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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 8, 2025 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 4, 5 and 8-10 have been amended by Applicants’ amendment filed 10-08-2025. No claims have been added or canceled by Applicants’ amendment filed 10-08-2025.
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 20, directed to a system for in vitro three-dimensional cell co-culture, in the reply filed on January 9, 2025 was previously acknowledged.
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election of invention has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP
§ 818.03(a)).
Claims 11-19 were previously withdrawn, and claim 8-10 are newly withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on October 20, 2022.
Please Note: Applicant has amended claim 8 to recite a new independent claim directed to an in vitro three-dimensional cell co-culture system that is different from the in vitro three-dimensional cell co-culture system of elected Group I, in the reply filed on January 9, 2025. Thus, claims 8-10 have been withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
The restriction requirement was deemed proper and was made FINAL.
The claims are examined insofar as they read on the elected species.
Therefore, claims 1-6 and 20 are under consideration to which the following grounds of rejection are applicable.
Priority
The present application filed April 11, 2022 is a 35 U.S.C. 371 national stage filing of International Application No. PCT/IB2020/059365, filed on October 6, 2020, which claims the benefit of Italian Patent Application IT102019000018614, filed October 11, 2019.
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Italy. Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s filing of a certified copy of the Italian Application No. 102019000018614, filed April 11, 2022.
Although Applicant filed an English translation on October 8, 2025, Applicant has failed to file a certified English translation of the foreign priority document Italian Application No. 102019000018614, filed April 11, 2022.
A translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
Applicants’ amendment and arguments filed October 8, 2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below are herein withdrawn.
Drawing Objection
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) due to Applicant’s amendment to the Specification to teach Figures 5a-5d, filed October 8, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The rejection of claim 5 is withdrawn under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends due to Applicant’s amendment of the claim, in the reply filed 10-08-2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 20 is withdrawn under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/102(a2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (hereinafter “Choi”) (US Patent Application Publication No 20140302110, published October 9, 2014; of record) as evidenced by One Monroe (One Monroe, 2023, 1-2); and Sakurai et al. (hereinafter “Sakurai”) (Physical Review Materials, 2020, 4, 084402, 1-6).
Choi does not specifically exemplify wherein the second magnetizable material is different from the first magnetizable material.
In view of the withdrawn rejection, Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 20 is withdrawn under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (hereinafter “Choi”) (US Patent Application Publication, published October 9, 2014; of record) in view of Ingber et. al. (hereinafter “Ingber”) (US Patent Application No. 20190032021, published January 31, 2019; filed September 7, 2018; effective filing date December 10, 2012; of record); as evidenced by One Monroe (One Monroe, 2023, 1-2); and Sakurai et al. (hereinafter “Sakurai”) (Physical Review Materials, 2020, 4, 084402, 1-6).
The combined references of Choi and Ingber do not specifically exemplify wherein the second magnetizable material is different from the first magnetizable material.
In view of the withdrawn rejection, Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot.
Maintained Objections/Rejections
Claim Interpretation: The terms “prismatic” and/or “prismatic shape” such as recited in claim 1 is interpreted to refer to any one or more of the following prism shapes: a rectangular prism, a triangular prism, a pentagonal prism, a hexagonal prims, a heptagonal prism, a square prism, an octagonal prism, an enneagonal prism, a decagonal prism, and/or an L-shaped prism (See, for example; Math Monks).
The term “a cell co-culture chamber containing the first prismatic porous scaffold and the second prismatic porous scaffold” as recited in claim 1 has been interpreted to contain the first prismatic porous scaffold and the second prismatic porous scaffold (e.g., the co-culture chamber does not contain the first cell type and/or the second cell type).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 20 is maintained under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6 and 20 is indefinite because the claims appear to recite both an apparatus and a process in the same claim. The examiner cautions that according to the MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) states that a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. PXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph). For example, claim 1 recites: “a first prismatic porous scaffold comprising a first magnetizable material”; “a second prismatic porous scaffold comprising a second magnetizable material”; “a cell co-culture chamber containing the first prismatic porous scaffold and the second prismatic porous scaffold” and “a magnetic field generator”, while also reciting: “a magnetic field generator that generates a magnetic field in the cell co-culture chamber, wherein the magnetic field that produces a magnetic attraction force between the first prismatic porous scaffold and the second prismatic porous scaffold in the cell coculture chamber to form by self-assembly at least one interface surface between the first prismatic porous scaffold and the second prismatic porous scaffold”. Such claims may also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the theory that the claim is directed to neither a “process” nor a “machine,” but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 which is drafted so as to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only. Id. at 1551.
Claim 2 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the magnetizable material” such as recited in claim 2, lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the magnetizable material” in the claim because claim 1, lines 6-8 recites the terms “a first magnetizable material” and “a second magnetizable material”.
Claim 5 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “at least one of the first prismatic porous scaffold” such as recited in claim 5, lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “at least one of the first prismatic porous scaffold” in the claim because claim 1 recites the term “a first prismatic porous scaffold”. Moreover, instant claim 1 does not recite the presence of a plurality of first prismatic porous scaffolds, such that it is unclear how claim 5 can refer to “at least one” of the first prismatic porous scaffold and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
New Objections/Rejections
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKean et al. (hereinafter “McKean”) (US Patent Application Publication 20190032007, published January 31, 2019; foreign priority date November 24, 2015) in view of Orr (US Patent No. 8865460, issued October 21, 2014) as evidenced by Berg (US Patent No 6991652, issued January 31, 2006); and Marrs (Journal of Chemical Education, 2015, 92, 1266-1267).
Regarding claim 1, McKean teaches microscaffold particles which facilitate the growth of three-dimensional (3D) cell cultures with a high degree of consistency and reproducibility and are capable of supporting 3D culture growth for a wide variety of cells, wherein the inventors have shown that various mammalian cell types, including hepatocytes, kidney cells and neuroblastoma cells, successfully attach to the microscaffolds, that they remain viable after attachment, and that they respond in a pharmacological manner to chemical stimulation; and that the cells in 3D culture on the microscaffolds have 100% of their cell surface area exposed to other cells and matrix (interpreted as a cell scaffold, claim 1) (paragraph [0007], lines 1-12). McKean teaches that the microscaffold can further comprise a magnetic material, and the invention additionally provides a method of manipulating one or more such microscaffolds comprising exposing a composition that comprises one or more such microscaffolds to a magnetic field of a magnet, and thereby causing the one or more microscaffolds in the composition to be attracted to said magnet by magnetic attraction, wherein the microscaffold, composition or the multi-well plate can be used for regenerative medicine, tissue engineering, screening compounds for biological use, or drug screening (interpreted as magnetizable scaffolds; interpreting a magnet as a magnetic field generator; scaffolds comprising the magnetic field generator; and capable of self-assembly, claims 1 and 5) (Abstract). McKean teaches the small size of the microscaffolds of the invention means that cell-laden microscaffolds can be readily suspended in culture medium, so that the sample resembles a suspension culture more than a stationary cell culture adhered to a surface, such that in a multi-well plate, 3D cell cultures grown in the microscaffolds of the invention can be suspended in culture medium in each well, rather than being anchored to the base of the well, meaning that cell cultures can easily be manipulated by automated processing equipment, including robotic pipetting devices for dispensing liquid in and out of plate wells
(interpreting the microscaffold and/or a multi-well plate as a cell culture chamber, claim 1) (paragraph [0008], lines 1-5 and 10-15). McKean teaches the magnetic microscaffolds can be manipulated using one or more external magnets (interpreted as a magnetic field generator, claim 1) (paragraph [0010], lines 12-13). McKean teaches that the porous particle can take any shape including the shape of hexagonal prism including a regular hexagonal prism; a hexagonal prism-shaped microscaffold, and a polygonal prism-shaped microscaffold; a triangular prism, a tetragonal prism, pentagonal prism, a hexagonal prism, a heptagonal prism, an octagonal prism, etc. (interpreted as a prismatic shape, claim 1) (paragraphs [0056]; [0058], lines 1-4; [0066]; and [0067], lines 1-4). McKean teaches that non-limiting examples of blends of polymer with an inorganic material include blends of a polymer or polymers with: ZnO, CuO, NiO, CeO2, Mn3O4 , Mn2O/Mn3O4 , MoO3, BaTiO3, Y2O3, Gd2O3, Ta2O5, Co3O4, Ba0,6Sr0,4, TiO3, SiO2, CdS, PbS, Ag2S, iron(II) oxide (FeO), iron(II,III) oxide (Fe3O4), or iron(III) oxide (Fe2O3), or another magnetic material (interpreted as magnetizable materials; magnetic field generator; and permanent magnets including ferromagnetic materials, claims 1, 3 and 4) (paragraph [0098]). McKean teaches that the diameter of a hexagonal face of a hexagonal prism-shaped microscaffold, or the diameter of the face of a different polygonal prism-shaped microscaffold, can be measured by microscopy (interpreted as a first and second prismatic porous scaffolds comprising different structures, claim 1) (paragraph [0057]). McKean teaches that the microscaffolds can be manipulated using one or more external magnets, allowing for magnetic transfer of cell-laden scaffolds from one location to another location, or indeed for retaining the microscaffolds in a particular position whilst the cell medium is renewed or replenished, wherein the presence of a magnetic material also increases the ease with which the microscaffolds can be maintained in suspension, for instance by using an externally-situated magnetic stirring device (interpreting stir bars to encompass rare earth or permanent magnets, claims 1-5) (paragraph [0104]), wherein magnetic stirrers are known to be permanent magnets made of rare earth magnets as evidenced by Marrs (pg. 1266, col 1, first and third full paragraphs). McKean teaches that the porous particle of the microscaffold can further comprise a magnetic material, wherein the magnetic material can be any magnetic material which is attracted to a magnet; and the magnetic material can comprise nanoparticles of the magnetic material (interpreted as magnetic scaffolds comprising any magnetic material, claim 1) (paragraph [0105], lines 1-5). McKean teaches that the microscaffold of the invention is capable of supporting 3D culture growth for a wide variety of cell types, including cell lines, stem cells and primary cells (interpreted as a first type of cell and a second type of cell, claim 1) (paragraph [0120]). McKean teaches altering, changing or renewing one or more components of the composition while the one or more microscaffolds are attracted to said magnet (interpreted as encompassing a second porous prismatic scaffold comprising a different shape and/or material, claim 1) (paragraph [0190], lines 1-3). McKean teaches using the magnet to remove the one or more microscaffolds from the composition, and optionally to dispose the one or more microscaffolds at another location and/or into another composition as shown in FIG. 23, which schematically illustrates the use of a magnet to remove magnetic microscaffolds from one sample well, move them above a different well, and then release them into that different well (interpreted as a first prismatic porous scaffold comprising a first magnetizable material; and a second prismatic porous scaffold comprising a second magnetizable material and/or shape, claim 1) (paragraph [0191]). McKean teaches that the process comprises printing a first bioink of the invention and printing a second bioink of the invention, wherein the cells attached to the microscaffold in the first bioink are different from the cells attached to the microscaffold in the second bioink, such that the cells in the first bioink can be fibroblasts, and the cells in the second bioink can be keratinocytes (interpreted as a first type of cell and a second type of cell, claim 1) (paragraph [0214]). McKean teaches that cells previously grown in 2-D were isolated from a cell culture flask, the concentration of cells counted, and cells were either mixed with microscaffolds in a conical tube, then dispensed into microplates; or cells and 3-D microscaffolds were dispensed into commercially available microwell plates and incubated to encourage adhesion and growth over a number of hours (interpreted as encompassing a co-culture chamber comprising a first and second scaffold that are different in shape and magnetic material, claim 1) (paragraph [0227], Example 2). McKean teaches that the devices of the invention can be used to lift many samples of magnetic microscaffolds of the invention out of different wells in a multi-well plate at the same time, and then, for instance, place the many microscaffold samples back into those wells (e.g. after their contents have been changed or replenished) or transfer them into the wells of a different multi-well plate, wherein this kind of manipulation facilitates the rapid handling of many cell-laden scaffold samples at the same time, and is useful in, e.g., high-throughput drug-screening assays in which drug candidates are tested on 3D cell samples grown on the microscaffolds of the invention (interpreted as encompassing a co-culture chamber comprising a first and second scaffold that are different in shape and magnetic material, claim 1) (paragraph [0236]).
Regarding claims 2-4, McKean teaches that the microscaffold comprises said porous particle, wherein the particle: (a) comprises said three dimensional network of fibers which comprise a polymer; (b) has said particle size of less than or equal to 2000 μm; and (c) further comprises a magnetic material, wherein the magnetic material is typically a paramagnetic, ferromagnetic, ferrimagnetic or superparamagnetic material including iron (II, III) oxide (interpreted as magnetic field generators; ferromagnetic material; magnetized ferromagnetic material, claim 2-4) (paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 5, McKean teaches that the magnetic material can be incorporated into the microscaffold, without adversely affecting the viability of cells grown in the microscaffold or the ability of the cell cultures to respond pharmacologically to chemical stimuli, or indeed the ability of the cell-laden scaffolds to be cryopreserved, wherein the magnetic microscaffolds can be manipulated using one or more external magnets (interpreted as a magnetic field generator is included in the prismatic porous scaffolds, claim 5) (paragraph [0010], lines 1-6 and 12-13). McKean teaches that the magnetic material is typically incorporated into the polymer fibers themselves (interpreted as a magnetic field generator is included in the prismatic porous scaffolds, claim 5) (paragraph [0107], lines 1-2).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, McKean teaches that the magnetic material can be a paramagnetic, ferromagnetic, ferrimagnetic or superparamagnetic material, wherein the magnetic material is preferably a ferromagnetic, ferrimagnetic or superparamagnetic material and can comprise iron; iron oxide; nickel; cobalt; an alloy comprising iron, nickel and/or cobalt; a rare earth magnet (e.g. a ferromagnetic compound or alloy comprising a lanthanide element); a ferrite; a magnetic mineral (e.g. magnetite or lodestone); or a superparamagnetic material, where superparamagnetic materials include superparamagnetic nanoparticles, for instance nanoparticles of a ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic material (interpreted as magnetizable materials; a magnetic field generator; ferromagnetic material; permanent magnets, etc., claims 1-6) (paragraph [0105], lines 7-20).
McKean does not specifically exemplify a second prismatic shape is different from the first prismatic shape (claim 1, in part).
Regarding claim 1 (in part), Orr teaches multi-chambered cell co-culture systems, wherein the systems can be utilized to encourage the growth and development of isolated cells in a dynamic three-dimensional in vitro environment, such that the cell chambers of the system can be in biochemical communication with adjacent chambers containing cells of different types, but the different cell types are maintained physically separated from one another; and the local environment of each cell chamber can be independently controlled (interpreted as a cell co-culture chamber comprising a first cell type and a second cell type, claim 1) (Abstract). Orr teaches that the different cell types that are co-cultured in both static and dynamic systems are usually maintained in actual physical contact with one another, preventing the development of an isolated cell population, and also limiting means for better understanding the biochemical communications between the cell types during growth and development (interpreted as a cell chamber can comprise both a first and second cell type, claim 1) (col 1, lines 44-50). Orr teaches that the porous substrate usually also serves as the support scaffold to which cells are intended to attach and grow (interpreted as porous scaffolds, claim 1) (col 1, lines 57-58). Orr teaches that culture chamber 10 can be designed to accommodate a biomaterial scaffold within the culture chamber 10, wherein discrete scaffolds are smaller entities such as beads, rods, tubes, fragments, or the like (interpreted as comprising a first scaffold and a second scaffold, claim 1) (col 5, lines 15-17 and 54-55). Orr teaches that when utilized as a cellular anchorage, a plurality of identical or a mixture of different discrete scaffolds can be loaded with cells and/or other agents and located within a void where the plurality of entities can function as a single anchorage device; and exemplary discrete scaffolds suitable for use in the present invention and useful in vivo are described further in US6991652 to Burg, which is incorporated by reference (interpreted as a second scaffold that is different from the first scaffold; and comprising a prismatic porous scaffold, claim 1) (col 5, lines 55-62), wherein it is known that the three-dimensional support constructs can particle beads, rods, triangles, and cubes having an interconnected macroporous structure, wherein a combination of construct sizes and types can be employed as evidenced by Berg (col 4, lines 12-15 and 21-24). Orr teaches that the materials that are used in forming an anchorage can generally be any suitable biocompatible material including biodegradable materials such as biodegradable synthetic polymeric scaffold materials including polylactide, chondroitin sulfate (a proteoglycan component), polyesters, polyethylene glycols, polycarbonates, polyvinyl alcohols, polyacrylamides, polyamides, polyacrylates, polyesters, poly-etheresters, polymethacrylates, etc.; as well as, naturally derived biodegradable mate rials including, but not limited to chitosan, agarose, alginate, collagen, hyaluronic acid, and carrageenan (col 6, lines 21-35). Orr teaches that the culture systems of the present invention are not limited to co-culture systems in which only two independently controlled culture chambers are located adjacent to one another; the one or more of the culture chambers of the system can be designed so as to provide the capability of subjecting the interior of the culture chamber to variable dynamic mechanical stimuli such as mechanical loading or variation in fluid flow through the culture chamber in order to vary the associated stress on the developing cells (interpreting mechanical stimuli to include magnetic stimuli, claim 1) (col 8, lines 27-29 and 35-40). Orr teaches that multiple independent co-culture systems can be provided that can incorporate various combinations of experimental stimuli, so as to provide real time comparisons of the differing stimuli on the developing cellular constructs (interpreting mechanical stimuli to include magnetic stimuli, claim 1) (col 9, lines 10-15).
It is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; the court held that, "…a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950)”. Therefore, in view of the benefits of a multi-chamber cell co-culture system as exemplified by Orr, it would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microscaffolds comprising magnetic porous particles including porous polygonal prism microscaffolds within multi-well plates as disclosed by McKean to include a co-culture bioreactor system that can maintain different cells types in physically isolated environments, while allowing biochemical communication as taught by Orr with a reasonable expectation of success in producing a dynamic in vitro environment that resembles what is found in vivo; in subjecting the same or different discrete scaffolds within different cell chambers to one or more different chemical, biochemical and/or mechanical stimuli to assess the biochemical communication between cells of different types during growth and development; and/or in developing more complex assays by increasing the ease and speed that cell cultures and/or magnetic porous microscaffolds comprising different cell types can be manipulated using an external magnet.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, the claims are properly rejected under 35 USC §103 as obvious over the art.
Conclusion
Claims 1-6 and 20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY M BUNKER whose telephone number is (313) 446-4833. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (6am-2:30pm).
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, Heather Calamita can be reached on (571) 272-2876. 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.
/AMY M BUNKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684