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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The amendment filed 11/26/2025 as been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument (pages 7-8) with respect to the claim 1 rejection that Turner (US 20200086034 A1) differs from the claimed direct sensor-to-clamp control configuration where the sensor 30 may be configured to sense a first parameter of blood passing through the blood pathway 34. Additionally, the sensor 30 may be configured to transmit a signal corresponding to the sensed parameter to the control unit 44. Further, the control unit 44 hay be configured to receive the signal transmitted by the sensor 30 ([0073]). This establishes a direct communication pathway where “after receiving and processing the signal from the control unit 44, the clamp 26 may be automatically actuated to adjust the blood flow. The disclosure further emphasizes the sophisticated real-time control capabilities, describe how “the clamp 26, the sensor 30 and the control unit 44 may together form a closed-loop system capable of automatically or manually regulating the flowrate of blood within the venous blood pathway 34”. The system incorporates algorithmic control where “a component of the extracorporeal perfusion system 10 may include an algorithm which utilizes the sensed flowrate data from the sensor 30 to calculate the appropriate automatic actuation of the clamp 26 required to meet the clinician's desired blood flowrate within the blood pathway 34." This direct parameter-responsive control architecture, with its continuous monitoring and immediate adjustment capabilities based on sensed blood parameters, demonstrates the claimed invention's distinct control philosophy. While Turner operates on an entirely different control philosophy as Turner is based on conditional “pairing” functionality where restrictions are based on outgoing flow rates, not direct parameter sensing, because Turner specifically states: “the controller comprises a configuration allowing the controller to set adjustable restriction at the level of the outgoing flow rate, to change the venous restriction threshold within the outgoing flow rate, if the outgoing flow value is above the pre-set pairing threshold”. Turner’s control is conditional. It only activates when “the outgoing flow value exceeds a pre-set pairing threshold”. This threshold-based conditional control is fundamentally different from Applicant’s claimed direct parameter-responsive control system.
This is not found persuasive for the following reasons below.
Turner does teach the direct parameter-responsive control system as claimed. For instance, claim 1 requires the control unit to signal the clamp for an increase or decrease in flow “based on the sensed first parameter”. As a matter of basic control logic, a system cannot determine whether to actuate the clamp to “increase” or “decrease” based on a sensed parameter without comparing that parameter to a reference value or set point. Indeed, Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0073] confirms and discloses that “control unit 44 may be configured to compare the signal received from the sensor 30 to a parameter (e.g., flowrate, pressure, etc.) set point input by a clinician into the control unit 44” (emphasize added). This is functionally indistinguishable from Turner’s configuration (Turner at [0061] “The controller is configured to receive a venous flow value indicative of the venous flow rate, as determined by the flow sensor 26. If the venous flow value does not exceed the set restriction threshold, the flow-restricting arrangement 26 is not actuated for reasons of venous flow rate fluctuations. If venous flow rate fluctuations lead to the venous flow value exceeding the set restriction threshold, the controller may issue a control signal to the flow-restricting arrangement 28 to adjust (eg increase) the flow restriction until the venous flow rate no longer exceeds the restriction threshold. Likewise, if it is determined that the venous flow value is consistently below the set restriction threshold, the controller may issue a control signal to the flow-restricting arrangement 28 to adjust (eg decrease) the flow restriction until the venous flow rate meets the set restriction threshold.”
Applicant further argues that Turner’s control is primarily based on an outgoing flow sensor, not the venous flow sensor, as Turner describes the venous flow sensor as providing feedback control to maintain already-established restriction, not as the primary control input.
This Is not found persuasive. Turner explicitly teaches that the venous flow sensor provides a value to the controller, which then compares it to a threshold and issues a control signal to the flow-restricting arrangement to adjust flow (see Turner at [0061]) and the threshold can be set independently ([0064] in absolute values, via an input interface)
Applicant further argues that the conditional, threshold-based control is fundamentally different from applicant’s claimed direct parameter-responsive system.
This is not found persuasive.. Both the claimed invention and Turner utilizes a closed-loop system where a sensor signal results in the automatic adjustment of a clamp. In Turner, if the venous flow exceeds or falls below the threshold, which can be set manually, via an input interface [0023], [0055] and [0064]), the controller “issue(s) a control signal to the flow-restricting arrangement to adjust… the flow” ([0061]-[0062]) this performs the exact “controllably actuate” based on “sensed parameter” function recited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, applicant argues that the level sensing for reservoir management taught in Ellingboe is not directly tied to controllably adjusting a clamp based on sensing a volume of blood in the reservoir, and there is no proper motivation to combine the teachings of the reference and is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention.
This is not found persuasive. Ellingboe explicitly teaches adjusting a clamp based on sensing a volume of blood in the reservoir as claimed ([0436]-[0439] specifically [0438] “This control protocol maintains the level in the venous reservoir 106 at a pre-selected value by controlling the venous line clamp 46. The continuous level control is an operational mode by which the level of the reservoir is not allowed to decrease below or increase above some pre-selected value which can be adjusted by the user. Use of this mode requires that a continuous level sensor such as that described with respect to FIG. 12 is present on the system to provide feedback of the current level of fluid in the reservoir.”).
Regarding claim 20, applicant argues that the combination, specifically Crnkovich does not teach comparative control logic between venous and arterial pathways (i.e., wherein the control unit is configured to continuously and simultaneously compare the first signal and the second signal).
This is not found persuasive. Turner explicitly discloses a “paring mode” where the controller simultaneously process the outgoing flow rate and the venous flow rate to set and adjust the venous restriction (Turner at [0054]-[0056] controller is configured to receive the outgoing flow rate from sensor 32 and set the restriction threshold to set a maximum flow rate through the venous line, and then the venous flow rate is continuously monitored by venous flow sensor 26). The office action does not rely on Crnkovich for the logic of simultaneous comparison, but rather for the structural implementation of an arterial flow regulator (the second clamp). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to maintain desired incoming and outgoing flow rates, would have found it obvious to incorporate a second clamp on the arterial pathway as taught by Crnkovich. This modification allows for precise, independent flow regulation without necessitating changes to the pump speed, thereby avoiding flow fluctuations of the entire system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Turner (US 20200086034 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Turner teaches an extracorporeal blood treatment system (figure 1 and [0001], perfusion system 1), comprising:
a first clamp (figure 1 and [0053] flow restricting arrangement 28) coupled to a first blood pathway (figure 1 and [0048], venous fluid line 12 extending between patient and a reservoir 10) extending between a patient and a reservoir;
a first sensor (figure 1, flow sensor 26 along the venous line 12) positioned along the first blood pathway; and
a control unit ([0055]-[0069] controller in communication with flow sensor 26 and restricting arrangement 28) in communication with both the first clamp and the first sensor;
wherein the first sensor is configured to continuously sense a first parameter of blood passing through the first blood pathway ([0024] [00062] venous flow sensor continuously monitor a venous flow rate in the venous line);
wherein the first sensor is configured to transmit a first signal corresponding to the first parameter to the control unit ([0061] the flow sensor is configured to transmit a venous flow rate);
wherein the control unit is configured to receive the first signal and transmit a second signal to the first clamp ([0061] the controller configured to receive the flow rate and transmit a control signal to restricting arrangement 28);
wherein the first clamp is configured to receive the second signal from the control unit ([0061] the restricting arrangement is configured to receive the control signal);
wherein, in response to receiving the second signal from the control unit ([0061] in response to receive a control signal from the controller the flow-restricting arrangement automatically actuated), the first clamp is configured to automatically:
controllably actuate the first clamp to increase blood flow through the first pathway when the control unit signals for an increase in blood flow ([0058]-[0062] actuate the restricting arrangement 28 to adjust (eg increase) the flow restriction based on the flow rate measured by the flow sensor 26) based on the sensed first parameter; and
controllably actuate the first clamp to decrease blood flow through the first pathway when the control unit signals for a decrease in blood flow based on the sensed first parameter (([0058]-[0062] actuate the restricting arrangement 28 to adjust (eg decrease) the flow restriction based on the flow rate measured by the flow sensor 26));
wherein there is a direct, real-time control relationship between actuating the first clamp and the first parameter responsive to the sensed first parameter ([0058]-[0062] actuating the flow-restricting arrangement 28 responsive to venous flow value determined by the flow sensor 26 in real time).
Regarding Claim 2, Turner teaches the blood treatment system of claim 1.
Turner further teaches wherein the first sensor parameter is a first flowrate of blood passing through the first blood pathway ([0061] the flow rate on the venous line 12).
Regarding Claim 3, Turner teaches the blood treatment system of claim 2.
Turner further teaches wherein the first clamp is configured to decrease the first flowrate of blood flowing through the first blood pathway in response to receiving the second signal from the control unit ([0061] in response to the control signal, the flow-restricting arrangement is configured to adjust (e.g., increase) the flow restriction).
Regarding Claim 4, Turner teaches the blood treatment system of claim 2.
Turner further teaches wherein the first clamp is configured to increase the first flowrate of blood flowing through the first blood pathway in response to receiving the second signal from the control unit ([0061] and [0061] in response to the control signal, the flow-restricting arrangement is configured to adjust (e.g., decrease) the flow restriction).
Regarding Claim 6, Turner teaches the blood treatment system of claim 1.
Turner further teaches wherein the first sensor is spaced away from the first clamp along the first blood pathway (see figure 1, the sensor 26 spaced away from the clamp 26)
Regarding Claim 7, Turner teaches the blood treatment system of claim 1.
Turner further teaches wherein the first blood pathway defines a venous pathway from the patient to the reservoir ([0048] venous line 12 defines a fluid pathway between the patient and reservoir 10).
Regarding Claim 8, Turner teaches the blood treatment system of claim 1.
Turner further teaches comprising a first pump (figure 1, pump 20 ), wherein the first pump is in communication with the control unit ([0056] controller configured to control the pump 20).
Regarding Claim 12, Turner teaches the blood treatment system of claim 8.
Turner further teaches comprising a second sensor (figure 1, sensor 32), wherein the second sensor is positioned along a second blood pathway (figure 1, outgoing line 22), and wherein the second sensor is in communication with the control unit ([0056] at least the flow sensor 32 transmit the flow rate to the controller).
Regarding Claim 13, Turner teaches the blood treatment system of claim 12.
Turner further teaches wherein the second sensor is configured to sense a second parameter of blood passing through the second blood pathway (outgoing flow value [0063] “outgoing flow value may be determined by the outgoing flow sensor 32” );
wherein the second sensor is configured to transmit a third signal corresponding to the second parameter to the control unit ([0054]-[0056] outgoing sensor transmit outgoing flow value to the controller);
wherein the control unit is configured to receive the third signal and transmit a fourth signal to the first pump ([0054]-[0056] and [0063], upon receiving the outgoing flow value, the controller outputs signal to control and adjust the pump speed);
wherein the first pump is configured to adjust blood flow through the second blood pathway in response to receiving the fourth signal from the control unit ([0054]-[0056] and [0063] upon receiving the output signal from the processor, the pump adjust speed to control outgoing flow rate).
Regarding Claim 14, Turner teaches the blood treatment system of claim 13.
Turner further teaches wherein the second parameter is a second flowrate of the blood passing through the second blood pathway ([0054] “The outgoing flow sensor 32 allows the outgoing flow rate, ie the flow rate of the blood provided towards the patient to be measured”).
Regarding Claim 15, Turner teaches the blood treatment system of claim 14.
Turner further teaches wherein the first blood pathway defines a venous pathway ([0048] venous line 12 provided to receive venous blood from a patient) from the patient to the reservoir, and wherein the second blood pathway defines an arterial return pathway ([0001]-[0002] the outgoing line 22 defines arterial line, returning blood to patient as arterial blood) from the reservoir back to the patient.
Regarding Claim 16, Turner teaches the blood treatment system of claim 15.
Turner further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to adjust a speed of the first pump based upon the third signal received from the second sensor ([0054]-[0053] and [0062], the controller is configured to control the speed of the pump based on the outgoing flow value from the sensor 32).
Regarding Claim 17, Turner teaches the blood treatment system of claim 16.
Turner further teaches wherein adjusting the speed of the first pump adjusts the second flowrate of the blood passing through the second blood pathway ([0063] adjusting pump speed determines the outgoing flow rate).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 20200086034 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Turner teaches the blood treatment system of claim 1.
Turner does not teach wherein the first sensor is directly attached to the first clamp.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Turner such that the first sensor is directly attached to the first clamp as such a modification would have been an obvious matter of design choice involving a making integral. A making integral is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 V). One of skill in the art motivated to do so for the purpose of simplifying device manufacture by providing integrated clamp and sensor assembly.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 20200086034 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 20130158461 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Turner teaches the blood treatment system of claim 8.
Turner does not teach wherein the control unit is configured to adjust a speed of the first pump based upon the first signal received from the first sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, namely a hemodialysis system, Sasaki teaches the system comprising a pump and a sensor (figure 1, sensor 31 and pump 22 on blood supply channel 21), and wherein the control unit (figure 1, control device 11) is configured to adjust a speed of the first pump based upon the first signal received from the first sensor (figure 10 [0071]-[0073] the controller is configured to deviate blood flow velocity from the pressure data, and further calculate the upper limit of blood pump velocity and input the pump accordingly).
Sasaki also teaches providing the control device is configured to measure actual blood flow velocity and uses the measurement to set an upper limit for the blood pump’s velocity. This prevent the pump to run above the upper limit and the blood supply channel from being squeezed too strongly by the roller, and ensure the supply channel returns to its original shape, thereby enabling the pump providing accurate blood flow rate ([0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Turner to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki and provide the control unit is configured to adjust a speed of the first pump based upon the first signal received from the first sensor for the purpose of providing accurate blood flow rate as taught by Sasaki.
Regarding Claim 11, Turner, as modified by Sasaki, teaches the blood treatment of claim 9.
Turner further teaches comprising an arterial return pathway from the reservoir to the patient (Turner; figure 1, outgoing line 22 between reservoir 10 and patient).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 20200086034 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 20130158461 A1), and in further view of Ekdahl et al (US 20120318740 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Turner, as modified by Sasaki, teaches the blood treatment of claim 9.
The combination does not teach wherein the first clamp is configured to automatically close to a shutdown condition in response to a shutdown signal from the control unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, namely an apparatus for extracorporeal blood treatment, Ekdahl teaches wherein the first clamp is configured to automatically close to a shutdown condition in response to a shutdown signal from the control unit ([0033] “kink in the blood transport line, and/or that the first needle (through which blood is withdrawn) has been dislodged. Under those conditions, the treatment control monitor 100 will normally stop the treatment (stop the blood pump 110 and close the withdrawal line clamp and the return line clamp)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Turner, as modified by Sasaki, to incorporate the teachings of Ekdahl and provides the first clamp as claimed for the purpose of preventing blood loose from blood leakage, needle dislodgement, or kinks in the blood transport line, as taught by Ekdahl ([0033]).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 20200086034 A1) in view of Ellingboe et al (US 20020085952 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Turner teaches an extracorporeal blood treatment system (figure 1 and [0001], perfusion system 1), comprising:
a clamp (figure 1 and [0053] flow restricting arrangement 28) coupled to a venous blood pathway (figure 1 and [0048] venous fluid line 12 extending between patient and a reservoir 10) extending between a patient and a reservoir;
a fluid level sensor ([0031]-[0032] reservoir level sensor determines a fluid level) coupled to the reservoir, the level sensor configured to sense a level of blood in the reservoir; and
a control unit ([0031] and [0032] control unit in communication with the restricting arrangement and the level sensor) in communication with the clamp and the level sensor;
wherein the level sensor is configured to transmit a first signal to the control unit ([0031]-[0032] the level sensor transmit signal to the control unit indicating the level of blood in the reservoir),
wherein the first signal corresponds to a volume of blood in the reservoir ([0031]-[0032] the level sensor transmit signal to the control unit indicating the level of blood in the reservoir);
wherein the control unit is configured to receive the first signal ([0031]-[0031] control unit receives the signal from the sensor).
Turner does not teach the control unit transmits a second signal to the clamp;
wherein the clamp is configured to receive the second signal from the control unit; and
wherein the clamp is configured to controllably adjust blood flow through the venous pathway in response to receiving the second signal from the control unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, namely a blood perfusion system, Ellingboe teaches the blood perfusion system comprises a clamp, a fluid level sensor and a control unit ([0438] venous line clamp 46, venous reservoir 106 and software and/or hardware implemented PID servo) wherein the control unit transmits a second signal to the clamp ([0438] the control unit set forth above transmit signal to close or open venous line clamp 46);
wherein the clamp is configured to receive the second signal from the control unit ([0438] the venous line clamp 46 receives the signal to adjust venous flow rate for maintaining pre-selected reservoir level); and
wherein the clamp is configured to controllably adjust blood flow through the venous pathway in response to receiving the second signal from the control unit ([0438] the clamp adjust the flow rate by opening or closing).
Ellingboe also teaches the clamp integrated with the fluid level sensor helps maintain a balanced flow rate by ensuring that the amount of fluid entering the reservoir closely matches the amount leaving it ([0438]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Turner to incorporate the teachings of Ellingboe and provides the control unit and the clamp as claimed for the purpose of precisely controlling the blood volume in reservoir without affecting outgoing artery flow rate. For example, the reservoir volume can be adjusted by closing or opening the venous valve without adjusting outgoing artery flow rate.
Regarding Claim 19, Turner, as modified by Ellingboe, teaches the extracorporeal blood treatment system of claim 18.
Turner further teaches comprising a first pump positioned in the venous blood pathway, wherein the first pump is in communication with the control unit, and wherein the control unit is configured to adjust a speed of the first pump based upon the first signal received from the level sensor (Turner; [0077] and [0079] the first signal indicating blood level in the reservoir determines the outgoing flow rate by adjusting the pump speed).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 20200086034 A1) in view of Crknovich et al (US 20190038890 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Turner teaches an extracorporeal blood treatment system, comprising:
a first clamp (figure 1 and [0053] flow restricting arrangement 28) coupled to a venous blood pathway (figure 1 and [0048] venous fluid line 12 extending between patient and reservoir 10) extending between a patient and a reservoir;
a first sensor (figure 1, flow sensor 26) positioned along the venous blood pathway;
a second sensor (figure 1, flow sensor 32 positioned along outgoing arterial blood line 22) positioned along the arterial blood pathway; and
a control unit in communication with the first clamp, the first sensor ([0055]-[0069] controller communicates with the restricting arrangement 28 and sensors 26 and 32), and the second sensor;
wherein the first sensor is configured to continuously transmit a first signal to the control unit ([0024] and [0058]-[0062] the venous sensor 26 is configured to continuously monitor and transmit the venous flow rate to control unit), wherein the first signal corresponds to an instantaneous flowrate of blood in the venous blood pathway ([0024] instantaneous venous flow rate);
wherein the second sensor is configured to continuously transmit a second signal to the control unit ([0054]-[0056] continuously monitor and transmitting outgoing flow rate to the control unit), wherein the second signal corresponds to an instantaneous flowrate of blood in the arterial blood pathway ([0075] the outgoing flow rate corresponds to instantaneous arterial flow rates);
wherein the control unit is configured to receive the first signal and the second signal ([0054]-[0056] and [0061], the controller configured to receive the venous flow rate and arterial blood flow rate from the sensors);
wherein the control unit is configured to continuously and simultaneously compare the first signal and the second signal ([0054]-[0056] at least the controller is configured to receive the outgoing flow rate from sensor 32 and set the restriction threshold to set a maximum flow rate through the venous line, and the controller compare and monitors the incoming flow rate with the restriction threshold ); and
wherein the control unit is configured to automatically actuate the first clamp ([0054]-[0056] the restricting arrangement 28 comprising motorized clamp is response to controller and automatically adjust the flow rate in the venous line to be prevented from exceeding a restriction threshold ), the second clamp or both the first clamp and the second clamp in response to comparing the first signal and the second signal to controllably adjust blood flow through the venous pathway, the arterial blood pathway or both the venous pathway and the arterial blood pathway.
Turner does not teach the extracorporeal blood treatment system comprising a second clamp coupled to an arterial blood pathway extending between a patient and a reservoir; and
the control unit in communication with the second clamp.
However, in the same field of endeavor, namely an infusion method for extracorporeal systems, Crnkovich teaches the system comprising a second clamp ([0080] flow regulators on arterial line set 104) coupled to an arterial blood pathway extending between a patient and a reservoir; and
the control unit in communication with the second clamp ([0080] “in some implementations, these flow regulators are electronically addressable devices that can be operated by the controller 144”).
Crnkovich provides the flow regulators are electronically controlled by the controller in order to control the fluid lines individually ([0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Turner to incorporate the teachings of Crnkovich and provide the second clamp and the control unit as claimed for the purpose of controlling fluid flow in the arterial fluid flow to provide more precise flow control. For example, outgoing flow rate can be controlled without adjusting incoming flow rate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2545. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SETH HAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781