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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending and are examined herein on the merits for patentability.
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 3 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. The phrases SLGN and ALB in parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For example, it is unclear that SLGN and ALB are limited to acronyms for sodium lignosulfonate or bovine serum albumin, for example it is unclear if ALB could be interpreted as other albumin or limited only to bovine serum albumin as such the use/intent is unclear. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 11-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2011/0045094).
Han discloses a particle comprising a quantum dot encapsulated by an amphiphilic polymer. These particles are suitable for use in biological and biomedical research and may emit fluorescence and may be water-soluble and biocompatible. The encapsulated quantum dot may be introduced into a living system without any substantial toxic or immunological effects (abstract).
According to a first aspect, there is provided a particle comprising a quantum dot encapsulated by an amphiphilic polymer. In one embodiment, the amphiphilic polymer substantially encapsulates the quantum dot, which is typically hydrophobic in nature. Advantageously, by encapsulating the quantum dot, the amphiphilic polymer may aid in allowing the quantum dot to exist in an aqueous medium while retaining its optical properties. Furthermore, by choosing an amphiphilic polymer that is biocompatible, the resultant encapsulated quantum dot may be introduced into a living system without any substantial toxic or immunological effects on the living system. The biocompatibility of the amphiphilic polymer may aid in the uptake of the encapsulated quantum dots into a cell of the living system. In one embodiment, the disclosed particle is in the nanometer range. In one embodiment, there is provided a fluorescent probe comprising a quantum dot encapsulated by an amphiphilic polymer, wherein the quantum dot is capable of exhibiting fluorescence (paragraph 0011-14).
The term "amphiphilic polymer" is to be interpreted broadly to include any polymer that has a hydrophobic part and a hydrophilic part. The amphiphilic polymer may have hydrophilic side chains grafted on or attached to a hydrophobic polymer backbone or the amphiphilic polymer may have hydrophobic side chains grafted on to a hydrophilic polymer backbone. The amphiphilic polymer may be a copolymer of two or more types of monomers, each monomer having a different degree of hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity (paragraph 0023).
The particle may be substantially spherical in shape. In one embodiment, the diameter of the substantially spherical particle may be in the range selected from the group consisting of about 50 nm to about 500 nm; about 50 nm to about 400 nm (paragraph 0035).
he quantum dot may be substantially hydrophobic. The quantum dot may be made from at least one element selected from Group IIB, Group IVA, Group VA, Group IIIA, Group IIA or Group VIA of the Periodic Table of Elements. The quantum dot may be made of a material such as, but not limited to, CdO, CdS, CdSe, CdTe, CdSeTe, CdHgTe, ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe, ZnO, MgTe, MgS, MgSe, MgO, GaAs, GaP, GaSb, GaN, HgO, HgS, HgSe, HgTe, CaS, CaSe, CaTe, CaO, SrS, SrSe, SrTe, SrO, BaS, BaSe, BaTe, BaO, InAs, InP, InSb, InN, AlAs, AlN, AlP, AlSb, AlS, PbO, PbS, PbSe, PdTe, Ge, Si, ZnO, ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe and combinations thereof (paragraph 0036).
The quantum dot may be of a core-shell structure. Exemplary shell material include, but are not limited to, ZnO, ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe, CdO, CdS, CdSe, CdTe, MgS, MgSe, GaAs, GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, HgO, HgS, HgSe, HgTe, InAs, InN, InP, InSb, AlAs, AlN, AlP, AlSb, or combinations thereof, etc. (paragraph 0037).
The biocompatible amphiphilic polymer may have a hydrophobic inner core surrounded by a hydrophilic outer skin (paragraph 0046).
The biocompatible amphiphilic polymer may be selected from the group consisting of polyesters, poly(orthoester)s, polyanhydrides, poly(aminoacid)s, poly(pseudo amino acid)s, and polyphosphazenes.
In one embodiment, the biocompatible polymer may be a polyester selected from the group consisting of poly(lactic acid)s, poly(glycolic acid)s, copolymers of lactic and glycolic acid, copolymers of lactic and glycolic acid with poly(ethylene glycol), poly(.epsilon.-caprolactone)s, poly(3-hydroxybutyrate)s, polybutyrolactones, polypropiolactones, poly(p-dioxanone)s, poly(valerolactone)s, poly(hydrovalerate)s, poly(propylene fumarate)s and derivatives thereof (paragraph 0041).
The inner core of the biocompatible amphiphilic polymer may comprise hydrophobic functional groups (paragraph 0048).
The amphiphilic polymer may be a polyester polycation copolymer. In one embodiment, the polyester polycation copolymer may be a diblock copolymer comprising a hydrophobic polyester block bonded to a hydrophilic polycation. In another embodiment, the polyester polycation copolymer may be a graft copolymer comprising a hydrophobic polyester portion and a hydrophilic cation portion (paragraph 0049).
Accordingly, the particle comprises a core shell of quantum dot with an outer skin consisting of an inner hydrophobic polymer portion adjacent the quantum dot and an outer hydrophilic polymer portion adjacent the inner hydrophobic polymer portion. The hydrophilic nature of the exposed polymer tails may aid in the solubilization of the encapsulated quantum dots in an aqueous solution (paragraph 0061).
Extraction and collection of the encapsulated quantum dots from the above two-phase system may be carried out by evaporating the organic phase and collecting the encapsulated quantum dots from the aqueous phase. The encapsulated quantum dots may be collected form the aqueous phase by further evaporation of the aqueous phase, centrifugation or filtration (paragraph 0062).
With regard to the limitation wherein the quantum dots are predominantly located inside the nanoparticles, wherein the quantum dots associate primarily with the inner, hydrophobic core of the nanoparticles if the surface of the quantum dots is not electrostatically charged, it is interpreted that Sanchez-Gaytan meets the instantly claimed limitation, as TOPO is not electrostatically charged and Sanchez-Gaytan states that the QDs are completely excluded from the polymer shell and that these results support a model in which the QDs are entrapped exclusively at a spherical interface inside the polymer aggregate, which is interpreted to within the scope of predominantly associated with the hydrophobic core as QDs were excluded from the shell.
With regard to the limitation wherein the composition has a property that, when compared to free quantum dots that are otherwise chemically identical but lack the graft copolymer and the nanoparticles, the degradation rate of said quantum dot within said composition is slower by a factor of at least 1.25+, it is noted that the composition of Sanchez-Gaytan meets the structural limitations of the instant claims. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure or composition as that which is claimed, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The “discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” See Atlas Power Co. v. Ireco Inc., 51 USPQ 2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Therefore, merely claiming a new use, new function, or new property, which is inherently present in the prior art does not make the claim patentable. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), and MPEP § 2112.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanchez-Gaytan et al. (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2007, 46, p. 9235 –9238).
Sanchez-Gaytan discloses a novel solution-phase assembly of CdSe quantum dots (QDs) and a prototypical amphiphilic block copolymer, poly(acrylic acid)-block-polystyrene (PAA-b-PS). Importantly, this study demonstrates that the interactions between nanoparticles and block copolymers can drastically alter the morphology of block-copolymer aggregates and can lead to a unique three-dimensional assembly structure of nanoparticles (a nanocavity in the present study) with controllable assembly parameters (page 9235).
See Figure 1 showing TEM image of assemblies of CdSe/ZnS QDs and PAA-bPS. B) High-magnification TEM image showing individual QDs (dark dots) imbedded inside a block-copolymer aggregate.
TOPO-stabilized ZnS-coated CdSe nanoparticles had a 4.6 nm diameter (page 9235).
Transmission electron microscope (TEM) images reveal that the QDs are incorporated in well-isolated block-copolymer aggregates (Figure 1A, B). The nanoparticle–block-copolymer assemblies (NBAs) are composed of three parts: an outer polymer shell, an inner polymer core, and QDs arranged in a spherical configuration at the interface between the polymer core and the polymer shell. The average diameter of the assembly and the polymer-shell thickness were determined to be (129 18) nm and (21.1 1.9) nm, respectively.
This observation suggests that the outer shell is composed of a monolayer of block copolymers with PAA at the exterior, which stabilizes the assembly in water.
It is also important to note that the QDs are completely excluded from the polymer shell (Figure 1B,C). These results support a model in which the QDs are entrapped exclusively at a spherical interface inside the polymer aggregate (page 9236).
Significantly, the QDs in the assemblies were highly luminescent in water. The photoluminescence (PL) intensities of prepared NBA solutions varied from batch to batch, but the average quantum yield (QY) of the QDs in the NBAs estimated from five different samples was 37%, which is slightly higher than that of the original TOPO-stabilized QDs in chloroform (page 9236.
With regard to claims 11-12, the composition is centrifuged then resuspended in water (page 9237).
With regard to claim 16, all of the nanoparticles displayed show encapsulated QDs, see Figure 4b.
With regard to the limitation wherein the quantum dots are predominantly located inside the nanoparticles, wherein the quantum dots associate primarily with the inner, hydrophobic core of the nanoparticles if the surface of the quantum dots is not electrostatically charged, it is interpreted that Sanchez-Gaytan meets the instantly claimed limitation, as TOPO is not electrostatically charged and Sanchez-Gaytan states that the QDs are completely excluded from the polymer shell and that these results support a model in which the QDs are entrapped exclusively at a spherical interface inside the polymer aggregate, which is interpreted to within the scope of predominantly associated with the hydrophobic core as QDs were excluded from the shell.
With regard to the limitation wherein the composition has a property that, when compared to free quantum dots that are otherwise chemically identical but lack the graft copolymer and the nanoparticles, the degradation rate of said quantum dot within said composition is slower by a factor of at least 1.25+, it is noted that the composition of Sanchez-Gaytan meets the structural limitations of the instant claims. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure or composition as that which is claimed, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The “discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” See Atlas Power Co. v. Ireco Inc., 51 USPQ 2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Therefore, merely claiming a new use, new function, or new property, which is inherently present in the prior art does not make the claim patentable. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), and MPEP § 2112.
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) 1-6, 8-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2011/0045094) in view of Mehpouyan et al. (WO 15/050869).
Han teaches a particle comprising a quantum dot encapsulated by an amphiphilic polymer. These particles are suitable for use in biological and biomedical research and may emit fluorescence and may be water-soluble and biocompatible. The encapsulated quantum dot may be introduced into a living system without any substantial toxic or immunological effects (abstract).
With regard to claim 10, Han does not teach lignin as a hydrophilic polymer which is grafted to PLGA for encapsulation of the semiconductor.
Mehpouyan teaches aqueous soluble polymersomes that encapsulate one or more hydrophobic fluorescent polymers and methods of their preparation and use. In one aspect, provided herein are aqueous soluble polymersomes comprising: (a) one or more hydrophobic fluorescent polymers; and (b) a plurality of amphiphilic copolymers encapsulating the one or more hydrophobic fluorescent polymers, the copolymers each comprising a hydrophobic block that forms a hydrophobic core structure and a hydrophilic block on the surface of the polymersome that is oriented toward an aqueous phase.
The polymer blocks include, but are not limited to, polyglycolides (PGA), polylactides (LPLA and DPLA), polycaprolactone, polydioxanone (PDO or PDS), poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA), polyanhydrides, polyorthoesters, poly(amino acids) and "pseudo"-poly(amino acids), polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), polyhydroxyvalerate (PHV), polycyanoacrylates, polyphosphazenes, polyphophonates, polyiminocarbonates, polyamines, polyolefms, polystyrene, polyoxyalkylene, thermoset amino proteins, polysaccharides, poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyurethane, polyvinylchloride (PVC), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polyesters, nylons, lignin-based biodegradable polymers, biodegradable polymers from soybeans, soy protein-based plastics, loose fill from corn, polymers based on synthetic genes, bacterially-produced polymers such as polyhydroxyalkanoates, and copolymer combinations thereof. The hydrophilic block of the polymersome may be poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), and the hydrophilic block of the polymersome may be polyethylene glycol (PEG) (paragraph 0068-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute lignin as a suitable polymer in the amphiphilic block copolymers taught by Han, such as e.g. copolymers of lactic and glycolic acid with poly(ethylene glycol), when the teaching of Han is taken in view of Mehpouyan. Each of Han and Mehpouyan are directed to amphiphilic copolymers for encapsulation of a fluorescent moiety. The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. One such rationale includes the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. See MPEP 2143. In the instant case, the substituted components and their functions were known in the art at the time of the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known polymer block for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, that is encapsulation of a fluorescent moiety in an amphiphilic block copolymer nanoparticle.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2011/0045094) in view of Astete (WO 20/076886).
Han teaches a particle comprising a quantum dot encapsulated by an amphiphilic polymer. These particles are suitable for use in biological and biomedical research and may emit fluorescence and may be water-soluble and biocompatible. The encapsulated quantum dot may be introduced into a living system without any substantial toxic or immunological effects (abstract). Han is further concerned with drug delivery, as the fact that their configurations cannot accommodate drug loading is a major impediment to make them multi-functional nanostructured devices in biomedical applications (paragraph 0011).
With regard to claim 10, Han does not teach lignin as a hydrophilic polymer which is grafted to PLGA for encapsulation of the semiconductor.
Astete teaches amphiphilic biopolymers have been synthesized by grafting lignin onto PLGA to form graft polymers, which can then be further assembled into polymeric nanoparticles without a requirement for surfactants. The nanoparticles have a typical diameter of 75 nm. The nanoparticles may be used, for example, for drug delivery, including efficient and effective drug delivery against cancers such as triple negative breast cancers.
The synthetic polyester poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) is biocompatible and biodegradable, which are desirable qualities for biopharmaceutical and other uses. By covalently linking the hydrophilic natural polymer lignin with the hydrophobic synthetic polymer PLGA, a new biopolymer with improved properties is obtained. The LGN-PLGA biopolymer can be used, for example, for biopharmaceutical applications, such as LGN-PLGA nanoparticles for drug delivery. Different embodiments are possible. For example, lignin can be obtained commercially as alkaline lignin or as sodium lignosulfonate (both of which are more hydrophilic than native lignin) (paragraph 0022).
Synthesis of fluorescent particles is taught in paragraph 0062.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute LGN-PLGA biopolymer nanoparticles as a functionally equivalent amphiphilic block copolymer to those taught for encapsulating a quantum dot in Han when the teaching of Han is taken in view of Astete. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success because Han teaches the desirability of use the particles for drug delivery and Astete teaches the LGN-PLGA biopolymer to have improved properties for use as a biopolymer with improved properties. Further Astete teaches the use of fluorescent labels in the LGN-PLGA nanoparticles.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez-Gaytan et al. (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2007, 46, p. 9235 –9238) in view of Lee et al. (J. Mater. Res., 2012, 27, 2829).
Sanchez-Gaytan teaches a novel solution-phase assembly of CdSe quantum dots (QDs) and a prototypical amphiphilic block copolymer, poly(acrylic acid)-block-polystyrene (PAA-b-PS). Importantly, this study demonstrates that the interactions between nanoparticles and block copolymers can drastically alter the morphology of block-copolymer aggregates and can lead to a unique three-dimensional assembly structure of nanoparticles (a nanocavity in the present study) with controllable assembly parameters (page 9235).
Sanchez-Gaytan does not specifically teach wherein the nanoparticle further comprises quantum dots with hydrophilic surfaces primarily associate with an outer shell of the nanoparticles.
Lee teaches semiconductor quantum dots (QDs)-doped polystyrene (PS) microspheres with high luminescence were prepared using a self-assembly approach. Hydrophobic CdSe/ZnS QDs were first carboxylized by ligand exchange using mercaptocarboxylic acid. PS microspheres were separately encapsulated with polyethyleneimine via electrostatic interactions and then adsorbed with the carboxyl QDs to form QDs-doped microspheres. We then characterized the combinations using optical, electrical, and mechanical approaches and obtained the following findings: (i) microspheres can be fully coated by QD nanoparticles with a coverage rate of 1.0 pmole/cm2 , in which QDs were evenly distributed on the surfaces; (ii) the anchored QDs exhibited similar optical property as they performed in isolated suspension; and (iii) the fluorescence of QDs-doped microspheres remained intact after stressed by ultrasound-induced cavitation, demonstrating the robustness of interactions between QDs and microspheres. The self-assembly approach developed in this study offered a facile and controllable strategy for preparation of QDs-encoded microparticles with high luminescence and stability (page 2829).
Synthesis of hydrophilic quantum dots is taught on page 2830.
See also FIG. 1, showing a schematic diagram illustrating the fabrication procedures for CdSe/ZnS QDs-doped PS microspheres.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide hydrophilic surface modified quantum dots associated with the surface of the nanoparticles containing encapsulated quantum dots when the teaching of Sanchez-Gaytan is taken in view of Lee. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Lee teaches that providing QDs-doped microspheres in polystyrene particles and coating with hydrophilic QDs allows for a facile and controllable strategy for preparation of QDs-encoded microparticles with high luminescence and stability. For example, the anchored QDs exhibited similar optical property as they performed in isolated suspension; and the fluorescence of QDs-doped microspheres remained intact after stressed by ultrasound-induced cavitation, demonstrating the robustness of interactions between QDs and microspheres.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez-Gaytan et al. (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2007, 46, p. 9235 –9238) in view of Schotten (DE 102014114834).
Sanchez-Gaytan teaches a novel solution-phase assembly of CdSe quantum dots (QDs) and a prototypical amphiphilic block copolymer, poly(acrylic acid)-block-polystyrene (PAA-b-PS). Importantly, this study demonstrates that the interactions between nanoparticles and block copolymers can drastically alter the morphology of block-copolymer aggregates and can lead to a unique three-dimensional assembly structure of nanoparticles (a nanocavity in the present study) with controllable assembly parameters (page 9235).
Sanchez-Gaytan does not specifically teach wherein at least one polymer domain is crosslinked.
Schotten teaches preparation consisting of at least one micelle in non-aqueous solutions, wherein the micelle includes one or more nanoparticles, for example micellar encapsulated nanoparticles.
The micelle-forming elements or unimers may include block copolymers (eg, amphiphilic block copolymers) composed of at least two different polymer blocks having different compatibility with solvents.
The hydrophobic sections may be selected from the group of polyolefins, e.g. Polyethylene, polypropylene, polybutylene, polyisobutylene, polybutadiene, polyisoprene, polystyrene, crosslinked polystyrene, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute crosslinked polystyrene for styrene as a suitable polymer in the amphiphilic block copolymers taught by Sanchez-Gaytan, such as e.g. copolymers of polystyrene and polyacrylic acid, when the teaching of Sanchez-Gaytan is taken in view of Schotten. Each of Sanchez-Gaytan and Schotten are directed to amphiphilic copolymers for encapsulation of a quantum dot. The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. One such rationale includes the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. See MPEP 2143. In the instant case, the substituted components and their functions were known in the art at the time of the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known polymer block for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, that is encapsulation of a fluorescent moiety in an amphiphilic block copolymer nanoparticle.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEAH H SCHLIENTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 12:30pm 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, MICHAEL HARTLEY can be reached at 571-272-0616. 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.
/LHS/
/Michael G. Hartley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1618