DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 19, 22, 23, 28, 30, 33-36, 38, 41, 43-46 and 48-50 are pending in this application and were examined on their merits.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 49 contains an optional limitation. The broadest, reasonable interpretation
of the limitation is that it is not required to occur and the Examiner has interpreted the
claim thusly.
The rejections of Claims 21, 28, 43, 44 and 51 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inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 09/11/2026.
The rejection of Claims 19, 28, 30, 33-35, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48 and 51 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al. (2008), of record, as
evidenced by Yoshida et al. (2006), of record, Midland (2026) and Raja et al. (2008), has been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 09/11/2026 incorporating the limitations of cancelled Claim 47 into Claim 19.
The rejection of Claims 19, 22, 23, 28, 30, 33-35, 36, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48 and 51 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (2008), of record, as evidenced by Yoshida et al. (2006), of record, Midland (2026) and Raja et al. (2008), has been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 09/11/2026 incorporating the limitations of cancelled Claim 47 into Claim 19.
The rejection of Claims 19, 22, 23, 28, 30, 33-36, 38, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48 and 51 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (2008), of record, as evidenced by Yoshida et al. (2006), of record, Midland (2026) and Raja et al. (2008), and further in view of Yoshida et al. (2009), has been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 09/11/2026 incorporating the limitations of cancelled Claim 47 into Claim 19.
The rejection of Claims 19, 22, 23, 28, 30, 33-36, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49 and 51 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (2008), of record, as evidenced by Yoshida et al. (2006), of record, Midland (2026) and Raja et al. (2008), and further in view of Cox et al. (1976), has been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 09/11/2026 incorporating the limitations of cancelled Claim 47 into Claim 19.
The rejection of Claims 19, 22, 23, 28, 30, 33-36, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50 and 51 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (2008), of record, as evidenced by Yoshida et al. (2006), of record, Midland (2026) and Raja et al. (2008), and further in view of Dottori (US 403, 124 B1), has been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 09/11/2026 incorporating the limitations of cancelled Claim 47 into Claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 19, 22, 23, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 48 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (2008), as evidenced by Yoshida et al. (2006), Midland (2026) and Raja et al. (2008), and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2003/0109847 A1), all of record.
Yoshida et al. (2008) teaches a method comprising: providing leukoreduced whole blood cells which are soft-spun to provide a packed RBC unit which is then treated with argon gas and placing/transferring the treated blood in a plastic anaerobic (oxygen and carbon dioxide impermeable) canister filled with hydrogen-argon with a platinum (Pd) catalyst (Pg. 2097, Column 1, Lines 20-31),
wherein the RBC comprise an acidified additive solution (AS65) having a pH of 6.5 (Pg. 2097, Column 1, Lines 40-48 and Table 1),
and storing the RBC in the plastic anaerobic canister at 1-6 °C for at least 3 weeks (Pg. 2097, Column 1, Lines 34-35 and 37-40 and Pg. 2100, Fig. 2),
and wherein the stored anerobic AS65 RBC have a mean 2,3-DPG level of about 7.0 µmol/gHb after 21 days (which is encompassed by the claimed range of 6.2 ± 3.0 µmol/gHb) and a control stored aerobic AS65 RBC have a mean 2,3-DPG level of about 1.0 µmol/gHb after 21 days (Pg. 2100, Fig. 2), and reading on Claims 19 and 30.
With regard to Claim 19, it is noted that Yoshida et al. (2008), cites Yoshida et al. (2006) for the methodology for establishing the stored anerobic AS65 RBC comprising the steps of: providing filtered ultra-pure (e.g. 100%) argon gas through a sterilely connected 0.22 µm filter into a bag comprising the red blood cells, gently mixing for 10 minutes, expressing out the argon gas through the filter, and repeating this process six times prior to storage in a canister filled with H2/argon gas mixture in the presence of a Pd catalyst to deplete said red blood cell sample of both oxygen and CO2 gas (see Yoshida, [2006], Pg. 23, Column 2, Lines 24-34).
The Examiner further notes the instantly claimed product is also made by the steps of filtering argon gas through a sterilely connected 0.22 µm filter into a bag comprising the red blood cells, gently mixing for 10 minutes, expressing out the Argon gas through the filter, and repeating this process seven prior to storage in a canister filled with H2/argon gas mixture in the presence of a Pd catalyst to deplete said red blood cell sample of both oxygen and CO2 gas and yield an initial pCO₂ of about 5 mmHg and pO₂ of about 10mmHg (see Pg. 14, Paragraph [00022], Example 1 in the instant specification as filed). Thus, the prior art blood product would also be expected to be depleted of both oxygen and carbon dioxide and have a pre-storage oxygen level of 10 mmHg or less and a pre-storage carbon dioxide level of 5 mmHg or less.
With regard to Claim 28, Yoshida et al. (2008) teaches that the stored anaerobic AS65 RBC has a greater ATP concentration than control aerobic stored AS65 RBC after 21 days (Pg. 2100, Fig. 2A).
With regard to Claim 33, Yoshida et al. (2008) teaches that AS65 solution comprises NaCI (e.g. saline) (Pg. 2097, Table 1).
With regard to Claim 34, Yoshida et al. (2008) teaches that AS65 solution comprises the nutrient adenine (Pg. 2097, Table 1).
With regard to Claim 35, Yoshida et al. (2008) teaches that AS65 solution comprises the anticoagulant citrate-phosphate-dextrose (Pg. 2097, Table 1).
With regard to Claim 43, Yoshida et al. (2008) teaches that the ATP concentration of the stored anerobic AS65 RBC after 21 days of storage is about 5.8 µmol/g hemoglobin (Hb) which is sufficiently close to the upper limit of the claimed range of 5.6 µmol/g Hb to render the value prima facie obvious. See the MPEP at 2144.05, I.
With regard to the limitations of Claim 44, wherein administration of the stored anaerobic AS65 RBC to a patient in need thereof increases oxygen transfer to the tissues of the patient in need thereof compared to a patient having been administered a stored aerobic AS65 RBC, the Examiner notes that the claim is not a method step as it does not state “administering” but merely indicates a consequence of what would occur if the composition were administered to a patient in need thereof.
Thus, the limitation is a functional limitation which would be inherent in the prior art composition as the prior art composition contains hemoglobin (inherently found in red blood cells) and would therefore be expected to increase oxygen transfer to tissues of a patient when in use.
With regard to Claims 45 and 46, Yoshida et al. (2008), cites Yoshida et al. (2007) for the methodology for establishing anaerobic RBC conditions (Pg. 2097, Column 1, Lines 24-26) and Yoshida et al. (2007) indicates that the RBC were stored in vented anaerobic chambers by Difco (Pg. 23, Column 2, Lines 30-34). Midland (2026) evidences that Difco vented anaerobic chambers are jars. These anaerobic jars would be "capable" of being centrifuged and sterilized.
With regard to Claims 19 and 48, Raja et al. evidences that soft spin treatment of
whole blood separates the blood into an RBC layer (thereby packing the RBC), an
acellular plasma layer and an intermediate platelet rich plasma layer (Pg. 44, Column 1,
#2). As Yoshida et al. (2008) processes whole blood by soft spin to prepare RBC units,
the RBC units of Yoshida et al. (2008) would be depleted of platelets.
The teachings of Yoshida et al. (2008) were discussed above.
Yoshida et al. (2008) did not teach wherein the anerobic storage container is enclosed within an oxygen and carbon dioxide impermeable overbag, as now required by Claim 19;
wherein the stored anerobic AS65 RBC has a hemolysis level of less than 0.2% after 3 weeks of storage, as required by Claim 22;
wherein the stored anerobic AS65 RBC has a hemolysis level of less than 0.3%
after 7 weeks of storage, as required by Claim 23;
or wherein the stored anerobic AS65 RBC has about 60% greater 2,3-DPG level
compared to a stored aerobic AS65 RBC, as required by Claim 36.
or wherein the anerobic storage container comprises layers of ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer and modified ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer, as required by Claim 41.
While the references listed above does not specifically teach the limitations of the
% hemolysis level of the stored anerobic AS65 RBC after 3 or 7 weeks or the % by
which the stored anerobic AS65 RBC 2,3-DPG is “greater” as compared to a stored
aerobic AS65 RBC, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the percentage
of hemolysis in stored anerobic AS65 RBC over time and the percent by which the 2,3-
DPG level is greater than control are result-effective optimizable variables. Yoshida et
al. (2008) teaches that stored anerobic AS65 RBC has a hemolysis % of 0.50 ± 0.09 after 42 days (6 weeks) and wherein stored anerobic AS65 RBC has a greater 2,3-DPG level compared to a stored aerobic AS65 RBC.
This is motivation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to practice or test the parameter values widely to find those that are functional or optimal and contain the lowest percent hemolysis over time and highest 2,3-DPG % compared to control which then would be inclusive or cover that values as instantly claimed. Absent any teaching of criticality by the Applicant concerning the percentage of hemolysis over a particular
period of time and the percentage of 2,3-DPG by which the composition is greater than
a control composition, it would be prima facie obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize these limitations are optimizable variables which can be met as a
matter of routine optimization (see MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(B).
Smith et al. teaches a container for storage of a therapeutic fluid, including blood, that are susceptible to deterioration on exposure to oxygen and carbon dioxide gases, wherein said container is impermeable to oxygen and carbon dioxide gases, and said container is a pouch or bag as shown in Figure 1, wherein the container comprises layers of ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer and modified ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (Pg. 6, Paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the instant invention to modify the method of Yoshida et al. (2008) of preparing stored anaerobic RBC wherein the composition is stored in a rigid anaerobic jar to use the anaerobic pouch or bag container comprised of multiple polymer layers of Smith et al. because both containers are used for the same purpose of storage of a therapeutic fluid, including blood, that are susceptible to deterioration on exposure to oxygen and carbon dioxide gases. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the soft anaerobic container of Smith et al. would allow some flexibility in storage in irregular spaces, potentially lighter weight and portability. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, the anaerobic storage of oxygen and carbon dioxide susceptible fluids.
It would have been further obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the instant invention to modify the method of Yoshida et al. (2008) of preparing stored anaerobic RBC wherein the composition is stored in an anaerobic jar to store the stored anaerobic RBC container in an anaerobic overbag such as the container of Smith et al. because this would provide double the protection against oxygen and/or carbon dioxide ingress to the stored anaerobic RBC. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because this would doubly prevent contact by the stored anaerobic RBC with oxygen and/or carbon dioxide.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, the anaerobic storage of oxygen and carbon dioxide susceptible fluids.
Claims 19, 22, 23, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 48 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (2008), as evidenced by Yoshida et al. (2006), Midland (2026) and Raja et al. (2008), and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2003/0109847 A1), as applied to Claims 19, 22, 23, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 48 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (2009), all of record.
The teachings of Yoshida et al. (2008) and Smith et al. were discussed above.
Neither reference taught a method wherein the additive solution is AS3 or OF
AS3, as required by Claim 38.
Yoshida et al. (2009) teaches that stored anaerobic RBC in OFAS3 (pH 6.5) have superior recovery after 6 weeks of storage as compared to control and equivalent recover after 9 weeks of storage with no change in live span (Pg. 458, Abstract and Pg. 459, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the instant invention to modify the method of Yoshida et al. (2008) and Smith et al. of preparing stored anaerobic RBC comprising an acidified additive solution (AS65) to substitute the acidified additive OFAS3 solution of Yoshida et al. (2009) because both components were known in the art as acidified additive solutions for use in preparing stored anaerobic RBC and those of ordinary skill in the art could have reasonably substituted one known acidified additive solution for the other and predictably obtained stored anaerobic RBC. See the MPEP citing KSR at 2143, I., B. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution because Yoshida et al. (2009) teaches that OFAS3 demonstrated superior recovery even after 9 weeks of storage with no change in life span. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, the preparation and anaerobic storage of RBC with an acidified additive solution.
Claims 19, 22, 23, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48 and 49 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (2008), as evidenced by Yoshida et al. (2006), Midland (2026) and Raja et al. (2008), and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2003/0109847 A1), as applied to Claims 19, 22, 23, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 48 above, and further in view of Cox et al. (1976), all of record.
The teachings of Yoshida et al. (2008) and Smith et al. were discussed above.
Neither reference taught a method wherein the transferring of the anaerobic RBC to the anerobic container is performed under positive pressure, as required by Claim 49.
Cox et al. teaches a chamber wherein an anaerobic jar can be opened and
closed under anaerobic conditions and wherein a positive pressure in the chamber
prevents oxygen contamination during connection and removal of the anaerobic jar (Pg.
41, Figs. 1-2 and Pg. 42, Column 1, 3ʳᵈ paragraph and Column 2, 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the instant
invention to modify the method of Yoshida et al. (2008) and Smith et al. of preparing stored anaerobic RBC wherein the composition is stored in an anaerobic jar to perform the transfer of the anaerobic RBC to the anaerobic container under positive pressure as taught by Cox et al. because this would maintain the anaerobic state of the stored anaerobic RBC. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because this would prevent contact by the stored anaerobic RBC with oxygen and/or carbon dioxide. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, the anaerobic storage of oxygen and carbon dioxide susceptible materials.
Claims 19, 22, 23, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48 and 50 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (2008), as evidenced by Yoshida et al. (2006), Midland (2026) and Raja et al. (2008), and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2003/0109847 A1), as applied to Claims 19, 22, 23, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 48 above, and further in view of Dottori (US 6,403,124 B1), all of record.
The teachings of Yoshida et al. (2008) and Smith et al. were discussed above.
Neither reference taught a method further comprising irradiating stored
anaerobic RBC in the anaerobic container with gamma or X-rays, as required by Claim
50.
Dottori teaches the sterilization of blood products contaminated with
microbiological agents and improving reliability with respect to contamination is to
irradiate the blood product with gamma irradiation after it is sealed in a container (Pg. 2,
Lines 23-30).
It would have been further obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the
filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Yoshida et al. (2008) and Smith et al. of preparing stored anaerobic RBC wherein the composition is stored in an anaerobic jar to further irradiate the stored anaerobic RBC with gamma rays as taught by Dottori because this would eliminate any microbiological contamination of the stored anaerobic RBC. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to establish and/or maintain sterility of the stored anaerobic RBC. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this
modification because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is,
the storage of blood products.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/11/2026, with respect to the above withdrawn rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The remaining arguments have been addressed insofar as they apply to the current rejections. The Examiner notes the amendments to Claim 19 resulted in the withdrawal of certain rejections over the prior art. However, the rejections have been modified as set forth above, as necessitated by the amendment.
The Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest all of the claimed limitations and the Examiner has not identified a motivation to modify Yoshida (2008) to arrive at the claimed invention (Remarks, Pg. 15, Lines 26-28 and Pg. 16, Lines 1-2).
This is not found to be persuasive for the reasoning provided in the above rejections.
The Applicant argues that the Smith reference at best provides a receptacle for fluids (blood) but is silent with regard to placing an additional fluid-filled container within the interior of its’ receptacle to function as an anaerobic overbag within which the claimed oxygen- and carbon-dioxide impermeable storage container is located or the storage thereof, as claimed (Remarks, Pg. 16, Lines 16-27 and Pg. 17, Lines 1-5 and Pg. 19, Lines 4-10 and Pg. 20, Lines 20-26).
This is not found to be persuasive for the following reasons, Smith teaches a bag/pouch suitable as a receptacle for a therapeutic fluid susceptible to deterioration on exposure to a gas such as oxygen or carbon dioxide.
The Examiner’s obviousness rationale is that it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yoshida et al. (2008) of preparing stored anaerobic RBC wherein the composition is stored in an anaerobic jar by further storing the anaerobic RBC container in an anaerobic overbag such as the container of Smith et al. because this would provide double the protection against oxygen and/or carbon dioxide ingress to the stored anaerobic RBC. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because this would doubly prevent contact by the stored anaerobic RBC with oxygen and/or carbon dioxide.
The Applicant argues that the Examiner has not provided a motivation to modify Yoshida (2008) to place the container of stored anaerobic AS65 RBC into another anerobic overwrap or overbag as now claimed. Applicant notes Smith is silent with regard to placing a fluid-filled storage container within their receptacle, and asserts the Examiner’s rationale is from improper hindsight (Remarks, Pg. 17, Lines 20-27 and Pg. 18, Lines 1-7).
This is not found to be persuasive for the following reasons, as discussed in the prior action and above, those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification of Yoshida in view of Smith because this would doubly prevent contact by the stored anaerobic RBC with oxygen and/or carbon dioxide. In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning.
But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this instance, both Yoshida and Smith are concerned with the same problem which is protection of stored blood products from exposure to oxygen and carbon dioxide. Therefore, the ordinary artisan would readily recognize that a storage container which provides such protection would be made doubly protective by inclusion of a second such container.
The Applicant argues that Yoshida (2008), as evidenced by Yoshida (2006), Midland and Raja, and further in view of Cox does not teach all of the claim limitations. Applicant argues that at best, Cox provides “a small portable chamber” and “the attachment of a standard anaerobic jar to the outside of the container”, but is silent with regard to the new limitations of Claim 19 (Remarks, Pg. 18, Line 28 and Pg. 19, Lines 1-2 and 11-20).
This is not found to be persuasive for the reasoning provided in the above rejections. Smith teaches a bag/pouch suitable as a receptacle for a therapeutic fluid susceptible to deterioration on exposure to a gas such as oxygen or carbon dioxide.
The Examiner’s obviousness rationale is that it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yoshida et al. (2008) of preparing stored anaerobic RBC wherein the composition is stored in an anaerobic jar by further storing the anaerobic RBC container in an anaerobic overbag such as the container of Smith et al. because this would provide double the protection against oxygen and/or carbon dioxide ingress to the stored anaerobic RBC. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because this would doubly prevent contact by the stored anaerobic RBC with oxygen and/or carbon dioxide. Cox et al. was cited only for its’ teaching of a chamber wherein an anaerobic jar can be opened and closed under anaerobic conditions and wherein a positive pressure in the chamber prevents oxygen contamination during connection and removal of the anaerobic jar (Pg. 41, Figs. 1-2 and Pg. 42, Column 1, 3ʳᵈ paragraph and Column 2, 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yoshida et al. (2008) and Smith et al. of preparing stored anaerobic RBC wherein the composition is stored in an anaerobic jar to perform the transfer of the anaerobic RBC to the anaerobic container under positive pressure as taught by Cox et al. because this would maintain the anaerobic state of the stored anaerobic RBC. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because this would prevent contact by the stored anaerobic RBC with oxygen and/or carbon dioxide
The Applicant argues that Yoshida (2008), as evidenced by Yoshida (2006), Midland and Raja, and further in view of Dottori does not teach all of the claim limitations (Remarks, Pg. 20, Lines 16-18 and Pg. 21, Lines 1-9).
This is not found to be persuasive for the reasoning provided in the above rejections.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 PAUL C MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3348. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-8pm EST.
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, Sharmila G Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/PAUL C MARTIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
