DETAILED ACTION
Note: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to communications filed February 24, 2026.
Status of Claims
1. Claims 1-10, 12, 13, 16-20, 22, 24, 25 and 26 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claim 26 is newly added as of the February 24, 2026 amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 24, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 12, 13, 16-20, 22, 24, 25 and 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Riesinger (DE 19752598 C1) is introduced as the new primary reference in the rejection below, for disclosing a majority of the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 19, 22, 25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riesinger (DE 19752598 C1) in view of Bird (WO 2017/001846 A1).
5. With regard to claim 1, Riesinger discloses a bodily waste collection device (collection bag, 210; abstract; Figs. 14a, 14b), comprising: an annular body (locking ring, 15) defining an opening (connection opening, 4) therein, the annular body (15) being configured to be positioned over an anus or a stoma of a wearer to position the opening (4) around the anus or the stoma ("for connection to non-natural body openings (stomata) in humans, in particular to artificial intestinal or bladder exits, with which the aqueous exudates flowing out of the stoma are collected”; paragraph 1 of description); a fluid impermeable barrier (existing outer wall, 1 of bag, 210) affixed to the annular body (15) at a first end, the fluid impermeable barrier (1 of 210) including a closed second end (bottom of bag, 41) opposite the first end (Figs. 14a, 14b), the fluid impermeable barrier having an outer surface and an inner surface (Figs. 14a, 14b), the inner surface at least partially defining a chamber (second chamber, 38) within the fluid impermeable barrier (1 of 210); and a filter bag (formed by a liquid and gas permeable, sieve-like deployable membrane, 60’) disposed within the chamber (38) and positioned around the opening (4) to receive waste via the opening (4; Figs. 14a, 14b), the filter bag (60’) defining a mouth (at connection to 15) aligned with the opening (4; Figs. 14a, 14b), the filter bag (60’) including a closed bag end spaced from the mouth and closest to the closed second end (41) of the fluid impermeable barrier (1 of 210; Fig. 14b; col. 5, lines 31-42; col. 2, line 40 – col. 5, line 30).
However, Riesinger is silent in regard to one or more ports disposed on the fluid impermeable barrier and configured to attach to a drainage tube.
Within the same field of endeavor, Bird discloses a bodily waste collection device (abstract; Figs. 1-3), comprising: an annular body (8) defining an opening (10) therein, the annular body (8) being configured to be positioned over an anus or a stoma of a wearer to position the opening (10) around the anus or the stoma (page 7, line 21 – page 14, line 16); a fluid impermeable barrier (1) affixed to the annular body (8), the fluid impermeable barrier (1) having an outer surface and an inner surface (Fig. 2), the inner surface at least partially defining a chamber (48) within the fluid impermeable barrier (1); a filter bag (non-return valve 30; interpreted as filtering fluids in a single direction through the opening in the end 38) disposed within the chamber (48) and positioned around the opening (10) to receive waste via the opening (10); and one or more ports (62, 24) disposed on the fluid impermeable barrier (1) and configured to attach to a drainage tube (“long term drain”; cf. specially page 14, lines 15-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluid impermeable barrier disclosed by Riesinger to include one or more ports configured to attach to a drainage tube, similar to that disclosed by Bird, in order to provide a reasonable means of connection to a drain, for periodically or continuously draining liquids away from the secondary chamber and/or emptying if required, as suggested by Bird on page 14, lines 12-15.
6. With regard to claim 3, while Riesinger appears to show that the fluid impermeable barrier (1 of 210) includes an upper portion having a greater outer dimension than a lower portion of the fluid impermeable barrier (Fig. 14a; larger depth at upper portion for accommodating 60’) and the one or more ports (as modified by Bird in the rejection of claim 1 above) are disposed in the lower portion (as modified by Bird in the rejection of claim 1 above), Riesinger fails to explicitly disclose this difference in dimension.
Nonetheless, Bird discloses that the fluid impermeable barrier (1) includes an upper portion (portion including 10) having a greater outer dimension than a lower portion (necked portion, 23) of the fluid impermeable barrier (1) and the one or more ports (62, 24) are disposed in the lower portion (Fig. 1; page 7, line 21 – page 14, line 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the upper portion of the fluid impermeable barrier disclosed by Riesinger in view of Bird to include a greater outer dimension than the lower portion of the fluid impermeable barrier, similar to that disclosed by Bird, in order to provide a tapering channel for the incoming waste to be directed toward the port, functioning as a funnel channeling the waste toward an outlet, as suggested by Bird on page 6, lines 21-24.
7. With regard to claim 4, Riesinger discloses that the fluid impermeable barrier (1 of 210) forms a sump (at bottom of 38) in a portion of the chamber (38; Figs. 14a, 14b).
Additionally, Bird discloses that the fluid impermeable barrier (1) forms a sump (at least at secondary chamber, 50) in a portion of the chamber (48; Fig. 2; page 7, line 21 – page 14, line 16).
8. With regard to claim 5, Riesinger discloses that the filter bag (60’) includes a mesh bag having a sieve size selected to allow fluids to pass therethrough and retain solids therein (abstract; col. 2, lines 40-49; col. 3, lines 7-29).
9. With regard to claim 6, Riesinger discloses that the filter bag (60’) is affixed to the annular body (15) at least proximate to the opening (4; Figs. 14a, 14b; col. 5, lines 31-42).
10. With regard to claim 7, Riesinger discloses that the filter bag (60’) is affixed to an underside of the annular body (15) between the opening (4) and the fluid impermeable barrier (1 of 210; Figs. 14a, 14b; col. 5, lines 31-42).
Additionally, Bird discloses that the filter bag (30) is affixed to an underside of the annular body (8) between the opening (10) and the fluid impermeable barrier (1; Fig. 2; page 9, line 21 – page 12, line 12).
11. With regard to claim 8, Riesinger discloses that the filter bag (60’) is affixed to the fluid impermeable barrier (1 of 210; Figs. 14a, 14b; at least by virtue of both their connections to 15).
Additionally, Bird discloses that the filter bag (30) is affixed to the fluid impermeable barrier (1; Fig. 2; page 9, line 21 – page 12, line 12).
12. With regard to claim 9, Riesinger discloses that the filter bag (60’) has a length that is shorter than a length of the fluid impermeable barrier (1; Figs. 14a, 14b; col. 5, lines 31-42).
Additionally, Bird discloses that the filter bag (30) has a length that is shorter than a length of the fluid impermeable barrier (1; Figs. 1, 2; page 9, line 21 – page 12, line 12).
13. With regard to claim 10, Riesinger, as modified by Bird in the rejection of claim 1 above, discloses that the one or more ports (62, 24 as modified by Bird) are sized to receive the drainage tube (‘may be connected to long-term drain’; Bird) therein and are disposed in a lower region of the fluid impermeable barrier (1; Figs. 1, 2; page 13, line 26- page 14, line 16 of Bird).
14. With regard to claim 28, Riesinger disclosesthat the mesh bag (60’) defines the mouth and includes the closed bag end (Figs. 14a, 14b; col. 5, lines 31-42).
15. With regard to claim 19, Riesinger discloses a method to collect body waste, the method comprising: positioning an opening (4) of a bodily waste collection device (collection bag, 210; abstract; Figs. 14a, 14b) over an anus or a stoma of a wearer("for connection to non-natural body openings (stomata) in humans, in particular to artificial intestinal or bladder exits, with which the aqueous exudates flowing out of the stoma are collected”; paragraph 1 of description), the body waste collection device including: an annular body (locking ring, 15) defining an opening (connection opening, 4) therein, the annular body (15) being configured to be positioned over an anus or a stoma of a wearer to position the opening (4) around the anus or the stoma ("for connection to non-natural body openings (stomata) in humans, in particular to artificial intestinal or bladder exits, with which the aqueous exudates flowing out of the stoma are collected”; paragraph 1 of description); a fluid impermeable barrier (existing outer wall, 1 of bag, 210) affixed to the annular body (15) at a first end, the fluid impermeable barrier (1 of 210) including a closed second end (bottom of bag, 41) opposite the first end (Figs. 14a, 14b), the fluid impermeable barrier having an outer surface and an inner surface (Figs. 14a, 14b), the inner surface at least partially defining a chamber (second chamber, 38) within the fluid impermeable barrier (1 of 210); and a filter bag (formed by a liquid and gas permeable, sieve-like deployable membrane, 60’) disposed within the chamber (38) and positioned around the opening (4) to receive waste via the opening (4; Figs. 14a, 14b), the filter bag (60’) defining a mouth (at connection to 15) aligned with the opening (4; Figs. 14a, 14b), the filter bag (60’) including a closed bag end spaced from the mouth and closest to the closed second end (41) of the fluid impermeable barrier (1 of 210; Fig. 14b; col. 5, lines 31-42); receiving waste from the anus or stoma into the filter bag (60’) in the chamber (38; Figs. 14a, 14b); and filtering fluid from the waste with the filter bag (60’; col. 2, line 40 – col. 5, line 30).
However, Riesinger is silent in regard to one or more ports disposed on the fluid impermeable barrier and configured to attach to a drainage tube.
Within the same field of endeavor, Bird discloses a bodily waste collection device (abstract; Figs. 1-3), comprising: an annular body (8) defining an opening (10) therein, the annular body (8) being configured to be positioned over an anus or a stoma of a wearer to position the opening (10) around the anus or the stoma (page 7, line 21 – page 14, line 16); a fluid impermeable barrier (1) affixed to the annular body (8), the fluid impermeable barrier (1) having an outer surface and an inner surface (Fig. 2), the inner surface at least partially defining a chamber (48) within the fluid impermeable barrier (1); a filter bag (non-return valve 30; interpreted as filtering fluids in a single direction through the opening in the end 38) disposed within the chamber (48) and positioned around the opening (10) to receive waste via the opening (10); and one or more ports (62, 24) disposed on the fluid impermeable barrier (1) and configured to attach to a drainage tube (“long term drain”; cf. specially page 14, lines 15-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluid impermeable barrier disclosed by Riesinger to include one or more ports configured to attach to a drainage tube, similar to that disclosed by Bird, in order to provide a reasonable means of connection to a drain, for periodically or continuously draining liquids away from the secondary chamber and/or emptying if required, as suggested by Bird on page 14, lines 12-15.
16. With regard to claim 22, Riesinger discloses that receiving waste from the anus or stoma into the filter bag (60’) in the chamber (38) includes receiving the waste into the filter bag (60’) via the opening (4; Figs. 14a, 14b; col. 5, lines 31-42).
17. With regard to claim 25, Riesinger, as modified by Bird in the rejection of claim 19 above, discloses removing the fluid from the chamber (38 of Riesinger; via the modified port 62 and drain tube as disclosed by Bird; page 14, lines 15-16 of Bird; page 7, line 21 – page 14, line 16 of Bird).
18. Claim(s) 2 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riesinger in view of Bird, as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Christensen et al. (WO 2007/134608 A2).
19. With regard to claims 2 and 20, While Bird discloses that the annular body (8) includes an annular plate (mounting flange), and having an adhesive (‘hydrocolloid adhesive’) disposed on an outward facing surface at least partially around the opening (10; Fig. 1; page 8, lines 18-25), Riesinger and Bird are silent in regard to the annular body including an annular plate sized and shaped to fit within an intergluteal cleft.
However, Christensen discloses a kit for collecting stool (abstract; Figs. 1-4) comprising a flexible annular adhesive plate (2) formed of an hydrocolloid adhesive arranged on a polymer backing layer, wherein the flexible annular adhesive plate (2) is sized and shaped to fit within an intergluteal cleft (Page 6, line 1-30).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the annular plate disclosed by Riesinger in view of Bird to be a flexible annular plate, sized and shaped to fit within an intergluteal cleft, similar to that disclosed by Christensen, in order to provide an annular plate that is capable of being bent into many different shapes as the user moves around in order to adapt to different physiologies, while maintaining a seal around the anus, so that stool does not spill into the surroundings, as suggested by Christensen in page 6, lines 16-30.
20. Claim(s) 12, 16-18 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riesinger in view of Bird in view of Pfau (DE 79818 C).
21. With regard to claim 12, Riesinger discloses a bodily waste collection device (collection bag, 210; abstract; Figs. 14a, 14b), comprising: an annular body (locking ring, 15) defining an opening (connection opening, 4) therein, the annular body (15) being configured to be positioned over an anus or a stoma of a wearer to position the opening (4) around the anus or the stoma ("for connection to non-natural body openings (stomata) in humans, in particular to artificial intestinal or bladder exits, with which the aqueous exudates flowing out of the stoma are collected”; paragraph 1 of description); a fluid impermeable barrier (existing outer wall, 1 of bag, 210) affixed to the annular body (15) at a first end, the fluid impermeable barrier (1 of 210) including a closed second end (bottom of bag, 41) opposite the first end (Figs. 14a, 14b), the fluid impermeable barrier having an outer surface and an inner surface (Figs. 14a, 14b), the inner surface at least partially defining a chamber (second chamber, 38) within the fluid impermeable barrier (1 of 210); and a filter bag (formed by a liquid and gas permeable, sieve-like deployable membrane, 60’) disposed within the chamber (38) and positioned around the opening (4) to receive waste via the opening (4; Figs. 14a, 14b), the filter bag (60’) defining a mouth (at connection to 15) aligned with the opening (4; Figs. 14a, 14b), the filter bag (60’) including a closed bag end spaced from the mouth and closest to the closed second end (41) of the fluid impermeable barrier (1 of 210; Fig. 14b; col. 5, lines 31-42; col. 2, line 40 – col. 5, line 30).
However, Riesinger is silent in regard to one or more ports disposed on the fluid impermeable barrier and configured to attach to a drainage tube; and a drainage tube in fluid communication with the one or more ports.
Within the same field of endeavor, Bird discloses a bodily waste collection device (abstract; Figs. 1-3), comprising: an annular body (8) defining an opening (10) therein, the annular body (8) being configured to be positioned over an anus or a stoma of a wearer to position the opening (10) around the anus or the stoma (page 7, line 21 – page 14, line 16); a fluid impermeable barrier (1) affixed to the annular body (8), the fluid impermeable barrier (1) having an outer surface and an inner surface (Fig. 2), the inner surface at least partially defining a chamber (48) within the fluid impermeable barrier (1); a filter bag (non-return valve 30; interpreted as filtering fluids in a single direction through the opening in the end 38) disposed within the chamber (48) and positioned around the opening (10) to receive waste via the opening (10); and one or more ports (62, 24) disposed on the fluid impermeable barrier (1) and configured to attach to a drainage tube (“long term drain”; cf. specially page 14, lines 15-16); and a drainage tube in fluid communication with the one or more ports (62, 24; specially page 14, lines 15-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluid impermeable barrier disclosed by Riesinger to include one or more ports configured to attach to a drainage tube, similar to that disclosed by Bird, in order to provide a reasonable means of connection to a drain, for periodically or continuously draining liquids away from the secondary chamber and/or emptying if required, as suggested by Bird on page 14, lines 12-15.
Furthermore, Riesinger and Bird fails to explicitly disclose that the system includes a fluid storage container configured to hold a fluid and fluidly coupled with the bodily waste collection device; and a vacuum source fluidly coupled to one or more of the fluid storage container or the bodily waste collection device via the drainage tube, the vacuum source configured to draw fluid from the chamber via the drainage tube.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Pfau discloses a bodily waste collection system (abstract; Fig. 1); comprising a fluid storage container (container, K) configured to hold a fluid ([0010]); and a bodily waste collection device (funnel, B) fluidly coupled to the fluid storage container ([0005]); the bodily waste collection device (B) comprising an annular body defining an opening (at rubber cushion, D) therein to be positioned over an anus of a wearer to position the opening around the anus (L; Fig. 1); and one or more ports disposed on the collection device configured to attach to a drainage tube (rubber tubes, F and G; [0010]); and a vacuum source (air pump, J) fluidly coupled to one or more of the fluid storage container (K) or the bodily waste collection device (B) via the drainage tube (F and G), the vacuum source (J)configured to draw fluid from the chamber via the drainage tube (F and G; Fig. 1; [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Riesinger in view of Bird to include a fluid storage container and fluidly connected vacuum source, similar to that disclosed by Pfau, in order to assist in the drainage of urine and feces to be discharged into the fluid storage container, as suggested by Pfau in paragraphs [0009] and [0011].
22. With regard to claims 16-18, Riesinger and Bird, as modified by Pfau above, discloses the limitations of claim 12, wherein Pfau further suggests that the drainage tube (F and G) is attached to a plurality of the one or more ports by a manifold (Y-junction; see Fig. 1) and separate drainage tubes (F and G; [0010]); that the vacuum source (J) is fluidly coupled to the fluid storage container (K) and the vacuum source (J) is configured to produce a vacuum in the chamber (of B) to draw fluid from the chamber into the fluid storage container (K) via the drainage tube (F and G; [0011]); however, Bird and Pfau fail to explicitly disclose at least one input port located in an upper portion of the fluid impermeable barrier; and an air pump in fluid communication with the input port via an input tube therebetween, wherein the air pump is configured to input air into the chamber via the input tube.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Riesinger in view of Bird in view of Pfau to further consider using the air pump disclosed by Pfau to redirect air through an upper inlet port, in order to flush/purge the waste collection device from debris after use, with a reasonable expectation of success, as pushing air through the top of the device would redirect fluids and debris toward the outlet.
23. With regard to claim 24, Riesinger in view of Bird discloses the method of claim19. While Riesinger discloses the filter bag (60’) for separating the fluid from solids in the waste (Figs. 14a, 14b), Riesinger and Bird fail to disclose that filtering fluid from the waste with the filter bag includes utilizing a vacuum to separate the fluid from solids in the waste.
However, Pfau discloses a bodily waste collection system (abstract; Fig. 1); comprising a fluid storage container (container, K) configured to hold a fluid ([0010]); and a bodily waste collection device (funnel, B) fluidly coupled to the fluid storage container ([0005]); the bodily waste collection device (B) comprising an annular body defining an opening (at rubber cushion, D) therein to be positioned over an anus of a wearer to position the opening around the anus (L; Fig. 1); and one or more ports disposed on the collection device configured to attach to a drainage tube (rubber tubes, F and G; [0010]); and a vacuum source (air pump, J) fluidly coupled to one or more of the fluid storage container (K) or the bodily waste collection device (B) via the drainage tube (F and G), the vacuum source (J) configured to draw fluid from the chamber via the drainage tube (F and G; Fig. 1; [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Riesinger in view of Bird to include a fluidly connected vacuum source, similar to that disclosed by Pfau, in order to assist in the drainage of urine and feces to be discharged into the fluid storage container, as suggested by Pfau in paragraphs [0009] and [0011].
24. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riesinger in view of Bird in view of Pfau, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Christensen.
25. With regard to claim 13, While Bird discloses that the annular body (8) includes an annular plate (mounting flange), and having an adhesive (‘hydrocolloid adhesive’) disposed on an outward facing surface at least partially around the opening (10; Fig. 1; page 8, lines 18-25), and the system of Pfau is intended to be pressed against an intragluteal cleft (Fig. 1), Riesinger, Bird and Pfau are silent in regard to the annular body including an annular plate sized and shaped to fit within an intergluteal cleft.
However, Christensen discloses a kit for collecting stool (abstract; Figs. 1-4) comprising a flexible annular adhesive plate (2) formed of an hydrocolloid adhesive arranged on a polymer backing layer, wherein the flexible annular adhesive plate (2) is sized and shaped to fit within an intergluteal cleft (Page 6, line 1-30).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the annular plate disclosed by Riesinger in view of Bird and Pfau to be a flexible annular plate, sized and shaped to fit within an intergluteal cleft, similar to that disclosed by Christensen, in order to provide an annular plate that is capable of being bent into many different shapes as the user moves around in order to adapt to different physiologies, while maintaining a seal around the anus, so that stool does not spill into the surroundings, as suggested by Christensen in page 6, lines 16-30.
Conclusion
26. 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.
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J MENSH whose telephone number is (571)270-1594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571)272-7159. 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.
/ANDREW J MENSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights