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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “41b” as shown in figure 3 and 5, cannot be found in the specification as filed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Shimomura (JP 2017114538 - cited on IDS).
Regarding Shimomura (JP 2017114538) a machine translation has been relied on.
Regarding claim 1, Shimomura teaches a packaging body that has an accommodation space accommodating contents to be heated by a microwave oven (see paragraph 1 and figure 2, item 1 and 2); the packaging body comprising a container (figure 2, item 2) accommodating the contents and a lid (figure 2, item 2) attached to the container.
The lid closes the accommodation space, as shown in figure 2 and also includes a lid member in which a steam release port is formed to discharge steam generated by heating (see figure 2, item 3 and paragraph 15, “the upper lid 2 includes a gas discharging gap 3…”) and a label is stuck to the lid member so as to close the steam release port (see figure 2, item 4 and paragraph 16, “The sealing tape 4 of the present invention is attached to the gas-releasing gap 3 from the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer side so as to completely cover the gas-releasing gap 3 of the upper lid 2…”).
Shimomura further teaches that the sealing tape is capable of being peeled from the lid member before the contents are heated to expose the steam release port and is capable of maintaining a state in which the steam release port is exposed during heating (see paragraph 16, “…the sealing tape of the present invention is peeled off at the time of microwave heating to expose the gas-releasing gap 3 and release the gas at the time of microwave heating therefrom…”; see paragraph 23 disclosing a non-adhesive portion for gripping the sealing tape for easily peeling off from the gas-releasing space 3 or adhered to the gas releasing space by the gripping portion) and is capable of being re-stuck to the lid member so as to cover the steam release port after the contents are heated (see paragraph 16, “…and after microwave heating, the gas-releasing gap 3 is resealed by the sealing tape of the present invention as necessary to ensure outflow of the content and safety.”; see also at least paragraph 7 and paragraph 8, “…the sealing tape can be resealed as necessary after microwave heating…”). It is further noted that the claim limitations directed to the label being peeled before heating of the contents, maintaining a state in which the steam release port is exposed while heating and is capable of being re-stuck are intended use limitations that Shimomura would have been capable of performing, especially in light of Shimomura’s disclosure of a label that is peelable and then re-stuck for sealing a steam release port. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (JP 2018052513 cited on IDS).
Regarding Okada (JP 2018052513) a machine translation has been relied on.
Regarding claim 1, Okada teaches a packaging body that has an accommodating space (see figure 6, item 911) accommodating contents to be heated by a microwave oven (see paragraph 1 of the machine translation), the packaging body comprising a container accommodating the contents (see figure 6, item 91 and paragraph 34, “container body 91”) and a lid attached to the container (see figure 6, item 92 and paragraph 34, “a lid 92”; see figure 7-8 item 92).
The lid is attached to the container so as to close the accommodation space (see figure 6) and includes a lid member in which a steam release port is formed to discharge steam generated by heating (see figure 5 and 6-9, item 93; see paragraph 34, “steam vent opening 93”) and a label stuck to the lid member so as to close the steam release port (see figure 8, item 2 and paragraph 36, “The steam-permeable label 1 is affixed to the surface of the container 9…with the non-adhesive surface 5 covering the steam vent opening 93”).
Regarding the limitation of, “the label is peeled from the lid member before the contents are heated so that a stuck state remains partially, to expose the steam release portion, maintains a state in which the steam release port is exposed while the contents are heated and is capable of being re-stuck to the lid member so as to cover the steam release portion after the contents are heated,” it is noted that Okada teaches that the label comprises an adhesive layer (3)(see figure 11 and 12c) that allows for the label to be reattached after peeling (see paragraph 22, “The sticking agent layer 3 can be formed by providing a pressure-sensitive adhesive…The pressure-sensitive adhesive refers to a pressure-sensitive adhesive that can be interposed between two adherends to adhere the two adherends to each other, can be reattached after peeling, and has flexibility in a state of being interposed between the adherends…The sticking agent layer 3 is preferably composed of a pressure-sensitive adhesive because it is less likely to inhibit the expansion of the heat-expandable fine particles.”). Okada also teaches at paragraph 28 that the label can be peeled by a human (see paragraph 28). Since the claim is directed to a product, and not the method of using the product and since Okada clearly teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive that is able to be reattached to cover the steam release port, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Okada’s label would have been capable of being peeled to expose a steam release port and maintain a state in which the steam release port is exposed while the contents are heated and is also capable of being re-struct to the lid to as to cover the steam release port after the contents are heated.
Regarding claim 2, Okada teaches that the label includes an inner most layer configured by an adhesive layer (see figure 11 and 12c, item 3; paragraph 22), an intermediate layer laminated to the innermost layer (see figure 11, item 22 and paragraph 46) and an outermost layer laminated to the intermediate layer and which outermost layer is capable of being heat shrinkable (see figure 11, item 21 and paragraph 46, “…a laminated sheet having a sheet 21 having heat shrinkability…”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (JP 2018052513) and in further view of Beneddtti (US 20130055682).
Regarding claim 3, Okada teaches that the outermost layer configured by a heat shrinkable film can a shrinkage in one direction of 20%, for example, while the shrinkage in the other direction can be 15% (see paragraph 44) and therefore is teaching that the shrinkage in the machine and transverse directions fall within the range of 5-50%. Regarding the shrinkage being after heating at 100°C for 30 minutes, Okada teaches heat treatment at 100-140°C (see paragraph 32). Okada also teaches that the heat shrinkable film outermost film can be polyethylene terephthalate (see paragraph 15). Okada further teaches that the heat expandable particles (6) that are part of the adhesive are not limited as to the particular expansion temperature and that the expansion temperature be varied depending on when the label is desired to be peeled off (see paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the purpose of Okada’s package is to allow an accumulation of a degree of steam (See paragraph 40) before releasing steam and therefore resulting in the shrinkage of the outermost shrinkable layer (see paragraph 45). It is further noted that Beneddtti teaches that it has been conventional to provide a label with an outer layer (see figure 1, item 62 and paragraph 45) which can be shrinkable in the machine and transverse directions (see paragraph 26)at temperatures such as about 99°C and greater than 99°C, thus encompassing shrinkage at 100°C (see paragraph 21) and where the label can also comprise films such as polyesters (see paragraph 27).
To therefore modify Okada to have a shrinkage within the range of 5-50% in MD and TD after heating at 100°C for 30 minutes would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on the particular degree of heating desired before achieving the requisite degree of curling to facilitate keeping the steam port open for releasing accumulated steam commensurate with the particular heating conditions for the package.
Claim 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (JP 2018052513) in view of Mizuno (US 5989608).
Regarding claim 5, Okada has been relied on as already discussed above with respect to claim 1 to teach a label being provided to close a steam release port of a package that is to be hated by microwave oven.
Regarding the limitation of “the label is peeled from the lid member before the contents are heated so that a stuck state remains partially, to expose the steam release portion, maintains a state in which the steam release port is exposed while the contents are heated and is capable of being re-stuck to the lid member so as to cover the steam release portion after the contents are heated,” it is noted that Okada teaches that the label comprises an adhesive layer (3)(see figure 11 and 12c) that allows for the label to be reattached after peeling (see paragraph 22, “The sticking agent layer 3 can be formed by providing a pressure-sensitive adhesive…The pressure-sensitive adhesive refers to a pressure-sensitive adhesive that can be interposed between two adherends to adhere the two adherends to each other, can be reattached after peeling, and has flexibility in a state of being interposed between the adherends…The sticking agent layer 3 is preferably composed of a pressure-sensitive adhesive because it is less likely to inhibit the expansion of the heat-expandable fine particles.”). Since the claim is directed to a product, and not the method of using the product and since Okada clearly teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive that is able to be reattached to cover the steam release port, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Okada’s label would have been capable of being peeled to expose a steam release port and maintain a state in which the steam release port is exposed while the contents are heated and is also capable of being re-struct to the lid to as to cover the steam release port after the contents are heated.
Regarding the specific type of packaging body, “comprising a sheet having a plurality of sheet parts and a seal part that seals the plurality of sheet parts so as to form an accommodation space that accommodates the contents and where a steam release port for discharging steam generated by heating is formed to any one of the plurality of sheet parts,” Okada teaches in figures 5-6 that the container body is made from a molded sheet and that the lid is also made of a molded sheet (see paragraph 34). Okada also teaches that the lid sheet and the container body sheet can be bonded to each other by thermal welding (See paragraph 34). Therefore, Okada teaches the sheet parts as currently claimed. Okada also teaches that the specific type of container is not limiting and can be a soft container (see paragraph 34).
In this regard, Mizuno teaches that a label sealing a steam release port can be equally applicable to a container having a lid attached thereto (see figure 7, item 32 which is the container; item 34 which is the lid; item 36 which is the steam release port; and item 38 which is the label) as well as to a sheet having a plurality of sheet parts and a seal part that seals the plurality of sheet parts and where any one of the plurliaty of sheet parts comprises a steam release port (see figure 2A, item 12 and 14 which are sheet parts that are sealed together; item 16 which si a steam release port; item 20 which is the label). To therefore modify Okada and use Okada’s label on a packaging body made of a sheet having a plurality of sheet parts that are sealed together and where one of the plurality of sheet parts comprises a steam release port closed by a peelable label, would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, based on conventional expedients for packaging bodies used in a similar manner.
Regarding claim 6, Okada teaches that the label includes an inner most layer configured by an adhesive layer (see figure 11 and 12c, item 3; paragraph 22), an intermediate layer laminated to the innermost layer (see figure 11, item 22 and paragraph 46) and an outermost layer laminated to the intermediate layer and which outermost layer is capable of being heat shrinkable (see figure 11, item 21 and paragraph 46, “…a laminated sheet having a sheet 21 having heat shrinkability…”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 6 above, which relies on Okada (JP 2018052513) as the primary reference and in further view of Beneddtti (US 20130055682).
Regarding claim 7, Okada teaches that the outermost layer configured by a heat shrinkable film can a shrinkage in one direction of 20%, for example, while the shrinkage in the other direction can be 15% (see paragraph 44) and therefore is teaching that the shrinkage in the machine and transverse directions fall within the range of 5-50%. Regarding the shrinkage being after heating at 100°C for 30 minutes, Okada teaches heat treatment at 100-140°C (see paragraph 32). Okada also teaches that the heat shrinkable film outermost film can be polyethylene terephthalate (see paragraph 15). Okada further teaches that the heat expandable particles (6) that are part of the adhesive are not limited as to the particular expansion temperature and that the expansion temperature be varied depending on when the label is desired to be peeled off (see paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the purpose of Okada’s package is to allow an accumulation of a degree of steam (See paragraph 40) before releasing steam and therefore resulting in the shrinkage of the outermost shrinkable layer (see paragraph 45).
It is further noted that Beneddtti teaches that it has been conventional to provide a label with an outer layer (see figure 1, item 62 and paragraph 45) which can be shrinkable in the machine and transverse directions (see paragraph 26)at temperatures such as about 99°C and greater than 99°C, thus encompassing shrinkage at 100°C (see paragraph 21) and where the label can also comprise films such as polyesters (see paragraph 27).
To therefore modify Okada to have a shrinkage within the range of 5-50% in MD and TD after heating at 100°C for 30 minutes would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on the particular degree of heating desired before achieving the requisite degree of curling to facilitate keeping the steam port open for releasing accumulated steam commensurate with the particular heating conditions for the package.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (JP 2018052513) as applied to claim 2 and Okada (JP 2018052513) in view of Mizuno (US 5989608) as applied to claim 6, both in further view of Kagawa (JP 2015020782 - cited on IDS).
Regarding Kagawa (JP 2015020782) a machine translation has been relied on.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, the claims differ from Okada and Okada in view of Mizuno in specifically reciting that the thickness of the heat-shrinkable film configuring the outermost layer is 12 to 30 microns.
However, Kagawa teaches a label (Figure 2 and 3, item 20) that covers a vent opening in a lid of a container (see figure 2 and 3, item 17) and which label is capable of being peeled (see figure 2 and 3, item 25 and paragraph 23). Kagawa further teaches that there can be a curling of the label due to the shrinking of the outermost layer (see paragraph 24). Kagawa further teaches that the outermost layer can be a shrinkable PET layer (see paragraph 43) and which can have a thickness of 25 microns.
Since Okada also teaches a shrinkable PET outermost layer to a label that seals a vent opening on a lid, to therefore modify Okada and use a thickness of 25 microns for the shrinkable outermost layer would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design and for allowing the outermost layer to sufficiently curl due to shrinkage.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimomura (JP 2017114538) in view of Mizuno (US 5989608).
Regarding claim 5, Shimomura has been relied on as already discussed above with respect to claim 1 to teach a label being provided to close a steam release port of a package that is to be hated by microwave oven.
Regarding the limitation of “the label is peeled from the lid member before the contents are heated so that a stuck state remains partially, to expose the steam release portion, maintains a state in which the steam release port is exposed while the contents are heated and is capable of being re-stuck to the lid member so as to cover the steam release portion after the contents are heated,” it is noted that Shimomura further teaches that the sealing tape is capable of being peeled from the lid member before the contents are heated to expose the steam release port and is capable of maintaining a state in which the steam release port is exposed during heating (see paragraph 16, “…the sealing tape of the present invention is peeled off at the time of microwave heating to expose the gas-releasing gap 3 and release the gas at the time of microwave heating therefrom…”; see paragraph 23 disclosing a non-adhesive portion for gripping the sealing tape for easily peeling off from the gas-releasing space 3 or adhered to the gas releasing space by the gripping portion) and is capable of being re-stuck to the lid member so as to cover the steam release port after the contents are heated (see paragraph 16, “…and after microwave heating, the gas-releasing gap 3 is resealed by the sealing tape of the present invention as necessary to ensure outflow of the content and safety.”; see also at least paragraph 7 and paragraph 8, “…the sealing tape can be resealed as necessary after microwave heating…”). It is further noted that the claim limitations directed to the label being peeled before heating of the contents, maintaining a state in which the steam release port is exposed while heating and is capable of being re-stuck are intended use limitations that Shimomura would have been capable of performing, especially in light of Shimomura’s disclosure of a label that is peelable and then re-stuck for sealing a steam release port. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding the specific type of packaging body, “comprising a sheet having a plurality of sheet parts and a seal part that seals the plurality of sheet parts so as to form an accommodation space that accommodates the contents and where a steam release port for discharging steam generated by heating is formed to any one of the plurality of sheet parts,” the claim differs from Shimomura in this regard.
However, Mizuno teaches that a label sealing a steam release port can be equally applicable to a container having a lid attached thereto (see figure 7, item 32 which is the container; item 34 which is the lid; item 36 which is the steam release port; and item 38 which is the label) as well as to a sheet having a plurality of sheet parts and a seal part that seals the plurality of sheet parts and where any one of the plurality of sheet parts comprises a steam release port (see figure 2A, item 12 and 14 which are sheet parts that are sealed together; item 16 which si a steam release port; item 20 which is the label). To therefore modify Shimomura and use Shimomura’s label on a packaging body made of a sheet having a plurality of sheet parts that are sealed together and where one of the plurality of sheet parts comprises a steam release port closed by a peelable label, would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, based on conventional expedients for packaging bodies used in a similar manner.
Claims 2, 4, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimomura (JP 2017114538) as applied to claim 1 and as being unpatentable over Shimomura (JP 2017114538) in view of Mizuno (US 5989608), as applied to claim 5, both in further view of Kagawa (JP 2015020782) and Compton (US 20040083680).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Shimomura teaches that the label includes an inner most layer configured by an adhesive layer to be stuck to the lid member (see figure 3, item 8; paragraph 19), an intermediate layer laminated to the innermost layer (Figure 3, item 7; paragraph 19), and an outermost layer, polyester layer, laminated on the intermediate layer (figure 3, item 5; paragraph 18).
Claims 2 and 6 differ from Shimomura in specifically reciting that the outermost layer is configured by a heat-shrinkable film.
Kagawa teaches using shrinkage of an outermost layer of a vent label that has three layers for the purpose of helping the label to curl op to make it possible to exhibit stable peelability (see paragraph 14 and 23) and where such curling due to shrinkage helps to improve the opening of the steam vent hole (see paragraph 32). Compton also teaches that it has been desirable to also provide shrinkage of a label (Figure 3, item 44) that covers an area of a package that can provide an opening (see figure 4) and where the label can desirably shrink to cause a tab portion of the label to curl outward so as to be more easily graspable (see paragraph 9).
To therefore modify Shimomura and to make the outermost polyester film layer of the label heat shrinkable, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for improving the opening of the steam vent hole, as taught by Kagawa, and for providing a curled portion of the label that is more easily grippable.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Shimomura teaches that the outermost layer can have a thickness such as 25 microns (see paragraph 18).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 2 and 6 above, which relies on Shimomura (JP 2017114538) as the primary reference, and in further view of Okada (JP 2018052513) and Beneddtti (US 20130055682).
Claims 3 and 7 differ from the combination, as applied to claim 2 and to claim 6, in specifically reciting that, “a thermal shrinkage percentage of the heat-shrinkable film configuring the outermost layer is 5% to 50% in MD and TD after heating at 100°C for 30 minutes.
Okada teaches a three-label layer (see figure 11) sealing a steam vent port (figure 8, item 1 and 93) comprising an outermost layer (Figure 11, item 21) that is configured by a heat shrinkable film can a shrinkage in one direction of 20%, for example, while the shrinkage in the other direction can be 15% (see paragraph 44) and therefore is teaching that the shrinkage in the machine and transverse directions fall within the range of 5-50%. Okada also teaches that the heat shrinkable film outermost film can be polyethylene terephthalate (see paragraph 15), which is a polyester film. Okada further teaches that the shrinkage of the outermost layer helps the label to bend and can therefore help the label to be more easily separated from the surface of the container (see paragraph 45). This would have been equally applicable to Shimomura who desires to peel the label for venting where shrinkage of the outermost layer would have been useful for ensuring that the label stayed more easily separated from the surface of the container to expose the steam release port. Okada also teaches that a non-heat shrinkable outermost layer can also shrink for example at less than 5% (see paragraph 16) which is seen to be reasonably close the claimed lower limit of 5%.
To therefore modify the combination and to provide a degree of shrinkage to the outermost layer in the machine and transverse directions such as 20% and 15% would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of providing a degree of curling to the label that can help to expose the steam release port and provide a portion of the label that is more easily graspable.
Regarding the shrinkage being after heating at 100°C for 30 minutes, Okada teaches shrinkage at 80°C as an example (see paragraph 16) which would have suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art that the shrinkage can occur at different temperatures. Okada further teaches that the particular temperature at which the heat expandable particles (6) that are part of the adhesive being to expand can be varied depending on when the label is desired to be peeled off (see paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the purpose of Okada’s package is to allow an accumulation of a degree of steam (See paragraph 40) before releasing steam and therefore resulting in the shrinkage of the outermost shrinkable layer (see paragraph 45).
It is further noted that Beneddtti teaches that it has been conventional to provide a label with an outer layer (see figure 1, item 62 and paragraph 45) which can be shrinkable in the machine and transverse directions (see paragraph 26)at temperatures such as about 99°C and greater than 99°C, thus encompassing shrinkage at 100°C (see paragraph 21) and where the label can also comprise films such as polyesters (see paragraph 27).
To therefore modify the combination to have a shrinkage within the range of 5-50% in MD and TD after heating at 100°C for 30 minutes would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based for ensuring that the label achieved the requisite degree of curling to facilitate keeping the steam port open for releasing accumulated steam commensurate with the particular heating conditions for the package and while ensuring that the label was able to be resealed as already desired by Shimomura.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160016714 discloses using shrinkage of a film that is part of a package, to curl the film for easier grasping by a consumer (see paragraph 112).
US 3659584 discloses peeling a label (see figure 2 and 3), providing a vent opening (see figure 3, item 01 and 02), then closing the vent opening (figure 4).
US 20060228057 discloses a packaging both that is microwavable (paragraph 59) and comprises a label (see figure 2B, item 20) covering a vent opening (figure 2A-2B, item 16) and which label comprises an adhesive that allows for the flap to be selectively opened or closed (see paragraph 37 and 46).
US 20060076069 discloses repeated opening and closing of an adhesive sheet that covers a vent opening of a package (see the abstract; paragraph 7) and where after heating the adhesive sheet can seal the vent opening (see figure 2d-2e).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights