DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FR 1913271, filed on 11/26/2019.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “2” in graph of Fig. 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
the end of paragraph [0105] is cut off and missing from PGPUB US 20220409810
the specification recites “detection means” as well as “detection unit,” but the claims recite only “detection unit.” Examiner interprets the use of “detection means” and “detection unit” in the specification to all refer to “detection unit.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
line 1 of claim 1 reads “a insertion device” and should instead read “an insertion device”
claim 10 reads “and to the insertion step is performed” and should instead read “and the at least one insertion step is performed”
Claims 2-13 should be included in the objection because claims that depend on an objected claim inherit the problems of their parent claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“an electronic unit configured to cooperate with at least one detection unit” in claim 1
“at least one detection unit configured to provide a value relative to the operation of the electric motor” in claim 1
“a first detection unit configured to determine a value relative to the movement of the electric motor” in claim 2
“a second detection unit configured to determine a value relative to a load of the electric motor” in claim 4
“a breaking member adapted to generated at least one hard point” in claim 5
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gescheit (EP 2818191).
Regarding claim 1, Gescheit discloses a insertion device for inserting a needle into a site comprising: a body (130) provided with a bearing wall for bearing on the site (cradle 200 with 210 bearing on skin), a needle support (320) on which a needle (310) is mounted, the needle support being mounted so as to be able to move relative to the bearing wall (para. [0056], last sentence, 320 moves toward 200 during insertion movement) between: a pre-insertion position in which the needle is retracted with respect to the bearing wall (Fig. 1: resting position with 320 and 310 in distal most position; distal resting position: para. [0030]), at least one insertion position in which the needle protrudes with respect to the bearing wall (para. [0056], last sentence), and at least one retracted position in which the needle is once again retracted with respect to the bearing wall (Fig. 1: resting position with 320 and 310 in distal most position; retracting back to distal resting position: para. [0030]), an electric motor (121) comprising a rotation shaft (motor drive shaft: para. [0073], sentence 4), the electric motor being configured to move the needle support in translation between the different positions of the needle support (para. [0059], last sentence), at least one detection unit (116) configured to provide a value relative to the operation of the electric motor (para. [0073], first two sentences), an electronic unit (110, 111) configured to cooperate with the at least one detection unit (para. [0073], sentence two) to control a depth of insertion of the needle (para. [0073] and last sentence; para. [0061], last sentence).
Regarding claim 2, Gescheit discloses the insertion device according to claim 1, as described above, wherein the at least one detection unit comprises a first detection unit (rotary encoder of 116: para. [0073], sentence 4) configured to determine a value relative to the movement of the electric motor (para. [0073], sentences two and six), selected from a speed of rotation associated with a duration of rotation, an angle of rotation, a number of revolutions and a number of pulses of the electric motor (para. [0073], sentence 4; rotary encoder detects and translates motor rotation data).
Regarding claim 8, Gescheit discloses a method for using the insertion device according to claim 1, as described above, comprising at least one insertion step, during which the electric motor rotates in a first direction of rotation to move the needle support from the pre-insertion position to the at least one insertion position (para. [0046], sentence 2), and at least the following sub-steps are performed: a detection sub-step D, during which the detection unit detects a first value relative to the movement of the electric motor (para. [0073], sentences 4 and 6-7; 116 detects displacement/depth position via a number of sensing methods), and a comparison sub-step C, during which the electronic unit compares the first value relative to the movement of the electric motor with a first preset reference to provide information relative to the insertion depth (preset reference: para. [0075], sentences 1-2, user inputs desired insertion depth), wherein in a configuration C-1, if the first value relative to the movement of the electric motor is greater than or equal to the first preset reference, the electric motor stops rotating, and the at least one insertion step is finished; and wherein in a configuration C-2, if the first value relative to the movement of the electric motor is less than the first preset reference, no modification is made to the direction of rotation of the electric motor (para. [0024], sentence 3; para. [0076], sentences 4-5; the detected displacement/depth must be compared to the preset input depth in order to accurately insert to the input depth in the automated insertion process).
Regarding claim 14, Gescheit discloses a kit for assembling an insertion device for inserting a needle into a site, comprising: a body (130) provided with a bearing wall for bearing on the site (cradle 200 with 210 bearing on skin), a needle support (320), the needle support being mounted so as to be movable with respect to the bearing wall (para. [0056], last sentence, 320 moves toward 200 during insertion movement) between: a pre-insertion position in which the needle (310) is retracted with respect to the bearing wall (Fig. 1: resting position with 320 and 310 in distal most position; distal resting position: para. [0030]), at least one insertion position in which the needle protrudes with respect to the bearing wall (para. [0056], last sentence), and at least one retracted position in which the needle is once again retracted with respect to the bearing wall (Fig. 1: resting position with 320 and 310 in distal most position; retracting back to distal resting position: para. [0030]), an electric motor (121) comprising a rotation shaft (motor drive shaft: para. [0073], sentence 4), the electric motor being configured to move the needle support in translation between the different positions of the needle support (para. [0059], last sentence), a detection unit (116) configured to provide a value relative to the operation of the electric motor (para. [0073], first two sentences), and an electronic unit (110, 111) configured to cooperate with the detection unit (para. [0073], sentence two) to control a depth of insertion of the needle (para. [0073] and last sentence; para. [0061], last sentence).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gescheit (EP 2818191) in view of Earle (EP 0390388).
Regarding claim 3, Gescheit discloses the insertion device according to claim 2, as described above, wherein the first detection unit comprises an encoder arranged on the shaft of the electric motor (para. [0073], sentence 4). Gescheit does not, however, explicitly disclose a counter connected to the encoder.
Earle teaches an analogous drug pumping system with a counter (24) connected to the encoder (22) to count the number of pulses of the electric motor (col. 2, lines 10-14). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Gescheit device by incorporating the counter taught by Earle in order to quantify the actions of the motor shaft in order to accurately track its movement (Earle: col. 2, lines 14-19).
Claims 4-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gescheit (EP 2818191) in view of Miller (US 20050131345).
Regarding claim 4, Gescheit discloses the insertion device according to claim 2, as described above, but fails to disclose a second detection unit for determining the load of the motor.
Miller teaches an analogous needle insertion device, which comprises a second detection unit configured to determine a value relative to a load of the electric motor, selected from an electric current and a torque of the electric motor (para. [0087], sentences 1-3; Fig. 13A; para. [0088]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Gescheit device by incorporating the detection unit for sensing the torque of the motor taught by Miller, in order to monitor and detect when the needle encounters a physical barrier, such as a stopper surface on the advancement device or new layers of the patient’s tissue with varying degrees of hardness (Miller: para. [0008], last sentence, and para. [0086]).
Regarding claim 5, Gescheit in view of Miller teaches the insertion device according to claim 4, as described above, wherein the needle support is coupled, at least while the needle is being inserted, with a braking member (Miller: Figs. 4A-C: breaking member 54 coupled to needle support 20+23) adapted to generate at least one hard point when moving the needle support relative to the body (Miller: para. [0081], sentence 3; hard point generated when breaking member 54 abuts 50), and wherein the electronic unit and the second detection unit are configured to determine any peak of electric current of the electric motor related to the at least one hard point (Miller: current detected as amperage; Fig. 13A and para. [0088], the peak “P” in amperage correlates to the hard point, being either penetration of the hard tissue or a mechanical stop from the breaking member). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also incorporated the breaking member and peak detection related to the hard point taught by Miller into the Gescheit-Miller combination described above, in order to detect the predetermined hardpoint and automatically stop advancement of the needle to prevent injury and stop at the predetermined point (Miller: para. [0070], sentences 1-2 and para. [0071], sentence 1).
Regarding claim 12, Gescheit discloses the method for using an insertion device according to claim 8, as described above, but fails to disclose a second detection unit for determining the load of the motor.
Miller teaches an analogous needle insertion device, which further comprises a second detection unit, wherein, the second detection unit is used to detect a second value relative to a load of the electric motor, selected from an electric current and a torque of the electric motor (Miller: para. [0087], sentences 1-3; para. [0088]; Fig. 13A). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Gescheit device and method by incorporating the detection unit for sensing the torque of the motor taught by Miller, in order to monitor and detect when the needle encounters a physical barrier, such as a stopper surface on the advancement device or new layers of the patient’s tissue with varying degrees of hardness (Miller: para. [0008], last sentence, and para. [0086]). Upon incorporating this second detection unit taught by Miller into the Gescheit insertion method, it would follow that during the sub-step C, the second value relative to the load of the electric motor is compared with a third preset reference (Miller: para. [0075] and para. [0073], last sentence, preset reference is the pre-selected threshold), in a configuration C-3, if the second value relative to the load of the electric motor is greater than or equal to the third preset reference, the first detection unit is used to detect the first value relative to the movement of the electric motor (Gescheit: para. [0073], sentences 2-6); in a configuration C-4, if the second value relative to the load of the electric motor is less than the third preset reference, the second detection unit is continued to be used to detect the second value relative to the load of the electric motor (Miller: para. [0073], sentences 6-8 and para. [0070], sentence 2: the advancement continues until the threshold of the motor load is reached, after which the depth of insertion may be determined, according to Gescheit).
Claims 6, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gescheit (EP 2818191) in view of Shor (US 20190009019).
Regarding claim 6, Gescheit discloses the insertion device according to claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly disclose the catheter and fluid reservoir of the device for dispensing the drug.
Shor teaches an analogous drug delivery device with a depth-controlled needle inserter, comprising: a catheter mounted so as to be movable with respect to the needle and configured to dispense a product into the site (catheter 216 over needle 214, movable together during insertion: para. [0183] and Figs. 24C-E), a pump (Fig. 36: plunger 120 and drive 112) connected to a reservoir (106) so as to transfer product from the reservoir to the catheter (para. [0189], sentences 2-3). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Gescheit device with the catheter and drug/fluid pumping components taught by Shor in order to control the delivery of the drug to the patient, and be able to carry out the delivery for a prolonged period of time without the needle inserted into the patient to increase their comfort and decrease risk of additional injury to the vessel. Upon the incorporation of the Shor pump assembly to the Gescheit device, it would be obvious to incorporate it such that the electric motor of Gescheit would be configured to supply the pump to transfer the product, as the pump of Shor is driven by a motor (the drive component 112), and it would be obvious to power all components with the same motor to reduce weight, size, complexity and cost of the device.
Regarding claim 9, Gescheit discloses the method for using the insertion device according to claim 8, wherein the electric motor rotates in a second direction of rotation to move the needle support from the at least one insertion position to the at least one retracted position (para. [0033], sentences 1-2, reversal of the actuator, as the embodiment referenced uses electric motor for insertion) as described above, but fails to explicitly disclose the catheter and fluid reservoir of the device for dispensing the drug.
Shor teaches an analogous drug delivery device with a depth-controlled needle inserter, comprising: a catheter mounted so as to be movable with respect to the needle and configured to dispense a product into the site (catheter 216 over needle 214, movable together during insertion: para. [0183] and Figs. 24C-E), a pump (Fig. 36: plunger 120 and drive 112) connected to a reservoir (106) so as to transfer product from the reservoir to the catheter (para. [0189], sentences 2-3), and configured to upon retracting the needle from the insertion position, to start the pump at the same time (para. [0190], last sentence). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Gescheit device with the catheter and drug/fluid pumping components taught by Shor in order to control the delivery of the drug to the patient, and be able to carry out the delivery for a prolonged period of time without the needle inserted into the patient to increase their comfort and decrease risk of additional injury to the vessel. Upon the incorporation of the Shor pump assembly to the Gescheit device, it would be obvious to incorporate it such that the electric motor of Gescheit would be configured to supply the pump to transfer the product, as the pump of Shor is driven by a motor (the drive component 112), and it would be obvious to power all components with the same motor to reduce weight, size, complexity and cost of the device.
Regarding claim 13, Gescheit in view of Shor teaches the method for using an insertion device according to claim 9, as described above, comprising the following steps which follow the retraction step: step Dter, during which the first detection unit detects the first value relative to the movement of the electric motor (Gescheit: para. [0073], sentences 2-6, and also Shor: para. [0283]; occurring after the retraction step because pumping only begins at/after the retraction taught by Shor: para. [0190], last sentence), step Cter, during which the electronic unit compares the first value relative to the movement of the electric motor with a fourth preset reference (Shor: sensed values are compared to one another by the computing unit 117; para. [0194], sentences 3-4) to provide information relative to a quantity of product dispensed (Shor: para. [0282], wherein when the contact sensor is activated, the reference value of zero product remaining in the reservoir is reached), wherein in a configuration Cter-1, if the first value relative to the movement of the electric motor is greater than or equal to the fourth preset reference, the electric motor stops rotating and the insertion step is finished; and wherein in a configuration Cter-2, if the first value relative to the movement of the electric motor is less than the fourth preset reference, no modification is made to the direction of rotation of the electric motor (Shor: para. [0158], sentences 1-2; the motor continues to translate the plunger of the pump until the threshold is met via the end meeting the plunger and no fluid remaining, after which it stops the translation). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also incorporated the product quantify sensing and method of using it to determine if the motor should continue to operate or stop, taught by Shor into the Gescheit-Shor combination described above, in order to provide verification of the quantity of product delivered, and ensure that the motor does not continue to operate and burn out after the product delivery has been completed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gescheit (EP 2818191) in view of Shor (US 20190009019) in further view of Yodfat (US 20190099551).
Regarding claim 10, Gescheit in view of Shor teaches the method for using the insertion device according to claim 9, as described above, wherein the at least one detection unit comprises a first detection unit configured to determine a value relative to the movement of the electric motor, selected from a speed of rotation associated with a duration of rotation, an angle of rotation, a number of revolutions and a number of pulses of the electric motor (Gescheit: para. [0073], sentences 2-6; rotary encoder detects and translates motor rotation data), wherein the electric motor rotates in a second direction of rotation to start the pump (follows upon Gescheit-Shor combination described above: Shor: para. [0190], last sentence, the pump starts automatically due to needle being retracted, and; Gescheit: para. [0033], sentences 1-2, reversal of the actuator, as the embodiment referenced uses electric motor for insertion, so the needle is retracted due to second direction of rotation of motor) and to transfer product from the reservoir to the catheter (Shor: para. [0189], sentences 2-3), and at least the following sub-steps are performed: a detection sub-step Dbis, during which the first detection unit detects the first value relative to the movement of the electric motor (Gescheit: para. [0073], sentences 2-6). However, Gescheit in view of Shor teaches a priming step (Shor: para. [0190], sentences 3-4), but fails to teach the details of this step and that it occurs before the insertion step, and fails to teach the sub-step of comparing the movement of the motor value with a preset reference for priming.
Yodfat teaches an analogous drug delivery device comprising a priming step before the at least one insertion step (para. [0077], sentences 7-10), and a comparison sub-step Cbis, with a second preset reference to provide information relative to the priming of the pump (para. [0077], last two sentences, preset reference relating to zero bubbles being detected by sensors to determine if the priming/purging should continue or if it should terminate). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Gescheit-Shor device/method by incorporating the priming step and priming threshold comparison taught by Yodfat, in order to purge the air bubbles present in the drug to prevent the delivery of the air bubble to the patient and prevent the bubbles from blocking the flow through the device (Yodfat: para. [0077], sentences 3 and 7). Upon the incorporation of the Yodfat priming step(s) to the Gescheit-Shor device and method, it would be obvious to incorporate it such that the motor driving the pumping during the priming step continues or terminates based on the comparison of its movement compared to a reference value assigned to the “termination sequence” when the bubble sensors sense an absence of bubbles, as Yodfat describes (para. [0077], second-to-last sentence). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Gescheit-Shor by adjusting the values associated with the second preset reference, such that during which the electronic unit compares the first value relative to the movement of the electric motor with a second preset reference to provide information relative to the priming of the pump, wherein in a configuration Cbis-1, if the first value relative to the movement of the electric motor is greater than or equal to the second preset reference, the priming step is finished and to the insertion step is performed; and wherein in a configuration Cbis-2, if the first value relative to the movement of the electric motor is less than the second preset reference, no modification is made to the direction of rotation of the electric motor, as a matter of routine optimization of the compared values, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable [values] ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATERINA ANNA WITTLIFF whose telephone number is (703)756-4772. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9-7ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL TSAI can be reached at 571-270-5246. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783