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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 28, 2026 has been entered.
Notes
All the objections and rejections in the previous Office Action not reiterated herein have been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one cell harvest system” in claim 17; and “at least one harvest module” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amiot et al. (US 5,202,254; hereinafter “Amiot”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Amiot discloses a cell culture apparatus, comprising: (a) at least one central medium container (FIG. 3: vessel (84); col. 4, ll. 52-65), said at least one central medium container comprising at least one cell culture medium (col. 4, ll. 52-65), wherein said at least one central medium container does not contain cells (cells are introduced separately from the cell culture media into the cell culture apparatus; col. 4, ll. 52-65); and (b) a plurality of three-dimensional (3-D) culture vessels configured for growing cells, wherein each of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels comprises at least one cell carrier, wherein said at least one cell carrier comprises at least one three-dimensional (3-D) matrix (bioreactors (50) includes lumens having a surface adapted to contain capillary fibers; see FIG. 3, abstract and col. 4, ll. 30-34); wherein said at least one central medium container is operably connected to said plurality of 3-D culture vessels via at least one medium conduit that directs said at least one cell culture medium from said at least one central medium container through said at least one 3-D matrix of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels in a parallel configuration (bioreactors (50); see FIG. 3, abstract and col. 4, ll. 30-34); wherein each of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels is connected to at least one circulation pump (col. 5, ll. 6-14). Amiot does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one circulation pump is a bidirectional circulation pump configured to circulate medium through the 3-D matrix of each of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels in both upward and downward directions relative to gravity. However, Amiot does disclose wherein a bidirectional circulation pump can be employed in place of the circulation pump to provide increased cell culture (see abstract and col. 5, ll. 15-26). It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed a bidirectional circulation pump in place of the circulation pump of cell culture apparatus of Amiot to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have resulted in a cell culture apparatus having the added advantage of increasing cell culture as disclosed by Amiot (see abstract and col. 5, ll. 15-26).
Regarding claim 4, modified Amiot further discloses wherein said plurality of 3-D culture vessels further comprises at least one living cell (col. 4, ll. 60-62).
Regarding claim 17, modified Amiot further discloses at least one cell harvest system to allow harvesting of said cells grown in said plurality of 3-D culture vessels (col. 5, ll. 4-5; col. 7, ll. 13-15).
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merchav et al. (already of record, US 2005/0176143; hereinafter “Merchav”) in view of Ma (already of record, US 6,875,605) and Amiot (US 5,202,254).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Merchav discloses a cell culture apparatus, comprising: (a) at least one central medium container, said at least one central medium container comprising at least one cell culture medium, wherein said at least one central medium container does not contain cells (FIG. 1: medium reservoir 1; [0051] and [0113]); and (b) a plurality of three-dimensional (3-D) culture vessels configured for growing cells, wherein each of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels comprises at least one cell carrier, wherein said at least one cell carrier comprises at least one three-dimensional (3-D) matrix (FIG. 1: culture vessels 20, each including a surface adapted to contain the at least one cell carrier; [0013], [0020], [0051], [0077], [0089] and [0112]); wherein said at least one central medium container is operably connected to said plurality of 3-D culture vessels via at least one medium conduit that directs said at least one cell culture medium from said at least one central medium container through said at least one 3-D matrix of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels in a parallel configuration (FIG. 1); and wherein said cell culture medium flows through each of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels downward with the gravitation force and upward against the gravitation force (the plurality of 3-D culture vessels of Merchav are structurally the same as the instant plurality of 3-D culture vessels and thus considered to be fully capable of flowing through each of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels downward with the gravitation force and upward against the gravitation force). Merchav discloses a pump coupled between the central medium container and the plurality of culture vessels (FIG. 1), but does not explicitly disclose wherein each of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels is connected to at least one circulation pump configured to direct the medium to flow bot upwards against gravity and downwards with gravity in each of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the pump of Merchav such that each of the culture vessels is coupled to a pump, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.04 VI. B.). One would have been motivated to have duplicated the pump of Merchav such that each of the culture vessels is coupled to a pump for the purpose of providing desired fluid flow profile in each of the culture vessels. Ma discloses a cell culture apparatus comprising a plurality of culture vessels (see, FIGS. 2 and 7). Ma further discloses wherein a pump can be coupled to the plurality of culture vessels (FIG. 7) or that each of the plurality of culture vessels can be coupled to a separate pump (FIG. 2). In view of Ma, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cell culture apparatus of Merchav with the cell culture apparatus of Ma such that such that each of the culture vessels is coupled to a separate pump. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of providing desired fluid flow profile in each of the culture vessels separately. Modified Merchav does not explicitly disclose wherein the circulation pump is a bidirectional circulation pump configured to circulate medium through the 3-D matrix of each of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels in both upward and downward directions relative to gravity.
Amiot discloses a cell culture apparatus comprising at least one medium (FIG. 3: vessel (84); col. 4, ll. 52-65), a plurality of three-dimensional (3-D) culture vessels (bioreactors (50); see FIG. 3, abstract and col. 4, ll. 30-34), and a circulation pump coupled to each of said plurality of three-dimensional (3-D) culture vessels (col. 5, ll. 6-14). Amiot further disclose wherein a bidirectional circulation pump can be employed in place of the circulation pump to provide increased cell culture (see abstract and col. 5, ll. 15-26). in view of Amiot, it would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the bidirectional circulation pump of Amiot in place of the circulation pump of cell culture apparatus of modified Merchav to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have resulted in a cell culture apparatus having the added advantage of increasing cell culture as disclosed by Amiot (see abstract and col. 5, ll. 15-26). Modified Merchav does not explicitly disclose at least one flow controller for controlling a flow rate and direction of fluid material transferred into each of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels. However, Amiot discloses wherein each of the bidirectional pump is configured to reverse direction of flow of media into and out of the plurality of 3-D culture vessels, and to balance flow of media through said plurality of 3-D culture vessels (col. 5, ll. 10-14). Amiot further disclose wherein the flow of media into and out of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels is maintained at desired flow rate (example one on page 3). In view of Amiot, 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 coupled a controller (computer) to each of the bidirectional pumps of modified Merchav in order to automate the operation of the bidirectional pumps. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of minimizing user errors and thereby optimize the culturing environment for cells in the plurality of 3-D culture vessels. Furthermore, it is noted that the recitation of functional language "to circulate medium through the 3-D matrix of each of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels in both upward and downward directions relative to gravity" is drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Furthermore, the intended uses of the apparatus do not further define any structural features to the bidirectional pump but rather only define how the pump may be used. The prior art discloses all of the structural features of the claimed bidirectional pump and thus since the structure is the same, the claimed functions are apparent.
Regarding claim 2, modified Merchav further discloses wherein at least one 3-D matrix is a fibrous matrix ([0039]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Merchav further discloses wherein said plurality of 3-D culture vessels further comprises at least one living cell ([0077], [0089] and [0112]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Merchav further discloses wherein said at least one central medium container comprises at least one means of monitoring and controlling the pH of said at least one cell culture medium (FIG. 1: pH probe inserted into the medium reservoir 1; [0051] and [0113]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Merchav further discloses wherein said at least one living cell is an adherent stromal cell that is derived from placenta, adipose tissue, bone marrow, or combinations thereof ([0012]-[0013] and [0072]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merchav in view of Ma and Amiot as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Flendrig (already of record, US 6,372,495).
Regarding claim 5, modified Merchav discloses the cell culture apparatus according to claim 4. Modified Merchav does not explicitly disclose wherein said plurality of 3-D culture vessels are further operably connected to a means of measuring viability of said at least one living cell. Flendrig discloses that it is well-known in the art to employ means of measuring cell viability with cell culture vessels (col. 14, ll. 20-27). In view of Flendrig, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have employed the means of measuring viability of living cells with the cell culture vessels of modified Merchav to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification since Flendrig discloses that it is well-known in the art to employ means of measuring cell viability with cell culture vessels (col. 14, ll. 20-27).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merchav in view of Ma and Amiot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guertin et al. (already of record, US 2012/0028234; hereinafter “Guertin”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Merchav discloses the cell culture apparatus according to claim 1. Modified Merchav further discloses wherein said at least one central medium container comprises at least one means of collecting data on a condition within said at least one central medium container (FIG. 1, pH probe inserted into the medium reservoir (1); [0051] and [0113]). Merchav does not explicitly disclose wherein said central medium container comprises a means of collecting data on multiple conditions within said central medium container. Guertin discloses an apparatus comprising a plurality of culture vessels (FIG. 4: vessels 110a-b), each having a matrix therein ([0044] and [0054]), and a medium reservoir coupled to the plurality of culture vessels (FIG. 4: medium tank 118). Guertin further discloses wherein multiple sensors can be coupled to a medium tank (FIG. 4: 112a-b; [0057]-[0060] and [0087]). In view of Guertin, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the multiple sensors of Guertin with the medium reservoir of Merchav to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of maintaining the medium within the medium reservoir at the desired conditions and thereby provide optimum culturing environment for the cell culture within the culture vessels.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merchav in view of Ma and Amiot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goodwin et al. (already of record, US 9,643,133; hereinafter “Goodwin”).
Regarding claim 15, modified Merchav discloses the cell culture apparatus according to claim 1. Modified Merchav does not explicitly disclose at least one heating blanket for each of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels so as to allow temperature control and insulation of each of said plurality of 3-D culture vessels. Goodwin discloses a cell culture apparatus comprising a culture vessel coupled to a heating jacket for regulating the temperature of the container (col. 3, ll. 30-37). In view of Goodwin, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the heating blanket of Goodwin with each of the plurality of 3-D culture vessels of modified Merchav for the purpose of maintaining the content within the plurality of 3-D culture vessels as the desired temperature, and thereby provide optimum culturing environment for the cell culture within the culture vessels.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merchav in view of Ma and Mohr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Altman et al. (already of record, US 2004/0219659; hereinafter “Altman”).
Regarding claim 16, modified Merchav discloses the cell culture apparatus according to claim 1. Modified Merchav does not explicitly disclose at least one flow diffuser configured to split said at least one cell culture medium entering from said at least one central medium container homogeneously within said plurality of 3-D culture vessels. Altman discloses a cell culture vessel comprising a flow diffuser (FIG. 1A: flow splitter adapted to split flow from an environment chamber into perfusion flow and a second flow). In view of Altman, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the flow diffuser of Altman with the apparatus of Merchav to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of introducing desired materials into the plurality of 3-D culture vessels simultaneously as suggested by Altman (FIG. 1A).
Regarding claim 20, modified Merchav does not explicitly disclose at least one flow disruptor configured to spread said at least one cell culture medium entering from said at least one central medium container homogeneously within said plurality of 3-D culture vessels.. Altman discloses a cell culture vessel comprising a flow diffuser (FIG. 1A: flow disruptor adapted to split flow from an environment chamber into perfusion flow and a second flow). In view of Altman, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the flow disruptor of Altman with the apparatus of Merchav to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of introducing desired materials into the plurality of 3-D culture vessels simultaneously as suggested by Altman (FIG. 1A).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merchav in view of Ma and Amiot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Conway et al. (already of record, WO 2016/113369-A1; hereinafter “Conway”).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, modified Merchav discloses the cell culture apparatus according to claim 1. Modified Merchav further discloses said at least one central medium container (FIG. 1: vessel 1), at least one harvest bag (cells are harvested and thus intrinsically includes harvest container; [0120], [0133]), and at least one harvest module for housing said plurality of 3-D culture vessel (i.e., an incubator for enclosing the cell culture apparatus (bioreactor system) of Merchav; see [0112] of Merchav). Modified Merchav does not explicitly disclose at least one cell harvest system comprising at least one tower (pump housing). Conway discloses a cell culture apparatus comprising a plurality of pumps and a tower for housing the plurality of pumps (FIG. 2). In view of Conway, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the tower of Conway with the cell culture apparatus of modified Merchav to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of protecting the pumps from the external environment. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for east of transport of the pumps. Modified Merchav does not explicitly disclose at least one electrical cabinet. However, modified Merchav discloses wherein the cell culture apparatus includes controllers for automating the cell culture apparatus ([0048]). It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed an electrical cabinet with the cell culture apparatus of modified Merchav for the purpose of protecting the electrical components of the controllers from the external environment. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification since such a component is well-known in the art to protect the electrical components of controllers from the environment.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of the claim is directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12 and 15-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. The newly found reference of Amiot is relied upon for disclosing the claimed bidirectional circulation pump.
In response to the Applicants' argument regarding the limitation of claim 1 (a) (see first paragraph on page 11 of the Remarks), Applicants' argument is noted but is not persuasive. Nothing in Merchav that suggests the cells are discharged from the culture vessel into the circulation circuit. If the cells were to be discharged from the culture vessel into the circulation circuit of Merchav, such process would be detrimental to the cells being cultured as the circulation circuit comprises valves, pump and agitator. Further, nothing in Merchav that suggests that the circulating culture medium in the circulation circuit (even if it contains cells) are introduced into the central medium container that contains fresh media. The examiner would respectfully contend that contrary to the Applicants' assertions, in Merchav, cells are not circulated in the circulation circuit because Merchav explicitly states that the cells are removed from the culture vessels after completing the cell culture process (see [0113]) which suggest that the cells do not exit the culture vessel into the circulation circuit. In response to the Applicants' argument regarding the limitation "at least one cell carrier, wherein said at least one cell carrier comprises at least one three-dimensional (3-D) matrix," (see paragraph bridging pages 11 to 12), Applicants' argument is not persuasive. Applicants' disclosure states that cells are adhered to 3D carriers (e.g., microcarriers such as alginate based carriers; [0020]). Further, the disclosure states that, in certain embodiments, the vessel includes a basket which holds 3D carriers ([0027]). In view of the above, the 3D carrier is clearly distinct from the basket within the vessel. The 3D carrier as defined in the specification is, for example, a microcarrier such as alginate based carrier which reads on the carrier of Merchav. If the Applicants wish to claim that the 3D carrier is coupled to a medium (e.g., basket), it is suggested to amend the claim to recite such medium. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Marx et al (US 6,255,106) disclose a medium container, a plurality of parallel culture vessels and a bidirectional pump.
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
Prosecution Insights