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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0049 recites a penetration member trigger 132 between the needle and the pad linker, and a drug delivery trigger 132 between the plunger 112 and the pad linker 120, which points to two separate structures with the same reference number. However, examiner believes that the former penetration member trigger is mean to point to element 123 instead of element 132 based on where the element is labeled in fig. 14 and based on the placeholder shape of a diamond for both triggers.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 20 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.
Claim 11 recites that a lateral distance from an edge of the tamponade pad to a location where the hollow eye penetration member penetrates the tamponade is between about 3.5 mm to about 4 mm. However, the instant specification states that the tamponade pad can have a diameter between about 3.5-4 mm (paragraph 0040). As the diameter reaches 3.5-4 mm, and the location where the penetration member penetrates the tamponade appears to be near the center of the tamponade pad, this appears to disclose a distance between 1.75-2 mm instead. As such, it is unclear on which range is supported within the specification. For the purpose of examination, because claim 11 was an original claim, examiner will interpret claim 11 as originally written.
The term “low surface energy” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low surface energy” 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. In this instance, it is not clear what value of surface energy is encompassed by the claim. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as utilizing a polymer with a surface energy considered “low” within the prior art.
Moreover, claim 20 recites a pore size that minimizes the uptake of vitreous strands while allowing adsorption of a vitreous liquid or gel. However, it is not entirely clear what pore size is required for this limitation, notably to minimize uptake of vitreous strands (i.e., not necessarily entirely preventing uptake). Moreover, there does not appear to be a range or standard of pore sizes within the instant specification to meet the claim limitation. Further, vitreous strands comprise multiple components, and as such one of ordinary skill in the art would not ascertain what pore range would meet the claim limitation. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a pore size lower than a size of vitreous collagen as best understood in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-11, 14-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 20030078546) in view of Lerner (US 9408746).
Regarding claim 1, Lerner discloses an intravitreal injection device, comprising:
a therapeutic agent reservoir (fig. 3A, reservoir defined by ampule 116)
a hollow eye penetration member (130) in fluid communication with the therapeutic agent reservoir (fig. 3A, needle 130 in communication with ampule 116), and
a tamponade pad (150) configured to contact and apply pressure to a conjunctiva of the patient’s eye and translationally coupled to the hollow eye penetration member (fig. 3A, ), wherein the translational coupling between the tamponade pad and the hollow eye penetration member allows the withdrawal of the hollow eye penetration member while maintaining pressure between the tamponade pad and the conjunctiva (fig. 3B, the pad 150 can be withdrawn while maintaining pressure due to the spring 144 applying pressure to the eye 154)
Jenson does not teach wherein the hollow eye penetration member is sized and dimensioned to be inserted into the vitreous humor of a patient’s eye.
However, Lerner teaches an injection means (abstract) wherein the hollow eye penetration member is sized and dimensioned to be inserted into the vitreous humor of a patient’s eye (col. 23, lines 17-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Jensen in view of Lerner such that the hollow eye penetration member is sized and dimensioned to be inserted into the vitreous humor of a patient’s eye, as taught by Lerner, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that adapts the device of Jenson to be used for drug delivery to an eye of a patient (see Lerner, abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Jensen discloses wherein the hollow eye penetration member is self-retracting (fig. 3A, biasing member 144 springs around the needle through biasing, and thus makes the needle self-retracting)
Regarding claim 3, Jensen discloses the device further comprising a spring (144) located adjacent to the hollow eye penetration member and proximal to the tamponade pad (fig. 2, biasing member 144 adjacent the needle 130 and proximal the pad 150), the spring having a compressed state in which the hollow eye penetration member extends distally beyond the tamponade pad (fig. 3B shows biasing member 144 compressed where needle 130 passes pad 150), and an expanded state in which the hollow eye penetration member extends proximal to the tamponade pad (fig. 3A, biasing member 144 expanded has the needle 130 retracted).
Regarding claim 4, Jensen discloses the device further comprising a housing having a proximal end and a distal end (fig. 3A, upper portion 104 and lower portion 110 comprise the housing with a proximal and distal end), the therapeutic agent reservoir contained within the housing and the tamponade pad located at the distal end of the housing (fig. 3A, carpule 116 as the reservoir within the housing, and gauze 150 at the distal end of the housing).
Regarding claim 5, Jensen discloses the device further comprising a plunger located proximal to the therapeutic agent reservoir and longitudinally displaceable within the housing to urge a therapeutic agent contained in the therapeutic agent reservoir into the patient's eye (fig. 3B, plunger device 152 proximal the carpule 116 to press fluid out from the carpule 116).
Regarding claim 6, Jensen discloses the device further comprising an outer housing (134) and an inner housing (110) slidably disposed in the outer housing (fig. 3B, lower housing member 134 to serve as outer housing, with the lower portion 110, notably the portion comprising threads 126, slides within the lower housing member 134).
Regarding claim 7, Jensen discloses wherein: the tamponade pad (150) is located at the distal end of the outer housing (fig. 3B, gauze 150 on the lower housing member 134); and the therapeutic agent reservoir is located within the inner housing (fig. 3B, ampule 116 within the lower portion 110).
Regarding claim 8, Jensen discloses the device further comprising a plunger located proximal to the therapeutic agent reservoir and longitudinally displaceable within the inner housing to urge a therapeutic agent contained in the therapeutic agent reservoir into the patient's eye (fig. 3B, plunger device 152 proximal the carpule 116 to press fluid out from the carpule 116.).
Regarding claim 9, Jensen discloses the device further comprising a spring (144) located in the outer housing adjacent to the hollow eye penetration member and proximal to the tamponade pad (fig. 2, biasing member 144 adjacent the needle 130 and proximal the pad 150), the spring having a compressed state in which the hollow eye penetration member extends distally beyond the tamponade pad (fig. 3B shows biasing member 144 compressed where needle 130 passes pad 150) and an expanded state in which the hollow eye penetration member extends proximal to the tamponade pad (fig. 3A, biasing member 144 expanded has the needle 130 retracted).
Regarding claim 10, Jensen is silent to wherein the tamponade pad is sized and dimensioned to serve as a guide to align the hollow eye penetration member at an appropriate location adjacent to the patient's eye.
However, Lerner teaches wherein its tamponade pad is sized and dimensioned to serve as a guide to align the hollow eye penetration member at an appropriate location adjacent to the patient's eye (fig. 43B, ocular contact surface to be sized and dimensioned to serve as a guide for a user’s eye)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Jensen such that the tamponade pad is sized and dimensioned to serve as a guide to align the hollow eye penetration member at an appropriate location adjacent to the patient's eye, as taught by Lerner, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that allows the device to be better utilized in the context of ophthalmic injection (see Lerner, abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Jensen does not teach wherein a lateral distance from an edge of the tamponade pad to a location where the hollow eye penetration member penetrates the tamponade is between about 3.5 millimeters (mm) and about 4 mm.
However, Lerner teaches wherein the ocular contact surface has a diameter of 0.3-8mm (col. 9, lines 62-67 and col. 10, lines 1-3), which would create a lateral distance from edge to where the penetration member penetrates the tamponade (i.e., the center) to range from 0.15-4 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Jensen such that a lateral distance from an edge of the tamponade pad to a location where the hollow eye penetration member penetrates the tamponade is between about 3.5 millimeters (mm) and about 4 mm, as taught by Lerner, for the purpose of providing suitable dimensions to rest on the surface of an eye. Moreover, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (paragraph 0041 notes that the d) and since it has been held that “[i]n 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, Jensen does not teach the device further comprising a semi-automated therapeutic agent delivery system, wherein a therapeutic agent in the therapeutic agent reservoir is released through the hollow eye penetration member in response to displacement of the tamponade pad corresponding to complete insertion of the hollow eye penetration member.
However, Lerner teaches a semi-automated therapeutic agent system, wherein a therapeutic agent in the therapeutic agent reservoir is released through the hollow eye penetration member in response to displacement of the tamponade pad corresponding to complete insertion of the hollow eye penetration member (col. 28, lines 16-40 describe, during an activation state, the spring first expands bring the needle forward, then further expands to press against the reservoir to dispense the drug).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Jensen such that it comprises a semi-automated therapeutic agent delivery system, wherein a therapeutic agent in the therapeutic agent reservoir is released through the hollow eye penetration member in response to displacement of the tamponade pad corresponding to complete insertion of the hollow eye penetration member, as taught by Lerner, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that can automate steps of the procedure in order to speed up the process.
Regarding claim 15, Jensen discloses the device further comprising a semi-automated hollow eye penetration member deployment system wherein the hollow eye penetration member is extended distally in response to pressure applied to the tamponade pad (fig. 3B shows a pressure applied to the gauze 150 to reveal needle 130).
Regarding claim 17, Jensen discloses the device further comprising:
a pad linker operatively coupled to the tamponade pad (fig. 3A, lower portion 110 that is coupled indirectly to pad 150 links to upper portion 104);
Jensen does not teach a penetration member driving spring located proximal to the hollow eye penetration member to bias the hollow eye penetration member into the patient's eye, and a penetration member trigger located between the penetration member and the pad linker.
However, Lerner teaches a penetration member driving spring (fig. 37, spring 302 to bias needle 316 out) located proximal to the hollow eye penetration member (fig. 37, spring 302 proximal to needle 316) to bias the hollow eye penetration member into the patient’s eye (col. 28, lines 29031, “so that the needle assembly (314) and needle (316) can be deployed), and a penetration member trigger (306) located between the penetration member (316) and the base structure analogous to the pad linker of Jensen (fig. 37, buttons 306 to release spring 302, which is between the needle 316 and the base of the assembly
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Jensen such that it comprises a penetration member driving spring located proximal to the hollow eye penetration member to bias the hollow eye penetration member into the patient's eye, and a penetration member trigger located between the penetration member and the pad linker, as taught by Lerner, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that grants a piercing force to assist in penetrating the patient’s eye.
Regarding claim 19, Jensen discloses wherein the tamponade pad comprises an absorptive material to absorb a vitreous gel or fluid sample (col. 13, lines 38-51 describes the use of materials such as cotton fiber).
Claims 12-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Lerner, and further in view of Takemoto (WO 2014125562).
Regarding claim 12, Jensen does not teach the device further comprising a trigger configured to retain the spring in its compressed state and configured to unlatch subsequent to release of a therapeutic agent from the therapeutic agent reservoir.
However, Takemoto teaches a needle (abstract) that utilizes a first lock mechanism (40) to keep a protective cover (22) in a position where the needle protrudes outward, and can be unlocked by being separated from a guide groove (see translation, pg. 6, 3rd paragraph). This may be done subsequent of a user dispensing therapeutic agent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Jensen such that it comprises a trigger configured to retain the spring in its compressed state and configured to unlatch subsequent to release of a therapeutic agent from the therapeutic agent reservoir, as taught by Takemoto, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that prevents the protective cover from covering the needle inadvertently.
Regarding claim 13, Jensen does not teach the device further comprising a trigger configured to retain the spring in its compressed state, the trigger configured to unlatch subsequent to application of sufficient force upon the tamponade pad.
However, Takemoto teaches a needle (abstract) that utilizes a first lock mechanism (40) to keep a protective cover (22) in a position where the needle protrudes outward, and can be unlocked by being separated from a guide groove with a sufficient force (“When the protective cylinder (22) moves in the proximal direction with the puncture of the needle (18) to the puncture target, the protective cylinder (22) rotates under the action of the guide groove (37). Along with this, the guide groove (37) is detached from the protrusion (34), so that the protective cylinder (22) is movable in the distal direction with respect to the needle (18).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Jensen such that it further comprises a trigger configured to retain the spring in its compressed state, the trigger configured to unlatch subsequent to application of sufficient force upon the tamponade pad, as taught by Takemoto, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that prevents the protective cover from covering the needle inadvertently.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Lerner, and further in view of Dacquay (US 20080097390).
Regarding claim 16, Jensen discloses a pad linker operatively coupled to the tamponade pad (fig. 3B lower housing member 134 hosting the gauze 150 serves as a pad linker);
a plunger (152) located proximal to the therapeutic agent reservoir to urge a therapeutic agent contained in the therapeutic agent reservoir into the patient's eye (fig. 3B, plunger device 152 abutting stopper 118 of ampule 116);
Jensen discloses an actuator to actuate a plunger (paragraph 0028), but does not teach a drug driving spring located proximal to the plunger to bias the plunger towards the therapeutic agent reservoir, and a drug delivery trigger located between the plunger and the pad linker.
However, Dacquay teaches a drug driving spring (218) located proximal to the plunger (221 +230) to bias the plunger towards the therapeutic agent reservoir (fig. 2, plunger 230 connected to a shaft 221 to release substance 233, paragraph 0020. While Dacuay initially disclosed the plunger as the head of the plunger, in the context of Jensen as described and in the instant specification, the plunger is understood to be the entire structure), and a drug delivery trigger (227) located between the plunger and the dispensing tip (236) (fig. 2, lock mechanism release 227 to release the spring 218 is between the end of shaft 221 connected to spring 218 and the dispensing tip 236). The dispensing tip of Dacquay is located where the pad linker of Jensen would be.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Jensen such that it utilizes a drug driving spring located proximal to the plunger to bias the plunger towards the therapeutic agent reservoir, and a drug delivery trigger located between the plunger and the pad linker, as taught by Dacquay, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that utilizes stored potential energy to inject drug as opposed to manual pressing of a plunger.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Lerner, and further in view of Tumlinson (US 20210353455).
Regarding claim 18, Jensen, as modified by Lerner, does not teach the device further comprising a lateral flow assay in fluid communication with the tamponade pad.
However, Tumlinson teaches a means of injecting a drug and taking an extracted sample (abstract) that utilizes a processing means of a lateral flow assay (paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Jensen in view of Lerner such that it further comprises a lateral flow assay, as taught by Tumlinson, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that is utilized in processing a sample taken though an additional structure (see Tumlinson, paragraph 0035).
Jensen, as modified by Lerner and Tumlinson, does not teach wherein the lateral flow assay is in fluid communication with the tamponade pad
However, as the sample is being taken via the needle, and the lateral flow assay is performed after taking the sample, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Jensen in view of Lerner and Tumlinson such that the lateral flow assay is in fluid communication with the needle, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that analyzes the sample and takes the sample in the same device, and since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Further, while said lateral flow assay would be in fluid communication with the needle and not directly in fluid communication with the tamponade pad, the needle would be in fluid communication with the tamponade pad at least partially in the process of piercing the tamponade pad. Thus, the lateral flow assay would be in fluid communication with the tamponade pad at least for a portion of the time using the device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Lerner, and further in view of Canham (US 20050048859). Sebag (Structure of the Vitreous) and Hung (US 4034751) are used as extrinsic evidence.
Regarding claim 20, Jensen does not teach wherein the tamponade pad comprises a polymer having a low surface energy and having pores sized to allow adsorption of a vitreous liquid or gel and minimize uptake of a vitreous strand such that an attachment of a vitreous strand can be broken when the tamponade pad is retracted.
However, Lerner teaches that the tamponade pad is made with polyethylene (col.13, lines 38-51), which is known as a low surface energy material (see Hung, col. 21, lines 65-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in _ such that the tamponade pade comprises a polymer having a low surface energy, as taught by Lerner, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that prevents conjunctival abrasion and subconjunctival hemorrhage (see Lerner, col. 13, lines 38-51).
Jensen, as modified by Lerner, suggests a porous material to hold anesthetic (), but is silent to wherein the pores are sized to allow adsorption of a vitreous liquid or gel and minimize uptake of a vitreous strand such that an attachment of a vitreous strand can be broken when the tamponade pad is retracted.
However, Canham teaches medical fibers and fabrics (abstract) that utilizes that contain a pore size of about 1.4 nanometers (paragraph 0074). As vitreous fluid is around 98% water (see Sebag, pg. 37, first paragraph), and Canham teaches wherein the porous silicon may be used as a collector for sweat (abstract), Canham reasonably teaches the pores being sized to allow adsorption of vitreous liquid. Moreover, silicon is a notably low surface energy material (see Hung, col. 21, lines 65-68, and col. 22, lines 1-3). Further, as vitreous collagen fibrils tend to be in the range of 10-25 nanometers (see Sebag, chapter IV,pg. 35, 1st paragraph), the 1.4 nanometer pore size of Canham appears to minimize uptake of a vitreous strand such that an attachment of a vitreous strand can be broken when the tamponade pad is retracted.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Jensen such that the pores are sized to allow adsorption of a vitreous liquid or gel and minimize uptake of a vitreous strand such that an attachment of a vitreous strand can be broken when the tamponade pad is retracted.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gauze disclosed in Jensen such that the tamponade pad has pores sized to allow adsorption of a vitreous liquid or gel and minimize uptake of a vitreous strand such that an attachment of a vitreous strand can be broken when the tamponade pad is retracted, as taught by Canham, for the purpose of providing a suitable textile structure that grants a slow release means of drugs to control the amount of drug applied.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Lerner, and further in view of O’Malley (US 3815604).
Regarding claim 21, Jensen, as modified by Lerner, does not teach the device further comprising blades disposed adjacent to the tamponade pad configured to sever a vitreous strand of the patient's eye after pressure is relieved from the patient's conjunctiva.
However, O’Malley teaches blades (78, 79) disposed adjacent the distal end of a needle (fig. 14, sharp cutting edges 78 and 79) configured to sever a vitreous strand of the patient’s eye after pressure is relieved from the patient’s conjunctiva (col. 8, lines 1-9). The needle of Jensen is disposed adjacent the tamponade pad, and therefore the needle taught of O’Malley would be adjacent the tamponade pad if incorporated into Jensen in view of Lerner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Jensen in view of Lerner such that it further comprises blades disposed adjacent to the tamponade pad configured to sever a vitreous strand of the patient's eye after pressure is relieved from the patient's conjunctiva, as taught by O’Malley, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that can shear off vitreous material that has been sucked into the sleeve (see O’Malley, col. 7, lines 55-67 and col. 8, lines 1-7).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Lerner, in further in view of Tumlinson (US 20210353455).
Regarding claim 22, Jensnen, as modified by Lerner, does not teach the device further comprising a vacuum chamber in fluid communication with the hollow eye penetration member configured to aspirate a sample of vitreous fluid or gel of the patient's eye through the hollow penetration member.
However, Tumlinson teaches a combined drug injector and sampler (abstract) comprising a vacuum chamber (360) in fluid communication with the hollow eye penetration member (345) configured to aspirate a sample of vitreous fluid of the patient’s eye through the hollow penetration member (fig. 3, sample needle 355 in communication with vitreous receiving chamber 360, paragraph 0043 describes the creation of negative pressure to sample the fluid. Said paragraph further describes the fluid moving from the primary needle 345, laterally through septum chamber 305 to the sample needle 355, and into the sample chamber 362).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Jensen in view of Lerner such that it further comprises a vacuum chamber in fluid communication with the hollow eye penetration member configured to aspirate a sample of vitreous fluid or gel of the patient's eye through the hollow penetration member, as taught by Tumlinson, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that allows for a sample of vitreous fluid to be taken (see Tumlinson, paragraph 0043).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zilberman (US 8697117) disclose a drug eluting film with a pore size as low as 1 nm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON W LEVY whose telephone number is (571)272-7582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/Brandon W. Levy/Examiner, Art Unit 3781