Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 May 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5 May 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 limitation(s) is/are: interlocking structure in claim 1, lid element in claims 6-7 and 9, and opening detection element in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shah (US 4724973).
Claim 1: Shah discloses a tamper evident sleeve 80 and label 92, together reading on the claimed labeling arrangement, for some multi-part syringe, comprising: - a tamper evident sleeve 80 (sleeve-shaped cap element) having an interlocking structure on an inner surface and adapted to be coupled to and surround an outer surface of some syringe closure of some syringe by means of the interlocking structure, the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) having, with respect to a longitudinal axis, a first cap portion, a second cap portion, and a horizontally extending pattern of joined adjacent triangles 86 (severing region); and - a label 92 (fixation label) having a first label portion and a second label portion adjacent to the first label portion, the first label portion being adapted to be attached to the second cap portion and the second label portion being adapted to be attached to some syringe body of some syringe such that the label 92 (fixation label) couples the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) to that syringe body, so that when that syringe applied with the tamper evident sleeve 80 and label 92 (labeling arrangement) is opened, the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) is separable in the horizontally extending pattern of joined adjacent triangles 86 (severing region) and at least a part of the first cap portion is removable together with some part of the syringe closure from the second cap portion and the syringe body, wherein the second cap portion has a predetermined diameter adapted to correspond with a diameter of some syringe body when the tamper evident sleeve 80 and label 92 (labeling arrangement) is applied to that syringe, so that an outer surface of the second cap portion can be arranged flush with an outer surface of that syringe body; wherein the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) is formed so that when the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) is coupled to some syringe body the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) is capable of establishing circumferential equality with that syringe body around some syringe closure (see annotated fig. 3 below).
The interlocking structure which is equivalent to structure for interlocking is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as circumferential recess or groove, vertical and/or horizontal engagement hook, interlocking toothed structure, and equivalents thereof.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Shah discloses wherein the second cap portion has a predetermined circumferential geometry and is geometrically formed so that when the tamper evident sleeve 80 and label 92 (labeling arrangement) is applied to some syringe the second cap portion is arranged adjacent to some syringe body of that syringe (see annotated fig. 3 above).
Claim 3: Shah discloses wherein the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) is configured to be rotationally symmetrical when the tamper evident sleeve 80 and label 92 (labeling arrangement) is applied to some syringe with respect to the longitudinal axis (see annotated fig. 3 above).
Claim 4: Shah discloses wherein, with respect to the longitudinal axis, the first cap portion has, on a respective inner surface, a circumferential contour which is adapted to form a negative shape with respect to some circumferential contour on some respective outer surface of some syringe closure when the tamper evident sleeve 80 and label 92 (labeling arrangement) is applied to some syringe (see annotated fig. 2 above).
Claim 5: Shah discloses wherein a wall of the second cap portion is cone-shaped with respect to the longitudinal axis and tapers towards the first cap portion (see annotated fig. 3 above).
Claim 6: Shah discloses a cap 78 (lid element) which is couplable to the first cap portion and which is adapted to be fixed to some syringe closure of some syringe and to couple the first cap portion to that syringe closure and to cover an upper side of that syringe closure (see annotated fig. 3 above).
The lid element for coupling to the first cap, fixing to the closure, coupling the first cap portion to the closure, and covering an upper side of the closure is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a flat disc, a shrink film element, a sleeve portion between a cap and closure, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 7: Shah discloses wherein the cap 78 (lid element) is configured to be coupled to the first cap portion and/or some syringe closure in a form-fit, force-fit and/or material-fit manner (see annotated fig. 3 above).
The lid element for coupling to the first cap portion and/or the closure is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as flat disc, a shrink film element, a sleeve portion between a cap and closure, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 9: Shah discloses wherein the first cap portion and the cap 78 (lid element) are capable of being coupled to each other by means of welding and/or gluing (see annotated fig. 3 above).
The lid element for coupling to the first cap, fixing to the closure, coupling the first cap portion to the closure, and covering an upper side of the closure is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a flat disc, a shrink film element, a sleeve portion between a cap and closure, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 10: Shah discloses wherein the cap 78 (lid element) comprises a sleeve portion configured to be arranged between the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) and some syringe closure when the tamper evident sleeve 80 and label 92 (labeling arrangement) is applied to some syringe (see annotated fig. 3 above).
Claim 11: Shah discloses wherein the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) is designed as a shrink film element (see annotated fig. 3 above and C. 2 L. 62-63).
Claim 12: Shah discloses wherein the first and second cap portions are connected to each other and the horizontally extending pattern of joined adjacent triangles 86 (severing region) is formed between the first and second cap portions with respect to the longitudinal axis, so that, when some syringe applied with the tamper evident sleeve 80 and label 92 (labeling arrangement) is opened, the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) can be cut through in a predetermined manner in the horizontally extending pattern of joined adjacent triangles 86 (severing region) and the first cap portion can be removed together with a part of some syringe closure from the second cap portion and some syringe body (see annotated fig. 3 above).
Claim 13: Shah discloses wherein the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) comprises, in the horizontally extending pattern of joined adjacent triangles 86 (severing region), a severing element in the form of perforations (see fig. 3 and C. 1 L. 47-48).
Claim 15: Shah discloses wherein the horizontally extending pattern of joined adjacent triangles 86 (severing region) is formed in an area of the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) which, when the tamper evident sleeve 80 and label 92 (labeling arrangement) is applied to some syringe, becomes associated with a transition between a head part and a threaded part of that syringe closure (see annotated fig. 3 above).
Claim 16: Shah discloses perforations (opening detection element) arranged in the horizontally extending pattern of joined adjacent triangles 86 (severing region) of the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) and adapted to indicate a removal of at least a portion of the first cap portion together with some part of some syringe closure from some syringe body upon an opening of some syringe applied with the tamper evident sleeve 80 and label 92 (labeling arrangement) (see annotated fig. 3 above, fig. 4, and C. 1 L. 47-48).
The opening detection element for indicating a removal of at least a portion of the first cap portion together with the part of the closure from the container body upon an opening of the container applied with the labeling arrangement is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a detachable section of the first cap portion and/or first label portion, connecting webs between the cap parts, a perforation between the two cap parts, and equivalents thereof.
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.
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(s) 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerre (US 5667086) further in view of Shah (US 4724973).
Claim 1: Guerre discloses a sleeve (sleeve-shaped cap element) having a circumferential groove (interlocking structure), formed adjacent the inner ring 6, on an inner surface and adapted to be coupled to and surround an outer surface of some syringe closure of some syringe by means of the circumferential groove (interlocking structure), the sleeve (cap element) having, with respect to a longitudinal axis, an upper part 1 (first cap portion), a lower part 2 (second cap portion), and a peripheral perforated tear line 3c (severing region); wherein the lower part 2 (second cap portion) has a predetermined diameter adapted to correspond to a diameter of some syringe body when the sleeve (sleeve-shaped cap element) is applied to that syringe, so that an outer surface of the lower part 2 (second cap portion) can be arranged flush with an outer surface of that syringe body; wherein the sleeve (cap element) is formed so that when the sleeve (cap element) is coupled to some syringe body the sleeve (cap element) establishes circumferential equality with that syringe body around that syringe closure (see fig. 1-2).
Guerre does not disclose a labeling arrangement for a multi-part syringe comprising a sleeve-shaped cap element and a fixation label having a first label portion and a second label portion adjacent to the first label portion, the first label portion being adapted to be attached to the second cap portion and the second label portion being adapted to be attached to a syringe body of the syringe such that the fixation label couples the cap element to the syringe body, so that when the syringe applied with the labeling arrangement is opened, the cap element is separable in the severing region and at least a part of the first cap portion is removable together with a part of the syringe closure from the second cap portion and the syringe body.
Shah teaches a tamper evident sleeve 80 and label 92 comprising: a tamper evident sleeve 80 adapted to be coupled to and surround an outer surface of some syringe closure of some syringe, the tamper evident sleeve 80 having, with respect to a longitudinal axis, a first cap portion, a second cap portion, and a horizontally extending pattern of joined adjacent triangles 86; and a label 92 (fixation label) having a first label portion and a second label portion adjacent to the first label portion, the first label portion being adapted to be attached to the second cap portion and the second label portion being adapted to be attached to some syringe body of some syringe such that the label 92 (fixation label) couples the tamper evident sleeve 80 to that syringe body, so that when that syringe applied with the tamper evident sleeve 80 and label 92 is opened, the tamper evident sleeve 80 is separable in the horizontally extending pattern of joined adjacent triangles 86 and at least a part of the first cap portion is removable together with some part of the syringe closure from the second cap portion and the syringe body (see annotated fig. 3 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Guerre to include a label 92 (fixation label) having a first label portion attached to the lower part 2 (second cap portion) and a second label portion being adapted to be attached to the bottle 9 such that the label 92 (fixation label) couples the sleeve (cap element) to the bottle, as taught by Shah, in order to provide a labeling means to the bottle 9 which also further restrains the lower part 2 (second cap portion) in place such that it does not become lost or separated from the bottle 9 upon removal of the upper part 1 (first cap portion).
The interlocking structure which is equivalent to structure for interlocking is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as circumferential recess or groove, vertical and/or horizontal engagement hook, interlocking toothed structure, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 2: The combination discloses wherein the lower part 2 (second cap portion) has a predetermined circumferential geometry and is geometrically formed so that when the sleeve and label 92 (labeling arrangement) is applied to some syringe the lower part 2 (second cap portion) is arranged adjacent to some syringe body of that syringe (see fig. 2).
Claim 12: The combination discloses wherein the upper part 1 (first cap portion) and lower part 2 (second cap portion) are connected to each other and the peripheral perforated tear line 3c (severing region) is formed between the upper part 1 (first cap portion) and lower part 2 (second cap portion) with respect to the longitudinal axis, so that, when some syringe applied with the sleeve and label 92 (labeling arrangement) is opened, the sleeve (cap element) can be cut through in a predetermined manner in the peripheral perforated tear line 3c (severing region) and the upper part 1 (first cap portion) can be removed together with a part of some syringe closure from the lower part 2 (second cap portion) and some syringe body (see fig. 2).
Claim 13: The combination discloses wherein the sleeve (cap element) comprises, in the peripheral perforated tear line 3c (severing region), a severing element in the form of perforations (see fig. 2).
Claim 15: The combination discloses wherein the peripheral perforated tear line 3c (severing region) is formed in an area of the sleeve (cap element) which, when the sleeve and label 92 (labeling arrangement) is applied to some syringe, becomes associated with a transition between a head part and a threaded part of that syringe closure (see fig. 2).
Claim 16: The combination discloses perforations (opening detection element) arranged in the peripheral perforated tear line 3c (severing region) of the sleeve (cap element) and adapted to indicate a removal of at least a portion of the upper part 1 (first cap portion) together with some part of some syringe closure from some syringe body upon an opening of some syringe applied with the sleeve and label 92 (labeling arrangement) (see fig. 2).
The opening detection element for indicating a removal of at least a portion of the first cap portion together with the part of the closure from the container body upon an opening of the container applied with the labeling arrangement is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a detachable section of the first cap portion and/or first label portion, connecting webs between the cap parts, a perforation between the two cap parts, and equivalents thereof.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraph 3 of office action dated 20 March 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 5 May 2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 5 May 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that that claim 1 has been amended to specify the container as a syringe with a syringe closure and a syringe body, the Examiner responds that claim 1 is directed to the subcombination of the labeling arrangement only. All references in the claim to the syringe are functional.
In response to applicant’s argument that an outer surface 122 of the second cap portion 12 can be arranged flush with an outer surface 38 of the syringe body 32 as a result of the cap element 10 and the syringe 20 being configured in coordination with each other so that they have equal diameters, in particular in the area of the syringe closure 31, the Examiner responds that an outer surface 122 of the second cap portion 12 being capable of being arranged flush with an outer surface 38 of the syringe body 32 is due to the second cap portion 12 having a predetermined diameter D2 adapted to correspond to a diameter of the syringe body 32 when the labeling arrangement 1 is applied to the syringe 30. The limitation that “the cap element (10) is formed so that when the cap element (10) is coupled to the syringe body (32) the cap element (10) establishes circumferential equality with the syringe body (32) around the syringe closure (31)” is not claimed as resulting in the outer surface of the second cap portion being arranged flush with an outer surface of the syringe body. As best can be understood, this limitation requires the cap element to be coupleable to the syringe body around the syringe closure and the cap element to be capable of establishing circumferential equality with the syringe body when coupled to the syringe body. En arguendo, if the claim requires the cap element, at a location where the cap element surrounds a syringe closure, to have an identical diameter to the syringe body, the Examiner responds that the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) is usable with
a syringe having a radially outward step located at the lower terminal edge 82 and of the same distance as the width of the sleeve 80, resulting in the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) of the Shah arrangement having an equal circumference to that syringe. Further, a hypothetical syringe closure exists which can extend inwards of the syringe body to a location of the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) which has a diameter equal to that of the lower terminal edge 82, such that the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element), at a location where the tamper evident sleeve 80 (cap element) surrounds that hypothetical syringe closure, has an identical diameter to that syringe body.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an enlarged and homogeneous surface that enables simple and reliable labelling) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that Shah discloses a bottle, not a syringe, the Examiner replies that, as confirmed in the third full paragraph of page 30 of the Remarks dated 4 February 2025, claim 1 is directed to the sub-combination of the labeling arrangement only. All references in the claim to the syringe are functional.
In response to applicant’s argument that the bottle closure of Shah is not intended to have an equal circumference to the bottle body, the Examiner replies that claim 1 is directed to the subcombination of the labeling arrangement only. The Examiner asserts that the recitation of the intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. The claimed functionality does not need to be met by the bottle and bottle closure depicted in Shah. Further, the claims do not require a syringe closure to have an equal circumference to a syringe body.
In response to applicant’s argument that the paper label 92 is designed to prevent the sleeve from being removed intact, not to label the closure itself, the Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., labeling the closure itself) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that the shrink film 80 of Shah cannot set a diameter around the bottle closure or neck 74 that is equal to a diameter of the bottle body at 64, 66, the Examiner reiterates that the claimed functional limitations do not need to be met by the bottle and bottle closure of Shah.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no flush transition and there cannot be set a flush transition using the shrink film 80, the Examiner replies that some syringe exists whose syringe body diameter corresponds to the predetermined diameter of the second cap portion so that the outer surface of the second cap portion can be arranged flush with the outer surface of that syringe body.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no way in the Shah arrangement for the shrink film 80 to have an equal circumference to some bottle body or some bottle that the shrink film 80 and paper label 92 of Shah is capable of being used with and that it is absolutely clear that in Shah, the corresponding section of the shrink film 80 can never establish a flush transition as it forms a second skin, the Examiner replies that a syringe having a radially outward step located at the lower terminal edge 82 and of the same distance as the width of the sleeve 80 would result in the shrink film 80 of the Shah arrangement having an equal circumference to that syringe.
In response to applicant’s argument that it is absolutely clear that in Shah, the corresponding section of the shrink film 80 does not establish circumferential equality around the lid 78, the Examiner replies that the shrink film 80 being shrunk against a structure necessarily results in the inner diameter of the shrink film 80 being identical to the outer diameter of the structure it is shrunk against, therefore resulting in circumferential equality.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no indication or suggestion for the person skilled in the art given the teachings of Shah such that he or she would obviously achieve a configuration of a labeling arrangement as recited in Applicant’s amended claim 1, the Examiner replies that Shah anticipates claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2970711 and US 4540101.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736