DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-17, 19-26 are currently pending. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-12, 21-22 and 25-26 are currently pending.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 01/06/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. In the Applicant’s response, filed 01/06/2026, it is noted that claim 26 has been newly added.
New Rejection:
The following rejection is newly applied based on Applicant’s newly added claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – New Matter
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 26 contains the newly added limitation “wherein the coating is applied to at least a portion of lateral sides of a plurality of macro protrusions”. Support can be found for the coating applied along the surface between the macro protrusions and within the voids [0050] wherein partial coating of the macro protrusion wall is demonstrated (Figure 6) is taught and embodiments wherein the entire surface is taught (Figure 4, [0047]. No support can be located for the coating applied to at least a portion of the lateral sides of the plurality of macro protrusions, which includes full coating of the sides of the macro protrusions, while meeting the limitations of claim 1 wherein the coating is applied only between the plurality of macro protrusions that includes a plurality of voids. Disclosure of coating a portion of the lateral sides of the macro protrusion is disclosed and coating of the full lateral sides in combination with a full coating of the device is disclosed, however this does not prove support for at least a portion of the lateral sides of the plurality of macro protrusions.
Alternatively, if Applicant believes that support for claim 26, drawn to “wherein the coating is applied to at least a portion of lateral sides of a plurality of macro protrusions”, is present and clearly envisaged in the instant application or earlier filed priority documents, applicant must, in responding to this Office Action, point out with particularity, where such support may be found.
Applicant does not indicate where these limitations are supported by the original specification, or how, as is Applicant's burden. See MPEP §714.02, last sentence of the third paragraph from the end and MPEP §2163.06 (I) last sentence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 26 is 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 26 recites the limitation of wherein the coating is applied to at least a portion of lateral sides of the plurality of macroprotrusions. Instant claim 1, from which it depends is directed to the coating applied only along a portion of the surface wherein the portion of the surface is a region of the surface between the plurality of macroprotrusions that include the plurality of voids. It is unclear how claim 26 allows for full coating, i.e. at least part of the lateral portion, wherein instant claim 1 requires only a portion of the surface of the device, thus not allowing for full coating. Additionally instant claim 1 requires the portion to be coated to be between the macroprotrusions, wherein instant claim 26 requires a least a portion of lateral sides of the macroprotrusions to be coated. It is therefore unclear which portions of the device and/or macroprotrusions are required to be coated and excluded from being coated.
Modified Rejection:
The following rejection is modified based on Applicant’s newly added claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12, 21-22 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0173635 (previously applied) in view of US 2005/0266039 (previously applied).
Regarding claims 1-4, 12 and 25, the limitation of a medical device comprising: a substrate structure with a surface, the surface laser treated to define at least one macro protrusion and at least one void extending relative to the surface is met by the ‘635 publication teaches a biocompatible, implantable electrode for electrically active medical devices. The implantable medical electrode has a surface geometry which optimizes the electrical performance of the electrode, while mitigating the undesirable effects associated with prior porous surfaces. The electrode has an optimized surface topography for improved electrical performance (abstract). The invention is made by use of ultrafast laser produces surfaces structure on the order of 50 nm to 500 nm [0007]. The macro protrusions have a width range of 0.15 um to 50 um, the microprotrusions have a width of 0.15 um to about 5 um and the nanoprotrusions have a width ranging from 0.01 um to about 1 um. Three structural tiers are described in terms of nano, micro and macro structures [0008]. The macro protrusions are taught to be on the device, the micro protrusions extending from the macro and the nano protrusions extending form the micro ([0009], [0027]). The substrate is taught to be titanium (claim 8).
The ‘635 publication does not specifically teach a coating having antibacterial, antimicrobial and/or drug eluding properties applied to the substrate structure such that the coating is applied only along a portion of the surface, wherein the portion of the surface is a region of the surface between the plurality of macro protrusions that includes the plurality of voids (claim 1), wherein the surface is only within the voids (claim 21), below the extension of the nanoprotrusions and microprotrusions(claims 22).
The ‘635 publication does not specifically teach wherein the coating contains zinc (claim 7).
The ’039 publication teaches medical devices such as stents having a surface and a first coating layer comprising a first polymer disposed on at least a portion of the surface, in which at least one cavity is formed in the first coating layer. A biologically active material is deposited into the cavity and second coating layer comprising a second polymer is disposed over the biologically active material. The cavity is formed from a laser and the biologically active material may be deposited in the cavity using a picoliter dispensing system (abstract). The drug may be premixed with a polymer before application to the surface [0003]. Spray coating is a common technique but has some problems [0004]. The method of application taught allows for positioning biologically active material in only predefined regions, which is taught to be used instead of dipping rather than use more active material than is needed [0008]. Filling of the full cavity as taught by Figure 1b would meet the limitation of at least a portion of the lateral sides of the macro protrusions being coated.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the coating in a cavity as taught by the ’039 publication on the device taught by the ‘635 publication because the ‘039 publication teaches that it is known to use biologically active material in cavities of implantable medical devices and the ‘635 publication is directed to an implantable medical device which contains cavities. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to use the coatings taught by the ‘039 publication which release active agents on the device of the ‘635 publication because the ‘039 publication teaches the use of drug releasing coatings only in the cavities prevents the use of unnecessarily exposure to the patient and reduces manufacturing costs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the coating as the ‘039 publication teaches advantages include efficient, cost-effective and relatively safe manufacturing process for applying biologically active material to a medical device [0095] which includes pacemakers [0021] and the ‘635 publication teaches an implantable medical device such as a pacemaker.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0173635 and US 2005/0266039 as applied to claims 1-4, 12, 21-22 and 25-26 above, and further in view of US 6,582,715 and US 2007/0135699.
As mentioned in the above 103(a) rejection, all the limitations of claims 1-4, 12, 21-22 and 25-26 are taught by the combination of the ‘635 publication and the ‘039.
The combination of references does not specifically teach wherein the coating contains zinc, copper and/or silver (claim 7).
The ‘715 patent teaches an orthopedic surgical implant having a surface which contacts body tissue. The surface contains an inorganic antimicrobial agent either incorporated in the material forming a component having the surface of incorporated in a coating applied to the surface (abstract). Preferred antimicrobial metal containing compositions include silver, copper or zinc. They are believed to exert their effects by disrupting respiration and electron transport systems upon absorption into bacterial or fungal cells and are considered safe for in vivo use (column 4, lines 52-65).
The ‘699 publication teaches devices having antimicrobial properties by the use of specialized contains that reduce the risk of tissue infection around biosensors that reside fully or partially within subcutaneous tissue (abstract). Antimicrobial materials are taught to include zinc and are recognized to minimize microbial colonization and infection [0039]. Electrodes are taught to be imparted with antimicrobial properties thought the use of zinc (claim 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use zinc as the active agent in the drug containing coating taught by the ‘635 and ‘035 publications as the ‘635 publication is directed to an electrode and the ‘699 publication teaches the use zinc to coat electrodes and the ‘715 patent teaches the use of zinc as a preferred antimicrobial metal for use on an implant. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to use zinc in the drug containing coating taught by the ‘035 publication for use on the electrode of the ‘635 publication because the ‘699 publication teaches zinc is recognized to minimize microbial colonization and infection. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success as the ‘715 publication teaches the zinc to be in the form of particles to coat an implant, the ‘699 publication teaches application to an electrode and the ‘635 publication teaches an implantable electrode.
Claim(s) 6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0173635, US 2005/0266039, US 6,582,715 and US 2007/0135699 as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 12, 21-22 and 25-26 above, and further in view of Staszuk (previously applied).
As mentioned in the above 103(a) rejection, all the limitations of claims 1-4, 7, 12, 21-22 and 25-26 are taught by the combination of the ‘635 publication, the ‘039 publication, the ‘715 patent and the ‘699 publication.
The combination of references does not specifically teach wherein the coating has an atomically thin thickness (claim 6) wherein the coating is applied utilizing an atomic layer deposition process (ALD) (claim 10) wherein the coating is applied utilizing plasma enhanced ADS or thermal ALD (claim 11).
Staszuk teaches ZnO coating deposited by ALD on 316L stainless steel for biomedical applications. Zinc oxide layers were deposited at the same temperature of 200 degrees C using three types of ALD cycles. The obtained results showed that the number of ALD cycles had a significant impact on the structure, morphology and corrosion resistance of the ZnO layers (abstract). Zinc Oxide has demonstrated protective, regenerative, slightly antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties and is used for biomedical engineering (page 1, last paragraph). Thin ZnO layers can be applied by a variety of technical including pulse laser depositions, organometallic method and atomic layer deposition. ALD technique is particular allows one to obtain very high quality ZnO layers. The deposition of the atomic layer by the ALD method only proceeds through chemical reactions on the surface of the substrate, leading to a self-limiting layer by layer growth. During the reaction in the ALD process, pulses or precursor materials are introduced alternately into the reactor one after the other. Ultra-thin layer is formed. The advantages are good reproducibility, high homogeneity over a large area, excellent combability, denseness and compactness without dis-continues or defects (page 2, third paragraph).
It is noted that plasma enhanced and thermal ALD are product by process limitations. MPEP 2113 - “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Stazsuk teaches ALD process at a specific temperature.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use ALD to deposit the ZnO coating on the device of the ‘635 publication as the 699 publication teaches Zn coating on electrode and Staszuk teaches a method of depositing ZnO coating on medical devices. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of substituting one known method of depositing Zinc Oxide as Staszuk on a device desired to be coated by zinc which is antimicrobial wherein the Zno is taught as antimicrobial by Staszuk. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to use the method of deposition as taught by Staszuk as Staszuk teaches the advantages is good reproducibility, high homogeneity, excellent combability, denseness and compactness without dis-continues or defects.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,117,680 in view of US 2005/0266039.
The instant application and the ‘680 patent are directed to medical devices (electrode) which are formed of titanium and are surface laser treated to obtain protrusions relative to the surface. The instant application differs from the ‘680 patent in that it requires a coating having antibacterial, antimicrobial and/or drug eluting properties applied to the substrate structure such that the coating engages within or along a surface protrusion of one or more of the voids.
The ’039 publication teaches medical devices such as stents having a surface and a first coating layer comprising a first polymer disposed on at least a portion of the surface, in which at least one cavity is formed in the first coating layer. A biologically active material is deposited into the cavity and second coating layer comprising a second polymer is disposed over the biologically active material. The cavity is formed form a laser and the biologically active material may be deposited in the cavity using a picoliter dispensing system (abstract). The drug may be premixed with a polymer before application to the surface [0003]. Spray coating is a common technique but has some problems [0004]. The method of application taught allows for positioning biologically active material in only predefined regions, which is taught to be used instead of dipping rather than use more active material than is needed [0008].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the coating in a cavity as taught by the ’039 publication on the device taught by the ‘680 patent because the ‘039 publication teaches that it is known to use biologically active material in cavities of implantable medical devices and the ‘680 patent is directed to an implantable medical device which contains cavities. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to use the coatings taught by the ‘039 publication which release active agents on the device of the ‘680 patent because the ‘039 publication teaches the use of drug releasing coatings only in the cavities prevents the use of unnecessarily exposure to the patient and reduces manufacturing costs.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not deemed to be persuasive.
103: The ‘635 publication (Fisk) and the ‘039 publication (Weber)
Applicant argues the combination of the ‘635 publication and the ‘039 publication because the ‘635 publication teaches away from combination with the ‘039 publication. Applicant argues the ‘635 publication states that electrical performance of implantable electrodes can be enhanced by increasing the external surface current state of the art for increasing the external surface area in contact with tissues in the body. Concern is that a section of coating can become dislodged in use and become an irritant. A better alternative to coating would be modification of the electrode substrate material itself, thereby eliminating the issue of the poor adhesion and the potential f coating particle becoming dislodged during use. The ‘635 publication teaching away from the use of coatings with implantable electrodes to increase external surface area. Therefore the ‘635 publication teaches away from the proposed combination of the coating of the ‘035 publication with the ‘635 publication.
In response, the ‘635 publication teaches coating may become dislodged in use and become an irritant with the desire to modify the electrode substrate material itself to prevent dislodged during use [0006] wherein the coating taught against is iridium [0005]. The coating discussed in the ‘035 publication is a drug releasing coating [0009] formed of polymeric material which avoids irritation to the body tissue [0032] wherein the device may be a pacemaker [0021]. Thus the ‘635 publication teaches away from iridium coating which form the substrate of the electrode however do not teach away from the use of a drug releasing coating which does not irritate the body and the desire is release of an active agent.
Applicant argues the combination of the ‘635 publication and the ‘035 publication is improper because it would change the principal operation of the ‘635 publication. The intended purpose of the ‘635 publication is to use surface morphology without coatings to improve interaction of the implantable biomedical electrodes with surrounding tissue, optimized surface topography for improved electrical performance, a better alternative to a coating would be the modification of the electrode substrate material itself, thereby eliminating the issue of poor adhesion and portion of coating particles becoming dislodge during the use and reduce the likelihood of infection and function benefits such as improved electrical transfer. The proposed modification would frustrate the intended purpose, use of surface morphology without coating, to improve interaction of an implantable biomedical electrode.
In response, the ‘635 publication teaches coating may become dislodged in use and become an irritant with the desire to modify the electrode substrate material itself to prevent dislodged during use [0006] wherein the coating taught against is iridium [0005]. The coating discussed in the ‘035 publication is a drug releasing coating [0009] formed of polymeric material which avoids irritation to the body tissue [0032] wherein the device may be a pacemaker [0021]. Thus the ‘635 publication teaches away from iridium coating which form the substrate of the electrode however do not teach away from the use of a drug releasing coating which does not irritate the body and the desire is release of an active agent. The ‘635 publication teaches the desire for reduction of infection [0021] and the ‘035 publication teaches agents such as antibiotics [0063] wherein the coating is taught as only applied in the cavities of the device (claim 12) wherein bioabsorbable polymers are used [0072]. Thus the surface topography is not modified as the protrusions are not coated and wherein the coating is taught to release active agents such as antibiotics and be bioabsorbable and non-irritating to the body. Thus the ‘635 publication teaches away from iridium coating which form the substrate of the electrode however do not teach away from the use of a drug releasing coating which does not irritate the body and the desire is release of an active agent.
Applicant argues the ‘715 patent (Barry) and the ‘699 publication (Ward) do not cure the deficiencies of the ‘635 publication and the ‘039 publication.
In response, Applicant’s arguments regarding the ‘635 publication and the ‘039 publication are addressed as first presented.
Applicant argues the Staszuk do not cure the deficiencies of the ‘635 publication, the ‘039 publication, the ‘715 patent and the ‘699 publication.
In response, Applicant’s arguments regarding the ‘635 publication and the ‘039 publication are addressed as first presented.
Double Patenting- Applicant argues one skilled in the art would not find the proposed combination of Fisk (‘680 patent) and Weber (‘039 publication) prima facie obvious because Fisk teaches away from the proposed combination and/or the proposed combination would frustrate the intended purpose of Fisk.
In response, Applicant’s arguments addressed to Fisk and Webber are addressed above as first presented.
Applicant argues new claim 26, the ‘035 publication teaches cavity 40 is formed in the coating layer 30 and contains the biologically active material 50. The office likens the recited “voids” of claim 1 to at least one void extending relative to the surface of the ‘635 publication. It can be appreciated that the biologically active material of the ‘035 publication is confined within the cavity 50 and is not present on the surface of the first substrate. The resultant combination would place the coating of the ‘035 publication within the voids and not on lateral surfaces of the macro protrusions of the ‘635 publication.
In response, the ’03 publication teaches filling of the full cavity as taught by Figure 1b would meet the limitation of at least a portion of the lateral sides of the macro protrusions being coated, wherein the voids of the ‘635 publication are formed by the macro protrusion walls.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Examiner Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDSEY MARIE BECKHARDT whose telephone number is (571)270-7676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 4pm and Friday 9am to 2pm.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/LYNDSEY M BECKHARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/BRIAN-YONG S KWON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1613