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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 21 have been amended. Claims 11-12, 15-20, 25-36, and 40-50 are cancelled. Claims 1-10, 13-14, 21-24, and 37-39 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 with respect to claims 1 and 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the plurality of sacrificial zones are configured to rupture and collapse in response to application of negative pressure. The current specification does not explicitly specify what materials of the plurality of sacrificial zones allow for rupture and collapse in response to application of negative pressure (¶ 0075). Thus, since the current specification discloses collagen and oxidized regenerated cellulose as being materials for the second bioresorbable composition (¶ 0055), a plurality of sacrificial zones formed from a second bioresorbable composition comprising collagen and oxidized regenerated cellulose will be considered to rupture and collapse in response to application of negative pressure, inherently.
Applicant argues that neither Kagan nor Watt fail to describe such limitation. However, as discussed in the rejection below and reiterated herein, Watt teaches a bioresorbable material comprising collagen and oxidized regenerated cellulose (Watt ¶ 0022) which are described in the current specification as being suitable materials for the second bioresorbable composition (specification ¶ 0055). Thus, the modified dressing of Kagan in view of Watt having a second bioresorbable composition comprising collagen and oxidized regenerated cellulose is identical to the claimed invention and will inherently have a plurality of sacrificial zones configured to rupture and collapse in response to application of negative pressure to the bioresorbable manifold layer, in light of the specification.
Accordingly, claim 1 remains obvious under Kagan in view of Watt.
Claim 21 has been amended to recite “the plurality of sacrificial zones configured to rupture and be drawn off in response to operation of the negative-pressure source”. Such arguments above are applicable and claim 21 remains rejected under Kagan in view of Delury and further in view of Watt.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2009/0326515 A1) in view of Watt et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0225663 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kagan discloses (fig. 1-3) a dressing for treating a tissue site (102) with negative pressure (¶ 0025), the dressing comprising:
A bioresorbable manifold layer (reduced-pressure manifold 210) formed from a first bioresorbable composition (first material 216, ¶ 0033), the bioresorbable manifold layer comprising:
A first surface (218),
A second surface (220) opposite the first surface (¶ 0030),
A thickness extending between the first surface and the second surface (fig. 3), and
A plurality of sacrificial zones (zones formed by apertures 222) disposed in the bioresorbable manifold layer (fig. 3, ¶ 0030), the plurality of sacrificial zones being formed from a second bioresorbable composition (second material 224, ¶ 0033), each sacrificial zone separated from adjacent sacrificial zones by the first bioresorbable composition (fig. 2), and
The plurality of sacrificial zones configured to not allow fluid communication between the first surface and the second surface (the second material 224 may be impervious to fluids, ¶ 0033) and to degrade upon placement of the bioresorbable manifold layer with respect to the tissue site and application of negative pressure to the bioresorbable manifold layer so as to allow communication of negative pressure between the first surface and the second surface (¶ 0032, ¶ 0035).
Kagan fails to disclose the first bioresorbable composition having a first solids-content and the second bioresorbable composition having a second solids-content, the solids-content being less than the first solids content.
However, Kagan discloses that the first bioresorbable composition is configured to degrade over a first duration (first bio-absorption term BA1) and the second bioresorbable composition is configured to degrade over a second duration (second bio-absorption term BA2), wherein the first duration is greater than the second duration (¶ 0036).
Further, Watt teaches (fig. 1) a system for treating a tissue site with negative pressure (abstract) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising: a dressing comprising a bioresorbable manifold layer (pad/screen 4, ¶ 0016), wherein the duration of which the bioresorbable manifold layer degrades can be increased by increasing the solids content (¶ 0025). Thus, Watt teaches that the solids content is a result-effective variable and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention optimize the first bioresorbable composition and the second bioresorbable composition of Kagan such that it has a first solids-content and a second solids-content, respectively, the second solids content being less than the first solids-content, in order to allow the first bioresorbable composition to degrade over a first duration that is greater than a second duration of the second bioresorbable composition degrading (Watt ¶ 0025, Kagan ¶ 0036).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Further, Kagan in view of Watt fail to disclose the plurality of sacrificial zones configured to rupture and collapse in response to application of negative pressure to the bioresorbable manifold layer.
However, Watt teaches a bioresorbable composition comprising collagen and oxidized regenerated cellulose (¶ 0022), such composition being suitable to be broken down and reabsorbed in vivo in the mammalian body (¶ 0022).
The current specification discloses that the second composition comprises collagen and oxidized regenerated cellulose (¶ 0055). Thus, such second composition comprising collagen and oxidized regenerated cellulose will inherently rupture and collapse in response to application of negative pressure to the bioresorbable manifold layer, in light of the specification.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of sacrificial zones of Kagan in view of Watt such that the second bioresorbable composition comprises collagen and oxidized regenerated cellulose, as taught by Watt, thus configuring the plurality of sacrificial zones to inherently rupture and collapse in response to application of negative pressure to the bioresorbable manifold layer, as such composition is suitable to be broken down and reabsorbed in vivo in the mammalian body (Watt ¶ 0022).
It is further noted: “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
Regarding claim 2, Kagan discloses wherein at least one of the first surface and the second surface is a continuous surface (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Kagan discloses wherein the first surface and the second surface are continuous surfaces (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Kagan discloses the bioresorbable manifold layer comprises: a plurality of apertures (222) extending between the first surface and the second surface (¶ 0030, fig. 3); and the second bioresorbable composition disposed within each of the plurality of apertures to form the sacrificial zones (¶ 0030, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Kagan discloses wherein the first bioresorbable composition is configured to degrade over a first duration (first bio-absorption term BA1) and the second bioresorbable composition is configured to degrade over a second duration (second bio-absorption term BA2), wherein the first duration is at least 1000% of the second duration (the first bio-absorption term can be in the order of decades while the second bio-absorption term can be less than one week ¶ 0036, thus if the first bio-absorption term is 2 decades and the second bio-absorption term is 1 day, then the first duration will be 7300% of the second duration).
“[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (see MPEP §2131.03.I).
Regarding claim 6, Kagan discloses wherein the first duration is at least about 2500% of the second duration (see rejection of claim 5 above).
Regarding claim 7, Kagan discloses wherein the first duration is at least about 5000% of the second duration (see rejection of claim 5 above).
Regarding claim 14, Kagan in view of Watt fail to disclose wherein the bioresorbable manifold layer exhibits protease-modulating activity.
Watt teaches wherein the bioresorbable manifold layer exhibits protease-modulating activity (¶ 0013), wherein elevated levels of protease enzymes in the wound interfere with the normal processes of tissue formation and destruction in the wound (¶ 0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bioresorbable manifold layer of Kagan in view of Watt such that it exhibits protease-modulating activity, as taught by Watt, in order to limit elevated levels of protease enzymes in the wound which interfere with the normal processes of tissue formation and destruction in the wound (Watt ¶ 0012).
Claims 8-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagan in view of Watt, as applied to claims 4 and 38 above, and further in view of Waite et al. (WO 2019/094466 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kagan discloses wherein the first bioresorbable composition exhibits a first density and the second bioresorbable composition exhibits a second density (¶ 0033-¶ 0034). Kagan in view of Watt fail to disclose wherein the first density is at least 1000% of the second density.
Waite teaches (fig. 1) a dressing (100) for treating a tissue site with negative pressure (¶ 0038) and thus in the same field of endeavor, the dressing comprising a bioresorbable manifold layer (bioresorbable sponge 102) comprising a first bioresorbable composition and a second bioresorbable composition (¶ 0003), wherein the time it takes for the bioresorbable composition to degrade is dependent on a collagen density of the bioresorbable composition (¶ 0004, ¶ 0007).
Accordingly, Waite teaches that the density of the first and second bioresorbable composition is a result-effective variable and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention optimize the density of the first and second bioresorbable composition of Kagan in view of Watt such that the first density is at least 1000% of the second density in order provide a first and second bioresorbable composition that is configured to degrade over a predetermined amount of time (Waite ¶ 0004).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Kagan in view of Watt and further in view of Waite fail to teach wherein the first density is at least about 1500% of the second density.
However, as discussed above in claim 8, Waite teaches that the density of the first and second bioresorbable composition is a result-effective variable and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention optimize the density of the first and second bioresorbable composition of Kagan in view of Watt such that the first density is at least 1500% of the second density in order provide a first and second bioresorbable composition that is configured to degrade over a predetermined amount of time (Waite ¶ 0004).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Kagan in view of Watt and further in view of Waite fail to teach wherein the first density is at least about 2000% of the second density.
However, as discussed above in claim 8, Waite teaches that the density of the first and second bioresorbable composition is a result-effective variable and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention optimize the density of the first and second bioresorbable composition of Kagan in view of Watt such that the first density is at least 2000% of the second density in order provide a first and second bioresorbable composition that is configured to degrade over a predetermined amount of time (Waite ¶ 0004).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Kagan in view of Watt fail to disclose wherein each of the first bioresorbable composition and the second bioresorbable composition comprises from about 50% to about 60% collagen by weight and from about 40% to about 50% oxidized regenerated cellulose by weight.
Waite teaches (fig. 1) a dressing (100) for treating a tissue site with negative pressure (¶ 0038) and thus in the same field of endeavor, the dressing comprising a bioresorbable manifold layer (bioresorbable sponge 102) comprising a first bioresorbable composition and a second bioresorbable composition (¶ 0003), wherein each of the first bioresorbable composition and the second bioresorbable composition comprises 55% collagen by weight (¶ 0004) which falls within the claimed range of 50% to 60%, and 45% oxidized regenerated cellulose by weight (¶ 0004) which falls within the claimed range of 40% to about 50%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second bioresorbable composition of Kagan in view of Watt such that they comprise from about 50% to about 60% collagen by weight and from about 40% to about 50% oxidized regenerated cellulose by weight, as taught by Waite, in order to provide a bioresorbable manifold layer that can be broken down by the patient’s enzymes rather than the enzymes breaking down the wound bed (Waite ¶ 0025).
“[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (see MPEP §2131.03.I).
Claim(s) 21-24 and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagan in view of Delury et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0201574 A1) and further in view of Watt.
Regarding claim 21, Kagan discloses (fig. 1-3) a system (reduced-pressure delivery system 100) for treating a tissue site (102) with negative pressure (¶ 0025), the system comprising:
A dressing comprising a bioresorbable manifold layer (reduced-pressure manifold 210) formed from a first bioresorbable composition (first material 216, ¶ 0033), the bioresorbable manifold layer comprising:
A first surface (218),
A second surface (220) opposite the first surface, the second surface configured to be positioned adjacent the tissue site (¶ 0030),
A thickness extending between the first surface and the second surface (fig. 3), and
A plurality of sacrificial zones (zones formed by apertures 222) disposed in the bioresorbable manifold layer (fig. 3, ¶ 0030), the plurality of sacrificial zones being formed from a second bioresorbable composition (second material 224, ¶ 0033), the plurality of sacrificial zones configured so as to allow communication of negative pressure between the first surface and the second surface (¶ 0032, ¶ 0035); and
A negative-pressure source (reduced-pressure source 160) (¶ 0028).
Kagan fails to disclose the bioresorbable manifold layer comprising: silver and dyestuff configured to absorb light between about 400 nm and about 700 nm wavelengths.
Delury teaches (fig. 1) a dressing (1) comprising a bioresorbable manifold layer (absorbent structure 2, ¶ 0017) and thus in the same field of endeavor, the bioresorbable manifold layer comprising silver and dyestuff configured to absorb light between about 400 nm and about 700 nm (¶ 0029, ¶ 0033) in order to configure the bioresorbable manifold layer to be operable to photochemically trap generated free radicals that could otherwise react with silver in the present compositions, acting as photochemical desensitizers (¶ 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify he bioresorbable manifold layer of Kagan such that it comprises silver and dyestuff configured to absorb light between about 400 nm and about 700 nm wavelengths, as taught by Delury, in order to configure the bioresorbable manifold layer to be operable to photochemically trap generated free radicals that could otherwise react with silver in the present compositions, acting as photochemical desensitizers (Delury ¶ 0033).
Kagan in view of Delury fail to disclose that the negative-pressure source is configured to be fluidly coupled to the first surface of the bioresorbable manifold layer.
Watt teaches (fig. 1) a system for treating a tissue site with negative pressure (abstract) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising: a dressing comprising a bioresorbable manifold layer (pad 4, ¶ 0016), the bioresorbable manifold layer comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, the second surface configured to be positioned adjacent the tissue site (fig.1); and a negative-pressures source configured to be fluidly coupled to the first surface of the bioresorbable manifold layer (fig. 1, ¶ 0076).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagan in view of Delury such that the negative-pressure source is configured to be fluidly coupled to the first surface of the bioresorbable manifold layer, as taught by Watt, in order to configure the system to treat a tissue site of a wound surrounded by skin (Watt, ¶ 0076).
Further, Kagan in view of Delury and further in view of Watt fail to disclose the plurality of sacrificial zones configured to rupture and collapse and be drawn off in response to operation of the negative pressure source.
However, Watt teaches a bioresorbable composition comprising collagen and oxidized regenerated cellulose (¶ 0022), such composition being suitable to be broken down and reabsorbed in vivo in the mammalian body (¶ 0022).
The current specification discloses that the second composition comprises collagen and oxidized regenerated cellulose (¶ 0055). Thus, such second composition comprising collagen and oxidized regenerated cellulose will inherently rupture and collapse and be drawn off in response to operation of the negative pressure source, in light of the specification.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of sacrificial zones of Kagan in view of Watt such that the second bioresorbable composition comprises collagen and oxidized regenerated cellulose, as taught by Watt, thus configuring the plurality of sacrificial zones to inherently rupture and collapse and be drawn off in response to operation of the negative pressure source, as such composition is suitable to be broken down and reabsorbed in vivo in the mammalian body (Watt ¶ 0022).
It is further noted: “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
Regarding claim 22, Kagan discloses wherein at least one of the first surface and the second surface is a continuous surface (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 23, Kagan discloses wherein the first surface and the second surface are continuous surfaces (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, Kagan discloses the bioresorbable manifold layer comprises: a plurality of apertures (222) extending between the first surface and the second surface (¶ 0030, fig. 3); and the second bioresorbable composition disposed within each of the plurality of apertures to form the sacrificial zones (¶ 0030, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 37, Kagan in view of in view of Delury and further in view of Watt fail to disclose wherein the dressing further comprises a drape configured to form a sealed space including the bioresorbable manifold layer.
Watt teaches wherein the dressing further comprises a drape (cover sheet 1) configured to form a sealed space including the bioresorbable manifold layer (fig. 1, ¶ 0006), the drape configured to maintain a reduced pressure over the wound (¶ 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dressing of Kagan in view of Watt such that it comprises a drape configured to form a sealed space including the bioresorbable manifold layer, as taught by Watt, in order to maintain a reduced pressure over the wound (Watt, ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 38, the claim limitation, “wherein the bioresorbable manifold layer is formed from a process comprising: preparing a first solution; forming the bioresorbable manifolding structure by freeze-drying the first solution; preparing a second solution; and freeze-drying the second solution while disposed within the plurality of apertures” is being treated as product-by-process.
When a claim is directed to a device, the process steps are not germane to the issue of patentability. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. “Even 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).
Kagan in view of Delury and further in view of Watt disclose the invention substantially as claimed by applicant but is silent to the process of forming. This claim is interpreted as a product-by-process claim, since it claims an apparatus and describes the process used to make or construct the apparatus. In spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established (MPEP 2113).
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagan in view of Delury and further in view of Watt, as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Waite.
Regarding claim 39, Kagan in view of Delury and further in view of Watt fail to disclose wherein the first solution comprises from about 1% to about 3% solids content by weight.
Waite teaches (fig. 1) a dressing (100) for treating a tissue site with negative pressure (¶ 0038) and thus in the same field of endeavor, the dressing comprising a bioresorbable manifold layer (bioresorbable sponge 102) comprising a first bioresorbable composition, wherein the first bioresorbable composition comprises about 1% solids content by weight (1% silver-ORC, ¶ 0004), which falls within the claimed range of about 1% to about 3%, such solids content allowing for antimicrobial properties (¶ 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first solution of Kagan in view of Watt such that it comprises from about 1% to about 3% solids content by weight, as taught by Waite, in order to provide the first bioresorbable composition with antimicrobial properties (Waite ¶ 0024).
“[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (see MPEP §2131.03.I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Asefi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0249763 A1) discloses a bioresorbable manifold layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEAGAN NGO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1586. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 8:00 - 4:00 PT.
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 on (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.
/MEAGAN NGO/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights