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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 8 and 12 are cancelled. Claims 21-22 are new. Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-22 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “Providing” in line 3, which should be lowercased to “providing” because the term is in the middle of a sentence.
Claim 1 recites “Treating” in line 4, which should be lowercased to “treating” because the term is in the middle of a sentence.
Claim 1 recites “Exposing” in line 12, which should be lowercased to “exposing” because the term is in the middle of a sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biederman et al. (CZ 2014757 A3), previously cited, in view of Lietz (Electrode configurations in atmospheric pressure plasma jets: production of reactive species; Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 27, 2018, 105020) and Hong et al., (Air plasma jet with hollow electrodes at atmospheric pressure; PHYSICS OF PLASMA, 14, 053503, 2007).
Regarding claim 1, Biederman teaches a method for covalently attaching biomolecules to polymeric substrates (Page 1, Technical Field). Biederman teaches the use of plasma generated at atmospheric pressure to “activate” the polymeric substrates with a plasma generation system (Page 2, Paragraph 3). Biederman teaches that, following plasma-activation, the polymeric substrate (PTFE) film was exposed to BSA, i.e., a molecular compound, which formed a covalent bond with the PTFE surface (p. 3, para. 1).
Biederman does not teach that the system comprises a nozzle and a moveable electrode.
However, Lietz teaches an atmospheric pressure plasma jet comprising a powered ring electrode wrapped around a dielectric tube and a grounded ring electrode, wherein the powered electrode is moved to different positions along the tube (Abstract), i.e., the electrode is considered moveable. Lietz teaches that gas flows through the dielectric tube (Abstract)., i.e., the nozzle.
Biederman and Lietz do not teach a gas flow rate of at least 0.1 L/min.
However, Hong teaches a method of using an atmospheric-pressure plasma jet (Abstract) with air, nitrogen, and argon, i.e., gases, injected at 5 L/min (p. 053503-3, col. 1, para. 3), which is a flow rate of at least 0.1L/min.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the plasma jet of Lietz with a gas flow rate of 5 L/min, as taught by Hong, to activate a substrate surface to covalently attach biomolecules to polymeric substrates, as taught by Biederman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lietz teaches atmospheric pressure plasma jets are capable of producing reactive species (Introduction, para. 1), while Biederman teaches that reactive radicals have the ability to covalently bond with biomolecules (p. 2, para. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Biederman, Lietz, and Hong are in the same field of endeavor of plasma-generating technologies.
Regarding claim 2, Biederman teaches that the substrate is a polymer (Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Biederman teaches that plasma action results in the formation of reactive radicals in the substrate surface layer (Page 2, Paragraph 5). Lietz teaches that atmospheric pressure plasma jets form reactive species (Introduction, para. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Biederman teaches that the substrate is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (Abstract), which is a heteroatom containing organic polymer.
Regarding claim 5, Biederman teaches that the biomolecule is bovine serum albumin (BSA) (Abstract), which is a protein.
Regarding claim 6, Biederman teaches that plasma was exposed to the substrate surface for 10 seconds (Paragraph spanning pages 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 7, although Biederman does not disclose that the process of plasma treatment is repeated multiple times, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat plasma treatment in order to further modify the substrate surface through the generation of more active sites.
Regarding claim 9, Biederman teaches a voltage of 11 kV (Paragraph spanning pages 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 10, Hong teaches that a discharge is fired in the gap between the two electrodes resulting in a plasma jet reaching lengths of up to 2 cm (053503-2, col. 1, para. 1; figure 1). Therefore, it is considered that with a gas flow rate of 5 L/min a substrate may be placed at a distance of up to 2 cm, i.e., 20 mm, from the nozzle of Hong, which falls within the range recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, Biederman teaches that, after plasma exposure, the PTFE film (i.e., the activated substrate) was incubated with tropoelastin, i.e., the molecular compound, solution for 4 days (Page 3, Paragraph 2, Example 2). Biederman also teaches that the proteins may be applied in the form of drops (p. 2, last full paragraph).
Although the incubation period taught by Biederman differs from that of the instant claim, section 2144.05 II of the MPEP states: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.")” The selection of incubation period lengths would have been a routine matter of optimization on the part of the artisan of ordinary skill, said artisan recognizing that differing incubation periods would affect the amount of protein bound to the substrate.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the “cell adhesion molecules” recited in line 2 of instant claim 14, as amended, encompass tropoelastin because the instant specification discloses that tropoelastin is an extracellular matrix adhesion protein (see p. 9 line 18). Biederman teaches a method of adhering epithelial cells to activated PTFE incubated with tropoelastin (i.e., a protein) and teaches that tropoelastin retains its adhesive character to cells after immobilization on the surface of a PTFE film treated with plasma (Page 3, Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 16, Biederman teaches a step of applying epithelial cells to the immobilized tropoelastin (Page 3, Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 17, Biederman teaches that the proteins may be applied in the form of drops (p. 2, last full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that drops of proteins, i.e., molecular compounds, may be applied to specific areas of the plasma-activated substrate to achieve a predetermined pattern of immobilized compounds, based on the teachings of Biederman.
Regarding claim 18, Biederman teaches a substrate with covalently immobilized molecular compounds while Hong teaches plasma-treated surfaces with water contact angles of 14-80˚ (Figure 5b). Hong does not teach that the angle is measured using a Kruss DSA10-Mk2 contact angle goniometer by means of the sessile droplet method. However, the limitation of “using a Kruss DSA10-Mk2 contact angle goniometer by means of the sessile droplet method” is not part of the instantly claimed product of a substrate with molecular compounds immobilized covalently to its surface. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was measured by a different process to show the same property (i.e. contact angle).
Regarding claim 19, Lietz teaches helium atmospheric pressure plasma jets (p. 23, concluding remarks).
Regarding claim 20, Lietz teaches an atmospheric pressure plasma jet comprising a powered ring electrode wrapped around a dielectric tube and a grounded ring electrode, wherein the powered electrode is moved to different positions along the tube (Abstract), i.e., the electrode is considered moveable. Lietz teaches that gas flows through the dielectric tube (Abstract), i.e., the nozzle.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biederman et al. (CZ 2014757 A3), Lietz (Electrode configurations in atmospheric pressure plasma jets: production of reactive species; Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 27, 2018, 105020) and Hong et al., (Air plasma jet with hollow electrodes at atmospheric pressure; PHYSICS OF PLASMA, 14, 053503, 2007) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Waterhouse et al., 2010 (The immobilization of recombinant human tropoelastin on metals using a plasma-activated coating to improve the biocompatibility of coronary stents), previously cited.
Regarding claim 13, Hong teaches a flow rate that results in plasma-treated surfaces with water contact angles of 14-80˚ (Figure 5b). Hong does not teach that the angle is measured using a Kruss DSA10-Mk2 contact angle goniometer by means of the sessile droplet method.
However, Waterhouse teaches a method of measuring surface contact angle using a Kruss DSA10-MK2 contact angle analyzer, and teaches that sessile water drops were used for advancing contact angle (Page 8333, Column 2, Paragraph 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the Kruss DSA10-Mk2 contact angle measuring system as taught by Waterhouse, to measure the water contact angle of Hong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the Kruss system was established as a suitable system for measuring water contact angle prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as taught by Waterhouse. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Biederman, Lietz, Hong, and Waterhouse are in the same field of endeavor of plasma-coating technology.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biederman et al. (CZ 2014757 A3), Lietz (Electrode configurations in atmospheric pressure plasma jets: production of reactive species; Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 27, 2018, 105020) and Hong et al., (Air plasma jet with hollow electrodes at atmospheric pressure; PHYSICS OF PLASMA, 14, 053503, 2007) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu, (3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing [Los Angeles, CA], vol. 5, no. 3, September 2018, pp. 205–13).
Regarding claim 21, Lietz teaches an atmospheric pressure plasma jet (i.e. plasma generation system). See the abstract.
Biederman, Lietz, and Hong do not teach the plasma generation system configured for 3D printing.
Liu teaches a system that comprises two main units, a multi-extrusion printing system (i.e. 3D printer) and a plasma jet system. See p. 3 first passage. Liu teaches 3D printing poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL). See the caption of figure 2. The PCL scaffolds are printed and treated with plasma. See p. 3 para. 2. Liu suggests that plasma grafting of surfaces provides anchor groups for biomolecule immobilization, which improves cell adhesion. See p. 2 para. 1.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to configure Lietz’s plasma generation system for 3D printing based on the teachings and suggestions of Liu, to activate a substrate surface to covalently attach biomolecules to polymeric substrates, as taught by Biederman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Liu suggests that configuring a 3D printing unit with a plasma unit allows for a substrate surface to be modified by the plasma during the substrate fabrication process (abstract). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Liu demonstrates configuring a plasma generation unit with a 3D printer for biomolecule adhesion (see e.g. p. 5 right column).
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biederman et al. (CZ 2014757 A3), Lietz (Electrode configurations in atmospheric pressure plasma jets: production of reactive species; Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 27, 2018, 105020) and Hong et al., (Air plasma jet with hollow electrodes at atmospheric pressure; PHYSICS OF PLASMA, 14, 053503, 2007) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kesti (US 2017/0348458).
Regarding claim 22, Biederman teaches plasma treating a PTFE polymer film and placing the plasma-activated films in a tropoelastin (i.e. molecular compound) solution to covalently bind tropoelastin. See p. 3 example 2 para.1.
Biederman, Lietz, and Hong do not teach step c) is performed by 3D printing of the molecular compounds. Step c) requires exposing at least a portion of the at least one activated surface site to molecular compounds, thereby establishing a covalent bond between the molecular compound and the substrate surface.
Kesti teaches a method comprising providing an aqueous solution of a gelling polysaccharide; providing at least one of: particles and/or fibres and mammalian cells; mixing said aqueous solution of a gelling polysaccharide, said particles and/or fibres, and/or said mammalian cells to obtain a printing mix, depositing said printing mix in a three-dimensional form, wherein said solution of gelling polysaccharide comprises a cytocompatible polymer selected from a group that includes tropoelastin. See claim 36 of Kesti. Kesti teaches that either one of said printing mix and said polymer scaffold comprises reactive groups covalently attached thereto, particularly reactive groups facilitating linking of said printing mix, or its constituent components, to said particles, by crosslinking by spontaneous or externally triggered reaction, wherein reactive groups are present on at least one of the polymer. See [0097]. Printing mix material (“Bio-Ink”) was produced by combining gellan gum in 3.5% concentration with the alginate 3%. See [0141].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute Kesti’s 3D printed tropoelastin molecular compound for Biederman’s tropoelastin molecular compound. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Kesti suggests that a printing mix comprising tropoelastin can take a desired shape (see [0106]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Kesti teaches linking a printing mix, which can comprise tropoelastin, to a polymer scaffold comprising reactive groups, and Biederman demonstrates covalently binding tropoelastin to a polymer substrate comprising reactive groups from the plasma activation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Examiner cannot pick and choose only one aspect of a prior art reference and exclude other aspects of the reference or ignore the central teaching of the reference. See the remarks p. 8 para. 3. Applicant asserts that Examiner improperly relies on selectively combining isolated features from the incompatible systems of Biederman and Lietz/Hong, without considering the differences in their underlying operating principles and resulting surface chemistry. The dielectric barrier discharge system of Biederman relies on high-energy, filamentary microdischarges that directly impinge on the substrate and generate the highly reactive species necessary to achieve covalent immobilization of biomolecules. In contrast, the atmospheric pressure plasma jet systems of Lietz and Hong are specifically configured to generate species remotely and transport them to the substrate via gas flow, which significantly reduces their energy and reactivity prior to surface interaction. These differences are distinct and incompatible mechanisms of surface modification that would not be expected to result in the same function. See the remarks the paragraph spanning pages 8-9.
This argument is not persuasive because arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence (MPEP 2145 or 716.01(c)). Claim 1 requires treating the substrate surface with a plasma at atmospheric pressure. The instant specification discloses that plasma at atmospheric pressure is a plasma that is created in or exists in an environment at atmospheric pressure. The specification further discloses that the use of such plasma is beneficial as it reduces the complexity of experimental setup, for example the need for vacuum chambers is reduced when a dielectric barrier discharge with ambient air is employed. See p. 3 lines 4-9. Biederman teaches generating plasma at atmospheric pressure. See p. 2 para. 3. Thus, dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) generates plasma at atmospheric pressure, as required by instant claim 1. Applicant argues that the atmospheric pressure plasma jet systems of Lietz and Hong are distinct from Biederman’s DBD and would not be expected to result in the same function. However, contrary to Applicant’s argument, Lietz and Biederman suggest using atmospheric pressure plasmas for the same purpose, as Biederman suggests using the plasma to attach biomolecules to various types of substrates for biomedical applications (p. 1 last passage) and Lietz further suggests that atmospheric pressure plasma jets are a preferred plasma source for many biomedical applications (abstract). Furthermore, the instant specification teaches attaching bovine serum albumin (BSA) protein to a polymer treated with an atmospheric pressure plasma jet. See p. 15 lines 12-13 and 17-18. Biederman teaches binding BSA to a polymer using a plasma treatment carried out at atmospheric pressure. See the paragraph spanning pgs. 2-3. Lietz teaches atmospheric pressure plasma jets. See the abstract. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the evidence of record indicates that atmospheric pressure plasma jets (APPJ) can be used to modify the surface of polymer substrates for covalent immobilization of molecular compounds.
Applicant argues that the combination of references appears to be based on impermissible hindsight of the presently claimed invention. See p. 9 para. 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, every limitation is accounted for in the prior art, so nothing is gleaned from the instant disclosure.
Applicant argues that the Declaration explains that the species that contact the surface being modified as described in Biederman and the energy they deposit at the surface are very different to those modifying the surface in the case of the APPJ discharges of Lietz and Hong. In other words, the species interacting with the surface in Biederman’s DBD are fundamentally different from those in the APPJ of Lietz and Hong both in their origin and energy. Biederman’s DBD produces a filamentary discharged composed of stochastic microfilaments that directly bridge the electrode gap and impinge on the surface. These microfilaments deliver hot gas and high-energy electrons directly to the surface, resulting in high energy and reactive conditions. In contrast, the species that impact on the surface in Lietz and Hong are significantly less energetic and significantly less reactive than those in Biederman. See the remarks p. 9 last para. 3. Applicant asserts that the declaration explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the significantly different surface modification outcomes for these two types of discharges (i.e. Biederman’s filamentary discharge vs Lietz’s and Hong’s diffuse discharge) and that there would not have been any expectation that combining Biederman with Lietz/Hong would activate a surface to enable strong covalent binding as achieved with the design of Biederman. See the remarks p. 10 para. 1.
This argument is not persuasive because MPEP 2141.01(a)(I) states that “[w]hen more than one prior art reference is used as the basis of an obviousness rejection, it is not required that the references be analogous art to each other”. Although Applicant asserts the prior art references teach disparate discharges, the teachings of Biederman, Leitz and Hong are analogous to the instantly claimed invention because the references all teach plasma at atmospheric pressure. Applicant indicates that the filamentary discharge of Biederman results in a different surface modification compared to Lietz’s and Hong’s diffuse discharge. However, this argument is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims, because the claims do not require the plasma to be generated or maintained by any particular electrical discharge (e.g. filamentary vs diffuse). Applicant indicates that the electrical discharge affects the surface modification, but there is no evidence of record indicating that covalent immobilization of a molecular compound would not be possible on a surface modified by either filamentary discharge or diffuse discharge.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 05/21/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-7, 9-11, and 14-20 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the last Office action because: the showing is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
The declaration of Bilek asserts that the DBD of Biederman is a filamentary discharge that occurs in stationary gas with many stochastic microfilaments carrying the electrical current across the electrode gap directly to the surface being modified. These microfilaments contain hot gas as well as high temperature electrons and deliver them directly to the surface. In contrast the species that impact on the surface in Lietz and Hong are much less energetic, having been formed between dielectric covered electrodes that are fully within the cylindrical jet architecture removed from the surface being modified and these species are subsequently carried to the surface by a gas flow. During the transport process the species suffer multiple collisions with the background gas which is at a low temperature and hence the species are cooled to a low energy state. This has been established in the field. The declaration of Bilek cites figure 18 of Schutz, which shows the filamentary discharge labelled “barrier” having significantly higher electron gas temperatures than the APPJ discharges labelled “plasma jet”. The person skilled in the art who combines Biederman with Lietz and/or Hong would not expect that doing so could activate a surface to enable strong covalent binding as was achieved with the design of Biederman. See the paragraph spanning pgs. 2-3 of the declaration.
This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. Applicant indicates that the species that impact on the surface of Lietz and Hong are less energetic compared to that of Biederman but instant claim 1 does not limit the species that impact the substrate surface. Rather, claim 1 requires the movable single or double electrode to be operated with a gas that is applied towards the substrate surface; the gas carries the reactive species to the substrate surface. As such, the gas and the reactive species are not particularly limited.
The declaration of Bilek asserts that those skilled in the art would be aware of reports in the literature (see Moderie [2]) that show significantly different surface modification outcomes for these two types of discharges. See the declaration p. 3, para. 2.
This argument is not persuasive because the instant claims do not require a particular surface modification due to a type of discharge. Rather, claim 1 requires exposing at least a portion of the at least one activated surface site to a molecular compound for the purpose of establishing a covalent bond. Although Moderie indicates that the type of discharge may affect the surface modification, there is no evidence of record indicating that a particular discharge precludes the required covalent bonding.
The declaration of Bilek asserts that Maffei [3] employs complex wet chemistry to attempt to achieve covalent attachment of biomolecules to an APPJ-modified surface. See the declaration p. 3 last passage. The declaration of Bilek asserts that when an attempt is made without including additional wet chemistry steps in D’Sa no covalent attachment is observed. See the declaration p. 4 para. 1.
This argument is not persuasive because the instant claims encompass additional unrecited elements including wet chemistry steps due to the open-ended term “comprising” in line 2 of claim 1. Moreover, Maffei indicates that APPJ-modified surfaces can be covalently bonded with a molecular compound, because Maffei teaches an APPJ process to deposit and control the density of amino groups needed to covalently attach to the surface the HPV. See p. 8 section 4. Therefore, to the extent that Applicant is arguing that Maffei and/or D’Sa provides evidence that APPJ-modified surfaces do not support covalent attachment, it is unpersuasive.
The declaration of Bilek argues that the surface treatment of Waterhouse is performed with a low-pressure plasma and the mechanism for covalent binding of molecules on the surface has been shown to be due to radicals embedded in the surface by high energy ion impacts. See the declaration p. 4 para. 2.
This argument is not persuasive because Waterhouse is relied upon for teaching a Kruss DSA10-MK2 contact angle analyzer. As such, Waterhouse is not relied upon for teaching the required covalent binding or plasma at atmospheric pressure.
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 KIMBERLY C BREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-4:30, F 8:30-1:30 (EDT/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, LOUISE HUMPHREY can be reached at (571)272-5543. 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.
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/K.C.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 1657
Prosecution Insights