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 .
Notes
All the objections and rejections in the previous Office Action not reiterated herein have been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the width adapted to ergonomically support at least one user's finger, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “a kit,” “ergonomically,” and “to facilitate one-handed sterile opening and reclosing of said recessed well” in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is objected to because the deleted subject matter is not properly marked to indicate the changes that have been made. The text of any deleted matter must be shown with proper markings (e.g., strike-through).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended independent claim 1 recites the limitation "a distal raised platform … having a width adapted to ergonomically support at least one user's finger," however, said limitation fails to comply with written description requirement. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses a distal raised platform having a width to support at least one user’s finger, or the like (see paragraph [0019]). However, there is nothing of record in the originally filed specification which states/suggests the distal raised platform to comprise ergonomic support features. Applicant’s disclosure is silent regarding an ergonomic support. As such, said limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7-8 and 11-20 is/are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Amended independent claim 1 recites the limitation "to facilitate one-handed sterile opening and reclosing of said recessed well," however, said limitation fails to comply with written description requirement. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses the process of lifting a cover from the peel plate (see, e.g., paragraph [0036]). However, there is nothing of record in the originally filed specification which states/suggests the lifting maintains the peel plate sterile. As such, said limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Amended independent claim 1 recites the limitation "a water sample comprising live heterotrophic bacteria, when present, said water sample being adapted to be dispensed into said recessed well for growth and subsequent enumeration," however, said limitation fails to comply with written description requirement. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses a water sample is added to a peel plate having a culture media (see, e.g., paragraph [0036]). However, there is nothing of record in the originally filed specification which states/suggests the peel plate assembly includes a kit that is already contains a water sample. As such, said limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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) 1, 4-5, 7-8 and 11-20 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 1 recites the limitation "a water sample comprising live heterotrophic bacteria, when present, said water sample being adapted to be dispensed into said recessed well for growth and subsequent enumeration" in lines 25-27. However, the claimed invention is directed to a kit and it is unclear if the water sample is an element of the kit. Claim(s) 4-5, 7-8 and 11-20 is/are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a water sample" in line 25. However, it is unclear if the recited water sample is referring to the water sample recited earlier in line 2 or is an additional water sample.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Skiffington et al. (US 10,988,720; hereinafter “Skiffington”) in view of Monks et al. (US 6,022, 700; hereinafter “Monks”).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, Skiffington discloses a kit for enumerating a microorganism, when present, in a water sample, said kit comprising: a. a peel plate comprising: i. a recessed well having a sunken wall protruding from an upper face (FIGS. 1-2 and 4; col. 4, line 57 to col. 5, line 39) and having a culture medium dried media culture disc adapted to rehydrate upon contact with said water sample to promote growth of said live heterotrophic bacteria, when present (dried media is contacted with a water sample; col. 3, ll. 44-46; col. 4, line 57 to col. 5, line 39; col. 7, ll. 21-26); ii. a pair of opposing proximate extensions integrally formed with said peel plate adjacent said recessed well and spaced between an access indent, wherein at least one of said proximate extensions includes a raised proximate tab adapted to align multiple plates in a layered position (FIGS. 1-2: col. 4, line 57 to col. 5, line 30); iii. a distal raised platform adjacent said recessed well and having a width adapted to support at least one user’s finger during handling, and wherein said recessed well being spaced between said distal raised platform and said proximate extensions (FIGS. 1-2 and 4: col. 3, ll. 62-66, col. 4, line 57 to col. 5, line 30); and iv. a resealable, removeable cover seal comprising a flexible sheet having a first end fixedly secured to said plate adjacent said distal raised platform and an opposing second removable end adapted to peelably enclose said recessed well, and wherein said cover seal includes an integral peel tab removably secured to a proximate end of said plate (FIGS. 7-8, col. 5, ll. 52-60, col. 6, ll. 13-19) to facilitate one-handed sterile opening and reclosing of said recessed well (see FIG. 4; further, Skiffington discloses all of the structural features of the claimed removable cover and this considered to be capable to meet the limitation “to facilitate one-handed sterile opening and reclosing of said recessed well”), and wherein said peel plate adapted to enable visual enumeration of enumerate said live heterotrophic bacteria by facilitating growth within said recessed well under controlled conditions, when present in said water sample (col. 4, ll. 19-20 and 63-65; col. 7, ll. 21-26); and b. a water sample comprising live heterotrophic bacteria, when present, said water sample being adapted to be dispensed into said recessed well for growth and subsequent enumeration (see col. 5, ll. 45-51). Skiffington does not explicitly disclose wherein the distal raised platform has a width that is adapted to ergonomically support at least one user's finger. Monks discloses a plate (substrate) having features that are adapted to support fingers of a user (col. 11, ll. 6-9). In view of Monks, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distal raised platform of Skiffington to be adapted to ergonomically support users fingers for the purpose of securely handling the plate as disclosed by Monks (col. 11, ll. 6-9).
Furthermore, it is noted that the recitations of functional language "for enumerating live heterotrophic bacteria, when present, in a water sample; and, to enable visual enumeration of enumerate said live heterotrophic bacteria by facilitating growth within said recessed well under controlled conditions, when present in said water sample" are drawn to intended use of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Skiffington further discloses wherein said recessed well being aligned below and parallel to an upper face of said plate and includes a grid (col. 3, ll. 7-10).
Regarding claim 5, Skiffington further discloses wherein said grid being visible for colony counting after said sample has absorbed and diffused (col. 3, ll. 10-13).
Regarding claim 7, Skiffington further discloses wherein said proximate extensions each include a rounded corner entry to said access indent (col. 3, ll. 14-16).
Regarding claim 8, Skiffington further discloses wherein said distal raised platform spans about a length of a diameter of said recessed well (col. 3, ll. 18-19).
Regarding claim 11, Skiffington further discloses wherein said dried media culture disc comprises a bacterial nutritive ingredient (col. 3, ll. 25-26).
Regarding claim 12, Skiffington further discloses wherein said dried media culture disc comprises a growth indicator color-developing agent (col. 3, ll. 27-28).
Regarding claim 13, Skiffington further discloses wherein said color-developing agent is selected from the group consisting of triphenyltetrazolium chloride, 3-(p-iodophenyl)-2-(p- nitrophenyl)-5-phenyl-2H-tetrazolium chloride, 3-(4,5-dimethyl-2-thiazolyl)-2 ,5-diphenyl-2H- tetrazolium bromide, 5-bromo-3-indolyl-beta.-D-galactoside, bromothymol blue, and neutral red (col. 3, ll. 28-33).
Regarding claim 14, Skiffington further discloses wherein said dried media culture disc comprises a plate count agar or plate count agar individual components (col. 3, ll. 33-34).
Regarding claim 15, Skiffington further discloses wherein said dried media culture disc comprises a yeast and mold growth media (col. 3, ll. 35-36).
Regarding claim 16, Skiffington further discloses wherein said dried media culture disc comprises a bacterial nutritive ingredient selective medium for growth of indicator organisms (col. 3, ll. 37-39).
Regarding claim 17, Skiffington further discloses wherein said bacterial nutritive ingredient comprises selective growth agents for coliform, E. coli, enterbacteriaceae, or pathogens (col. 3, ll. 39-41).
Regarding claim 18, Skiffington further discloses wherein said bacterial nutritive ingredient comprises selective growth agents for salmonella, listeria, or camphlobacter (col. 3, ll. 41-43).
Regarding claim 19, Skiffington further discloses wherein said dried media culture disc comprises at least one of an organic solvent (col. 3, ll. 44-45) and enhancer (col. 3, ll. 46-48).
Regarding claim 20, Skiffington discloses all of the structural features of the claimed peel plate and thus considered to meet the limitation “a limit of detection being one colony forming unit per millimeter of said water sample.” Furthermore, the bacterial and water sample are material worked on and not elements of the claimed peel plate. It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Skiffington et al. (US 10,407,654; hereinafter “‘654”) in view of Monks et al. (US 6,022,700; hereinafter “Monks”).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, ‘654 discloses a kit for enumerating a microorganism, when present, in a sample, said kit comprising: a. a peel plate comprising: i. a recessed well having a sunken wall protruding from an upper face (FIGS. 1-2 and 4; col. 6, ll. 17-65) and having a culture medium dried media culture disc adapted to rehydrate upon contact with said water sample to promote growth of said live heterotrophic bacteria, when present (dried media culture disc of ‘654 is structurally the same as the instant dried media culture disc and thus fully capable “to rehydrate upon contact with said water sample to promote growth of said live heterotrophic bacteria, when present”; see also col. 3, ll. 3-6); ii. a pair of opposing proximate extensions integrally formed with said peel plate adjacent said recessed well and spaced between an access indent, wherein at least one of said proximate extensions includes a raised proximate tab adapted to align multiple plates in a layered position (FIGS. 1-2 and 4; col. 6, ll. 17-65); iii. a distal raised platform adjacent said recessed well and having a width adapted to support at least one user’s finger during handling, and wherein said recessed well being spaced between said distal raised platform and said proximate extensions (FIGS. 1-2 and 4; col. 4, ll. 15-17, col. 6, ll. 56-61); and iv. a resealable, removeable cover seal comprising a flexible sheet having a first end fixedly secured to said plate adjacent said distal raised platform and an opposing second removable end adapted to peelably enclose said recessed well, and wherein said cover seal includes an integral peel tab removably secured to a proximate end of said plate (FIGS. 1-2 and 4, col. 4, ll. 31-37, col. 8, ll. 18-19) to facilitate one-handed sterile opening and reclosing of said recessed well (see FIG. 4; further, ‘654 discloses all of the structural features of the claimed removable cover and this considered to be capable to meet the limitation “to facilitate one-handed sterile opening and reclosing of said recessed well”), and wherein said peel plate adapted to enable visual enumeration of enumerate said live heterotrophic bacteria by facilitating growth within said recessed well under controlled conditions, when present in said water sample (col. 4, ll. 35-39); and b. a water sample comprising live heterotrophic bacteria, when present, said water sample being adapted to be dispensed into said recessed well for growth and subsequent enumeration (see col. 5, ll. 45-51). Skiffington does not explicitly disclose wherein the distal raised platform has a width that is adapted to ergonomically support at least one user's finger. Monks discloses a plate (substrate) having features that are adapted to support fingers of a user (col. 11, ll. 6-9). In view of Monks, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distal raised platform of Skiffington to be adapted to ergonomically support users fingers for the purpose of securely handling the plate as disclosed by Monks (col. 11, ll. 6-9).
Furthermore, it is noted that the recitations of functional language "for enumerating live heterotrophic bacteria, when present, in a water sample; and, to enable visual enumeration of enumerate said live heterotrophic bacteria by facilitating growth within said recessed well under controlled conditions, when present in said water sample" are drawn to intended use of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, ‘654 further discloses wherein said recessed well being aligned below and parallel to an upper face of said plate and includes a grid (col. 3, ll. 26-27).
Regarding claim 5, ‘654 further discloses wherein said grid being visible for colony counting after said sample has absorbed and diffused (col. 3, ll. 27-30).
Regarding claim 7, ‘654 further discloses wherein said proximate extensions each include a rounded corner entry to said access indent (col. 3, ll. 32-33).
Regarding claim 8, ‘654 further discloses wherein said distal raised platform spans about a length of a diameter of said recessed well (col. 3, ll. 36-37).
Regarding claim 11, ‘654 further discloses wherein said dried media culture disc comprises a bacterial nutritive ingredient (col. 3, ll. 43-44).
Regarding claim 12, ‘654 further discloses wherein said dried media culture disc comprises a growth indicator color-developing agent (col. 3, ll. 45-46).
Regarding claim 13, ‘654 further discloses wherein said color-developing agent is selected from the group consisting of triphenyltetrazolium chloride, 3-(p-iodophenyl)-2-(p- nitrophenyl)-5-phenyl-2H-tetrazolium chloride, 3-(4,5-dimethyl-2-thiazolyl)-2 ,5-diphenyl-2H- tetrazolium bromide, 5-bromo-3-indolyl-beta.-D-galactoside, bromothymol blue, and neutral red (col. 3, ll. 46-51).
Regarding claim 14, ‘654 further discloses wherein said dried media culture disc comprises a plate count agar or plate count agar individual components (col. 3, ll. 51-53).
Regarding claim 15, ‘654 further discloses wherein said dried media culture disc comprises a yeast and mold growth media (col. 3, ll. 53-54).
Regarding claim 16, ‘654 further discloses wherein said dried media culture disc comprises a bacterial nutritive ingredient selective medium for growth of indicator organisms (col. 3, ll. 55-57).
Regarding claim 17, ‘654 further discloses wherein said bacterial nutritive ingredient comprises selective growth agents for coliform, E. coli, enterbacteriaceae, or pathogens (col. 3, ll. 57-58).
Regarding claim 18, ‘654 further discloses wherein said bacterial nutritive ingredient comprises selective growth agents for salmonella, listeria, or camphlobacter (col. 3, ll. 59-61).
Regarding claim 19, ‘654 further discloses wherein said dried media culture disc comprises at least one of an organic solvent (col. 3, ll. 62-63) and an enhancer (col. 3, ll. 65-66).
Regarding claim 20, ‘654 discloses all of the structural features of the claimed peel plate and thus considered to meet the limitation “a limit of detection being one colony forming unit per millimeter of said water sample.” Furthermore, the bacterial and water sample are material worked on and not elements of the claimed peel plate. It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10, 988,720. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because despite difference of wording each of the limitation of the instant claims are contained within claims of U.S. Patent No. 10, 988,720. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,407,654. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because despite difference of wording each of the limitation of the instant claims are contained within claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,407,654.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8 and 11-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. Conclusion
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 LIBAN M HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7636. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on 5712721374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIBAN M HASSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799