DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-5, 12-16, 18, 21, 24-27 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-5, 12-16, 18, 21, 26-27 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim(s) 6-11, 17, 19-20, 22-23 is/are cancelled by Applicant.
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 .
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.
Response to Elections
The Election of Species Requirement in the previous Office Action mailed 12/03/2025 has been withdrawn in view of the Claim Amendments filed 01/28/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-23) in the reply filed on 01/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (claims 24-25), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/28/2026.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/625,607, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The parent Application No. 18/625,607 fails to provide adequate support for the subject matter of claims 1, 12-13, 21, 27. In particular, the parent Application No. 18/625,607 fails to provide adequate support for: (i) the presence and type of hard segments and soft segments of the thermoplastic elastomer (claim 1); (ii) torque increase (claim 12); (iii) weight loss (claim 13); (iv) the individual amount of polymeric plasticizer when both the thermoplastic elastomer and the polymeric plasticizer is present (claim 21, 27). Therefore:
• Claims 1-5, 12-16, 18, 21, 26-27 have an effective filing date of 10/21/2025.
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(s) 2 is/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.
Claim 2 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the phrase “wherein the thermoplastic elastomer comprises a thermoplastic copolyester elastomer” means that: (i) the “thermoplastic elastomer” is a “thermoplastic copolyester elastomer”; or (ii) the “thermoplastic copolyester elastomer” is in addition to the “thermoplastic ether-ester elastomer block copolymer...” previously recited in claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 2-5 fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 (e.g., the type of thermoplastic elastomer, etc.).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/23/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,448,507 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Double Patenting
The rejections based on nonstatutory double patenting in the previous Office Action mailed 02/25/2026 have been withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimer filed 06/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 12-16, 21, 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• BELCHER, JR ET AL (US 2012/0128967),
in view of EUSTACE ET AL (US 6,689,840),
and in view of TURCZYK (US 4,168,285),
and in view of YAGI (US 5,759,686),
and in view of HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL (US 2009/0062454),
and in view of DISTRUPOL - HYTREL THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER.
BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 discloses composite materials comprising:
• a core layer (110);
• a cap layer (120), wherein the cap layer comprises:
• one or more weather-resistant polymeric materials (e.g., polyvinyl chloride (PVC); polyacrylate-styrene-acrylonitrile (ASA); etc. or blends or alloys thereof -- for example, but not limited to blends comprising 25-75 wt% PVC with 75-25 wt% of one or more styrene-type resin and/or acrylic-type resin; etc.);
• 3-10 wt% of a plasticizer (e.g., EVLALOY brand resins; etc.) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric plasticizer” of claims 21, 26-27).
wherein the composite material is useful as a decking material and other outdoor structural products. (entire document, e.g., Figure 1, etc.; paragraph 0005, 0010-0014, etc.) However, the reference does not specifically mention cap layer polymeric materials containing styrene-acrylonitrile (SAN) or thermoplastic ether-ester elastomer block copolymer (TPEE).
EUSTACE ET AL ‘840 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize blends comprises:
• 0.1-99.8 wt% (preferably 10-80 wt% or 25-50 wt%) of a halogen-containing polymer (e.g., polyvinyl chloride (PVC); etc.);
• 0.1-99.8 wt% (preferably 10-90 wt% or 40-70 wt%) an acrylic material (e.g., acrylic-styrene-acrylonitrile (ASA); styrene-acrylonitrile (SAN); etc.)
• additives (e.g., pigments; fillers; impact modifiers; lubricants; UV stabilizers; thermal stabilizers; viscosity modifiers; etc.);
as capstock materials for substrates (e.g., for board-type products, etc.). (line 17-33, col. 2; line 7-14, 28-45, col. 3; line 6-32, col. 4; line 45-57, col. 5; line 24-29, col. 6; etc.)
TURCZYK ‘285 discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate impact modifiers containing 15-90 wt% styrene-acrylonitrile (SAN) in polyvinyl chloride-based compositions, wherein the impact modifier is used in typical amounts of 5-95 wt% in order to improve impact resistance and heat-distortion temperature performance, and also as a processing aid. (line 10-15, 29-40, 52-68, col. 1; line 34-67, col. 2; etc.)
YAGI ‘686 discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate 10-200 parts of a copolyester resin (e.g., a polyester-ether block copolyester comprising polybutylene terephthalate hard segments and poly(alkylene oxide) glycol soft segments (corresponding to the recited “soft segments formed from polyether” -- for example, HYTREL copolymers) (TPEE) per 100 parts PVC in PVC-based compositions in order to improve impact resistance and processibility, and reduce hardness variations on temperature. (line 10-15, line 1; line 33-40, col. 3; line 7-38, col. 4; line 35-55, col. 6; etc.)
HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL ‘454 discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate compatible thermoplastic polyetheresters (e.g., HYTREL, etc.) (TPEE) in PVC-based compositions in order to provide improved low-temperature properties and improved resistance to brittleness. (paragraph 0034-0036, etc.).
DISTRUPOL - HYTREL THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER provides evidence that it is well known in the art that HYTREL polymers are thermoplastic ether-ester elastomers, comprising polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) hard segments and polyether-based soft segments, wherein HYTREL thermoplastic elastomers can be used to enhance properties when mixed with other polymers (e.g., PVC, etc.) (pages 2-3, etc.).
Regarding claims 1, 14-16, 21, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize known PVC / ASA blends as disclosed in EUSTACE ET AL ‘840 which do not require thermoplastic urethane to form the cap layer (120) of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967.
Further regarding claims 1, 10, 21, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of a SAN-containing impact modifier as disclosed in TURCZYK ‘285 in a PVC / ASA blend cap layer (120) for the composites of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 in order to improve impact resistance and heat-distortion temperature performance, and optionally to serve as a processing aid.
Further regarding claims 1, 10, 21, since: TURCZYK ‘285 suggests the use of SAN-containing impact modifiers containing 15-90 wt% SAN in polyvinyl chloride-based compositions in typical amounts of 5-95 wt%; a PVC / ASA blend cap layer (120) for the composites of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 containing impact modifiers in accordance with TURSZYK ‘285 can contain an SAN content which reads the 10-30 wt% SAN (recited in claims 1, 21). For example, a 50 part/40 part PVC/ASA blend cap layer for the composites of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 further containing 20 parts of a known SAN-containing impact modifier as disclosed in TURSZYK ’28 and 30 parts TPEE (i.e., 60 parts TPEE per 100 parts PVC, consistent with YAGI ‘686) can have a PVC content of about 36 wt%, an ASA content of about 29 wt%, a TPEE content of about 21 wt% and a SAN content of about 14 wt%.
Further regarding claims 1-5, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of known compatible thermoplastic ether-ester elastomers (e.g., commercially available block copolymers with polyester hard segments and polyether soft segments, such as HYTREL (as suggested by YAGI ‘686 and HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL ‘454 and DISTRUPOL - HYTREL THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER) in the PVC-based cap layer (120) of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 in order to provide further enhancements or improvements in impact resistance, low-temperature performance, brittleness resistance and/or processing characteristics (as suggested by YAGI ‘686 and HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL ‘454).
Further regarding claim 1, since: YAGI ‘686 suggests the use of performance-enhancing thermoplastic polyester-ether block copolymers (which are elastomers as evidenced by DISTRUPOL - HYTREL THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER) in typical amounts of 10-200 parts relative to 100 parts PVC, a PVC-based cap layer (120) of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 further incorporating such performance-enhancing thermoplastic elastomers in amounts consistent with YAGI ‘686 can contain a thermoplastic elastomer content which reads on the recited 5-30 wt% of claim 1. For example, a 50 part/40 part PVC/ASA blend cap layer for the composites of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 further containing 20 parts of a known SAN-containing impact modifier as disclosed in TURSZYK ’28 and 30 parts thermoplastic ether-ester elastomer (TPEE) (i.e., 60 parts TPEE per 100 parts PVC, consistent with YAGI ‘686) can have a PVC content of about 36 wt%, an ASA content of about 29 wt%, a TPEE content of about 21 wt% and a SAN content of about 14 wt%.
Regarding claim 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of known abrasion-resisting and/or hardness-improving additives (e.g., “hard” inorganic fillers, stiffening polymeric additives, etc.) in the PVC / ASA blend cap layer (120) of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 further containing performance-enhancing amounts of SAN and thermoplastic elastomer in order to obtain cap layers with excellent abrasion-resistance (as represented by low weight loss values of 0.2 g or less) for specific applications.
Regarding claim 13, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of thermal stabilizing agents and/or melt-viscosity modifiers in the PVC / ASA blend cap layer (120) of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 further containing performance-enhancing amounts of SAN and thermoplastic elastomer in order to maintain flowability during exposure to heat during melt blending and/or melt-extrusion operations (as represented by a torque increase of 15% or less) for specific molding applications.
Further regarding claims 12-13, the Examiner cautions that if Applicant chooses to argue that the physical properties recited in claims 12-13 cannot be obtained by one of ordinary skill in the art using known improvement and/or modification techniques or methods (e.g., as mentioned above) using routine experimentation, this may raise significant issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to scope of enablement, and that Applicant’s arguments and/or assertions may be used as admissions or supporting evidence with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to scope of enablement.
Regarding claim 14, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of known additional additives (as suggested in EUSTACE ET AL ‘840) in the PVC / ASA blend cap layer (120) for the composites of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 in order to improve or modify various performance properties (e.g., coloration, heat-resistance, durability, weatherability, etc.).
Regarding claim 21, 26-27 , one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts (e.g., 3-10 wt%) of a known, commercially available plasticizer (e.g., ELVALOY brand resins) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric plasticizer”) as a plasticizer in the cap layer (120) of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 in order to improve elasticity, impact resistance and/or moisture resistance.
Claim(s) 18, 21, 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
BELCHER, JR ET AL (US 2012/0128967), in view of EUSTACE ET AL (US 6,689,840), and in view of TURCZYK (US 4,168,285), and in view of YAGI (US 5,759,686), and in view of HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL (US 2009/0062454), and in view of DISTRUPOL - HYTREL THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER,
as applied to claims 1-5, 12-16, 21, 26-27 above,
and further in view of DAVE ET AL (US 2011/0129628) or HACKER ET AL (US 2011/0275747).
DAVE ET AL ‘628 and HACKER ET AL ‘747 both provide evidence that ELVALOY brand resins are known to be ketone-ethylene-ester (KEE) terpolymers. The reference further discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize ELVALOY brand resins as polymeric plasticizers in typical amounts of up to 99.5 wt% (preferably up to 20 wt% or up to 10 wt%) in halogen-containing polymer compositions (e.g., polyvinyl chloride (PVC), etc.) suitable for use in a wide variety of applications (e.g., agricultural foils, roofing foils, etc.). The reference further discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate additives (e.g., stabilizers; antioxidants; UV absorbers; light stabilizers; pigments; fillers; lubricants; other plasticizers; impact modifiers; processing aids; etc.) into said halogen-containing polymer (e.g., PVC, etc.) compositions. (DAVE ET AL ‘628, paragraph 0125-0126, 0138-0141, 0150-0151, etc.) (see corresponding portions of HACKER ET AL ‘747)
Regarding claims 18, 21, 26-27 , one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts (e.g., 3-10 wt%) of a known, commercially available ketone-ethylene-ester (KEE) terpolymer (e.g., ELVALOY brand resins, as evidenced by DAVE ET AL ‘628 or HACKER ET AL ‘747) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric plasticizer”) as a plasticizer in the cap layer (120) of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 in order to improve elasticity, impact resistance and moisture resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues that “The Examiner therefore appears to take the position that substitution of TPU with TPEE would have been a routine design choice or matter of optimization.”
However, Applicant’s arguments are a mischaracterization of the rationale presented in the present rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 for incorporating TPEE into the PVC-based cap layer (120) of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967. BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 does not require the use of TPU, while HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL ‘454 discloses TPU and TPEE as alternatives, but does not express a particular preference for TPU. YAGI ‘686 is specifically directed to the use of TPEE as a desirable impact modifier for PVC-based composition and furthermore makes no mention of TPU. Therefore, the present rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 do not require substituting TPEE for TPU, as argued by Applicant. Rather, YAGI ‘686 provides clear motivation to utilize TPEE in PVC-based compositions, such as the capstock materials of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967.
(B) Applicant argues that the “inclusion of 5 wt.% to 30 wt.% of a thermoplastic ether-ester elastomer block copolymer ("TPEE") produces a materially different thermal stability response in the claimed PVC/ASA/SAN capstock compositions, as demonstrated by the Dynamic Thermal Stability ("DTS") data of FIG. 4 of the present application.”
Applicant further argues that “none of the references recognizes or addresses the particular beneficial long-term DTS behavior shown in Applicant's comparative testing that specifically arises from the interaction of the TPEE component in the claimed PVC/ASA/SAN blend.
Applicant further argues that “The comparative data therefore establishes that TPU and TPEE are not predictable equivalents in the claimed PVC/ASA/SAN capstock system” with respect to rheological stability.
Applicant further argues that “there was no reasonable expectation that the claimed TPEE
compositions would exhibit the advantageous stability behavior demonstrated in FIG. 4” and “Given TPU and TPEE are not predictable equivalents and there was no reasonable expectation of success, the rejection therefore relies on impermissible hindsight using Applicant's own disclosure as a roadmap to selectively assemble elements from the prior art that would not otherwise have been combined.
However, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In particular, YAGI ‘686 teaches that the incorporation of TPEE provides various recognized benefits (e.g., reduced temperature dependence for hardness, improved impact resistance, etc.). Applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results and/or criticality commensurate in scope with the present claims from the recited TPEE component.
(C) Applicant argues that “The comparative DTS data provides objective evidence supporting non- obviousness, including suppression of scorch-related torque escalation, improved thermal stability during extrusion-relevant processing, absence of the sustained upward torque drift exhibited by the TPU comparative formulation, and stabilized long-term rheological behavior in the claimed PVC/ASA/SAN/TPEE systems.” While Figure 4 provides limited evidence of unexpected rheological stability from the use of certain TPEE materials, the showing provided by the specification is not commensurate in scope with the present claims -- e.g., but not limited to:
• the type and amount of TPEE elastomer;
• the type and amount of PVC resin;
• the type and amount of ASA resin;
• the type and amount of SAN resin; etc.
In particular, while Applicant asserts that “TPE1-TPE3 are thermoplastic ether-ester (TPEE) block copolymers containing alternating hard polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) segments and soft polyether-based segments”, this information is not present in the disclosure as originally filed. Instead, the specification merely describes TPE1-TPE3 as “a polyester elastomer” with various Shore D hardness values. Based on the information provided by the disclosure as originally filed, Applicant has only provided evidence of superior rheological stability for three types of “polyester elastomer” of unspecified compositions. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to accurately determine the scope of the showing provided by the specification -- i.e., it is unclear whether the unexpected results (i.e., regarding rheological behavior; thermal stability; etc.) relied upon by Applicant would be present if different types of TPEE resins are used. For example, since TPEE block copolymers can vary significantly in: (i) the type and amount of polyester hard segment (e.g., based on aromatic dicarboxylic acids such as 2,6-naphthalenedicarboxylic acid or 4,4-biphenyldicarboxylic acid, and diols such as ethylene glycol or propylene glycol; etc.); and (ii) the type and amount of polyester or polyether soft segment (e.g., poly(alkylene oxide) blocks derived from varying amounts of ethylene oxide and/or propylene oxide, different sizes of poly(alkylene oxide) blocks, etc.); etc.; it is reasonable to believe that the type of TPEE used materially affects rheological behavior and/or thermal stability. Applicant has not provided objective evidence on the record that the relied upon unexpected results (e.g., rheological properties, etc.) are wholly or effectively independent on the type of TPEE.
Similarly, the data in Figure 4 is derived from a single capstock composition containing
39.1 wt.% PVC, 24.7 wt.% ASA, and 18.2 wt.% SAN, with the remaining 18 wt.% made up of either TPU or one of TPE1, TPE2, or TPE3. Applicant has not provided objective evidence that the unexpected results (i.e., regarding rheological behavior; thermal stability; etc.) relied upon by Applicant would be present if different types or amounts of PVC and/or ASA and/or SAN resins are used.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GIPP ET AL (US 3,963,800) and GOTZ ET AL (US 2008/0207839) disclose thermoplastic ether-ester block copolymer elastomers.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
September 3, 2026
/Vivian Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights