DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Note: This office action is in response to communication filed on 06/25/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/25/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-24 is/are pending in the application.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-24 is/are examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/25/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Upon added search after RCE, the previous rejection is withdrawn in light of the instant rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12-13, and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Croizat (US PGPUB 20130211318) in view of Ryu (KR 101685509) and Hartwell (US PGPUB 20150032031).
Regarding claim 1, Croizat discloses a wound therapy system (a wound therapy system: Abstract) comprising:
a negative pressure circuit configured to apply negative pressure to a wound (wound therapy system 20/40/50/60: ¶0002, 0085, 0092-0094, and Figs. 1-4), the negative pressure circuit comprising a removed fluid canister (a drainage container 1: ¶0085 and Figs. 1-4);
a canister containing instillation fluid for delivery to the wound (instillation container 7 containing instillation fluid for delivery to the wound: ¶0088, 0092, and Figs. 1-4);
a pump operable to deliver the instillation fluid to the wound (a fluid delivery pump 9 to deliver the instillation fluid to the wound: ¶0089 and Figs. 1-4);
a pressure sensor (a pressure sensor means 2: ¶0086 and Figs. 1-4) configured to measure the negative pressure within the negative pressure circuit or at the wound (¶0086);
a valve fluidly coupled between the removed fluid canister and an ambient environment (a ventilation valve 41: ¶0035 and Fig. 2) and configured to controllably vent the negative pressure circuit through the removed fluid canister (¶0035); and
a controller (a control means 5: ¶0086 and Figs. 1-4) communicably coupled to the pump and the pressure sensor (the controller 5 is communicably coupled to the pump 9 and the pressure sensor 2: ¶0086, 0089, and Figs. 1-4), the controller (5) configured to:
determine a volume of instillation fluid to deliver to the wound (“metering a suitable volume of instillation fluid for the instillation therapy of wounds”: ¶0028-0029) based on the estimated wound volume (“administering a temperature-controlled instillation fluid in a quantity that is adapted exactly to the volume of the wound space”: ¶0046); and
after determining the volume of instillation fluid to deliver to the wound based on the estimated wound volume (“If a suitable volume of instillation fluid is applied at the start of the instillation therapy (first irrigation cycle), it is advantageous if, for example, such a volume of instillation fluid or a previously defined fraction of the original volume is applied to the wound in subsequent irrigation cycles”: ¶0029), operate the pump to deliver the volume of instillation fluid to the wound (¶0040).
Croizat does not disclose the controller configured to actuate the valve to execute a pressure testing procedure to estimate a wound volume of the wound.
In the same field of endeavor, wound dressing, Ryu discloses an apparatus comprising a negative pressure circuit (a pressure output unit 100, a pressure transmitting unit 200, a pressure generating unit 300: pg. 4, ¶21, and Fig. 1), a controller unit 320 (pg. 4, ¶1), and an on/off valve 500 (pg. 4, ¶21, and Fig. 1). Ryu further disclose the controller unit configured to actuate the valve 500 to estimate a wound volume of the wound (open/close the valve 500: Abstract; pg. 2, line 7; pg. 3, ¶1 and 4-5; and pg. 6, ¶14-16 and 23) for the benefit of calculating the volume of wound site to be treated and thereby improving the efficiency of wound healing (Abstract).
In the same field of endeavor, wound dressing, Hartwell discloses an apparatus comprising a negative pressure circuit (¶0063 and Fig. 2), a pump 44, a pressure sensor 46/48/420 (¶0062-0063, 0069, and Fig. 10), a controller 60/440 (¶0062, 0065, 0069, and Fig. 10). Hartwell further discloses the controller 60/440 configured to execute a pressure testing procedure to estimate a wound volume of the wound (¶0036-0037, 0065 and 0070-0073) for the benefit of monitoring a volume of a wound during treatment to be able to quantify the healing process (¶0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Croizat in view of Ryu and Hartwell by configuring the controller to actuate the valve to execute a pressure testing procedure to estimate a wound volume of the wound, in order to monitor a volume of a wound during treatment and thereby improve the efficiency of wound healing, as suggested in Abstract of Ryu and ¶0010 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 2, Croizat further discloses the controller configured to determine the volume of instillation fluid to deliver to the wound (¶0028-0029) by multiplying the estimated wound volume by a fluid instillation factor (“the volume of the instillation fluid introduced into the wound amounts to two thirds of the volume of the wound space”: ¶0027).
Regarding claim 3, Croizat further discloses the fluid instillation factor is less than one (¶0027) such that less than the total wound volume is filled with the instillation fluid (¶0029).
Regarding claim 4, Croizat further discloses the fluid instillation factor is between approximately 0.2 and approximately 0.8 (the fluid instillation factor is 2/3 or 0.66: ¶0027; thus, the taught fluid instillation factor is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, Croizat further discloses the negative pressure circuit comprises a wound dressing (a dressing 15: ¶0085 and Figs. 1-4) sealable to skin surrounding the wound (¶0017).
Regarding claim 6, Croizat further discloses the negative pressure circuit comprises tubing (fluid conducting instillation line 8: ¶0092 and Figs. 1-4) fluidly connecting the canister with the wound dressing (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Croizat further discloses the controller is configured to operate the pump to establish the negative pressure within the negative pressure circuit (¶0023).
Regarding claim 8, Croizat further discloses operating the pump to establish the negative pressure within the negative pressure circuit (¶0023) and applying a pressure stimulus to the negative pressure circuit after the negative pressure has been established within the negative pressure circuit (¶0054-0058). Thus, Croizat discloses all the claimed steps that form part of the pressure testing procedure.
Hartwell further discloses the controller 60/440 configured to execute a pressure testing procedure to estimate a wound volume of the wound (¶0036-0037, 0065 and 0070-0073) for the purpose of monitoring wound volume during treatment and quantifying the healing process (¶0010).
Therefore, Croizat in view of Hartwell discloses the pressure testing procedure comprising operating the pump to establish the negative pressure within the negative pressure circuit; and applying a pressure stimulus to the negative pressure circuit after the negative pressure has been established within the negative pressure circuit.
Regarding claim 10, Croizat further discloses:
opening the valve to allow airflow into the negative pressure circuit for a predetermined amount of time (¶0035); and
closing the valve after the predetermined amount of time has elapsed (¶0035).
Thus, Croizat discloses all the claimed steps that form part of the pressure testing procedure.
Ryu further disclose the controller unit configured to actuate the valve 500 to estimate a wound volume of the wound (open/close the valve 500: Abstract; pg. 2, line 7; pg. 3, ¶1 and 4-5; and pg. 6, ¶14-16 and 23) for the purpose of calculating the volume of wound site to be treated and thereby improving the efficiency of wound healing (Abstract).
Hartwell further discloses the controller 60/440 configured to execute a pressure testing procedure to estimate a wound volume of the wound (¶0036-0037, 0065 and 0070-0073) for the purpose of monitoring wound volume during treatment and quantifying the healing process (¶0010).
Therefore, Croizat in view of Ryu and Hartwell discloses the actuating the valve to execute the pressure testing procedure comprising: opening the valve to allow airflow into the negative pressure circuit for a predetermined amount of time; and closing the valve after the predetermined amount of time has elapsed.
Regarding claim 12, Croizat/Ryu does not disclose the pressure testing procedure further comprising operating the pump while the valve is closed to mitigate air leakage into the negative pressure circuit.
Hartwell further discloses operating the pump while the valve is closed to mitigate air leakage into the negative pressure circuit (¶0037: software contains appropriate data relating to the vacuum pump operating regime to calculate the steady state leak rate and to enable the control and monitoring system to apply a suitable correction factor to allow for a steady state leak rate). Hartwell also discloses the controller 60/440 configured to execute a pressure testing procedure to estimate the wound volume of the wound (¶0036-0037, 0065 and 0070-0073) for the purpose of monitoring wound volume during treatment and quantifying the healing process (¶0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Croizat in view of Hartwell by configuring the controller to execute the pressure testing procedure to operate the pump while the valve is closed to mitigate air leakage into the negative pressure circuit, in order to achieve a desired vacuum level at a steady state to calculate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0037 of Hartwell. Thus, Croizat in view of Hartwell discloses the pressure testing procedure further comprising operating the pump while the valve is closed to mitigate air leakage into the negative pressure circuit.
Regarding claim 13, Croizat/Ryu does not disclose the pressure testing procedure further comprises: applying a pressure stimulus to the negative pressure circuit; observing a dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit to the pressure stimulus using pressure measurements recorded by the pressure sensor; and estimating the wound volume of the wound based on the dynamic pressure response.
Hartwell further discloses the pressure testing procedure further comprises: applying a pressure stimulus to the negative pressure circuit (¶0037: “The software may contain appropriate data relating to the vacuum pump operating regime to calculate the steady state leak rate and to enable the control and monitoring system to apply a suitable correction factor to allow for a steady state leak rate. Thus, when the wound cavity has achieved a steady state when the vacuum level pressure is at the desired value, what the flow sensor is reading is the actual leak rate which may be used by the software to compute the correction factor applicable.”); observing a dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit to the pressure stimulus using pressure measurements recorded by the pressure sensor (¶0071-0075 and Figs. 11-12); and estimating the wound volume of the wound based on the dynamic pressure response (¶0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Croizat in view of Hartwell by configuring the controller to execute the pressure testing procedure as claimed, in order to estimate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0073 of Hartwell. Thus, Croizat in view of Hartwell discloses the pressure testing procedure further comprising applying a pressure stimulus to the negative pressure circuit; observing a dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit to the pressure stimulus using pressure measurements recorded by the pressure sensor; and estimating the wound volume of the wound based on the dynamic pressure response.
Regarding claim 17, Croizat/Ryu does not disclose the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit is characterized by a leak rate parameter defined as a rate at which the negative pressure changes while the valve is closed.
Hartwell further discloses the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit is characterized by a leak rate parameter defined as a rate at which the negative pressure changes while the valve is closed (¶0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Croizat in view of Hartwell by characterizing the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit by a leak rate parameter defined as a rate at which the negative pressure changes while the valve is closed, in order to achieve a desired vacuum level at a steady state to calculate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0037 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 18, Croizat/Ryu does not disclose estimating the wound volume based on the dynamic pressure response comprises: determining values for one or more parameters that characterize the dynamic pressure response; and applying the values of the one or more parameters as inputs to a model that defines a relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume.
Hartwell further discloses estimating the wound volume based on the dynamic pressure response comprises: determining values for one or more parameters that characterize the dynamic pressure response; and applying the values of the one or more parameters as inputs to a model that defines a relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume (¶0071-0075: determining multiple parameters comprising flow rate, set pressure, correction factors, and inputting the information into a model to determine wound volume).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Croizat in view of Hartwell by estimating the wound volume based on the dynamic pressure response comprises: determining values for one or more parameters that characterize the dynamic pressure response; and applying the values of the one or more parameters as inputs to a model that defines a relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume, in order to calculate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0073 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 19, Croizat/Ryu does not disclose the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume is a polynomial approximation model.
Hartwell further discloses the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume is a polynomial approximation model (¶0071-0075 and Figs. 11-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Croizat in view of Hartwell by having the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume is a polynomial approximation model, in order to calculate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0073 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 20, Croizat/Ryu does not disclose the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume is a neural network.
Hartwell further discloses the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume is a neural network (¶0071-0075 and Figs. 11-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Croizat in view of Hartwell by having the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume is a neural network, in order to calculate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0073 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 21, Croizat/Ryu does not disclose the controller is configured to generate the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume by: executing a training procedure comprising applying the pressure stimulus to training circuit having a known volume; observing a dynamic pressure response of the training circuit to the pressure stimulus using pressure measurements recorded by the pressure sensor; and associating the known volume with the dynamic pressure response of the training circuit.
Hartwell further discloses the controller (¶0062, 0065, 0069, and Fig. 10: the control system 60/440) is configured to generate the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume by: executing a training procedure comprising applying the pressure stimulus to training circuit having a known volume; observing a dynamic pressure response of the training circuit to the pressure stimulus using pressure measurements recorded by the pressure sensor; and associating the known volume with the dynamic pressure response of the training circuit (¶0069 and 0071-0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Croizat in view of Hartwell by configuring the controller to generate the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume by: executing a training procedure comprising applying the pressure stimulus to training circuit having a known volume; observing a dynamic pressure response of the training circuit to the pressure stimulus using pressure measurements recorded by the pressure sensor; and associating the known volume with the dynamic pressure response of the training circuit, in order to calculate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0073 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 22, Croizat/Ryu does not disclose generating the model further comprises: repeating the training procedure for a plurality of known volumes; observing the dynamic pressure response of the training circuit for each of the plurality of known volumes; and generating a correlation between the plurality of known volumes and the dynamic pressure response of the training circuit.
Hartwell further discloses generating the model further comprises: repeating the training procedure for a plurality of known volumes; observing the dynamic pressure response of the training circuit for each of the plurality of known volumes; and generating a correlation between the plurality of known volumes and the dynamic pressure response of the training circuit (¶0036-0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Croizat in view of Hartwell by generating the model as claimed, in order to calculate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0037 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 23, Croizat/Ryu does not disclose the controller is configured to: execute the pressure testing procedure to estimate the wound volume at a plurality of times during wound treatment; and determine healing progression based on changes in the wound volume during wound treatment.
Hartwell further discloses the controller is configured to: execute the pressure testing procedure to estimate the wound volume at a plurality of times during wound treatment; and determine healing progression based on changes in the wound volume during wound treatment (¶0036-0037 and 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Croizat in view of Hartwell by configuring the controller to execute the pressure testing procedure to estimate the wound volume at a plurality of times during wound treatment; and determine healing progression based on changes in the wound volume during wound treatment, in order to record the progress of wound healing, as suggested in ¶0040 of Hartwell.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Croizat (US PGPUB 20130211318) in view of Ryu (KR 101685509) and Hartwell (US PGPUB 20150032031), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Heaton (US PGPUB 20160361475).
Regarding claim 11, Croizat/Ryu does not disclose the pressure testing procedure further comprising waiting for another predetermined amount of time after closing the valve; and repeating the opening, closing, and waiting steps until the negative pressure reaches a threshold pressure value.
Hartwell also discloses the controller 60/440 configured to execute a pressure testing procedure to estimate the wound volume of the wound (¶0036-0037, 0065 and 0070-0073) for the purpose of monitoring wound volume during treatment and quantifying the healing process (¶0010).
In the same field of endeavor, wound dressings, Heaton discloses a system for applying reduced pressure to tissue comprising a controller 90 programmed to monitor wound pressure (¶0070). Heaton further discloses the system will try to clear liquid from the blocked lumen by opening a valve to atmosphere and the programming will try to clear the blockage several times (¶0070) for the benefit of maximizing the chances of having at least one clear measurement lumen at any given time (¶0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Croizat in view Hartwell and Heaton by configuring the controller to execute the pressure testing procedure comprises waiting for another predetermined amount of time after closing the valve; and repeating the opening, closing, and waiting steps until the negative pressure reaches a threshold pressure value, in order to clear the blockage, as suggested in ¶0070 of Heaton. Thus, Croizat in view Hartwell and Heaton discloses the pressure testing procedure further comprising waiting for another predetermined amount of time after closing the valve; and repeating the opening, closing, and waiting steps until the negative pressure reaches a threshold pressure value.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Croizat (US PGPUB 20130211318) in view of Ryu (KR 101685509) and Hartwell (US PGPUB 20150032031), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Heaton (US PGPUB 20160361475).
Regarding claim 14, Croizat/Ryu/Hartwell does not disclose the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit is characterized by a depth of purge parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure before the valve is opened; and a measured value of the negative pressure while the valve is open.
Heaton further discloses the pressure sensors are measuring the depth of purge parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure before the valve is opened; and a measured value of the negative pressure while the valve is open (¶0070: “each of the ancillary measurement lumen conduits is fitted with a solenoid valve 92 and 94 which will relieve pressure to the wound at the end of therapy, during intermittent therapy, or if required to clear blockages”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Croizat in view of Heaton by characterizing the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit by a depth of purge parameter, in order to clear the blockage, as suggested in ¶0070 of Heaton.
Regarding claim 15, Croizat/Ryu/Hartwell does not disclose the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit is characterized by a rebound parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure after the valve is closed; and a measured value of the negative pressure while the valve is open.
Heaton further discloses the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit is characterized by a rebound parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure after the valve is closed; and a measured value of the negative pressure while the valve is open (¶0070 and Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Croizat in view of Heaton by characterizing the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit by a rebound parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure after the valve is closed; and a measured value of the negative pressure while the valve is open, in order to clear the blockage, as suggested in ¶0070 of Heaton.
Regarding claim 16, Croizat/Ryu/Hartwell does not disclose the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit is characterized by a delta parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure before the valve is opened; and a measured value of the negative pressure after the valve is closed.
Heaton further discloses the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit is characterized by a delta parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure before the valve is opened; and a measured value of the negative pressure after the valve is closed (¶0070 and Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Croizat in view of Heaton by characterizing the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit by a delta parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure before the valve is opened; and a measured value of the negative pressure after the valve is closed, in order to clear the blockage, as suggested in ¶0070 of Heaton.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Croizat (US PGPUB 20130211318) in view of Ryu (KR 101685509) and Hartwell (US PGPUB 20150032031), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robinson (US PGPUB 20160015873).
Regarding claim 24, Croizat/Ryu/Hartwell does not disclose a fluid path for controllably venting the negative pressure circuit through the removed fluid canister comprises fluid movement from the ambient environment through the removed fluid canister and into the negative pressure circuit and the pressure sensor is fluidly coupled through a tubing independent of the fluid path.
In the same field of endeavor, wound therapy system, Robinson discloses a wound therapy system (Abstract) comprising a negative pressure circuit (Fig. 1) comprising a removed fluid canister (a canister 113: ¶0018 and Fig. 1) and a valve 160 fluidly coupled between the removed fluid canister 113 and an ambient environment or a vent 150 (¶0059, 0079; Figs. 1 and 3). Robinson further discloses a fluid path for controllably venting the negative pressure circuit through the removed fluid canister comprises fluid movement from the ambient environment through the removed fluid canister and into the negative pressure circuit (¶0059; Figs. 1 and 3); and the pressure sensor is fluidly coupled through a tubing independent of the fluid path (¶0059 and Fig. 3) for the benefit of providing a system for providing instillation therapy and negative pressure therapy to assist in cleaning the tissue site and healing of the tissue site (¶0004 and 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Croizat in view of Robinson by having a fluid path for controllably venting the negative pressure circuit through the removed fluid canister comprises fluid movement from the ambient environment through the removed fluid canister and into the negative pressure circuit and the pressure sensor is fluidly coupled through a tubing independent of the fluid path, in order to provide a system for providing instillation therapy and negative pressure therapy to assist in cleaning the tissue site and healing of the tissue site, as suggested in ¶0004 and 0006 of Robinson.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHU Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 (PST).
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, SARAH AL-HASHIMI can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/NHU Q. TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/SARAH AL HASHIMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
