This Final Office Action has been submitted to correct a typographical error in the Office Action submitted 20 June 2025 that inadvertently omitted the rejection of claims 17-18. The office regrets the inconvenience to the applicant due to this oversight. The period for response has been restarted with the mailing of this office 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, see Remarks; Objection - Drawings, filed 9 May 2025, with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of applicant’s amendments. The objections to the drawings been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks; Rejections under Post-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 – Second Paragraph, with respect to the rejections under 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 9 May 2025. The rejections under 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9 May 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Potkay discloses the necessity of rolling the membrane around a substrate, in contrast to the instant invention. However, the language of claim 1 reads “A chemical sensor element comprising: a rolled multilayer film…” The instant claim language is open, and does not exclude any additional claim elements taught by the prior art. Accordingly, Potkay’s teachings still apply to the invention as it is claimed in the claim set filed 9 May 2025.
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9, 10, 13, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al (US 20190038190 A1) in view of Potkay (US 20200061271 A1).
With regards to claim 9, Zhong et al teaches:
A chemical sensor element ([0026], “These sensors are effective for detection of chemical species relevant to sweating or perspiration…”) comprising;
A multilayer film (abstract, “The fibrous membranes may include different filter papers, with one example featuring a multilayered fibrous membrane…”) comprising;
A fibrous layer ([0011], “A preferred embodiment includes a 3-layer structured membrane consisting of cellulose nanofibers (CN)…”;The cellulose nanofibers reads on the fibrous layer. );
A hydrogel layer ([0011], “A preferred embodiment includes a 3-layer structured membrane consisting of […] cross-linked polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA)…”; The cross-linked PEGDA reads on the hydrogel);
And a sensing compound infused into the fibrous layer ([0036], “It is also an object to provide a sensor, comprising: a sensing medium, comprising a fibrous layer and a plurality of nanoparticles, coating fibers within the fibrous layer, the plurality of nanoparticles being derivatized to interact with the fibrous layer and an analyte in a medium…” The sensing medium comprising nanoparticles coating fibers within the fibrous layer derivatized to interact with an analyte in a medium reads on the sensing compound infused into the fibrous layer.).
Zhong et al is silent to wherein the chemical sensor is rolled.
In the analogous art of rolled membranes, Potkay teaches;
Wherein the thin film is rolled ([0009], “The microfluidic devices can also include a patterned membrane rolled circumferentially over the outer surface of the cylindrical substrate to define a plurality of concentric membrane layers extending radially outwardly from the central axis of the cylindrical substrate.”; [0144] discloses a process of producing a rolled multilayer membrane).
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 multilayer membrane configured for sensing as taught by Zhong et al with the rolling process as taught by Potkay, in order to produce a device with microfluidic channels that can be produced using roll-to-roll manufacturing methods for large-scale production (Potkay, [0188], “The disclosed automated roll-to-roll manufacturing method can be employed, which, for the first time, is capable of quickly and easily constructing large area microfluidic devices.”).
With regards to claim 10, the sensor element of claim 9 is obvious over Zhong et al in view of Potkay.
Zhong et al additionally teaches:
Wherein the hydrogel layer is adjacent to the fibrous layer ([0030], “The nanofibrous layer may be supported on […] a permeable crosslinked polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) layer.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that a rolled membrane forms a structure where the bottom-most layer of a membrane becomes adjacent to the top-most layer of the membrane. As such, Zhong et al teaches all of the structure required to meet the limitation of claim 10, “wherein the hydrogel layer separates adjacent layers of the fibrous layer when rolled.”
With regards to claim 13, the sensor element of claim 9 is obvious over Zhong et al in view of Potkay.
Potkay additionally teaches:
Wherein the thin film is rolled for at least three revolutions ([0058], “Although some particular configurations of concentric membrane layers are disclosed herein, it is contemplated that any desired number of concentric membrane layers can be used. In exemplary aspects, it is contemplated that as many as 100, 200, 300, 400, or 500 concentric membrane layers can be used…” 100 concentric membrane layers reads on at least three revolutions around a center.).
As taught in both Potkay and the instant application, the addition of concentric layers is mere duplication of parts. According to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”—see In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, 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 rolled chemical as taught by Zhong et al in view of Potkay with the as many as 100, 200, 300, 400, or 500 concentric membrane layers (which reads on at least three revolutions) taught by Potkay for the purposes of adding width and stability to the device.
With regards to claim 21, Zhong et al teaches:
A chemical sensor element ([0026], “These sensors are effective for detection of chemical species relevant to sweating or perspiration…”) comprising;
A multilayer film (abstract, “The fibrous membranes may include different filter papers, with one example featuring a multilayered fibrous membrane…”) comprising;
A fibrous layer ([0011], “A preferred embodiment includes a 3-layer structured membrane consisting of cellulose nanofibers (CN)…”;The cellulose nanofibers reads on the fibrous layer. );
A hydrogel layer ([0011], “A preferred embodiment includes a 3-layer structured membrane consisting of […] cross-linked polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA)…”; The cross-linked PEGDA reads on the hydrogel);
And a sensing compound infused into the fibrous layer ([0036], “It is also an object to provide a sensor, comprising: a sensing medium, comprising a fibrous layer and a plurality of nanoparticles, coating fibers within the fibrous layer, the plurality of nanoparticles being derivatized to interact with the fibrous layer and an analyte in a medium…” The sensing medium comprising nanoparticles coating fibers within the fibrous layer derivatized to interact with an analyte in a medium reads on the sensing compound infused into the fibrous layer.).
Zhong et al is silent to wherein the chemical sensor is rolled, and to a light pipe disposed at a center of the rolled multilayer film.
In the analogous art of rolled membranes, Potkay teaches;
Wherein the thin film is rolled ([0009], “The microfluidic devices can also include a patterned membrane rolled circumferentially over the outer surface of the cylindrical substrate to define a plurality of concentric membrane layers extending radially outwardly from the central axis of the cylindrical substrate.”; [0144] discloses a process of producing a rolled multilayer membrane);
Wherein the rolled membrane comprises a light pipe disposed at a center of the rolled multilayer film ([0058], “In exemplary aspects, the cylindrical substrate 20 can comprise a tubular structure, such as silicone tubing.”; The tubular structure reads on a light pipe. One of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that a hollow tube can function as a light pipe—this is supported in the applicant’s specification, see page 21, line 18).
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 multilayer membrane configured for sensing as taught by Zhong et al with the rolling process as taught by Potkay, in order to produce a device with microfluidic channels that can be produced using roll-to-roll manufacturing methods for large-scale production (Potkay, [0188], “The disclosed automated roll-to-roll manufacturing method can be employed, which, for the first time, is capable of quickly and easily constructing large area microfluidic devices.”).
With regards to claim 22, the sensor element of claim 9 is obvious over Zhong et al in view of Potkay.
Zhong et al additionally teaches:
Wherein the fibrous layer comprises electrospun fibers ([0030], “The nanofibrous layer may be supported on a permeable layer, e.g., an electrospun fiber layer.”; The electrospun fiber layer reads on electrospun fibers).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al (US 20190038190 A1) in view of Potkay (US 20200061271 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Chaum et al (US 20120116195 A1).
With regards to claim 11, the sensor element of claim 9 is obvious over Zhong et al in view of Potkay.
However, that combination fails to teach wherein the sensor element further comprises a second hydrogel layer, wherein the second hydrogel layer is disposed over an end of the rolled multilayer film.
In the analogous art of biosensors, Chaum et al teaches the following:
A cylindrical sensor (Figure 29B, microelectrode sensor 100; [0003], “The invention relates to […] a sensor device for detecting bioavailable drug concentration…”);
Wherein a hydrogel layer is disposed over an end of the sensor (Figure 29B, coating 108; [0069], “FIGS. 29A-B illustrate a microelectrode sensor 100 that includes a reference electrode 102, a counter electrode 104 and a working electrode 106, each of which have at least one end surrounded with a coating 108 through which one or more molecules of the bioavailable drug can be partitioned.”; [0071], “Any suitable structural component can be utilized in the coating 108. […] Exemplary structural components include […] hydrogel, sol-gel materials, and combinations thereof.”);
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 sensor element of Zhong et al in view of Potkay with the hydrogel coating over one end of the sensor as taught by Chaum et al, in order to provide a biocompatible interface between the sensor and the sample fluid that is resistant to fouling (Chaum et al, [0068], “The coating also effectively partitions a biocompatible interface between the electrochemical sensor and a sample fluid, and/or prevents electrode fouling…”).
With regards to claim 12, the sensor element of claim 11 is obvious over Zhong et al in view of Potkay and further in view of Chaum et al.
Chaum et al additionally teaches:
Wherein a hydrogel layer encapsulates the sensor ([0069], “Alternatively, coating 108 may cover or surround more than the tip of reference electrode 102, counter electrode 104 and working electrode 106, for example, the whole of electrochemical sensor 100 could be embedded in the coating material.”; [0071], “Any suitable structural component can be utilized in the coating 108. […] Exemplary structural components include […] hydrogel, sol-gel materials, and combinations thereof.”);
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 sensor element of Zhong et al in view of Potkay with the hydrogel coating encapsulating the sensor as taught by Chaum et al, in order to provide a biocompatible interface between the sensor and the sample fluid (Chaum et al, [0068], “The coating also effectively partitions a biocompatible interface between the electrochemical sensor and a sample fluid, and/or prevents electrode fouling…”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al (US 20190038190 A1) in view of Potkay (US 20200061271 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Nacht et al (Nacht B, Larndorfer C, Sax S, Borizov SM, Hajnsek M, Sinner F, et al. Integrated catheter system for continuous glucose measurement and simultaneous insulin infusion. Biosensors and Bioelectronics. 2015: 64; 102-110.).
With regards to claim 14, the chemical sensor of claim 9 is obvious over Zhong et al in view of Potkay.
However, this combination fails to teach wherein the sensing composition comprises at least one selected from the group of a lipophilic fluorescent indicator dye and a lipophilic colorimetric indicator dye.
In the analogous art of biosensors, Nacht et al teaches:
A catheter including a sensor system (Scheme 1, infusion catheter, sensor system; section 3.1, paragraph 1, “The sensor system consists of two sensor elements-an optical glucose biosensor and an optical reference oxygen sensor, which are located on adjacent sections of an insulin infusion catheter (Scheme 1).”);
A sensing composition including a lipophilic colorimetric dye (section 3.1, paragraph 3, “The oxygen-sensitive phosphorescent dye-particles in the upper layer act as a transducer for the rate of oxygen consumption.” The phosphorescent dye particle reads on the colorimetric dye; section 3.8, paragraph 2, “In our work the porphyrin indicators are embedded into hydrophobic polystyrene-based polymers… Notably, the highly lipophilic dyes are excellently compatible with the hydrophobic polystyrenes and do not show any leaching in aqueous media.”);
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 sensing composition as taught by Zhong et al in view of Potkay with the lipophilic indicator dye as taught by Nacht et al, in order to improve biocompatibility by preventing leaching in aqueous media (Nacht et al, section 3.8, paragraph 1, “Biocompatibility of the sensors is mandatory for their medical applications.”; paragraph 3, “Notably, the highly lipophilic dyes are excellently compatible with the hydrophobic polystyrenes and do not show any leaching in aqueous media.”).
Claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane et al (US 20070270675 A1) in view of Potkay (US 20200061271 A1).
With regards to claim 15, Kane et al teaches:
A chemical sensor element (Figure 8, sensing element 800; abstract, “…the invention includes an implantable medical device with a pulse generator and a chemical sensor…”) comprising;
a multilayer film (Figure 8, sensing element 800; [0051] describes the layer structure shown in figure 8 and confirms the membrane structure, “The sensing element 800 includes an optically transparent backing layer 825, an adhesive or bonding layer 827 under the backing layer 825, an indicator element 815 attached to the membrane, and an overcoat layer 805.”) comprising;
a hydrophilic polymer layer (Figure 9, membrane 855; [0059], “In some embodiments, the membrane 855 includes a hydrophilic polymer.”);
a hydrophobic polymer layer (Figure 9, indicator element 815; [0052], “The indicator element 815 can include a polymeric support matrix and one or more ion selective sensors.”; [0092], “The indicator element 815 can include a polymeric support matrix and one or more ion selective sensors… The chromoionophore and the ionophore can be dispersed in, and/or covalently attached to, a hydrophobic organic polymeric matrix.” The hydrophobic organic polymeric matrix reads on the hydrophobic polymer layer.);
a sensing composition ([0052], “Physiological analytes can diffuse through the overcoat layer 805 and into the indicator element 815 where they can bind with the ion selective sensor to produce a fluorimetric or calorimetric response.” The ion selective sensor reads on the sensing composition.);
Wherein the sensing composition is dispersed within the hydrophobic polymer layer ([0092], “In some embodiments, carrier based optical ion sensors include a lipophilic ionophore, and a lipophilic fluorescent or calorimetric indicator dye, called a chromoionophore. The chromoionophore and the ionophore can be dispersed in, and/or covalently attached to, a hydrophobic organic polymeric matrix.” The choromoionophore dispersed in the hydrophobic organic polymeric matrix reads on the sensing composition dispersed within the hydrophobic polymer layer).
However, Kane et al fails to teach wherein the chemical sensor is rolled.
In the analogous art of rolled membranes, Potkay teaches;
Wherein the thin film is rolled ([0009], “The microfluidic devices can also include a patterned membrane rolled circumferentially over the outer surface of the cylindrical substrate to define a plurality of concentric membrane layers extending radially outwardly from the central axis of the cylindrical substrate.”; [0144] discloses a process of producing a rolled multilayer membrane).
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 multilayer membrane configured for sensing as taught by Kane et al with the rolling process as taught by Potkay, in order to produce a device with microfluidic channels that can be produced using roll-to-roll manufacturing methods for large-scale production (Potkay, [0188], “The disclosed automated roll-to-roll manufacturing method can be employed, which, for the first time, is capable of quickly and easily constructing large area microfluidic devices.”).
With regards to claim 16, the sensor element of claim 15 is obvious over Kane et al in view of Potkay.
Kane et al additionally teaches:
Wherein the hydrophilic polymer layer is adjacent to the hydrophobic polymer layer (Figure 9, indicator element 815, membrane 855; [0051], “The sensing element 800 includes […] an indicator element 815 attached to the membrane…”; The indicator element attached to the membrane reads on the hydrophobic polymer layer being adjacent to the hydrophilic polymer layer.).
One of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that a rolled membrane forms a structure where the bottom-most layer of a membrane becomes adjacent to the top-most layer of the membrane. As such, Kane et al teaches all of the structure required to meet the limitation of claim 16, “wherein the hydrophilic polymer layer separates adjacent layers of the hydrophobic polymer layer when rolled.”
With regards to claim 19, the sensor element of claim 15 is obvious over Kane et al in view of Potkay.
Potkay additionally teaches:
Wherein the thin film is rolled for at least three revolutions ([0058], “Although some particular configurations of concentric membrane layers are disclosed herein, it is contemplated that any desired number of concentric membrane layers can be used. In exemplary aspects, it is contemplated that as many as 100, 200, 300, 400, or 500 concentric membrane layers can be used…” 100 concentric membrane layers reads on at least three revolutions around a center.).
As taught in both Potkay and the instant application, the addition of concentric layers is mere duplication of parts. According to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”—see In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, 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 rolled chemical sensor as taught by Kane et al in view of Potkay with the as many as 100, 200, 300, 400, or 500 concentric membrane layers (which reads on at least three revolutions around a center) taught by Potkay for the purposes of adding width and stability to the device.
With regards to claim 20, the chemical sensor element of claim 15 is obvious over Kane et al in view of Potkay.
Kane et al additionally teaches:
Wherein the sensing element comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a lipophilic fluorescent indicator dye and a lipophilic colorimetric indicator dye ([0092], “In an embodiment, the ion selective sensor is a carrier based ion sensor. Carrier based ion sensors include a compound, referred to as an ionophore, that complexes with and serves to carry the ion of interest. Carrier based ion sensors can include both optical ion sensors and ion selective electrodes. In some embodiments, carrier based optical ion sensors include a lipophilic ionophore, and a lipophilic fluorescent or calorimetric indicator dye, called a chromoionophore.”).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane et al (US 20070270675 A1) in view of Potkay (US 20200061271 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Roberts et al (US 20180364207 A1).
With regards to claim 17, the chemical sensor element of claim 15 is obvious over Kane et al in view of Potkay.
However, this combination fails to teach a second hydrophilic layer, wherein the second hydrophilic layer is disposed over an end of the rolled multilayer film.
In the analogous art of sensing elements, Roberts et al teaches the following:
A chemical sensor (Figure 1a, Sensor element 10; [0008], “Such a sensor, an apparatus or a device comprises electrospun fiber (nanofiber) comprising oxygen sensitive molecules (or called a sensing fiber.”);
A hydrophilic layer, wherein the hydrophilic layer is disposed over an end of the chemical sensor (Figure 1D, porous mask 70. Figure 1D shows porous mask disposed over the long end of the sensor; [0122], “In some embodiments, the sensing fiber may be coated with or embedded in a fabric or porous mask, which may comprise a hydrophilic […] material…”; [0123], “The sensor may be completely immersed, partially immersed, or immersed on just one side… In some embodiments, the gases or liquids of interest pass through a fabric or porous mask in which the sensing fiber itself is embedded.”; The porous mask reads on the hydrophilic layer. The sensing element embedded in the porous mask reads on a hydrophilic layer disposed over an end of the chemical sensor. This is supported by the disclosure noting that the sensor can be immersed on just one side.).
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 sensor element as taught by Kane et al in view of Potkay with the second hydrophilic layer disposed over an end of the chemical sensor as taught by Roberts et al, in order to allow the passage of water from aqueous suspensions while restricting the flow of contaminants into the sensor element (Roberts et al, [0101], “Similarly, a hydrophilic membrane could be used to allow the passage of water from aqueous suspensions while restricting the flow of contaminants.”).
With regards to claim 18, the chemical sensor element of claim 17 is obvious over Kane et al in view of Potkay and further in view of Roberts et al.
Roberts et al additionally teaches the following:
A chemical sensor (Figure 1a, Sensor element 10; [0008], “Such a sensor, an apparatus or a device comprises electrospun fiber (nanofiber) comprising oxygen sensitive molecules (or called a sensing fiber.”);
Wherein the hydrophilic layer encapsulates the chemical sensor (Figure 1D, porous mask 70; [0122], “In some embodiments, the sensing fiber may be coated with or embedded in a fabric or porous mask, which may comprise a hydrophilic […] material…”; [0123], “The sensor may be completely immersed, partially immersed, or immersed on just one side… In some embodiments, the gases or liquids of interest pass through a fabric or porous mask in which the sensing fiber itself is embedded.” The porous mask reads on the hydrophilic layer. The sensing fiber embedded in the porous mask reads on a sensing element encapsulated by a hydrophilic layer. This is supported by the disclosure noting that the sensor can be completely immersed.).
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 sensor element as taught by Kane et al in view of Potkay with the second hydrophilic layer encapsulating the chemical sensor as taught by Roberts et al, in order to allow the passage of water from aqueous suspensions while restricting the flow of contaminants into the sensor element (Roberts et al, [0101], “Similarly, a hydrophilic membrane could be used to allow the passage of water from aqueous suspensions while restricting the flow of contaminants.”).
Conclusion
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 ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797