ‘fineness of chop’ disclosed by Bransby would impair the structural stability and/or long-term elasticity required by Wilhelm. See id., col. 7, Ins. 3-12. If the skilled artisan forced the substrate from Wilhelm to be in a high-density particulate state, the skilled artisan would expect that the resulting substrate would cake together and destroy the ‘peat-like properties’ and ‘air management’ that Wilhelm seeks to achieve. Simply put, the proposed combination is improper and would render Wilhelm unsatisfactory for its intended purpose,” the Examiner submits that the above argument relies upon a broad statement in Wilhelm, col. 2, lns. 26-29, citing benefits of air pores as they relate to uses directed to plant growth, and does not appear to relate to the relied upon animal litter use described in Col. 7, lines 10-13. Additionally, there is no description in Wilhelm that correlates any specific size to a desired amount of air pores. Furthermore, there is no suggestion in Bransby that the particle size would impair the structural stability and/or long-term elasticity of a composition such as the one required by Wilhelm. Therefore, there is no evidence that the proposed combination is improper and would render Wilhelm unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aylen et al., US 20060081194 A1, discusses an antimicrobial additive for large animal or poultry beddings.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272- 3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights