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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendments/arguments filed on 06/29/2026. Claims 23-24 are new. Claims 2, 8, 17, 20 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-16, 18-19, 21-24 are pending in the instant application. The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 are maintained as described below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant presents arguments generally asserting that the device of Buckley is incompatible with the teachings of Grenon, particularly the teachings of movement of the nozzle and predictive aiming/adjustment of the nozzle for delivery of the medicament to the target animal. Applicant contends that the nozzle of Buckley is ‘fixed’ and thus is incompatible with the teaching of Grenon to move or aim the nozzle to deliver the fluid to the animal.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. First, it is noted that while the nozzle of Buckley itself may be fixed and is not free to rotate about its axis, the nozzle of Buckley is not as narrowly ‘fixed’ as applicant intends. Buckley clearly shows that the nozzle is to be pointed/aimed manually by a user toward an animal and actuated through use of a trigger 2 (see Fig. 2 for example) and the whole gun is portable/movable to allow the user to move to the animals and dispense the medicament. The teachings of Grenon are merely broader teachings to automate such targeting of animals, and instead of requiring manual aiming at the animals, that the sprayer could be stationary and merely pivoted/tilted to dispense the medicament as they pass by the sprayer. Thus, the combination set forth in the previous Office Action is not to forcibly/automatically rotate the sprayer head about its own axis, but instead tilting/rotation of the whole sprayer gun to point the ‘fixed’ nozzle towards the animals and to use predictive targeting to compensate for movement/distance. In other words, the automation of spraying does not necessitate rotation of the sprayer nozzle head about its own axis and therefore the teachings of Grenon are not incompatible with the device of Buckley as previously modified.
Accordingly, all rejections are maintained and are repeated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10, 16, 18-19, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (U.S 2016/0296313 A1) in view of Kirk (U.S 2013/0331771 A1) and Grenon (U.S 2025/0082453 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Buckley teaches a delivery device for spraying a viscosified fluid comprising a medicament (Abstract and Paragraph 0230; also see Paragraph 0102, 0206 and 0231 regarding delivery of viscous fluids), the delivery device comprising:
a fluid reservoir component having a bore (tube 10, see Paragraph 0235 and Fig. 2; The tube 10 has an outlet through outlet valve 12/outlet 14 through which the fluid is dispensed; It is noted that the fluid reservoir bore is defined in applicant’s specification, Paragraph 0032, to merely be the bore through which fluid is ejected and thus the outlet valve 12 is the bore of the reservoir since the fluid leaves the tube 10 before continuing onto the spray nozzle disposed at the end);
a spray component (see Paragraph 0230 regarding spray nozzles which can be affixed on the end of the sprayer which change the type of spray according to the intended delivery);
a plunger (plunger 8, see Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0235 and 0016);
an electronics component (controller 6 and motor 3/drive means 7, see Paragraph 0235 and 0016 and Fig. 2);
a battery (battery pack 5, see Paragraph 0235 and Fig. 2; also see Paragraph 0227).
Buckley is silent specifically regarding a spray component which has an opening larger than a diameter of the bore.
However, Buckley teaches wherein the spray outlet may be of varying sizes to suit different fluids or different methods of dispensing, such as for mouth or topical delivery (Paragraph 0230, the outlet may be suitably mouth sized/shaped to allow for oral delivery or a spray nozzle for topical administration).
Additionally, Kirk teaches a spray component downstream of a bore of the fluid reservoir wherein the spray component has an opening larger than a diameter of the bore (Fig. 4 and Paragraph 0018; Spray tip nozzle 50 includes two fluid inlets 52/54 which are disposed on/over the syringe tips, and additionally has an outlet 58 which is larger than the bores of the syringe tip outlets; The shape of 58 is also said to be readily configured to provide aerosol and thus incorporation of a larger bore will adjust the direction/spread of the outlet).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Buckley to have included a spray component with a diameter larger than that of the reservoir outlet bore, such as that taught by Buckley and Kirk, in order to accommodate for different fluids or medicament delivery (Paragraph 0230 of Buckley) and to control the dispersion of the liquid into an aerosol (Paragraph 0018 of Kirk).
Buckley is silent regarding wherein the delivery device is configured for remote operation and wherein the device the device has a sensor configured to sense movement of an animal and the medicament being sprayed upon sensing movement of the animal.
However, Grenon teaches a delivery system for treating animals via spraying of medicament which is configured for remote operation (Fig. 1A-2 and Paragraph 0062-0063 and 0083; The device can run in a free-run mode to administer to the medicament remotely) and wherein the device has a sensor configured to sense movement of an animal (Paragraph 0008-0009, 0053-0054) which triggers spraying of the medicament upon sensing movement of the animal by the sensor (Paragraphs 0051-0057; The device senses the motion of the animal as well as its orientation and adjusts/triggers spraying upon compensation of the medicament).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Buckley to configure the device for remote operation and to include a sensor which detects animal motion for dispensing of the medicament upon sensing motion of the animal, such as that taught by Grenon, in order to improve efficiency of treating animals through remote means and to precisely deliver the medicament adjusting for the detected motion and positioning of the animal relative to the nozzle (Paragraph 0057, Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Buckley discloses the device of claim 1.
Buckley further discloses a grip (hand piece 1, see Paragraph 0235 and Fig. 1-2; also see Claim 10).
Regarding claim 4, Buckley discloses the device of claim 1.
Buckley further discloses a user interface (interface 15, see Paragraph 0235, 0226 and Fig. 1-2; Alternatively, the grip of 1 may be read as a user interface, since the user grips or interfaces with the device at the grip).
Regarding claim 7, Buckley discloses a method comprising:
topically spraying a viscosified fluid comprising a medicament onto at least one animal using a delivery device (Abstract and Paragraph 0230, 0098; also see Paragraph 0102, 0206 and 0231 regarding delivery of viscous fluids), the delivery device comprising:
a fluid reservoir component having a bore (tube 10, see Paragraph 0235 and Fig. 2; The tube 10 has an outlet through outlet valve 12/outlet 14 through which the fluid is dispensed; It is noted that the fluid reservoir bore is defined in applicant’s specification, Paragraph 0032, to merely be the bore through which fluid is ejected and thus the outlet valve 12 is the bore of the reservoir since the fluid leaves the tube 10 before continuing onto the spray nozzle disposed at the end);
a spray component (see Fig. 1-2 and Paragraph 0230; An extended nozzle may dispense the fluid downstream of the outlet of the reservoir; see Paragraph 0230 regarding spray nozzles which change the type of spray according to the intended delivery);
a plunger (plunger 8, see Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0235 and 0016);
an electronics component (controller 6 and motor 3/drive means 7, see Paragraph 0235 and 0016 and Fig. 2); and
a battery (battery pack 5, see Paragraph 0235 and Fig. 2; also see Paragraph 0227).
Buckley is silent specifically regarding wherein the spray component has an opening larger than a diameter of the bore.
However, Buckley teaches wherein the spray outlet may be of varying sizes to suit different fluids or different methods of dispensing, such as for mouth or topical delivery (Paragraph 0230, the outlet may be suitably mouth sized/shaped to allow for oral delivery or a spray nozzle for topical administration).
Additionally, Kirk teaches a spray component downstream of a bore of the fluid reservoir wherein the spray component has an opening larger than a diameter of the bore (Fig. 4 and Paragraph 0018; Spray tip nozzle 50 includes two fluid inlets 52/54 which are disposed on/over the syringe tips, and additionally has an outlet 58 which is larger than the bores of the syringe tip outlets; The shape of 58 is also said to be readily configured to provide aerosol and thus incorporation of a larger bore will adjust the direction/spread of the outlet).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Buckley to have included a spray component with a diameter larger than that of the reservoir outlet bore, such as that taught by Buckley and Kirk, in order to accommodate for different fluids or medicament delivery (Paragraph 0230 of Buckley) and to control the dispersion of the liquid into an aerosol (Paragraph 0018 of Kirk).
Buckley is silent regarding wherein the delivery device is configured for remote operation and wherein the device the device has a sensor configured to sense movement of an animal and the medicament being sprayed upon sensing movement of the animal.
However, Grenon teaches a delivery system for treating animals via spraying of medicament which is configured for remote operation (Fig. 1A-2 and Paragraph 0062-0063 and 0083; The device can run in a free-run mode to administer to the medicament remotely) and wherein the device has a sensor configured to sense movement of an animal (Paragraph 0008-0009, 0053-0054) which triggers spraying of the medicament upon sensing movement of the animal by the sensor (Paragraphs 0051-0057; The device senses the motion of the animal as well as its orientation and adjusts/triggers spraying upon compensation of the medicament).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Buckley to configure the device for remote operation and to include a sensor which detects animal motion for dispensing of the medicament upon sensing motion of the animal, such as that taught by Grenon, in order to improve efficiency of treating animals through remote means and to precisely deliver the medicament adjusting for the detected motion and positioning of the animal relative to the nozzle (Paragraph 0057, Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Buckley discloses the method of claim 7.
Buckley further discloses wherein the delivery device further comprises a grip (hand piece 1, see Paragraph 0235 and Fig. 1-2; also see Claim 10).
Regarding claim 10, Buckley discloses the method of claim 7.
Buckley further discloses wherein the delivery device further comprises a user interface (interface 15, see Paragraph 0235, 0226 and Fig. 1-2; Alternatively, the grip of 1 may be read as a user interface, since the user grips or interfaces with the device at the grip).
Regarding claim 16, Buckley discloses the method of claim 7.
Buckley further discloses wherein the medicament comprises a vaccine (Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 18, Buckley discloses the method of claim 7.
Buckley further discloses wherein the viscosified fluid is sprayed upon multiple animals simultaneously (see Paragraph 0229, several animals can be lined up and the applicator can be used to drench multiple animals simultaneously with the medicament).
Regarding claim 19, Buckley discloses the method of claim 7.
Buckley further discloses wherein the at least one animal comprises at least one mammal (Paragraph 0241; The treated animal may be a cow).
Regarding claim 21, Buckley discloses the device of claim 1.
Buckley is silent regarding wherein the spray component provides a plume of the viscosified fluid comprising the medicament, wherein the plume is in an amount of about 0.25 mL to about 1 mL, the plume has a width of about 5 cm to about 15 cm, or any combination thereof.
However, Buckley teaches wherein the spray component may provide a plume of viscosified fluid comprising the medicament, and further wherein the amount of medicament dispsensed may be automatically or manually adjustable (see Paragraph 0230 of Buckley and rejection of claim 1 above, the spray nozzle can instead disperse the medicament to be applied topically and thus will generate a spray or plume to the skin or to livestock at a distance; Additionally, per Kirk, the medicament can be aerosolized, with the direction/spread being adjustable based on the outlet, and thus into a plume; also see Paragraph 0050-0051, 0087, 0236 of Buckley, the dose can be adjusted automatically or manually, such as for delivery to differently sized animals, and thus can be adjusted into any particular volume to include 0.25 to 1 mL). Additionally, medicament delivered which is aerosolized may generate plumes with different widths (see rejection of claim 1 above and Paragraph 0018 of Kirk, the shape of the outlet may dispense the aerosol with a particular direction/spread and thus the width of the plume can be variable according to the shape, and dosage volume dispensed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the volume and/or width of the plume dispensed, such as that taught by Buckley and Kirk, in order to adjust treatment according to differently sized animals (Paragraph 0191-0194, 0236).
Regarding claim 22, Buckley discloses the method of claim 7.
Buckley is silent regarding wherein the spray component provides a plume of the viscosified fluid comprising the medicament, wherein the plume is in an amount of about 0.25 mL to about 1 mL, the plume has a width of about 5 cm to about 15 cm, or any combination thereof.
However, Buckley teaches wherein the spray component may provide a plume of viscosified fluid comprising the medicament, and further wherein the amount of medicament dispsensed may be automatically or manually adjustable (see Paragraph 0230 of Buckley and rejection of claim 1 above, the spray nozzle can instead disperse the medicament to be applied topically and thus will generate a spray or plume to the skin or to livestock at a distance; Additionally, per Kirk, the medicament can be aerosolized, with the direction/spread being adjustable based on the outlet, and thus into a plume; also see Paragraph 0050-0051, 0087, 0236 of Buckley, the dose can be adjusted automatically or manually, such as for delivery to differently sized animals, and thus can be adjusted into any particular volume to include 0.25 to 1 mL). Additionally, medicament delivered which is aerosolized may generate plumes with different widths (see rejection of claim 1 above and Paragraph 0018 of Kirk, the shape of the outlet may dispense the aerosol with a particular direction/spread and thus the width of the plume can be variable according to the shape, and dosage volume dispensed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the volume and/or width of the plume dispensed, such as that taught by Buckley and Kirk, in order to adjust treatment according to differently sized animals (Paragraph 0191-0194, 0236).
Claims 13-15, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (U.S 2016/0296313 A1) in view of Kirk (U.S 2013/0331771 A1) and Grenon (U.S 2025/0082453 A1), as applied to claim 7, in further view of Ron (U.S 2003/0092776 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Buckley discloses the method of claim 7.
Buckley is silent regarding wherein the viscosified fluid comprises a viscosifying construct and the medicament admixed with an aqueous carrier fluid, the viscosifying construct comprising a polymer associated with a plurality of particles through an ionic interaction, covalent bonding, hydrogen bonding, or any combination thereof, and wherein the viscosified fluid exhibits shear-thinning behavior.
However, Ron teaches use of a viscosified fluid carrier for the topical treatment of animals with medicaments for dermal, antibacterial and anti-viral formulations (Abstract and Paragraphs 0092, 0111), wherein the viscosified fluid comprises a viscosifying construct and the medicament admixed with an aqueous carrier fluid (Paragraph 0018-0019, the gel composition includes a polymer in an aqueous medium), the viscosifying construct comprising a polymer associated with a plurality of particles through an ionic interaction, covalent bonding, hydrogen bonding, or any combination thereof (Paragraph 0007, hydrogels are a polymer composition stabilized by covalent or physical hydrogen/ionic bonding; The water particles can bond with the polymer through such hydrogen bonding), and wherein the viscosified fluid exhibits shear-thinning behavior (Paragraph 0096, the hydrogel composition can exhibit shear-thinning which allows for injection instead of topical application; also see Paragraph 0083 regarding shear thinning allowing the composition to spread evenly over the target surface instead of clumping/deposition of formulation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Buckley to include delivering the viscosified fluid comprising a polymer associated with particles and wherein the viscosified fluid exhibits shear-thinning behavior, such as that taught by Ron, in order to deliver a topical gel which has bioadhesion properties to facilitate in prolonged and enhanced delivery of the medicament formulation to the tissue/subject (Paragraph 0006-0007), and which can shear-thin to increase spreading of the gel (Paragraph 0083).
Regarding claim 14, the modified method of Buckley discloses the method of claim 13.
Buckley and Ron are silent regarding specifically wherein the polymer and the plurality of particles comprising the viscosifying construct are present in the aqueous carrier fluid at a concentration of about 5 vol. % or below.
However, Ron teaches delivery of a hydrogel carrying a medicament by spraying, wherein the polymer and the plurality of particles comprising the viscosifying construct are present in the aqueous carrier fluid at a concentration of about 5 weight % or below (Paragraph 0035, the reversible gelling composition may have 0.01 weight % of the polymer solids and preferably less than 1 weight %). Once having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and expect a composition having 1 weight % or 0.01 weight % to have less than 5% by volume of the polymer. Ron additionally teaches that low polymer concentrations are beneficial for pharmaceutical care and delivery (Paragraph 0069).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Buckley to include the viscosifying construct in the aqueous carrier fluid at a concentration of about 5% volume or below, such as that taught by Ron, in order to provide a composition suited to pharmaceutical delivery (Paragraph 0069) while still providing suitable gelling/viscosification once delivered (Paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 15, the modified method of Buckley discloses the method of claim 13.
Ron further teaches wherein the viscosifying construct is present in the aqueous carrier fluid in an amount sufficient to produce a viscosity of at least about 1 Pa·s at zero shear and at a temperature up to about 40°C, as determined by steady shear rheometry (see Figs. 2, 3A-B, 5; The composition may contain a concentration of polymer which has a viscosity of at least 1 Pa·s at zero shear and at a temperature up to about 40°C; The viscosity at 40°C of all the compositions, even the non-reverse thermally viscosifying polymer compositions have a viscosity above 1 Pa·s; also see Paragraph 0066, where the viscosity of the composition remains unaffected by shear conditions and thus is substantially the same at zero shear as that with shear).
Regarding claim 23, the modified method of Buckley discloses the method of claim 13.
Ron further teaches wherein the viscosified fluid has a viscosity of at least about 1 Pa·s at zero shear and at a temperature up to about 40°C, as determined by steady shear rheometry (It is noted that the limitation “and at a temperature up to about 40°C” may be broader than applicant intends, and includes a wide temperature range of anywhere below 40°C to approximately 40°C; see Figs. 2, 3A-B, 5; In particular in Fig. 5, the concentration of polymer may be at 2 wt % polymer which has a viscosity that increases through the range of 10 to 100 Pa·s at a temperature of ~30°C, which is ‘up to about 40°C’; There is no disclosed variability in shear for this test and thus can be reasonably concluded to be at zero shear/extremely low shear; Paragraph 0065 discloses rheological monitoring).
Regarding claim 24, the modified method of Buckley discloses the method of claim 23.
Ron further teaches wherein the viscosified fluid is surfactant-free (Paragraph 0075, the viscosified gelling polymer composition can act as a surfactant without traditional added surfactant; Additionally see Paragraph 0047-0048; The graphs are for poloxamer/polyacrylic acid viscosified fluid and do not include added surfactant).
Claims 5-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (U.S 2016/0296313 A1) in view of Kirk (U.S 2013/0331771 A1) and Grenon (U.S 2025/0082453 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 7, in further view of Horita (U.S 2016/0213906 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Buckley discloses the device of claim 1.
Buckley is silent regarding wherein the bore has a diameter in a range of about 0.5 millimeters to about 5 millimeters.
However, Horita teaches a syringe having a fluid reservoir with a bore which has a diameter in a range of about 0.5 millimeters to about 5 millimeters (Paragraph 0007-0008; The syringe includes a tip and thus a bore within the tip, the tip has an outer diameter of 4.315 to 6 mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Buckley to include an outlet bore hole for the fluid reservoir having a diameter in the range of 0.5 to about 5 mm, such as that taught by Horita, in order to provide a known dimension which can be connected to a nozzle or similar adaptor (Paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 6, Buckley discloses the device of claim 5.
The modified device of Buckley is silent regarding wherein the opening of the spray component has a diameter in a range of about 5% to about 10% larger than the diameter of the bore.
However, Buckley teaches wherein the spray nozzle can be of differing types and outlet sizes (Paragraph 0230, the outlet type/size can be different for oral delivery; also see Paragraph 0179 regarding switching between a needle or oral outlet applicator) and further wherein the applicator should be adjusted to suit different animals (Paragraph 0003, 0005).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Buckley to include an outlet/opening of the spray component with a diameter 5-10% larger than the bore diameter of the fluid reservoir, such as that taught by Buckley, in order to provide a sprayer head which is suitable for different animals of varying sizes (Paragraph 0003, 0005).
Regarding claim 11, Buckley discloses the method of claim 7.
Buckley is silent regarding wherein the bore has a diameter in a range of about 0.5 millimeters to about 5 millimeters.
However, Horita teaches a syringe having a fluid reservoir with a bore which has a diameter in a range of about 0.5 millimeters to about 5 millimeters (Paragraph 0007-0008; The syringe includes a tip and thus a bore within the tip, the tip has an outer diameter of 4.315 to 6 mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Buckley to include an outlet bore hole for the fluid reservoir having a diameter in the range of 0.5 to about 5 mm, such as that taught by Horita, in order to provide a known dimension which can be connected to a nozzle or similar adaptor (Paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 12, the modified method of Buckley discloses the method of claim 11.
The modified device of Buckley is silent regarding wherein the opening of the spray component has a diameter in the range of about 5% to about 10% larger in diameter than the diameter of the bore.
However, Buckley teaches wherein the spray nozzle can be of differing types and outlet sizes (Paragraph 0230, the outlet type/size can be different for oral delivery; also see Paragraph 0179 regarding switching between a needle or oral outlet applicator) and further wherein the applicator should be adjusted to suit different animals (Paragraph 0003, 0005).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Buckley to include an outlet/opening of the spray component with a diameter being 5-10% larger than the diameter of the bore of the fluid reservoir, such as that taught by Buckley, in order to provide a sprayer head which is suitable for different animals of varying sizes (Paragraph 0003, 0005).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS WILLIAM GREIG whose telephone number is (571)272-5378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/THOMAS W GREIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights