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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendments are insufficient to overcome all of the 112 rejections. See rejections herein below.
As to the 102 rejection applicant asserts that:
“White does not disclose these elements as arranged and required by the claim. White is directed to rapid, continuous-flow mechanical lysis in a closed-loop architecture for disrupting cell membranes and releasing genomic material. White does not disclose an outlet that discretely dispenses individual metaphase chromosomes, nor any device-level configuration directed to singulation and discrete dispensing of individual chromosomes. By its continuous-loop lysis paradigm, White's "outlet" is not, and cannot function as, a discrete single-chromosome dispensing outlet. Accordingly, White does not disclose the claimed discrete-dispensing functionality and outlet structure central to claim 1.”
The examiner disagrees. It is noted that claim 1 is directed to a device not a process of use. There is no requirement for the device to be used with any unclaimed fluid containing metaphase chromosomes nor any other fluid nor be used to perform any dispensing. The claimed invention (defined by the positively claimed structural elements) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Here, applicant has not provided for any structural difference between the device as defined by positively claimed structural elements and the structure of the prior art of White. Applicant’s argument is directed to intended, possible use, process of use of the device.
Furthermore, the argument is not structurally accurate. The “flow channel outlet” is not claimed nor described in the specification as comprising nor being any specific structure. Such outlet 106 is not disclosed as being nor comprising any specific structure (such as a pump or any other structure) that can provide for any motive force to any fluid to dispense any fluid at all nor being capable of providing any type of control such any metaphase chromosomes can be discretely dispense. As illustrated in the drawings the outlet 106 appears to be a hole, opening, orifice, etc. that can be used for dispensing as indicated in the claimed, but the outlet hole, opening itself does not provide for any dispensing of discrete chromosomes. The “to discretely dispense…” clause of claim 1 is directed to intended use. The hole/openings (outlets) of While can be employed such that chromosomes in a fluid are dispensed from, through/from the holes/openings.
Therefore, the 102 rejection is maintained.
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 channel comprising the series of expanded regions, constrictions, and “regions other that the expanded regions and the constrictions” having a width of 10 to 30 mm (no such other regions are described nor referenced by any reference number in the specification and drawings) 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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: because the claim is labeled as “New”; however, the claim includes markings such as “[[an]” which indicates that the claim has been amended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
It is noted that the device claims 1, 3-14, and 27 mention metaphase chromosomes, a metaphase chromosome-containing fluid, cell, sample fluid, lysis buffer, and a fluid droplet. However, none of such are positively claimed as structural elements of the device. All of such are articles and/or materials intended be, can be worked upon, used with the device. However, the claims are directed to a device not a method. The device is defined by the positively claimed structures listed in the claims. There is no requirement for the device to be used in any method at all with any unclaimed materials or structures, including as may be intended by applicant. There is no requirement for the device to be used with of the materials recited above nor for any flowing, dispersing, dispensing, separating, etc. required to be performed using the device. The device is defined by the positively claimed structural elements not by process steps nor intended, possible usage of the device.
It is noted that the phrase “one or more” only requires one.
It is noted that the term “regions” and other such nouns ending in “s” only requires two.
It is noted that the “inlet” and “outlet” have not been defined in the claims as being any specific structure(s). The terms are directed to intended use. A structure labeled as an inlet is not precluded from being used as an outlet and vice versa.
As to the device claims, it is noted that there is no structural element positively claimed that is capable of providing for any motive force (pressure) to any fluid to provide for any dispersing nor performing any dispensing.
As to claim 1, the device is minimally structurally defined as a flow channel comprising an inlet and outlet (both not defined by any structure in the claim; but appears to be a hole/opening); a series of expanded regions (only requires 2), and one or more constrictions (only requires one constriction between the 2 expanded regions); wherein the 2 expanded regions have a width greater than the one constriction. The same is applicable to claim 27 because claim 27 provides for the same device as claim 1 except for the other regions and respective width values.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-15, 18-20, and 27-35 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.
As to claims 1, it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by the phrase “…to be in fluid contact…” it is unclear what is required to be in fluid contact with what because the claims do not clearly recite such. (see also the phrase “to be in fluid contact” in claims 11, 14, and 27-28) Furthermore, the phrase implies that the structures are not actually required to be in fluid contact with anything but are located/arranged such that such structures can possibly be in fluid contact with something (not specified in the claims). In claim 1, it is unclear what the one or more constrictions are required to be in fluid contact with because the claim does not recite such. If it is intended for a respective of the one of more constrictions to be fluidically connected to and between a respective one expanded region and a respective second consecutive expanded region in the series of expanded regions, then the claim should clearly recite such. It is noted that as presently drafted, the claim does not precluded more than one constriction from being located between a first and second expanded region. However, this is not consistent with figure 1 which illustrates only a single constriction 108 is located between two consecutive expanded regions 110.
Dependent claims 3-15 and 18-20 are rejected via dependency upon rejected claims.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “each successive constriction” and “a preceding constriction" There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that more than one only requires 2. It is unclear what is the nexus of “each successive constriction” and “a preceding constriction” to prior more than one constrictions because the claim does not provide for such. It is unclear what is structurally required of a constriction to be considered as “successive” and/or “preceding” because the claim does not provide for such. There is no indication as what structurally meant by the terms, what a constriction is required to be successive to and/or precede. (See also claims 9 and 28) Furthermore, if there are two constrictions is present, the first constriction would not be preceded by any constriction and there would be no successive constriction to the second constriction. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required of a width to be considered as minimum because there is no relative, comparative structural basis provided for in the claim. Any width can be subjectively considered as a minimum width.
As to claim 11, it is noted that the “to permit…”; “configured to”; and “for introduction…” clauses are directed to intended use. It is noted that a port is an opening, hole, orifice, etc.. It is unclear what the “configured to receive and retain…” clause modifies, the cell trap or the flow channel inlet. It is presumed to be directed to the cell trap. If so, the claim should clearly recite such.
As to claim 14, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity/nexus of the dispensing channel, dispensing channel inlet, dispensing channel outlet, and port because the claim does not clearly indicate such. If the dispensing channel comprises a dispensing channel inlet, dispensing channel outlet, and port, then the claim should clearly recite such. Furthermore, it is noted that the “for receiving…” clause is directed to intended use and does not provide for nor require any structural connectivity.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the form" in the last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Furthermore, it is noted that chromosomes are not fluids and cannot be droplets. While chromosomes can be included within a droplet, chromosomes can not be in the form of a fluid droplet. Furthermore, it is unclear how the dispensing tube is configured to dispense individual chromosomes because such dispensing tube is not claimed as nor described in the specification as comprising any structure that can provide for any motive force (pressure) to perform any dispensing. This is also applicable to claims 20, 31, and 35.
As to claims 15, it is unclear what/which constrictions are being referenced by “the constrictions” in the next-to-last line because claim 1 previously recites “one or more constrictions”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the minimum width of the constriction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what/which constriction is being referenced by the phrase “the constriction” because claim 1 previously recited one or more constrictions.
As to claims 19, 30, and 34, it is unclear what is the nexus of the “a metaphase cell” (in line 3) to the metaphase chromosome-containing fluid because the claim does not provide for such. It is presumed that “the cell” refers to the metaphase cell. If so, the claim should be amended to recite such.
As to claim 20, it is unclear what is meant, required by the phrase “involving dispensing the separated metaphase chromosomes individually” because the claim does not clearly indicate if such recitation is an actual step that defines the method because such is not recited after “the method comprising”. If such is not a step, it is unclear what is the purpose of such phrase and how such further limits the method. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of such phrase (dispensing recited in line 1) to the “dispensing individual chromosomes…” recited in the last paragraph, if such dispensing are the same or different. If the same, the same, the phrase is redundant in view of the dispensing step recited in the last paragraph. It is further unclear what is the nexus of “the separated metaphase chromosomes” recited in line 2; the “the dispensed individual chromosomes” (in the first paragraph); “the individual chromosomes” (in the second paragraph); and “individual chromosomes” recited in the last paragraph; it is unclear if all of such are the same or different because the claim does not clearly indicate such. The claim as drafted is awkward, vague, ambiguous, and confusing. This also applicable to claims 31 and 35.
Claims 20, 31, and 35 recite the limitation “the form”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations in the claims. No such form has been previously mentioned. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of “an individual chromosomes” and various “individual chromosomes” previously recited. it is unclear is such are the same or different because the claim does not clearly indicate such.
As to claim 27, it is unclear what/which constrictions are being referenced by “the constrictions” in the last line because the claim previously recites “one or more constrictions”. Furthermore, it is unclear what/which expanded regions are being referenced by “the expanded regions” because it is unclear what is the nexus of such to the series of expanded regions and the consecutive expanded regions. Furthermore, it is noted that the phrase “minimum width” does not preclude the constrictions from having a larger (maximum) width value greater than the minimum width value. The term minimum is directed to the smallest possible value.
As to claim 28, in the phrase “subjecting metaphase chromosomes…” it is unclear if such chromosomes are the same or different from metaphase chromosomes included in the fluid because the claim does not clearly recite such. If the same, the claim should clearly recite such.
Claims 29-31 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the minimum width of one of the constrictions…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 32, it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by “alternating constrictions and expansions” because such is not provided for in the claim. Furthermore, it is presumed that the phrases “the constrictions” and “the expansions” is intended to refer to each of the plurality of alternating constrictions and each of the plurality of alternating expansions. If so, then the claim should be amended to clearly recite such. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of “an expansion” and “a constriction” to the previously recited plurality of alternating constrictions and expansions; and the constrictions and the expansions.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the minimum width of the plurality of constrictions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such minimum width has been previously mentioned nor defined in the claim. Furthermore, it is presumed that the phrase is intended refer to “the plurality of alternating constrictions”. If so, the claim should clearly recite such.
As to claim 35, it is unclear which/what individual chromosome is being referenced by “the individual chromosome” because the claim previously recites different phrases employing “individual chromosomes”.
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 27 is 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. While the specification and drawings provide for a channel that comprises expanded regions and constrictions having widths with the recited range values there is no description no illustration of such channel also additionally comprising regions other than expanded regions can constrictions having a width of 10 to 30 mm. If applicant disagrees, it is hereby requested that applicant provide for the specific text of the specification that describes a flow channel comprising all of the elements as recited in the new claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by White et al., US 2015/0184127.
White et al. discloses a device comprising:
microfluidic channels 502 including an inlet at one end of the channel and an outlet at an end opposite the first end;
a series of expanded regions/expansions 606; and
a plurality of constrictions 608, including a single constrictions between two of the expanded regions. (Figures 5-8; descriptions of such; paragraph 0058-69).
The expanded regions have a width of 40-100 mm and the constrictions have a width 2.5-10 mm (paragraphs 0020-21, 61; Figures 6-7).
As to claim 3, the narrow constrictions of the constricted regions, especially due to the high aspect ratio (depth to width) of 15 in the non-limiting embodiment shown in FIG. 4. The widths of the channels match those of the silicon master mold. (paragraph [0054]) and 2 mm to a depth of 70 mm with deep reactive ion etching. (paragraph 0056).
As to claim 4, it is noted that a channel can comprise 10 constrictions each having a length of 10-20 mm the sum of such along with lengths of non-constrictions each having a length of 60-120 mm provides for a channel length of 2mm to 15mm. (paragraphs 0020-21).
As to claim 5, a width of a portion of one successive constriction is smaller than a preceding constriction. (Figure 7).
As to claim 6, the constrictions have a tapered outlet widening in a downstream direction. (Figure 7).
As to claim 7, the expanded regions have equal widths.( Figure 7).
As to claims 8-9, the device can include 3-20 expanded regions. (paragraph 0021, Figure 6).
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al., US 2015/0184127.
White et al. does not disclose the inlet has a width from 2 mm to 3 mm and the flow channel has a width of from 10um to 30um in regions other than the expanded regions and the constrictions.
The Applicant is advised that the Supreme Court recently clarified that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 Sup. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143).
Common sense, predictability, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art may suffice to establish obviousness.
It would have been obvious to, within the common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the inlet may be manufactured to have an inlet width and other regions having a width within the recited ranges via molding and or etching (paragraph 0055). Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 28-35 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: White does not disclose nor fairly suggests the microfluidic device further includes cell capture and lysis structure upstream of the flow channel inlet, the cell capture and lysis structure including :a cell trap arranged to be in fluid contact with the flow channel inlet configured to receive and retain a cell from a fluid sample including the cell, the cell trap including: a viewing element to permit inspection of the cell; an opening connected to the flow channel inlet via a passage, the opening and passage sized to impede passage of the cell therethrough; and a lysis port configured for introduction of a lysis buffer to the cell traps wherein the opening and the lysis port are arranged to be in fluid contact with each other;
a chromosome dispensing structure downstream of the outlet, the chromosome dispensing structure including: a dispensing channel comprising dispensing channel inlet, a dispensing channel outlet, and a port for receiving an individual chromosome from the flow channel outlet of the flow channel; and a dispensing tube; the dispensing channel is configured for fluid flow in a downstream direction from said dispensing channel inlet to said dispensing channel outlet; wherein the dispensing channel outlet is connected to the dispensing tube for dispensing fluid droplets each including a single individual chromosome from the microfluidic device;
a method for separating metaphase chromosomes in a metaphase chromosome-containing fluid, the method including: passing the metaphase chromosome-containing fluid through the microfluidic device of claim 1 at a pressure whereby the constrictions subject the metaphase chromosomes to sufficient shear stress to separate the metaphase chromosomes from one another; and
a method for separating metaphase chromosomes in a chromosome-containing fluid, the method including: passing a chromosome-containing fluid including metaphase chromosomes through a microfluidic device, the microfluidic device having a flow channel including: a plurality of expanded regions; each expanded region having an expanded region width; wherein the plurality of expanded regions are fluidically connected to each other in the flow channel between and connected a flow channel inlet and a flow channel outlet; and one or more constrictions; each of the oner more constrictions have a constriction flow channel width; wherein the fluid channel is configured for fluid flow in a downstream direction from the flow channel inlet to the flow channel outlet; wherein the expanded region flow channel width is greater than the constriction flow channel width; wherein the one or more constrictions are fluidically connected to each other in the flow channel between successive expanded regions in the plurality of expanded regions; subjecting metaphase chromosomes, at or in the one or more constrictions, to sufficient shear stress to separate the metaphase chromosomes from one another; dispersing the separated metaphase chromosomes in the plurality expanded regions from one another.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamaguchi; Shuichi; LINK; Darren R.; Hansen, Carl L. et al.; and Jacobs; Merrit N. et al. disclose devices comprising channels including expanded regions and constrictions.
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 BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1258. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday..
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/BRIAN R GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798