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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to a cutting and fluid sampling device with a vacuum sampling tube, and Species A, embodiment drawn to Figures 1-4C, in the reply filed on 9/12/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 2, 13, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/12/25.
Regarding claim 2, the examiner respectfully apologizes for any confusion, but process claim 2 should have been included in Group 2, drawn to a process of sampling capillary blood, in the Election/Restriction requirement mailed 6/17/25.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to at least MPEP 2001, detailing the duty to disclose information material to patentability. In the instant case, cited documents from the PCT phase of the instant 371 have been considered if cited. Applicant is respectfully encouraged to disclose information related to patentability related to the PCT and/or other related applications or known related prior art.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“body fluid sampling means” in claim 1; and
“analysis means” in claim 1.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“cutting device” in claim 1;
“mechanical localization feature” in claim 14; and
“at least one mechanical feature” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the positive recitation of “the skin” in line 2 should apparently read “a skin” for antecedent clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the positive recitation of “the fluid” in line 7 should apparently read “the sampled fluid” for antecedent clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the positive recitation of “a point of care” in line 11 should apparently read “the point of care” for antecedent clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the positive recitation of “a fluid sampling device of claim 1” in line 2 should apparently read “the fluid sampling device of claim 1” for antecedent clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the positive recitation of “the vacuum tube” in line 2 should apparently read “the medical analysis vacuum tube” for antecedent clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the positive recitation of “the device” in lines 1-2 should apparently read “the fluid sampling device” for antecedent clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the positive recitation of “the medical analysis tube” in line 2 should apparently read “the medical analysis vacuum tube” for antecedent clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the positive recitation of “the patient’s skin” in lines 1-2 should apparently read “the test subject’s skin” for antecedent clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 20-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: the positive recitation of “the medical analysis tube” in line 1 should apparently read “the medical analysis vacuum tube” for antecedent clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “optionally” in claim 1 line 3 is a relative/conditional term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optionally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim is indefinite as to whether the “self-sampling” adaptation of the body fluid sampling means is explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required in the scope of the invention and/or if it is necessarily excluded because it is conditional and optional. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention given the ambiguity, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution and consistent with the instant Specification, examination on the merits hereinbelow includes the “optional” feature. Depending claims 3, 4, 7-10, 14-17, and 20-24 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
The term “optionally” in claim 1 line 6 is a relative/conditional term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optionally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim is indefinite as to whether the “analysis means for using one or more droplet(S) of the sample fluid to analyze the fluid” is explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required in the scope of the invention and/or if it is necessarily excluded because it is conditional and optional. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention given the ambiguity, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution and consistent with the instant Specification, examination on the merits hereinbelow includes the “optional” feature. Depending claims 3, 4, 7-10, 14-17, and 20-24 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sampled fluid" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Depending claims 3, 4, 7-10, 14-17, and 20-24 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a sample of fluid" in line 8. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to the relationship(s) between the "a sample of fluid" in line 8, the “one or more droplet(s) of the sampled fluid” in line 6-7, “the fluid” in line 7, “a sample of fluid” in line 11, and “the fluid” in line 14. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the sample fluids and the fluids are the same and/or different and/or what relationship(s) are required amongst the recitations. Depending claims 3, 4, 7-10, 14-17, and 20-24 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
The term “meeting size and interface standards” in claim 1 line 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “meeting size and interface standards” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of the claim is indeterminate as to what may be explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required by the scope of the claim and/or what may necessarily be excluded by the relative recitation. Although medical standards exist for vacuum tubes, the standards routinely change or are updated, the standards differ based on location, and the standards differ based on size and/or materials. Thus, an infinite number of possibilities exist for “meeting size and interface standards”, rendering the claim indefinite. Depending claims 3, 4, 7-10, 14-17, and 20-24 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
The term “suction necessary” in claim 1 line 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suction necessary” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of the claim is indeterminate as to what may be explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required by the scope of the claim and/or what may necessarily be excluded by the relative recitation. The requisite necessary suction to fill the vacuum tube is unclear and is further compounded by the previously noted “vacuum tube meeting size and interface standards”. One of ordinary skill would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention because the degree and/or magnitude of suction necessary is unclear. Given the ambiguity from the inconsistencies, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Thus, the claim is indefinite. Depending claims 3, 4, 7-10, 14-17, and 20-24 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a body fluid” in line 2. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to the relationship(s) between claim 3’s “a body fluid” in line 2 and claim 1’s the "a sample of fluid" in line 8, the “one or more droplet(s) of the sampled fluid” in line 6-7, “the fluid” in line 7, “a sample of fluid” in line 11, and “the fluid” in line 14. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the sample fluids and the fluids are the same and/or different and/or what relationship(s) are required amongst the recitations. Given the ambiguity from the inconsistencies, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the energy” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the guiding” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the patient’s wound” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a needle” in line 2. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to the relationship(s) between claim 4’s “a needle” in line 2 and claim 1’s "a needle” in line 9. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the “a needle”s are the same and/or different and/or what relationship(s) are required amongst the recitations. Given the ambiguity from the inconsistencies, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-9 recite the limitation “the fluid” in line 1. The scopes of the claims are indeterminate with respect to the relationship(s) between claim 7-9’s “the fluid” in line 1 and claim 1’s the "a sample of fluid" in line 8, the “one or more droplet(s) of the sampled fluid” in line 6-7, “the fluid” in line 7, “a sample of fluid” in line 11, and “the fluid” in line 14. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear if the sample fluids and the fluids are the same and/or different and/or what relationship(s) are required amongst the recitations. Given the ambiguity from the inconsistencies, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the sampled body fluid” in line 2 and “the body fluid” in lines 2-3. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to the relationship(s) between claim 10’s limitation “the sampled body fluid” in line 2 and “the body fluid” in lines 2-3 and claim 1’s the "a sample of fluid" in line 8, the “one or more droplet(s) of the sampled fluid” in line 6-7, “the fluid” in line 7, “a sample of fluid” in line 11, and “the fluid” in line 14. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the sample fluids and the fluids are the same and/or different and/or what relationship(s) are required amongst the recitations. Given the ambiguity from the inconsistencies, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The term “standard medical analysis tube” in claim 12 line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “standard medical analysis tube” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of the claim is indeterminate as to what may be explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required by the scope of the claim and/or what may necessarily be excluded by the relative recitation. Although medical standards exist for vacuum and/or analysis tubes, the standards routinely change or are updated/modified, the standards differ based on location, and the standards differ based on size and/or materials. Thus, an infinite number of possibilities exist for “standard medical analysis tube”, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the capillary blood sampling” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “optionally” in claim 14 line 4 is a relative/conditional term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optionally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim is indefinite as to whether the “visual indications” is/are explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required in the scope of the invention and/or if it is/are necessarily excluded because it is conditional and optional. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention given the ambiguity, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution and consistent with the instant Specification, examination on the merits hereinbelow includes the “optional” feature.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “at least one mechanical feature” in line 5 and “at least one mechanical localization feature” in lines 3-4. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to the relationship(s) between claimed mechanical features. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the mechanical features are or must be the same and/or different and/or what relationship(s) are required amongst the recitations. Given the ambiguity from the inconsistencies, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the precise placement” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the at least one wound” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the blood collection” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the lancet construction” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the energy” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the guiding” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the at least one blades” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “standard medical analysis tube” in claims 20-24 line 2 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “standard medical analysis tube” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of the claim is indeterminate as to what may be explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required by the scope of the claim and/or what may necessarily be excluded by the relative recitation. Although medical standards exist for vacuum and/or analysis tubes, the standards routinely change or are updated/modified, the standards differ based on location, and the standards differ based on size and/or materials. Thus, an infinite number of possibilities exist for “standard medical analysis tube”, rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Faurie et al. (US 2015/0351676 A1, hereinafter Faurie).
For claim 1, Faurie discloses a fluid sampling device (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]), including inter alia:
(a) body fluid sampling means (261) adapted for applying against the skin of a test subject (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]), the body fluid sampling means adapted for self-sampling (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]), the body fluid sampling means comprising a cutting device (268) for making a laceration for fluid sampling of the test subject (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]);
(b) analysis means (analyzer of 306) configured for using one or more droplet(s) of the sampled fluid to analyze the fluid (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]); and
(c) a medical analysis vacuum tube ([0033, 0037, 0040]) adapted to be filled with a sample of fluid for analysis in a point of care or medical lab (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]), and a needle (268) for interfacing with the medical analysis vacuum tube meeting size and interface standards (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]), the vacuum tube adapted to be filled with a sample of fluid for analysis ate a point of care or medical lab and to provide suction necessary to fill the vacuum tube with the fluid (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]).
For claim 3, Faurie discloses a lancet adapted for making a laceration in the skin of a user/patient for a fluid sampling device of claim 1 used for collecting a body fluid, wherein the cutting device is the lancet (268) and the lancet is made in one piece of material and is disposed in a holder (267) so as to enable its providing of the energy for movement and the guiding of its movement (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]).
For claim 4, Faurie discloses the sampling device of claim 1, wherein a fluid extraction passage or conduit from the patient's wound to the vacuum tube is formed in a needle (268) (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]).
For claim 7, Faurie discloses the fluid sampling device of claim 1, wherein the fluid is, at least in part, blood (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]).
For claim 8, Faurie discloses the fluid sampling device of claim 1, wherein the fluid is, at least in part, inherently capable of being puss.
For claim 9, Faurie discloses the fluid sampling device of claim 1, wherein the fluid is, at least in part, inherently capable of being venom.
For claim 10, Faurie discloses the fluid sampling device of claim 1, wherein the device is adapted to use one or more droplet(s) of the sampled body fluid, to analyze the body fluid (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]).
For claims 12 and 20-24, Faurie discloses the fluid sampling device of claim 1, wherein the medical analysis tube is a standard medical analysis tube (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]).
For claim 14, Faurie discloses the fluid sampling device of claim 1, including an adhesive pad (252) (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]), the adhesive pad adapted for application at the intended location for the capillary blood sampling (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]), the adhesive pad including at least one mechanical localization feature (lumen of 252) and visual indications (252), the adhesive pad further containing at least one mechanical feature (lumen of 252) that allows for the precise placement of the cutting device and of the fluid sampling device and a foldable portion (252) adapted for covering the at least one wound after the blood collection (307) (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]).
For claim 15, Faurie discloses the fluid sampling device of claim 1, wherein the cutting device (268) includes a lacerator (268) including a lancet (268) adapted for making a one or more lacerations in the skin of a user/patient (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]), wherein the lancet construction is made in one piece of material and provides the energy and the guiding for its movement (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]).
For claim 16, Faurie discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the cutting device includes a lacerator (268) including a lancet (268) adapted for making a one or more lacerations in the skin of a user/patient (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]), wherein the lacerator contains one blade (268) for each of the one or more lacerations and makes the one or more lacerations simultaneously (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]).
For claim 17, Faurie discloses the lacerator of claim 14, wherein when lacerating the patient's skin the trajectory of the at least one blades follows a trajectory that combines at least one rotary and at least one linear component of movement (Figs 5A-9) ([0031-0051]).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, relating to means for configuring capillary blood sampling devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey G. Hoekstra whose telephone number is (571)272-7232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 5am-3pm 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, Charles A. Marmor II can be reached at (571)272-4730. 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.
Jeffrey G. Hoekstra
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JEFFREY G. HOEKSTRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights