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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 July 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s declaration, claim amendments and arguments in the response filed 29 July 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 28, 31, 33 & 35 are pending.
Claim 2, 5, 8, 12-27, 29, 30, 32, 34 & 36-92 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3 & 4 are amended.
No claims are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 28, 31, 33 & 35 are under consideration.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied and constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Examination is to the extent of the following species:
A) Film Composition-silver microparticles, fibrin, calcium and phospholipid;
B) Film Properties-elements (ii), (iv), and (v) of claim 11; and
C) Wound- acute wound and extended to hernia on 05 November 2025.
Declaration Filed Under § 1.132
The declaration filed on 29 July 2026 by Applicant is acknowledged. The declaration is addressed in the response to Applicant’s traverse below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 July 2026 has been fully considered by the examiner. A signed and initialed copy of each IDS is included with the instant Office Action.
New & Maintained Objections/Rejections
Specification
The use of the term “Triton X-100” ([0090] & [0177]), “Octaplas” ([00177], [00208] & [00229]), “2-0 BIOSYNTM” [00256], TISSEL [00267], “TegadermTM” [00267], “MicroTester®” [00286], “Bluehill®” [00286], “Regranex, Dermagraft, Apligraf”[00303], and “Versajet” [00309] are trade names or a marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term (emphasis added).
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Applicant is required to check their entire specification for trade names and trade marks and ensure that they are correctly denoted and accompanied by generic terminology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 4 recites “the silver microparticles have a mean diameter ranging from larger than 5 µm to about 1,000 µm”. The reply filed 29 July 2026 states claim 4 has been amended “for consistency with claim 1. The reply does not state where support for the amendment may be found. Paragraph [00107] defines “The term "about" means, except where explicitly stated otherwise, +/- 15% of a specified value.” As such, recitation of the term “about” by claim 4 permits values 15% greater than the recited 1,000 µm (i.e. the upper limit of claim 4 is 1,150 µm). However, the specification is quite clear that the upper limit for the microparticles is 1,000 µm and it is not modified by the term “about”. In particular, paragraph [0068] states “In some embodiments, the silver microparticles have a mean diameter ranging from 2 µm to 1,000 µm.” This is reinforced by the disclosure of paragraph [0128] which states “In certain embodiments, the films further comprise silver. In certain embodiments, the silver can be in the form of, metallic silver microparticles (mean diameter 2 µm to 1,000 µm)”. No proper antecedent basis or description appears to be provided within the instant specification for the newly added limitation of “the silver microparticles have a mean diameter ranging from larger than 5 µm to about 1,000 µm”. The claim amendments broaden the scope of the disclosure; thereby, constituting new matter.
Applicant is invited to indicate by page and line number where support may be found.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9-11, 28, 31, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericson (WO2017/210267; previously cited) in view of Harris (US 2015/0030678; previously cited).
With regard to claims 1 & 33, Ericson teaches plasma based films which comprise calcium and fibrin polymers (page 6,8,11-12 and claims 1 and 27). With regard to claim 6, the plasma comprises blood plasma (claim 18 and pages 5-7, 12 and 14). With regard to claims 1 & 9, because the thrombin is in alternative to calcium (i.e. addition of thrombin and/or calcium), thrombin is considered an optional component and does not need to be added (page 6 and claim 1). With regard to claim 1, this meets the limitation of less than 0.01 IU because zero thrombin can be present; it is not required and is in the alternative to calcium. With regard to claim 1, the film provides mechanical stability (pages 3, 5,8,9,11-12 and 14). The composition can further contain phospholipids (page 13 and claim 7). With regard to claim 11, the film has a burst pressure of from 50 to 1000 mm Hg (pages 2, 6,11-12,15 and 23). With regard to claim 28, an adhesive backing can be applied to provide additional adhesion (pages 12 and 23). With regard to claim 35, the film has a thickness from 0.005-1mm (claim 18, 32 and 41, and pages 2,6,11,12, and 14-15). However, the thickness and strength of the membrane correspond to the amount of pressure placed on the top plate and the amount of plasma applied (page 15). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adjust the desired thickness based on the pressure applied when making the film. With regard to claim 31, the film can be sterile (claim 38 and page 12). With regard to claim 1, the film composition can further contain silver as an anti-infective (pages 9, 14 and claim 17). The at least one pharmaceutically active agent inclusive of silver can be present up to 5% w/w (page 5). With regard to claim 10, the degree of cross-linking of fibrin polymers can influence the desired release of active agents within the film (page 11 and claim 26). With regard to claim 10, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of fibrin crosslinking to tailor the desired release amount of silver from the film upon application to a subject. With regard to claim 11, the active agents inclusive of silver can be applied to the surface of the film (pages 3, 9-10, and 14). The composition is useful for wounds or hernia repair (pages 1-5,7,9,11,15 and claim 49 and entire document).
Ericson does not teach that the silver anti-infective is silver microparticles present at a concentration from 1-50 mg silver/cm2 film or at a concentration of 2.5-25 mg/cm2 film wherein the silver microparticles have a mean diameter from 5-1000 microns.
In the same field of invention, with regard to claims 1 & 3, Harris teaches treating wounds with a composition comprising 10mg/ml or 25mg/ml or more of silver microparticles (paragraph [0004], [0038] and [0042] and [0049]). With regard to claims 1 & 3, the silver particles are applied in a surface area such as 1cm2, thus are inclusive of 10 mg/1cm2 and 25 mg/1cm2 amounts (paragraphs [0044] and [0051]). With regard to claim 1, the microparticles have an average diameter from 2 to 1000 microns (paragraph [0047]). The composition reduces the risk of undesired side effects of wounds including hernias (paragraphs [0037]-[0039], [0060] & [0073]). The silver microparticles are combined with fibrin (paragraph [0025], [00074] and entire document). The composition treats wounds and hernia conditions (paragraphs [0003],[0025], [0037]-[0039], [0047], [0075], [0095]–[0098], claims 1-5, and entire document).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the silver of Erickson for silver microparticles in amounts from 10-25mg/cm2 of fibrin film as taught by Harris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, because silver microparticles with fibrin are taught by Harris to be effective in the treatment and promoting healing of wounds including reducing the risk of incisional hernia. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the fibrin films of Ericson are taught to contain silver on the surface of fibrin films and both Ericson and Harris teach healing of wounds including hernia.
With regard to claim 1, since Ericson teaches dried films with virally inactivated plasma using Octapharma plasma mixed with CaCl2, where the active agents including silver can be applied to the film surface, the film is interpreted as being storage stable due to being in the dried state and utilizing the same films as the instantly claimed invention (paragraphs [0208] and [00229] of the instant specification). Furthermore, the office does not have the facilities and resources to provide the factual evidence needed in order to establish that the product of the prior art does not possess the same material, structural and functional characteristics of the claimed product. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the burden is on the applicant to prove that the claimed product is different from those taught by the prior art and to establish patentable differences. See In re Best 562F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Gray 10 USPQ 2d 1922 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericson and Harris as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9-11, 28, 31, 33, and 35 above, and further in view of Bjork (US 2016/0143786; previously cited).
The teachings of Ericson and Harris are discussed above.
Neither Ericson nor Harris teach that the fibrin is present from 0.5-20mg/cm2 of film.
With regard to claim 7, Bjork teaches fibrin can be added from 0.2-20 mg/cm2 to achieve the desired promotion of wound re-epithelization (paragraph [00295-[0029], [0038], Figures 1-3, and entire document). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the film suggested by the combined teachings of Ericson and Harris by adjusting the amount of fibrin to be 0.2-20mg/cm2 as taught by Bjork because this amount achieves the desired promotion of wound re-epithelization as taught by Bjork and the purpose of the film as taught by Ericson is wound repair. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, because Bjork teaches that in this range would re-epithelization can occur. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as Ericson teaches the use of fibrin for wound healing.
Response to Arguments
In the traverse of claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 28, 31, 33, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ericson in view Harris, Applicant clarifies that they were not arguing the claims individually and presents the prior and current arguments follow the outline:
PNG
media_image1.png
199
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(reply, pg. 5 & 17).
Applicant’s representative’s concise summary of their arguments is acknowledged and addressed below.
Applicant argues the combination of references (i.e. Ericson and Harris) do not supply a motivation to arrive at the claimed product; two independent selections must be made (i.e. the selection of silver from Ericson’s list of 25 possible substances and the form of microparticles) and the rejection only addresses one (reply, pg. 5-7 & 17). Applicant also asserts there is not proper motivation to combine Harris with Ericson and that the same field rational does not cure the absence of motivation (reply, pg. 7). Applicant argues Harris and Ericson are two different technologies in wound healing; Harris is a liquid formulation and Ericson is a solid; the fields are too disparate (reply, pg. 7-9 & 17).
This is not persuasive. With regard to the selection of silver from a list of suitable substances, Ericson teaches silver as suitable for practicing their invention. Further, the number of potential combinations is not so great that the conclusion of obviousness is called into question. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[D]isclos[ing] a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. This is especially true because the claimed composition is used for the identical purpose taught by the prior art.")." In the instant case, the instant application, Ericson and Harris are all directed to wound healing including hernia (see instant specification-paragraphs [0003] and [0006]). With regard to Applicant’s argument pertaining to the form of the silver being microparticles, Harris fills this gap. Like Ericson, Harrison is in the field of wound and hernia healing with silver. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. .....82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at __, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. In the instant case, Ericson teaches the suitability of silver for use in a film for hernia repair. An exemplary rationale for obviousness set forth by The Supreme Court is that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. In the instant case both Ericson and Harris are in the same field of using silver for hernia repair. It would be obvious to use Harris’s silver microparticles in Ericson’s film because they are both useful together for hernia repair.
Applicant argues the Examiner has not provided a reasonable expectation of success for the proposed modifications and that motivation and expectation of success has been conflated (reply, pg. 9-11 & 17). Applicant reiterates that Harris and Ericson are two different wound healing systems (i.e. liquid versus solid film; reply, pg. 10). Applicant argues the references don’t address whether silver would maintain efficacy in a film or be helpful in wound care (reply, pg. 10 & 17).
This is not persuasive. With regard to Applicant’s arguments that the references don’t address whether silver would maintain efficacy in a film, Ericson teaches the suitability of the silver in their film. The teachings of prior art references are presumed operable (See MPEP 2121).
With regard to the expectation of success, each of the statements of rejection above provide a rationale for the “expectation of success”. In addition, obviousness does not require absolute predictability, however, at least some degree of predictability is required. Evidence showing there was no reasonable expectation of success may support a conclusion of nonobviousness. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
Applicant argues Ericson and Harris do not enable a silver containing plasma-based film because Ericson does not exemplify films with silver and Harris is a liquid composition (reply, pg. 11-12 & 17).
This is not persuasive. The teachings of the prior art are not limited to the examples. A patent is relevant for all that it teaches (MPEP 2123). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Applicant argues In Re Best has been improperly invoked because the conditions that “the cited reference disclose, or necessarily produce, a product that is the same or substantially identical to the instant claims” have not been met because Ericson does not teach the silver concentrations and particle sizes of the silver in their silver containing dried plasma film (reply, pg. 13 & 17).
This is not persuasive. The feature that Applicant is arguing is storage stability. The instant specification at paragraph [0030] links stability to burst pressure by stating “the stability is determined by burst pressure”. This is further articulated at paragraph [0109] “ “storage stability” refers to the extent to which the product retains, within specified limits and throughout its period of storage and use, the same properties and characteristics that it possessed at the time of its manufacture. For example, the product's stability can be measured as the film product having the same burst pressure that it possessed at the time of its manufacture, i.e., 800 to 1,300 mm Hg.” Ericson teaches a silver containing dried plasma film with the recited burst pressure. Ericson teaches dried films with virally inactivated plasma using Octapharma plasma mixed with CaCl2, where the active agents including silver can be applied to the film surface. In other words, Ericson comprises the same reagents for making the plasma film (i.e. plasma, CaCl2 and having no thrombin), contains silver, and has the same burst pressure. The burden is on Applicant to show a lack of storage stability over 18 months.
Applicant argues that the dismissal of secondary considerations is legally incorrect because data of wound healing in diabetic mice is a meaningful way to assess the performance of a wound healing composition (reply, pg. 13-15 & 17). Applicant argues the Examiner’s application of In re Burckel is legally incorrect because the Examiner misidentified the closest prior art reference (Ericson) because Ericson does not exemplify a film having silver (reply, 15-17). Applicant argues Ericson’s teaching of a plasma film comprising silver is a hypothetical combination (reply, pg. 15). Applicant argues to compare Ericson’s hypothetical film is to make the Applicant compare their invention against one that does not exist (reply, pg. 16).
This is not persuasive. With regard to Applicant’s study of wound healing in mice, the invention under consideration is “a dried film comprising…” The invention is not limited to wound healing as Applicant argues. Wound healing is an unclaimed feature. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In arguendo, even if Applicant’s representative were persuasive, Applicant has not compared their invention to the closest prior art which is Ericson’s film with pharmaceutically active agents. There is an expectation that Ericson’s films will have some effect on wound healing as Ericson teaches inclusion of wound healing agents in their claim 17 and pg. 24. Ericson also contemplates their invention as a wound healing patch and a wound healing dressing in their claims 47 & 48. This assertion is also supported by the results with Ericson’s Films 1, 3 & 4 which demonstrated quality scores of 0-1 (i.e. no adhesion or only vascular adhesion) and low percentage of surface area covered by adhesions (i.e. 0-15%) after 7 days of film use in rats that had surgical injuries on their peritoneum and uterine horns (pg. 33-38). Films, 1, 3, and 4 contained the anti-adhesive agents Tween-80, Tween 80 + Pluronic F68, and Nimesulide, respectively (pg. 33 -34).
Applicant argues the “commensurate in scope” guidance suggested by the Examiner is inconsistent with the Examiner’s own obviousness analysis (reply, pg. 16 & 17). In particular, Declarant only evaluated a thrombin free film when thrombin is permitted in an amount of 0.01 IU (reply, pg. 16). Applicant argues the Examiner said "thrombin is considered an optional component ... zero thrombin can be present" (Office Action, p. 5)”.
This is not persuasive. Applicant’s representative is confusing the record. To be clear, the claims permit “about 0.01 International Unit (IU) or less of thrombin per cm2 of film”. Applicant’s claims seek protection of films comprising intermediate values of thrombin between 0 to 0.01 IU. Declarant and the instant application did not assess films comprising an intermediate value of thrombin between “about 0.01 IU” to 0. With regard to the quotation of the Examiner out of context, Ericson teaches thrombin as an optional component (i.e. thrombin is absent and not present; 0%). "[O]bjective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to the declaration, Declarant provides results of a clinical study (Declaration; pg. 1-5). Declarant states that the Plasma film + silver group uses a film comprising 25 mg/cm2 of metallic silver microparticles (15 µ) and 4 mg/cm2 of fibrin (Declaration; pg. 2). Declarant states the Plasma film group uses a film comprising 4 mg/cm2 fibrin (Declaration; pg. 2). Declarant opines “In my expert opinion, the data in Exhibit 1 indicate that Plasma Film + Silver is superior in promoting diabetic food ulcer closure (wound healing) compared to Plasma Film alone” (Declaration, pg. 2). This is not persuasive. First, the data are not commensurate in scope with the claims. As addressed above. The claims permit inclusion of 0.01 thrombin. Declarant has not disclosed the amount of thrombin present in the films, or whether the amount of thrombin was even evaluated. Also claim 1 requires that the silver microparticles be larger than 5 µm but Declarant only evaluated a size of 15 µm (Declaration-pg. 2). Claim 1 does not recite a concentration for the fibrin, however Declarant’s film comprises 4 mg/cm2 (Declaration-pg. 2).. "[O]bjective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
While it is acknowledged the inventive film achieved a significantly lower ulceration area after 28 days of active treatment (Declaration-Table 4; p value 0.045), Applicant did not compare their claimed invention to that of the closest prior art which is Ericson’s film comprising pharmaceutically active agents. The examiner reiterates there is an expectation that Ericson’s films will have some effect on wound healing as Ericson teaches inclusion of wound healing agents in their claim 17 and pg. 24. Ericson’s Films 1, 3 & 4 demonstrated quality scores of 0-1 (i.e. no adhesion or a vascular adhesion) and low percentage of surface area covered by adhesions (i.e. 0-15%) after 7 days of film use in rats that had surgical injuries on their peritoneum and uterine horns (pg. 33-38). An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI K MATTISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5866. The examiner can normally be reached 9-7 (M-F).
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, David J Blanchard can be reached at 5712720827. 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.
/LORI K MATTISON/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/NICOLE P BABSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights