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 Amendment
This office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 04/07/25. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 18, and 20 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application, claims 18-20 being withdrawn from consideration (see below).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-17 in the telephone conversation on 12/10/2024 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 04/07/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Michaud et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0339172 A1; herein, Michaud), and further in view of Gilbert et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0243786 A1; herein, Gilbert) and Burton et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0320990 A1; herein, Burton) for claim 1, and Michaud in view of Gilbert for claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaud et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0339172 A1; herein, Michaud), and further in view of Gilbert et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0243786 A1; herein, Gilbert) and Burton et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0320990 A1; herein, Burton).
Regarding claim 1, Michaud discloses a drug infusion system (Figs. 4B/5B) including a drug delivery device (pump 102), the drug infusion system having a tethered configuration (Figs. 5A/5B) and a patch configuration (Figs. 4A/4B):
an infusion head (infusion site connector 148) having a first adhesive pad (infusion site patch 190) and an injection device (cannula 188);
a holder (retention frame 106), the holder configured to couple to and support the drug delivery device (Figs. 1C-1F, [0028], snap portion 115 of retention frame snaps into place when aligned with the recess 139 of pump).
Michaud does not disclose an applicator assembly configured for use with the drug infusion system, the holder having a second adhesive pad, a housing configured to carry the infusion head and the holder, the infusion head and the holder each being releasable from the housing for adherence to a patient's skin; and an actuator coupled to the housing and configured to move the injection device from the housing into the patient's skin.
However, Gilbert teaches an applicator assembly (external applicator 1030) configured for use with the drug infusion system (FIGS. 10/11), a housing (housing 1010) configured to carry the infusion head and the holder (FIG. 11, infusion device 110 inside the housing), the infusion head and the holder each being releasable from the housing for adherence to a patient's skin ([0087], inside housing “the chamber 1013 includes at least one releasable retaining mechanism”); and an actuator coupled to the housing (FIGS. 10/11, unlabeled actuator button above anterior wall 1016) and configured to move the injection device from the housing into the patient's skin ([0088], “A user…actuates the external applicator, delivering a displacement energy to the infusion device 110. This transfer of energy drives the carrier head…towards the skin surface.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drug infusion system as disclosed by Michaud to incorporate an external applicator that can hold and expel an infusion device from a housing onto a user’s skin as taught by Gilbert in order that the drug infusion components have a means of being properly attached to the body of the user. This would include the applicator administering the necessary amount of force to drive the cannula through the skin and applying the correct amount of pressure for the adhesive patch to stick.
Michaud in view of Gilbert still does not disclose the holder having a second adhesive pad. However, Burton teaches a second adhesive pad (FIG. 1, second portion 160b of adhesive assembly 118). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infusion site connector and retention frame as disclosed by Michaud to have two separate portions of an adhesive as taught by Burton in order to secure multiple elements to the body depending on the desired use configuration of the user.
Regarding claim 2, in the modified device of Michaud, Michaud discloses for the tethered configuration (Figs. 5A/5B), the adhesive pad of the infusion head is exposed to the patient's skin (Fig. 12A, after removing the backing of the adhesive, the infusion site connector 148 can be attached to the skin) and the adhesive pad of the holder is concealed from the patient's skin (adhesive backing 107 covers the adhesive of the retention frame 106); and for the patch configuration (Figs. 4A/4B), the adhesive pad of the infusion head is exposed to the patient's skin and the adhesive pad of the holder is exposed to the patient's skin (Fig. 11E).
Further, Gilbert teaches the applicator assembly has a preparation state (FIG. 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drug infusion system as disclosed by Michaud to define the pre-injection state of the device as shown in Gilbert as a preparation state, as it is known in the art that any injectable device would need to have a pre-injection state.
Lastly, Burton teaches the first (main portion 160a of adhesive assembly 118) and second (second portion 160b of adhesive assembly 118) adhesive pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infusion site connector and retention frame as disclosed by Michaud to have two separate portions of an adhesive as taught by Burton in order to secure multiple elements to the body depending on the desired use configuration of the user.
Regarding claim 3, in the modified device of Michaud, Michaud discloses the holder further includes a removeable backing that conceals the second adhesive pad in the tethered configuration (adhesive backing 107 covers the adhesive of the retention frame 106).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaud in view of Gilbert and Burton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krag et al. (United States Patent No. US 9,399,094 B2; herein, Krag).
Regarding claim 4, in the modified device of Michaud, Michaud does not disclose wherein the applicator assembly has: an application state in which the holder contacts the patient's skin and the injection device of the infusion head is retracted into the housing above the holder; and an insertion state in which the infusion head is aligned with the holder for mutual contact with the patient's skin.
However, Krag teaches wherein the applicator assembly has:
an application state (Fig. 7) in which the holder contacts the patient's skin and the injection device of the infusion head is retracted into the housing above the holder (cannula 951 is retracted inside housing 212 while the entire patch unit 200 is attached to the skin); and
an insertion state (Fig. 8) in which the infusion head is aligned with the holder for mutual contact with the patient's skin (both the cannula 951 and patch unit 200 are in contact with the skin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the applicator of the modified device of Michaud to define the application and insertion states as shown in Krag in order to avoid misuse and identify for the user when the needle of the device will be exposed. It is also known in the art that any injectable device would have a state where the user applies the device to this skin, and a state following where the user injects the device into the skin.
Claims 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaud in view of Gilbert and Burton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hanson et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0190588 A1; herein, Hanson).
Regarding claim 5, in the modified device of Michaud, Michaud discloses wherein the injection device is a cannula (cannula 188). Michaud does not disclose the applicator assembly further comprises an introducer hub with an introducer needle that punctures the patient's skin for receipt of the cannula in the insertion state, wherein the applicator assembly has a retraction state in which the introducer needle retracts into the housing and the cannula remains in the patient's skin.
However, Hanson teaches the applicator assembly further comprises an introducer hub (hub 212) with an introducer needle (needle 214) that punctures the patient's skin for receipt of the cannula in the insertion state ([0066], needle 214 and cannula 234 inserted into the body of the user), wherein the applicator assembly has a retraction state in which the introducer needle retracts into the housing and the cannula remains in the patient's skin ([0066], “…activation of the insertion mechanism…sequentially retracts the needle 214 from the second position to a third position…while maintaining the cannula 234 in fluid communication with the body of the user). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cannula and applicator of the modified device of Michaud to include a needle which pierces the skin of the user to allow for the cannula to enter as taught by Hanson in order that the cannula can cleanly enter the body of the user, and establish the access port for the infusion to occur. Further, it is important that the needle be able retract into the housing in order to avoid bodily injury of the user.
Regarding claim 8, in the modified device of Michaud, Michaud does not disclose a safety lock having: a locked state that prevents movement of the actuator; and an unlocked state that permits movement of the actuator to move the injection device.
However, Hanson discloses a safety lock (on-body sensor 24) having:
a locked state that prevents movement of the actuator ([0040], activation mechanism cannot be engaged unless displacement of the on-body sensor 24 occurs); and
an unlocked state that permits movement of the actuator to move the injection device ([0040], activation mechanism cannot be engaged unless displacement of the on-body sensor 24 occurs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the applicator of the modified device of Michaud to include an on-body sensor and establish clear parameters for locked and unlocked states as taught by Hanson in order to protect the user by securing the needle within the housing until appropriate parameters for insertion have been met.
Regarding claim 9, in the modified device of Michaud, Michaud does not disclose the safety lock includes a contact tab that extends beneath the housing in the locked state and retracts into the housing upon contact with the patient's skin in the unlocked state. However, Hanson teaches the safety lock includes a contact tab (on-body sensor 24) that extends beneath the housing in the locked state and retracts into the housing upon contact with the patient's skin in the unlocked state (FIG. 1C, [0040], activation mechanism cannot be engaged unless displacement of the on-body sensor 24 occurs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the applicator of the modified device of Michaud to include a sensor and establish clear parameters for locked and unlocked states as taught by Hanson in order to protect the user by securing the needle within the housing until appropriate parameters for insertion have been met.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaud in view of Gilbert and Burton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Constantineau et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0143136 A1; herein, Constantineau).
Regarding claim 6, in the modified device of Michaud, Michaud discloses in which the infusion head is adhered to the patient's skin (FIG. 12A, after removing the backing of the adhesive, the infusion site connector 148 can be attached to the skin)
The modified Michaud does not disclose an alignment guide positioned in the housing, wherein the applicator assembly has: a second preparation state in which the holder remains positioned in the housing; and a second application state in which the alignment guide mates with the infusion head to adhere the holder to the patient's skin at a predetermined location relative to the infusion head.
Gilbert teaches a second preparation state in which the holder remains positioned in the housing (FIG. 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drug infusion system as disclosed by Michaud to define the pre-injection state of the device that holds a part of the system inside as shown in Gilbert as a preparation state, as it is known in the art that any injectable device would need to have a pre-injection state in which a part of the infusion system would be inside the housing.
The modified Michaud in view of Gilbert and Burton still does not teach teaches an alignment guide positioned in the housing, wherein the applicator assembly has: a second application state in which the alignment guide mates with the infusion head to adhere the holder to the patient's skin at a predetermined location relative to the infusion head.
However, Constantineau teaches an alignment guide positioned in the housing (rail 122), wherein the applicator assembly has:
a second application state in which the alignment guide mates with the infusion head (rail 122, [0048], “…releasably securing the ballistic inserter 200 to the infusion set 100…”) to adhere the holder to the patient's skin at a predetermined location relative to the infusion head (FIG. 3B, [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the applicator of the modified device of Michaud to include rails as taught by Constantineau in order to control the movement between the retention frame and the infusion site connector and manage the placement of both which using the applicator.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaud in view of Gilbert and Burton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gorman et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0116866 A1; herein, Gorman).
Regarding claim 7, in the modified device of Michaud, Michaud does not disclose the housing surrounds the first adhesive pad of the infusion head and the second adhesive pad of the holder. However, Gorman teaches the housing surrounds the first adhesive pad of the infusion head and the second adhesive pad of the holder (Fig. 3, adhesive layers 114, 116 are covered by housing 12 and totally surrounded by carrier 102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of the external applicator of the modified device of Michaud to encapsulate the adhesive pads as taught by Gorman in order to preserve the integrity of the adhesive and reduce unintentional preliminary contact.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaud in view of Gilbert and Burton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chong et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0198181 A1; herein, Chong).
Regarding claim 10, in the modified device of Michaud, Michaud does not disclose a carriage coupled to the actuator and having: a first state in which the carriage cooperates with the holder to prevent release of the holder from the housing; and a second state in which the carriage disengages the holder to permit release of the holder from the housing.
However, Chong teaches a carriage coupled to the actuator (carriage 782 attached to cam member 750) and having:
a first state in which the carriage cooperates with the holder to prevent release of the holder from the housing (FIG. 14); and
a second state in which the carriage disengages the holder to permit release of the holder from the housing (FIG. 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the external applicator of the modified device of Michaud to use a carriage as taught by Chong in order that the device have controlled release under load, as it is known in the art that carriage mechanisms play a key role in the consistency of an injectable device’s release motion.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaud in view of Gilbert, Burton, and Chong as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hanson.
Regarding claim 11, in the modified device of Michaud, Michaud does not disclose a safety lock having: a locked state that locks the carriage in the first state; and an unlocked state that permits movement of the carriage to the second state.
However, Hanson teaches a safety lock (on-body sensor 24) having:
a locked state that locks the carriage in the first state ([0040], activation mechanism cannot be engaged unless displacement of the on-body sensor 24 occurs); and
an unlocked state that permits movement of the carriage to the second state ([0040], activation mechanism cannot be engaged unless displacement of the on-body sensor 24 occurs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the external applicator with carriage mechanism of the modified device of Michaud to have safety lock with a locked and unlocked state as taught by Hanson for the carriage mechanism in order that the device remain in pre-injection position within the housing until the user intentionally allows the device to change positions. This protects the user and keeps the device ready for use.
Claims 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaud, and further in view of Gilbert.
Regarding claim 12, Michaud discloses a drug infusion system (Figs. 4B/5B) comprising:
a drug delivery device (pump 102);
an infusion head (infusion site connector 148) having an injection device (cannula 188);
a holder (retention frame 106) configured to support the drug delivery device (Figs. 1C-1F, [0028], snap portion 115 of retention frame snaps into place when aligned with the recess 139 of pump); and
wherein the drug infusion system has:
a tethered configuration (Figs. 5A/5B) in which…the infusion head in adhesive communication with the patient’s skin (infusion site patch 190) while preventing adhesive communication between the holder and the patient's skin (Fig. 11A, adhesive backing 107 covers the adhesive of the retention frame 106); and
a patch configuration (Figs. 4A/4B) in which the…the infusion head and the holder in adhesive communication with the patient’s skin (infusion site patch 190 and adhesive patch 108, respectively, are used to attach infusion head and holder to skin).
Michaud does not disclose an applicator assembly comprising: a housing configured to carry the infusion head and the holder; and an actuator coupled to the housing and configured to move the injection device from the housing into a patient's skin; the applicator assembly positions the infusion head in adhesive communication with the patient's skin, and the applicator assembly positions the infusion head and the holder in adhesive communication with the patient's skin.
However, Gilbert teaches an applicator assembly (external applicator 1030) comprising:
a housing (housing 1010) configured to carry the infusion head and the holder (FIG. 11, infusion device 110 inside the housing); and
an actuator coupled to the housing (FIGS. 10/11, unlabeled actuator button above anterior wall 1016) and configured to move the injection device from the housing into a patient's skin ([0088], “A user…actuates the external applicator, delivering a displacement energy to the infusion device 110. This transfer of energy drives the carrier head…towards the skin surface.”);
the applicator assembly positions the infusion head in adhesive communication with the patient's skin ([0088], “A user…actuates the external applicator, delivering a displacement energy to the infusion device 110. This transfer of energy drives the carrier head…towards the skin surface.”), and
the applicator assembly positions the infusion head and the holder in adhesive communication with the patient's skin ([0088], “A user…actuates the external applicator, delivering a displacement energy to the infusion device 110. This transfer of energy drives the carrier head…towards the skin surface.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adhesive drug infusion system as disclosed by Michaud to incorporate an external applicator that can hold and expel an infusion device from a housing onto a user’s skin as taught by Gilbert in order that the drug infusion components be properly attached to the body of the user. This would include the applicator administering the necessary amount of force to drive the cannula through the skin and applying the correct amount of pressure for the adhesive patch to stick.
Regarding claim 13, in the modified device of Michaud, Michaud discloses a tubing set (tubing 144) positioned in fluid communication between the drug delivery device and the infusion head in the tethered configuration (Figs. 5A/5B).
Regarding claim 16, Michaud discloses the tubing set is stored in a closed-loop in the patch configuration with one end of the tubing set coupled to the other end of the tubing set (Fig. 10C, examiner interprets that when tubing is removed from pump connection, the ends of the flexible tubing may be configured together to form a closed-loop system).
Claims 14 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaud in view of Gilbert as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Wojcik (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0154205 A1).
Regarding claim 14, in the modified device of Michaud, Michaud does not disclose the drug infusion system of claim 13, wherein: the drug delivery device includes a needle port; the infusion head includes a septum port; and the tubing set includes a septum port at one end and a needle port at the other end; wherein: in the tethered configuration, the needle port of the drug delivery device communicates with the septum port of the tubing set, and the needle port of the tubing set communicates with the septum port of the infusion head; and in the patch configuration, the needle port of the drug delivery device communicates with the septum port of the infusion head without the tubing set.
However, Wojcik teaches the drug infusion system of claim 13, wherein:
the drug delivery device includes a needle port (FIG. 8, insertion needle assembly 200 has cannula 133 and insertion needle 164);
the infusion head includes a septum port (FIG. 5, cannula housing body 104 has stepped bore 130); and
the tubing set includes a septum port at one end and a needle port at the other end (FIG. 12, tubing hub assembly 300 includes connection fitting 330 and tubing hub needle 304);
wherein:
in the tethered configuration, the needle port of the drug delivery device communicates with the septum port of the tubing set, and the needle port of the tubing set communicates with the septum port of the infusion head (FIG. 12, [0068]); and
in the patch configuration, the needle port of the drug delivery device communicates with the septum port of the infusion head without the tubing set (FIG. 1, insertion needle assembly 200 fits right into cannula housing body 104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drug infusion system as disclosed by Michaud to incorporate needles and bores or connection fittings as taught by Wojcik to the connecting ends of the system in both the patch and tethered configurations in order that the flow path of the drug be clear, consistent, and leak-proof whether in the patch or tethered configuration. By using the same connections with or without the tubing set, a user can easily modify the modular device when swapping configurations.
Regarding claim 15, in the modified device of Michaud, Michaud does not disclose the drug infusion system of claim 13, wherein: the drug delivery device includes a male connector; the infusion head includes a female connector; and the tubing set includes a female connector at one end and a male connector at the other end; wherein: in the tethered configuration, the male connector of the drug delivery device couples to the female connector of the tubing set, and the male connector of the tubing set couples to the female connector of the infusion head; and in the patch configuration, the male connector of the drug delivery device couples to the female connector of the infusion head without the tubing set.
However, Wojcik teaches the drug infusion system of claim 13, wherein:
the drug delivery device includes a male connector (FIG. 8, insertion needle assembly 200 has cannula 133 and insertion needle 164);
the infusion head includes a female connector (FIG. 5, cannula housing body 104 has stepped bore 130); and
the tubing set includes a female connector at one end and a male connector at the other end (FIG. 12, tubing hub assembly 300 includes connection fitting 330 and tubing hub needle 304);
wherein:
in the tethered configuration, the male connector of the drug delivery device couples to the female connector of the tubing set, and the male connector of the tubing set couples to the female connector of the infusion head (FIG. 12, [0068]); and
in the patch configuration, the male connector of the drug delivery device couples to the female connector of the infusion head without the tubing set (FIG. 1, insertion needle assembly 200 fits right into cannula housing body 104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drug infusion system as disclosed by Michaud to incorporate male and female connections, such as the needles and bores or connection fittings as taught by Wojcik, to the connecting ends of the system in any configurations in order that the flow path of the drug be clear, consistent, and leak-proof whether in the patch or tethered configuration. By using the same connections with or without the tubing set, a user can easily modify the modular device when swapping configurations.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaud in view of Gilbert as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Destefano (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0021508 A1).
Regarding claim 17, in the modified device of Michaud, Michaud does not disclose the applicator assembly further includes an alignment guide configured to adjust the drug infusion system from the tethered configuration to the patch configuration, the applicator assembly mating the alignment guide with the infusion head while positioning the holder in adhesive communication with the patient's skin.
However, Destefano teaches the applicator assembly further includes an alignment guide (FIG. 7, alignment members 252C and alignment notches 220C) configured to adjust the drug infusion system from the tethered configuration to the patch configuration, the applicator assembly mating the alignment guide with the infusion head while positioning the holder in adhesive communication with the patient's skin ([0107], alignment between members 252C and notches 220C limits rotation of components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drug infusion system as disclosed by Michaud to include alignment members and notches as taught by Destefano in order to connect the infusion site patch and infusion site connector during placement so that the position of both are in a manner that fluid flow is facilitated without error.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kamen et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0367753 A1) is considered relevant prior art with regards to using an infusion device with a separable infusion head and alignment guide.
Damiano et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0235910 A1) is considered relevant prior art with regards to an infusion pump with male and female connectors.
O’Connor et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0066274 A1) is considered relevant prior art with regards to a drug delivery pump with integrated tubing system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evelyn A Thoman whose telephone number is (571)272-8496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m-4:30 p.m..
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 Tsai can be reached at 571-270-5246. 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.
/EVELYN A THOMAN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783