DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 8/13/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, and 13 were amended, and no claims were cancelled or newly added. Thus, claims 1-13 are presenting pending in this application.
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 information disclosure statement filed 9/28/2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 of this title, 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostin et al (2009/0183738) in view of Kotliar (5,850,833), Baker (2007/0077200), and Isaacson et al (5,490,523).
Regarding claim 1, Kostin discloses a device for improving cognitive and functional capabilities by means of hypoxic and hyperoxic gas mixtures comprising: an air splitter (4) (gas separation module) that separates oxygen and nitrogen (splits air stream into hyperoxic air saturated with oxygen and hypoxic air saturated with nitrogen) (para [0021]); a bio feedback regulator (12) (control unit) (para [0019]); pulse rate and/or oxygen saturation detection means (27, 28) (pulse sensor, blood hemoglobin oxygen saturation sensor) (para [0019]), and a mouthpiece (24) (respiration mask) (para [0020]), wherein said device receives information from the pulse rate and/or oxygen saturation detection means (27, 28) by way of the biofeedback regulator (12) (blood hemoglobin oxygen saturation sensor is connected to the biofeedback regulator (12) (para [0019])) said information determines the administration of a hyperoxic or hypoxic mixture (para [0036]), said pulse rate and/or oxygen saturation detection means (27, 28) is connected to a patient (para [0019]); and said device is connected to the mouthpiece (20) (respiration mask) which feeds the hypoxic or hyperoxic mixture to a patient (para [0028]).
Kostin does not disclose the air splitter is adapted to receive open air from the environment.
However, Kotliar in fig 1 teaches a device for supplying a hypoxic air mixture to a user including an air splitter (14) (membrane separation unit) configured to separate air into an oxygen-depleted retentate and an oxygen-rich permeate gas mixture, and wherein the air splitter (14) configured to receive open air form the environment (via conduit (13) having an air intake opening (11)) (col 3, ln 29-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Kostin so that the air splitter is adapted to receive open air from the environment, as the use of an air splitter configured to separate air into an oxygen-depleted retentate and an oxygen-rich permeate gas mixture having an inlet adapted to receive open air from the environment is known in the art, and it appears that the modified Kostin’s air splitter would perform equally well to separate air into an oxygen-depleted retentate and an oxygen-rich permeate gas mixture an inlet is adapted to receive open air from the environment. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The now-modified Kostin’s device discloses the air splitter (4 of Kostin) includes two output channels--one for hypoxic gas mixture output and another for hyperoxic gas mixture output (Kostin, para [0018]).
Modified Kostin does not disclose a nitrogen and oxygen mixer; wherein said air splitter is connected to the nitrogen and oxygen mixer to which said air splitter separately feeds oxygen and nitrogen, and said nitrogen and oxygen mixer receives information from the oximeter by way of the biofeedback regulator, said information determines the mixing rate of nitrogen and oxygen by the nitrogen and oxygen mixer
However, Baker in fig 1 teaches a device for control of oxygen saturation levels including a nitrogen and oxygen mixer (ventilation system (10) includes a portion configured to mix gases to provide a defined gas mixture) including an oxygen supply (24) and a nitrogen supply (28) (para [0015]), wherein said nitrogen and oxygen mixer is connected to a biofeedback regulator (38) (master controller) (para [0017]), and configured to receive information from an oximeter (46) (sensor) by way of the biofeedback regulator (38), and said information determines the mixing rate of nitrogen and oxygen by the nitrogen and oxygen mixer (18) (to control the patient's SpO2 level and thus control hypoxia in the patient (16), the master controller (38) may manipulate FiO2 levels by controlling a nitrogen or oxygen feed based on a comparison of one or more stored SpO2 set points and/or curves with pulse oximetry measurements of the patient's SpO2 level taken via the sensor (46)) (para [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Kostin by providing a nitrogen and oxygen mixer, wherein the hyperoxic gas mixture from the gas splitter is provided as an oxygen input and the hypoxic gas mixture from the gas splitter is provided as a nitrogen carrier gas input, and said nitrogen and oxygen mixer receives information from the oximeter by way of the biofeedback regulator, said information determines the mixing rate of nitrogen and oxygen by the nitrogen and oxygen mixer as taught by Baker in order to provide a closed-loop control of a delivery rate and/or composition of the hypoxic gas mixture being inhaled by the patient to facilitate safe inducement, maintenance, and/or control of patient hypoxia for diagnostic and/or therapeutic purposes (Baker, para [0002]).
The now-modified Kostin’s device does not disclose the device including an oximeter, and wherein the pulse rate and/or oxygen saturation detection means is in the form of a finger piece sensor and/or an ear piece sensor.
However, Isaacson in fig 7 teaches a sensor comprising a pulse oximeter (10) (finger clip pulse oximeter), wherein the pulse oximeter (10) includes a pulse rate and/or oxygen saturation detection means (detection means includes circuit board (50) contains the electronic circuitry for determining the pulse and blood saturation including photodiode, and radiation emitting LEDS (58, 60)) (col 3, ln 60-col 4, ln 16) in the form of a finger piece sensor and/or an ear piece sensor (circuit board (50) and radiation emitting LEDS (58, 60) are mounted in housing (12, 14) which is configured to grip an inserted finger) (col 3, ln 53-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Kostin by providing a finger clip pulse oximeter, wherein the pulse rate and/or oxygen saturation detection means is in the form of a finger piece sensor as taught by Isaacson in order to provide a compact oximeter unit that incorporates the electronic processing component and the display into the sensor itself, allowing the device to be extremely small, lightweight and durable (Isaacson, col 1, ln 53-61).
Regarding claim 2, Kostin discloses the oxygen in the gas mixtures comprise, at a low proportion, from 8-20 vol. % (oxygen concentration in the hypoxic gas mixture ranges from 1 to 18%), and at an elevated proportion, from 21-95 vol. % (oxygen concentration in the hyperoxic gas mixture ranges from 25 to 45%) (Kostin, para [0018]), and in the case where the prior art discloses a range which overlaps from the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Kostin discloses the hypoxic gas mixture used for intermittent hypoxic/hyperoxic training (IHHT) contains from 10-16 vol. % oxygen (oxygen concentration in the hypoxic gas mixture ranges from 1 to 18%), and the hyperoxic gas mixture used for IHHT contains from 21-40 vol. % oxygen (oxygen concentration in the hyperoxic gas mixture ranges from 25 to 45%) (Kostin, para [0018]), and in the case where the prior art discloses a range which overlaps from the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Kostin’s reference discloses the oximeter (10 of Isaacson) measures arterial oxygen saturation and pulse rate (includes electronic circuitry for determining the pulse and blood saturation level) (Isaacson, col 4, ln 63-66);
Regarding claim 5, the modified Kostin’s reference discloses the pulse and/or oxygen saturation detection means (50 of Isaacson) are incorporated into the oximeter (10 of Isaacson) (as shown in figs 7-8 of Isaacson, circuit board (50 of Isaacson) is disposed in second housing (14 of Isaacson) of oximeter (10 of Isaacson), and radiation emitting LEDs (58, 60 of Isaacson) are disposed in first housing (12 of Isaacson) of oximeter (10 of Isaacson).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kostin’s device, as discussed in claim 1, discloses a device whose ordinary use discloses a method for furnishing intermittent hypoxic/hyperoxic training (IHHT), including the furnishing of hypoxic/hyperoxic air to a person using the device of claim 1, comprising the following steps of: (a) measure the arterial oxygen saturation and/or pulse rate continuously (controller receives information from pulse sensor and blood hemoglobin oxygen sensor, and monitors at least one physiological parameter of a patient) (Kostin, para [0036]; Baker, para [0029]); (b) ascertaining individual parameters on the basis of an individual's reaction (continually monitoring patient physiological parameters and updating information variables (108 of Baker) to induce, maintain, and/or control patient hypoxia) (Baker, para [0029]); (c) adapting oxygen concentration in the hypoxic/hyperoxic air supplied by the device in accordance with values ascertained in (b) (mixing gases to provide a hypoxic gas mixture (102 of Baker)) (Baker, para [0029]); and (d) varying the degree of blood oxygen saturation (as shown in fig 2 of Baker, blood oxygen saturation is varied based on the gas delivered to a patient (Baker, para [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kostin’s reference discloses a hyperoxic interval duration is calculated such that restoration of blood oxygen saturation with oxygen to the saturation values at the beginning of the previously delivery interval is ensured (as shown in fig 2 of Baker, period (80 of Baker) includes a patient's SpO2 begins at a normal level, and after a period of rapid resaturation at (80), SpO2 levels go back to normal levels) (Baker, para [0028]).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Kostin’s reference discloses the mixing rate of the nitrogen and oxygen mixer (18 of Baker) increases the oxygen ratio with decreasing oxygen saturation in the patients blood and/or with increasing pulse rate (if a patients heart rate exceeds 120 BPM, the biofeedback regulator (38 of Baker) may increase FiO2 by increasing oxygen related set points and decreasing non-oxygen gas related set points (Baker, para [0022]).
Claims 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostin et al, Kotliar, Baker, and Isaacson et al as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Schega et al (Schega et al. “Effects of Intermittent Hypoxia on Cognitive Performance and Quality of Life in Elderly Adults: A Pilot Study”. Gerentology. 56:1-8 (2013)).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kostin discloses a method of furnishing intermittent hypoxic/hyperoxic training (IHHT).
Modified Koston does not disclose training is repeated between 5 and 25 sessions during a plurality of training sessions.
However, Schega teaches a method for furnishing intermittent hypoxic/hyperoxic training (IHHT) for improving cognitive function of a patient (abstract), wherein training is repeated between 5 and 25 sessions during a plurality of training sessions (IH training is performing for three sessions per week over 6 weeks for a total of 18 sessions) (“Methods: Treatment Procedure”, page 3, first column, fifth full paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Kostin so training is repeated between 5 and 25 sessions during a plurality of training sessions as taught by Schega in order to provide a method of IHHT to augment the positive effects on cognitive performance and QoL and be an effective preventative for elderly people prone to diseases like dementia or depression (Schega, “Discussion”, page 6, second column, third full paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kostin discloses a duration of the hyperoxic interval (control unit (12 of Kostin) allows a setting for exposure time for hyperoxic mixtures and maximal time of exposure) (Kostin, para [0031]).
Modified Kostin does not disclose a maximum duration of the hyperoxic interval is 1200 seconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Kostin so that a maximum duration of the hyperoxic interval is 1200 seconds, as it has been held that optimization of ranges is within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, modifying a maximum duration of the hyperoxic interval by routine experimentation would have been an obvious modification in order to ensure that a value is not outside a range of preset limits for too long a duration of time (Kostin, para [0037]).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostin et al, Kotliar, Baker, Isaacson et al, and Schega et al as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Rosse et al (5,956,125)
Regarding claim 10, modified Kostin discloses cognitive capabilities are evaluated with the aid of standardized tests (cognitive abilities are evaluated with the aid of the d2 test and the Number Combination Test (ZVT)) (Schega, “Methods: Cognitive Testing”, page 2, second column, second full paragraph-page 3, first column, first full paragraph), and that the method may be an effective preventative measure for elderly people prone to diseases like dementia (Schega, “Discussion”, page 6, second column, third full paragraph).
Modified Kostin does not disclose the standardized tests include a dementia detection test and the Sunderland Clock Drawing Test (CDT).
However, Rosse teaches a method for screening for dementia, wherein the screening includes standardized tests including the dementia detection test (Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) and Dementia Rating Scale (DRS)) and the Sunderland Clock Drawing Test (CDT) (the Draw-A-Clock Test (Rouleau et al., 1992; Sunderland et al., 1989; Huntzinger et al., 1992) (col 6, ln 57-col 7, ln 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Kostin so that cognitive capabilities are evaluated with the aid of standardized tests including a dementia detection test such as the Dementia Rating Scale and the Sunderland Clock Drawing Test (CDT) as taught by Rosse, as the method of modified Kostin can be used as an effective preventative measure for elderly people prone to diseases like dementia (Schega, “Discussion”, page 6, second column, third full paragraph), the use of a dementia detection test and the Sunderland Clock Drawing Test (CDT) to assess cognitive capabilities are known in the art, and it appears that the method of modified Kostin would perform equally well if cognitive capabilities are evaluated with the aid of standardized tests including the Dementia Detection Test and the Sunderland Clock Drawing Test (CDT). See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostin et al, Kotliar, Baker, Isaacson et al, Schega et al, and Rosse et al as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Abate et al (2016/0067431)
Regarding claim 11, modified Kostin disclose improved functional capacity under physical stresses is evaluated with the aid of standardized function tests (strength-endurance capacity is tested using 9 exercises using a patient’s body weight) (Schega, “Methods: Evaluation of Strength-Endurance Capacity”, page 3, first column, fourth full paragraph).
Modified Kostin does not disclose the standardized function tests including a 6-minute walk test (6MWT).
However, Abate teaches a method of performing rehabilitative respiratory physiotherapy (abstract), wherein an improved functional capacity is evaluated with the aid of a standardized function test, including a 6-minute walk test (6MWT) (para [0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Kostin by evaluating improved functional capacity with the aid of standardized function tests including a 6-minute walk test (6MWT), as the use of a 6MWT to evaluate improved functional capacity after performing a respiratory procedure is known in the art, and it appears that the method of modified Kostin would perform equally well to evaluate a patient if the evaluation of strength-endurance capacity includes a 6MWT. See MPEP2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Kostin discloses the hypoxic air mixture includes from 9-20% oxygen (oxygen concentration in the hypoxic gas mixture ranges from 1 to 18%), and the hyperoxic air mixture includes from 21-40% oxygen (oxygen concentration in the hyperoxic gas mixture ranges from 25 to 45%) (Kostin, para [0018]), and in the case where the prior art discloses a range which overlaps from the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 1, first full paragraph-fourth full paragraph of applicant’s remarks, that Kostin’s air splitter does not separate oxygen and nitrogen because Kostin splits atmospheric air into a hypoxic and hyperoxic stream of gas, and there is still oxygen that passes through the gas separation module, and there is no separate feeding of oxygen and nitrogen into a mixer. However, Kostin’s separation module that separates of a gas stream into a hypoxic and hyperoxic stream of gas would read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an air splitter that separates oxygen and nitrogen” because air entering the separator would have a nitrogen content of about 78% and an oxygen content of about 21%. Kostin discloses that the change in oxygen concentration in the hyperoxic gas mixture ranges from 25 to 45%, and that the change in oxygen concentration in the hypoxic gas mixture ranges from 1 to 18%, and therefore, Kostin’s separator separates oxygen and nitrogen by allowing more oxygen to be fed in the hyperoxic gas mixture and allowing less oxygen -and therefore, allow a higher amount of nitrogen to be nitrogen into the hypoxic gas mixture. It is noted that applicant’s air splitter does not completely separate a nitrogen and oxygen, as applicant’s air splitter comprising a zeolite membrane is configured to provide a first enriched oxygen flow of 50±10% of oxygen and a second oxygen-depleted flow with a proportion of 85±3% of nitrogen. Although Kostin does not disclose a mixer for separate feeding of nitrogen and oxygen, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above, Baker discloses a device for control of oxygen saturation levels including a mixer, and therefore the combination of Kostin and Baker discloses the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 1, fifth full paragraph of applicant’s remarks, that applicant’s air splitter receives open air from the environment while Kostin’s gas separation module receives compressed air from a compressor. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above, Kotliar in fig 1 teaches a device for supplying a hypoxic air mixture to a user including an air splitter (14) (membrane separation unit) configured to separate air into an oxygen-depleted retentate and an oxygen-rich permeate gas mixture, and wherein the air splitter (14) configured to receive open air form the environment (via conduit (13) having an air intake opening (11)) (col 3, ln 29-45), and therefore the combination of Kostin and Kotliar discloses the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 1, sixth full paragraph-page 2, first full paragraph of applicant’s remarks, that applicant’s biofeedback regulator is not analogous to Kostin’s control unit because Kostin’s control unit regulates an operation of an adjustable valve and distributor, which is different from applicant’s biofeedback regulator which controls a mixer based on patient biofeedback. However, Kostin’s controller controls the adjustable valve based on sensors to the patient’s condition, such as pulse, blood hemoglobin oxygen saturation sensor and a patient's attention (para [0019]), and therefore Kostin’s controller is considered to read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “biofeedback regulator” because it can control operation of the device based on patient parameters sensed by a sensor. Although Kostin does not disclose a mixer, Baker discloses a nitrogen and oxygen mixer connected to a biofeedback regulator (38) (master controller) (para [0017]), and configured to receive infomation from an oximeter (46) (sensor) by way of the biofeedback regulator (38), and said information determines the mixing rate of nitrogen and oxygen by the nitrogen and oxygen mixer) (para [0022]), and therefore the combination of Kostin and Baker discloses the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 2, second full paragraph-page 3, second full paragraph of applicant’s arguments, that if Baker’s inlet portion is analogous to applicant’s nitrogen and oxygen mixer, then there would still have to be a connection to an air splitter that separately feeds the inlet portion with oxygen that is separated from nitrogen, and nitrogen that is separated from oxygen as required by amended claim 1. However, Kostin discloses that air splitter (4) includes two output channels--one for hypoxic gas mixture output (which would comprise nitrogen that is separated from oxygen to form the hypoxic mixture) and another for hyperoxic gas mixture output (which would comprise oxygen that is separated from nitrogen to form the hyperoxic mixture) (para [0018]). Baker in fig 1 teaches a device for control of oxygen saturation levels including a nitrogen and oxygen mixer (ventilation system (10) includes a portion configured to mix gases to provide a defined gas mixture) including an oxygen supply (24) and a nitrogen supply (28) (para [0015]), wherein said nitrogen and oxygen mixer (18) is connected to a biofeedback regulator (38) (master controller) (para [0017]), and configured to receive information from an oximeter (46) (sensor) by way of the biofeedback regulator (38), and said information determines the mixing rate of nitrogen and oxygen by the nitrogen and oxygen mixer (18) (to control the patient's SpO2 level and thus control hypoxia in the patient (16), the master controller (38) may manipulate FiO2 levels by controlling a nitrogen or oxygen feed based on a comparison of one or more stored SpO2 set points and/or curves with pulse oximetry measurements of the patient's SpO2 level taken via the sensor (46)) (para [0022]). Therefore, the combination of Kostin and Baker disclose a connection to an air splitter that separately feeds the inlet portion with oxygen that is separated from nitrogen, and nitrogen that is separated from oxygen, as Kostin’s device is modified by providing a nitrogen and oxygen mixer, wherein the hyperoxic gas mixture from the gas splitter is provided as an oxygen input and the hypoxic gas mixture from the gas splitter is provided as a nitrogen carrier gas input. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DOUGLAS YOUNG SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-5260. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justine Yu can be reached on 571-272-48354835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS Y SUL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785