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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “coil configured to extend from the housing outside of the body cavity during use” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to because: Figs. 11 and 14 contain axis labels that are illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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:
-[0030] recites “the the”. Examiner recommends amending to –the—
-[0062] recites “batter 24”. Examiner recommends amending to –battery 24—
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “BMP280, Bosch Sensortec”, “ADXL345, Analog Devices”, “LaunchPad”, “Beaglebone”, “DMN65D8L, DIODES, Inc”, “Dragon Skin FX-pro, Smooth-on Inc.”, “Radwag USA LLC”, “MedCalc, MedCalc Software bvba” , “Vacutainer; BD,” , “SAS version 9.4; SAS institute Inc.” which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 14, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 12 recites “by one of the one more pumps” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –by one of the one or more pumps—
-Claim 14 recites “wherein the first component” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the first component—
-Claim 20 recites “wherein the operation” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the operation—
-Claim 20 recites “the position of the device” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –the position information for one or more of the device—
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 limitation(s) is/are:
-Claim 1 recites “microcontroller” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to operate the one or more pumps to deliver a predetermined volume of the fluid. According to the specification the microcontroller includes CC1310 SimpleLink™ Ultra-Low-Power Sub-1 GHz Wireless MCU (Texas Instruments™), and communication interfaces [0066] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 3 recites “retention mechanism” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to retain the housing in the body cavity during use. According to the specification the retention mechanism comprises a pair of opposing
members 36(1) and 36(2) configured to be folded into the housing and to provide an external pressure away from housing 12 against the body cavity during use [0046] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 4 recites “opposing members” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to be folded into the housing and to provide an external pressure away from the housing against the body cavity during use. According to the specification the opposing members includes pair of semi-rigid wings, [0046] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 5 recites “extraction mechanism” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to allow for removal of the housing from the body cavity. According to the specification the extraction mechanism includes a coil or string [0047] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 14 recites “first component” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to house the one or more pumps, the microcontroller and a battery. According to the specification the first component includes a front component and anchor for luer lock connections [0044] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 15 recites “second component” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to be coupled to the first component and removably receive the one or more reservoirs. According to the specification the second component includes a back component providing a hard plastic case [0045] and equivalents thereof.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-15, 18-22, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Claim 1 recites “deliver fluid” in line 6. It is unclear whether this is the same of different from “a fluid” originally recited in claim 1, line 4.
-Claim 6 recites “extend from the housing outside of the body” in line 2. It is unclear what is meant by this recitation. Further clarification should be provided to define how the coil extends from the housing outside of the body cavity even though the housing was previously recited as being configured to be inserted into the body.
-Claim 12 recites “a plurality of reservoirs” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “one or more reservoirs” originally referenced in claim 1, line 3.
-Claim 13 recites “ a surge release or a sustained release” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what constitutes a surge release or a sustained release. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether any release of a fluid over any amount of time would meet the recited limitation, and fall under the requirement of a surge or sustained release.
-Claim 15 recites “prevent fluid from entering” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “ a fluid” originally referenced in claim 1, line 4.
-Claim 18 recites “remove fluid” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “a fluid” originally referenced in claim 1, line 4.
-Claim 19 recites “the delivery of the fluid to the body cavity” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 24 recites “a predetermined volume” in line 5. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the “predetermined volume” originally referenced in claim 1, line 10.
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.
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.
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:
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 21, 22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jellie (U.S. 20020045883).
Regarding Claim 1, Jellie teaches a device comprising: a housing configured to be inserted into a body cavity [Fig. 13, element 12] and [0177]; one or more reservoirs configured to be located within the housing and to store a fluid [Fig. 13, element 13] and [0189]—references reservoirs containing the substances; one or more pumps coupled to the one or more reservoirs, [Fig. 13, element 15] and [0189; “reservoirs…piezo pumps”] the one or more pumps configured to deliver fluid stored in the one or more reservoirs to an area external to the housing during use; [0199]—discloses pumps connected to an outlet, and a microcontroller coupled to the one or more pumps, [Fig. 13, element 18] the microcontroller [Fig. 13, element 18 (pressure device controlling mechanism)] configured to: operate the one or more pumps to deliver a predetermined volume of the fluid stored in the one or more reservoirs to the area external to the housing at a scheduled time [0206]—reference to volume of fluid being dispensed and [0200]—reference to substance being pumped from the reservoir through the conduits at a predetermined time.
Regarding Claim 3, Jellie teaches wherein the housing further comprises a retention mechanism configured to retain the housing in the body cavity during use [0051]—description of multiple arms capable of retaining device within the cavity.
Regarding Claim 4, Jellie teaches wherein the retention mechanism comprises a pair of opposing members configured to be folded into the housing and to provide an external pressure away from the housing against the body cavity during use [0062]—reference to extendible telescoping arms and [0078]—reference to pressure of the walls (external pressure) relied upon to maintain the arms in parallel arranged with the device.
Regarding Claim 5, Jellie teaches wherein the housing further comprises an extraction mechanism to allow for removal of the housing from the body cavity [0081]—describes a removable band that maintains the longitudinal alignment of the retention arms of the device and [0083]—describes removal of the device involves realignment of the arms to withdraw the device.
Regarding Claim 7, Jellie teaches wherein the one or more pumps are coupled to the one or more reservoirs by a mechanical coupling mechanism [Fig. 13, element 14 (connection lines)].
Regarding Claim 8, Jellie teaches wherein the one or more pumps are negative pressure pumps [0189]—reference to piezo pumps.
Regarding Claim 9, Jellie teaches further comprising: delivery tubing coupled to the one or more pumps to deliver the fluid to the body cavity [Fig. 13, element 16 (flexible conduit)].
Regarding Claim 10, Jellie teaches wherein the housing is configured to be inserted intravaginally [0047]—discloses the device retained to impede the flow of bodily secretions including intravaginal mucus.
Regarding Claim 11, Jellie teaches wherein the microcontroller is configured to operate the one or more pumps to deliver the predetermined volume of the fluid stored in the one or more reservoirs based on a biological hormone administration schedule [0212]—reference to different doses of hormones administered over predetermined times and dates in reference to oestrus.
Regarding Claim 12, Jellie teaches further comprising: a plurality of reservoirs, [Fig. 13, elements 13]—reference to three reservoirs, wherein each of the plurality of reservoirs are independently accessed by one of the one more pumps to allow independent fluid delivery from each of the plurality of reservoirs during use [Fig. 13, elements 13 (reservoirs), 15 (pumps)]—with connection lines (element 14) shown independently connected to each separate reservoir.
Regarding Claim 13, Jellie teaches wherein the one or more pumps are configured to release the fluid from the one or more reservoirs in a surge release or a sustained release [0114]—refers to actively releasing a rate and volume of a substance and controlling such parameters.
Regarding Claim 14, Jellie teaches wherein the housing comprises a first component and a second component, [Fig. 7, element 1 (first component), element 2 (retention apparatus)] wherein the first component houses the one or more pumps, , and the microcontroller, and a battery [Fig. 13, elements 12 (first component), 15 (pumps), 18 (pressure device controlling mechanism), 19 (battery)]—all shown located within the first compartment.
Regarding Claim 19, Jellie teaches one or more sensors coupled to the housing and the microcontroller, [0148]—discusses sensors which monitor environment or the device itself and communicate this information to the microprocessor. wherein the microcontroller is further configured to: receive one or more items of data from the one or more sensors; [0148; “This information may be then acted upon by the microprocessor to control the delivery apparatus to introduce those substances.”] and adjust the operation of the one or more pumps based on the received one or more items of data to adjust the delivery of the fluid to the body cavity. [0149-0150]—discloses sensing bodily fluid factors and eliciting an accurate response, such as altering the dosage and timing of the device substance delivery.
Regarding Claim 21, Jellie teaches wherein the one or more items of data are based on physiological data [0149]—reference to physiological indicators.
Regarding Claim 22, Jellie teaches wherein the operation of the one or more pumps is adjusted based on estrous behavior [0212]—discusses dispensation defined by date of oestrus.
Regarding Claim 24, Jellie teaches a method for providing automated fluid delivery in a body cavity, [0042]—reference to a substance delivery device, the method comprising: providing the device of claim 1; inserting the device into the body cavity, [0042]—reference to device inserted into a body cavity of an animal, wherein, upon insertion, the microcontroller operates the one or more pumps [Fig. 13, element 18 (pressure device controlling mechanism)] to deliver a predetermined volume of the fluid stored in the one or more reservoirs to the body cavity at the scheduled time [0206]—reference to volume of fluid being dispensed and [0200]—reference to substance being pumped from the reservoir through the conduits at a predetermined time.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jellie (U.S. 20020045883) in view of (GB 1384254), herein referred to as Agrophysics.
Regarding Claim 6, Jellie is silent on wherein the extraction mechanism comprises a coil configured to extend from the housing outside of the body cavity during use. Agrophysics teaches wherein the extraction mechanism comprises a coil configured to extend from the housing outside of the body cavity during use [Fig. 3, element 48].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a coil removal feature as taught by Agrophysics to remove the device from the body as suggested by Jellie, as Jellie discusses removal and withdrawal of the device [0187] with Agrophysics because Agrophysics teaches the specific design shape and orientation of this removal mechanism to avoid other animals from interfering and pulling the device out [Pg. 3, lines 49-52].
Claim(s) 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jellie (U.S. 20020045883) in view of Portner (U.S. 4265241).
Regarding Claim 15, Jellie teaches wherein the first component is sealed to prevent fluid from entering the first component, [0207]—describes the seal preventing a dosing chamber from being refilled from a reservoir.
the second component is configured to be coupled to the first component, [0045]—describes the retention apparatus attached to the body of the device.
Jellie is silent on and the second component is configured to removably receive the one or more reservoirs. Portner teaches and the second component is configured to removably receive the one or more reservoirs [Fig. 4, element 16 (reservoir), 12 (housing)] and [Col 3, lines 62-63]—in this interpretation, the housing portion is interpreted to be the first component and the reservoir portion is interpreted to be the second in which the reservoir can be detached from.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a separable housing structure in reference to the reservoir as taught by Portner in response to the separable structure as suggested by Jellie, as Jellie discusses the design of this structure tailored to the specific body cavity the device is to be inserted into [0045] with Portner because Portner teaches this feature as a safety latch mechanism to delivery substances to the body only when intended [Col 2, lines 38-42].
Regarding Claim 18, Jellie teaches wherein the second component comprises a bladder configured to deform during operation of the one or more pumps to remove fluid from the one or more reservoirs. Portner teaches wherein the second component comprises a bladder configured to deform during operation of the one or more pumps to remove fluid from the one or more reservoirs [Col 3, lines 63; “distendible bladder”] and [Col 5, lines 37-39; “A fresh supply of drug is injected into the reservoir or bladder through the opening 64 and check valve 66 as described above.”] and [Col 5, lines 51-55; “The plunger may be actuated one or more times to cause a carefully regulated volume or dosage of drug from the pumping chamber to pass through the outlet chambers 32-36 and the check valves 38-42 into the catheter 22 for delivery to the body.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a deformable bladder during pump operation to remove fluid as taught by Portner to include in the design of a coupling structure as suggested by Jellie, as Jellie discusses prevention of refilling the dosing chambers from the reservoir [0207] with Portner because Portner teaches carefully regulating parameters of drug delivery from the pumps [Col 5, lines 51-53].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jellie (U.S. 20020045883) in view of Jones (U.S. 20180070857).
Regarding Claim 20, Jellie is silent on wherein the one or more items of data provide position information for one or more of the device or a subject in which the device is inserted, wherein the operation of the one or more pumps is adjusted based on the position of the device or the subject in which the device is inserted. Jones teaches wherein the one or more items of data provide position information for one or more of the device or a subject in which the device is inserted, [0417]—includes radial and axial sensors to determine where the device is within the body, wherein the operation of the one or more pumps is adjusted based on the position of the device or the subject in which the device is inserted [0417]—describes triggering an operation of the ingestible device which is interpreted as pump adjustment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use positional data as taught by Jones to adjust fluid delivery means as suggested by Jellie, as Jellie discusses monitoring the environment and device to determine ideal conditions for substance delivery with Jones because Jones teaches the use of this feature to manipulate and adjust the position of the ingestible device [0005].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Bullington (U.S. 20200289039)-includes reference to a device with a sequestration chamber for bodily fluid flow.
-Kaploun (U.S. 20040249364)-references a coil structure to be removed that delivers medication to tissue in need of treatment.
-Wood (U.S. 8906000)-references removable reservoirs and deformable bladders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791