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.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “nanosheet-like” in independent claims 1 and 4 is a relative term which renders the claim(s) indefinite. The term “nanosheet-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. Hence, it is unclear as to how the “particle” is “like” a nanosheet and/or how the “nanosheet-like particle” differs from a “nanosheet”. Similarly, the term “hyper-swollen” in independent claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim(s) indefinite. The term “hyper-swollen” 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. Hence, it is unclear as to how the swollen the lamellar phase would need to be in order to be considered “hyper-swollen” versus just “swollen”. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
The dependent claims do not remedy the above and hence are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim Interpretation
For examination purposes with respect to prior art, the claimed “nanosheet-like” limitation has been interpreted as corresponding to a “particle” or component having a thickness and aspect ratio as recited in independent claim 1, or with respect to independent claim 4 (and its dependent claims other than claim 18 which recites a thickness and aspect ratio as in claim 1), as corresponding to a “particle” or component having a nanoscale thickness (e.g., 1000 nm or below) and a width/length/diameter/planar dimension that is substantially larger than the thickness. For independent claim 4, a “hyper-swollen lamellar phase” has been interpreted as a lamellar phase “swollen” with a solvent sandwiched between stacked layers. For dependent claim 18, the claimed “nanosheet-like” limitation has been interpreted as corresponding to the thickness, width, and aspect ratio as claimed, wherein as defined by the present specification “aspect ratio” has been interpreted as a ratio of a maximum width to a thickness of the particle.
It is also noted that the term “thiophene-based compound” has been interpreted as referring to thiophene and derivatives thereof, and similarly “polythiophene-based compound” as referring to polythiophene and its derivatives as recited in Paragraph 00013 of the specification as filed; while “substantially free of water” as recited in claim 20 has been interpreted as the dispersion containing 10% by mass or less of water with respect to the total mass of the dispersion in light of Paragraph 0074 of the specification as filed.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naito (JP2004-228002A, please refer to the attached machine translation for the below cited sections). Naito discloses an organic electroluminescent element comprising a glass substrate (1) coated with an anode (2) made of indium tin oxide (ITO) upon is then coated with an anode buffer layer (3) of thiophene-based conductive polymer (a “polythiophene-based compound” as in instant claim 1) as an anode buffer layer, particularly a spin-coated layer of poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) (as in instant claim 2) with one example having a PEDOT film thickness of 5 nm and another example having a PEDOT film thickness of 10 nm, and given that the PEDOT film is spin coated over the entire sample area of 3 mm x 3 mm, such that the resulting PEDOT film/layer is a “nanosheet” with a thickness of 0.5 nm or more and 10 nm or less, and an aspect ratio of 100 or more as in instant claims 1-2, and that the claimed invention does not require the “nanosheet-like particle” to be self-supporting and may be present on a substrate (per the specification), the example comprising a PEDOT film of 5 nm as well as the example comprising a PEDOT film of 10 nm disclosed by Naito anticipates instant claims 1-2 (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0005-0011 and 0016).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura (JP2021-009347A, please refer to the attached machine translation for the below cited sections). Kimura discloses a polarizing film (1) comprising a conductive layer (2) for a liquid crystal display device, with one embodiment providing the polarizing film (1) in the form of a laminate (L2) comprising a hard coat layer (H), the polarizing film (1), and the conductive layer (2) laminated in this order (Paragraphs 0001, 0010, and 0028), wherein the conductive layer (2) has a thickness of, for example, 5 nm to 180 nm (Paragraph 0062) and may be formed by a conductive polymer, preferably poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) (Paragraphs 0043-0044), particularly as a composite with polystyrene sulfonic acid (PSS) as a dopant (Paragraph 0045); and given that Kimura specifically discloses an example wherein the conductive layer is a PEDOT/PSS coating film having a thickness of 5 nm (as in instant claims 1-2) with the test specimens having a size of 25 mm in width and 150 mm in length such that the PEDOT/PSS layer is a “nanosheet” having a thickness and aspect ratio as instantly claimed (Paragraphs 0062, 0159-0160, Examples, particularly Examples 10-11), Kimura anticipates instant claims 1-2.
Claims 1, 3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qi (Rectangular Platelet Micelles with Controlled Aspect Ratio by Hierarchical Self-Assembly of Poly(3-hexylthiophene)-b-poly(ethylene glycol), Entire document). Qi discloses a two-dimensional nanomaterial (i.e., a “nanosheet-like particle” as in the claimed invention) fabricated by hierarchical self-assembly of poly(3-hexylthiophene (P3HT)-b-poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) in isopropanol (i-PrOH) such that the aspect ratios (length/width) of the 2D rectangular micelles and the sizes of the 2D rectangular micelles are controlled by the ratios of P3HT and PEG blocks (Abstract). Qi specifically discloses examples wherein the resulting 2D nanomaterial includes a nanoribbon of a P3HT monolayer having a lamellar thickness of ~ 1.8 nm, and given the sizes of the examples and particularly the lengths thereof resulting in an aspect ratio of maximum width/thickness as in the claimed invention of greater than 100 and particularly a length as in instant claim 3 with respect to the claimed “width”, Qi anticipates instant claims 1 and 3 (Results and Discussion, particularly Table 1, Figures, and p. 6559).
With respect to instant claims 19-20, given that Qi discloses that the 2D rectangular platelet micelles are formed by dropwise adding i-PrOH to 60µL of the synthesized P3HTn-b-PEGm in dry tetrahydrofuran (THF) with no added water present as detailed in the Experimental Section to prepare a 0.005 mg/mL solution of P3HTn-b-PEGm in i-PrOH such that the resulting preparation is a “dispersion” as in instant claim 19 comprising a monohydric alcohol (i-PrOH) and which is substantially free of water as in instant claim 20, Qi anticipates instant claims 19-20 (Experimental Section, pp. 6561-6563).
Claims 1-3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (Two-dimensional poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) nanosheets for highly electrochemical detection of iodide ions), or Murugan (Entrapment of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) between VS2 layers to form a new organic-inorganic intercalative nanocomposite, hereinafter referred to as “Murugan 2005”), or Murugan (Synthesis and characterization of organic–inorganic poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)/MoS2 nanocomposite via in situ oxidative polymerization, hereinafter referred to as “Murugan 2006”). Each of Chen, Murugan 2005, and Murugan 2006 discloses nanosheets or nanoribbons of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) (as in instant claim 2) having dimensions as recited in instant claims 1 and 3 including a thickness between 1 and 5 nm (as in instant claims 1 and 3), with a (maximum) width/length in a planar direction falling within the claimed 200 nm or more and 100 µm range of instant claim 3 and a resulting aspect ratio (“maximum width”/thickness) of 100 or more as in instant claim 1, particularly as evidenced from the figures, that based upon the preparation thereof are dispersed in a solvent reading upon the claimed “dispersion composition comprising the nanosheet-like particle” of instant claim 19 (Chen: Entire document, particularly p. 122, Section 2.3, Results and discussion section, and Fig. 1; Murugan 2005: Entire document, particularly Abstract, Experimental, pp. 905-907 including Scheme 1 and Figs. 4-5; Murugan 2006: Entire document, particularly Abstract, Section II.B., and Results and discussion section including Fig. 3). Hence, instant claims 1-3 and 19 are anticipated by Chen or Murugan 2005 or Murugan 2006.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murugan (A Novel Approach To Prepare Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) Nanoribbons between V2O5 Layers by Microwave Irradiation, hereinafter referred to as “Murugan 2004”). Murugan 2004 discloses nanoribbons (“nanosheets”) of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) (as in instant claims 2 and 6) having dimensions as recited in instant claims 1, 3, and 18 (as evidenced by Table 1 and Fig. 2), prepared by redox intercalative polymerization of 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene (EDOT) monomer between single layers of V2O5 facilitated by microwave irradiation (i.e., “oxidatively polymerizing the thiophene-based compound which formed a layer in the first step” between layers or a bilayer of swollen lamellar of V2O5 as in instant claim 4, utilizing doubly distilled water only as a solvent as in instant claim 8, with the V2O5 functioning as a polymerization catalyst as in instant claim 4) as shown in Scheme 1, resulting in PEDOT/V2O5 nanocomposite particles with PEDOT nanoribbons intercalated into V2O5 layers as a solid dispersed in the reaction liquid (reading upon the claimed dispersion of instant claim 19) that is then filtered, washed and analyzed (Entire document, particularly Experimental Section and Results and Discussion). Hence, Murugan 2004 discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 18-19.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murugan (Synthesis and characterization of a new organo–inorganic poly(3,4-ethylene dioxythiophene) PEDOT/V2O5 nanocomposite by intercalation, 2001). Murugan 2001 discloses a nanocomposite of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) (as in instant claims 2 and 6) and V2O5 by inserting PEDOT in V2O5 layers using oxidative polymerization/intercalation in an aqueous medium by direct in situ reaction of 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene (EDOT) monomer in the expanded interlayer spacing of lamellar V2O5 formed by swelling of the V2O5 in water as the only solvent (as in instant claim 8) given that in comparison with organic solvents, water molecules can be expelled from the slightly hydrophobic intragallery space during intercalation, with the resulting PEDOT inserted between the V2O5 layers having a thickness corresponding to the interlayer spacing such that a monolayer formation has a thickness of about 1.4 nm while a double layer formation has a thickness of about 1.9 nm as shown in Scheme 1, and given that the resulting PEDOT/V2O5 nanocomposite particles are present/dispersed in the reaction liquid (as in instant claim 19) and after filtering and analysis have a size as shown in Fig. 3 and/or the increase in PEDOT polymer chain length with increase in EDOT: V2O5 ratio as inferred by Table 1, the PEDOT monolayer or double layer formations disclosed by Murugan 2001 read upon the claimed “nanosheets” with dimensions as recited in instant claims 1, 3, and 18. Hence, Murugan 2001 discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate in instant claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 18-19 (Entire document, particularly Experimental and Results and discussion sections).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US2020/0271740A1). Uchida teaches nanosheets having a thickness of 0.5 to 3.0 nm (Paragraph 0039), and preferably a size as large as possible, provided that the nanosheet is capable of being dispersed in a solution (e.g., as in instant claim 19), particularly with an upper limit of about 100 µm, wherein “the nanosheet typically has a size of a few micrometers, and has a thickness of a few nanometers where the aspect ratio of the thickness to the overall size is about 1:103” (Paragraph 0040, as in instant claims 1 and 3). Uchida teaches that “[s]uch nanosheets may be prepared by any one of the known techniques” (Paragraph 0042) and the “nanosheet may be of any type or have any composition as long as the nanosheets exhibit magnetic orientation property” (Paragraph 0043), with examples thereof including a “Nanosheet of polylactate, polythiophene or polystyrene or the like” (emphasis added, Paragraph 0049). Hence, Uchida teaches a nanosheet of polythiophene having dimensions as recited in instant claims 1 and 3, and given that PEDOT (as in instant claim 2) is an obvious species of polythiophene that exhibits magnetic orientation property (as evidenced by Guziak, Orientation of Conductive Polymer PEDOT:PSS Films Prepared Under Magnetic Field; or Zarubin, Improved Anisotropic Thermoelectric Behavior of Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene): Poly(styrenesulfonate) via Magnetophoresis), the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-3 and 19 would have been obvious over the teachings of Uchida given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (Nanosheet Formation in Hyperswollen Lyotropic Lamellar Phases, hereinafter referred to as “Uchida 2016”, in view of Murugan 2005 or Murugan 2006 and in further view of Kim (KR100684913B1, on IDS dated 4/3/2025, please refer to the attached machine translation for the below cited sections). Uchida 2016 teaches a method of forming a nanosheet using a nonionic hyperswollen lypotropic lamellar phase as a template, wherein the hyperswollen lypotropic lamellar phases consist of amphiphilic bilayers of nonionic polyethylene glycol monoalkyl ether (as in instant claim 11), with an aqueous solvent sandwiched between stacked layers forming a template into which a hydrophobic polymerizable monomer may be provided as a thin layer and polymerized as shown in Fig. 1, in a temperature range of the hyperswollen phase that can be adjusted by adjusting the viscosity of the aqueous phase of the hyperswollen lamellar phase, particularly utilizing glycerin in the examples, wherein the higher the glycerin concentration, the more the viscosity increases and the lower the temperature range of the hyperswollen lamellar phases as shown in Fig. 4 and discussed on pp. 1104-1105, wherein 30wt% and 40wt% concentrations of glycerin result in a phase transition temperature range overlapping the claimed temperature condition of 20-40°C as in instant claim 5 (Entire document, particularly pp. 1103-1105); and given that Uchida 2016 produces nanosheets of a few nanometers in thickness and several hundred nanometers in width with an aspect ratio of about 100 (p. 1104) utilizing styrene monomer in the presence of a polymerization initiator to produce polystyrene nanosheets dispersed in the amphiphile solution (as in instant claim 19) that are then carbonized into carbon nanosheets as in Fig. 1. Uchida 2016 specifically teaches that the method could be applied to the synthesis of a wide variety of two-dimensional organic and inorganic materials (Abstract), including various hydrophobic nanosheets formed in the bilayers by changing the ingredients as well as hydrophilic nanosheets such as by using organic solutions of ionic amphiphiles (p. 1105, first column), and hence, the only difference between the above teachings of Uchida 2016 and the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-6, 11, and 18-19, is that Uchida 2016 does not teach utilizing a thiophene compound as in instant claim 4, particularly 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene (EDOT) as in instant claim 6, as the hydrophobic monomer or polymerizable compound to produce nanosheets of polythiophene as in instant claims 1 and 4, particularly PEDOT nanosheets as in instant claims 2 and 6, by oxidative polymerization using a polymerization catalyst as in instant claim 4.
However, given that each of Murugan 2005 and Murugan 2006 teaches that PEDOT can be polymerized within an interlayer space of a bilayer or swollen lamellar structure, similar to the teachings of Uchida, to form nanosheets or nanoribbons of PEDOT of similar dimensions as in Uchida, particularly by in situ oxidative polymerization with iron (III) chloride as an oxidizing agent or polymerization catalyst (as in instant claim 7; Murugan 2005: as discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference, and particularly Experimental; Murugan 2006: as discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference, and particularly Experimental, Section B), with Kim further teaching the oxidative polymerization of non-substituted or substituted thiophene monomers, such as EDOT, utilizing iron (III) chloride as oxidizing agent (e.g., polymerization initiator or catalyst as in instant claim 7) in combination with other oxidizing agents and emulsifiers in an aqueous phase or emulsion providing an amphiphilic domain for producing polythiophene nanoparticles (e.g., similar to the amphiphilic domain of Uchida 2016, Kim: Pages 2-3), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a thiophene monomer such as EDOT with iron (III) chloride as a “polymerization catalyst” thereof as the hydrophobic polymerizable monomer and polymerization initiator in the invention taught by Uchida 2016, producing nanosheets of PEDOT, similar to the teachings of Murugan 2005 or Murugan 2006, particularly in light of the teachings of Kim with respect to polymerizing thiophene or derivates thereof such as EDOT in an amphiphilic domain. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-7, 11, and 18-19 would have been obvious over the teachings of Uchida 2016 in view of Murugan 2005 or Murugan 2006, and in further view of Kim given that it is prima facie obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Further, given that Uchida 2016 provides a clear teaching and/or suggestion that the ingredients of the hyperswollen lamellar phase and polymerization process for producing the polymer nanosheets, including the polyethylene glycol monoalkyl ether as the amphiphile and the additive solvent(s) of the aqueous amphiphile solution can be selected to provide desired properties of the hyperswollen lyotropic lamellar phase, such as packing parameter and/or separation between bilayers of the hyperswollen lyotropic lamellar phase as well as phase transition temperatures, with specific reference to 1-hexanol (a monohydric alcohol) and toluene (a hydrocarbon organic solvent) as additive solvents, and glycerin (i.e., glycerol – a polyol) as a viscosity modifier (pp. 1103-1105), while Kim broadly teaches the use of an aqueous solution or alcohol as a known continuous phase in the polymerization of thiophene, and more particularly teaches the use of hexane as an organic solvent for incorporating the oxidizing agent (Paragraph bridging pages 4-5), the Examiner takes the position that the solvent mixtures and polyethylene glycol monoalkyl ether as recited in instant claims 8-10 and 12-17 would have been obvious over the teachings Uchida 2016 in view of Murugan 2005 or Murugan 2006, and in further view of Kim, given that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to utilize any polyethylene glycol monoalkyl ether and solvent(s) capable of forming a hyperswollen lamellar phase as in the teachings of Uchida 2016 and/or known to be utilized in polymerization of thiophene such that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 8-10 and 12-17 would have been obvious over Uchida 2016 in view of Murugan 2005 or Murugan 2006, and in further view of Kim.
With respect to instant claim 20, although Uchida 2016 does not specifically teach that the resulting nanosheets are present in the form of a dispersion that “comprises a monohydric alcohol and which is substantially free of water” as instantly claimed, given that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to determine an appropriate dispersion medium for a particular end use of the nanosheets, and that each of Murugan 2005 and Murugan 2006 teaches washing the resulting nanosheets/nanocomposites with ethanol, drying, and then dispersing the resulting dried nanosheets/nanocomposites in ethanol (e.g., pure and thus “substantially free of water”) to form a suspension for producing samples by coating the suspension onto carbon-coated copper grids for transmission electron microscopy (TEM) imaging (Murugan 2005, Experimental section, p. 903; Murugan 2006, Experimental section, p. 113), the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 20 would have been obvious over the teachings of Uchida 2016 in view of Murugan 2005 or Murugan 2006, and in further view of Kim based upon the desired end use of the resulting nanosheets.
Claims 8-10, 12-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida 2016 in view of Murugan 2005 or Murugan 2006, and Kim, as applied above (and incorporated herein by reference), and in further view of Uchida (US2019/0247825A1, hereinafter referred to as Uchida ‘825), wherein with respect to the polyethylene glycol monoalkyl ether and solvent(s) capable of forming a hyperswollen lamellar phase, Uchida ‘825 teaches a similar hyperswollen lamellar process for forming nanosheets and specifically teaches that the polyethylene glycol monoalkyl ether as the nonionic amphiphile (e.g., similar to Uchida 2016) may be tetraethylene glycol monomethyl ether (Paragraphs 0054-0056, as in instant claims 12-13) while the solvent(s) may be water (as in instant claim 8) or a mixed solution of water and a water-soluble organic solvent (Paragraphs 0005, 0055-0056, and 0090), such as approximately 99 mass % of water (Paragraph 0058); wherein suitable solvents include a hydrocarbon-based solvent such as n-hexane or mixed solvent thereof (Paragraph 0094, as in instant claims 9-10); an alcoholic solvent such as ethanol, n-propanol (i.e., 1-propanol), and isopropyl alcohol (i.e., 2-propanol; Paragraph 0094, as in instant claims 14-16 as well as instant claim 20 given that the water content may be 5 mass % or less in some embodiments, Paragraph 0097), wherein the solvent can contain a monohydric alcohol such as n-propanol (i.e., 1-propanol; Paragraph 0096, as in instant claims 14-16) as a surface-active auxiliary similar to glycerin (e.g., as in Uchida 2016, Paragraphs 0094 and 0096), thereby supporting the Examiner’s position above that the claimed solvents would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein it is again noted that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimum solvent(s) to utilize for a particular polymerization process such that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 8-10, 12-17, and 20 would have been obvious over the teachings of Uchida 2016 in view of Murugan 2005 or Murugan 2006, and Kim, and in further view of Uchida ‘825.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
