,11DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2,7,9-10,12-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2,7,9-10,12-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glithero et al. US 2020/0390591 in view of Lindsay et al. 2005/0148984, hereafter Glithero and Lindsay, where both prior arts were provided in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 1, Glithero discloses a fluid collection device (figure 1,2a,2b, 4a)), comprising: a fluid impermeable barrier (Figure 2B (102)) having a rear region and a front region (see figure 4a where the rear region is the end with tubing 108 extending out of, and the front region is the opposite region) at least partially defining an opening (Figure 2B (106)) and positioned on the fluid impermeable barrier to be at least proximate to a urethra of a user (para. 0006,0024), the fluid impermeable barrier further at least partially defining a chamber (106) and an aperture (124) sized and dimensioned to receive a conduit therethrough (108); a fluid permeable body (115, wicking material comprising support 120 and membrane 118, 0039-0040) positioned at least partially within the chamber to extend across at least a portion of the opening and configured to wick fluid away from the opening (figure 2b, para. 0039); and a dry adhesive region positioned on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier at least partially distal to the opening to interface a garment worn by the user (para. 0047, where the barrier may include various types of adhesives (including hook and loop (therefore dry) to attach to a garment).
The examiner notes that per the amendments filed 06/08/2026, claim 1 was amended to include the limitation that the dry adhesive region includes one or more of silicone or a polyurethane material. As detailed above under the same rejection, paragraph 0047, teaches that the barrier may include various types of adhesives. However, the claimed materials are not specifically disclosed in Glithero.
Lindsay teaches an absorbent article for urine and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Lindsay teaches the use of an adhesive structure for fastening to another material, where said adhesive structure are gecko-like adhesive hairs (para. 0036). Further, per paragraph 0093, the gecko-like structures are taught to be a suitable replacement for hook and loop fasteners, as Lindsay teaches that when not available, the gecko adhesive may instead be a conventional hook and loop adhesive.
Lindsay teaches that the adhesive material (gecko adhesive) may be made from various materials including silicone materials (para. 0056). Lindsay also teaches that another proposed technique for forming the adhesive may include a micro-pipette where the material used in said method may be silicone rubber or polyurethane resin (para. 0072). Per figure 3, Lindsay teaches that the hairs are formed in patches (50, see para. 0051). Paragraph 0096 of Lindsay teaches that the fastening assembly, comprises the hairs and thus the patches, can be bonded to the article using welds of adhesives.
Therefore, as Lindsay teaches that a suitable substitute for conventional hook and loop fasteners may be a gecko-like adhesive suitably formed of silicone or polyurethane in patches secured to the fabric through an additional adhesive, and Glithero teaches that conventional mechanical adhesives may be used to secure the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gecko like adhesive structure as a matter of simple substitution, as said substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, adhesion between fabrics.
For clarity based on applicant’s previous concerns about the adhesive not positioned on the rear region. The examiner notes that during the interview, the examiner determined that as the adhesive is applied to the barrier of the device of Glithero, and the barrier encompasses the device (with the exception of the open aperture at a front portion), the adhesive is at least positioned on a rear region.
Regarding claim 2, Glithero and Lindsay teach the fluid collection device of claim 1, where Lindsay, as combined under the rejection of claim 1, teaches wherein the dry adhesive region includes a biomimetic dry adhesive region (para. 0036 as cited under the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Glithero and Lindsay teach the fluid collection device of claim where Lindsay, as combined under the rejection of claim 1, teaches wherein the dry adhesive region includes at least micro or nanometer-scaled brushes (para. 0036 as cited under the rejection of claim 1, where the hairs are interpreted as brushes).
Regarding claim 9, Glithero and Lindsay teach the fluid collection device of claim 1, where Lindsay, as combined under the rejection of claim 1, teaches wherein the dry adhesive region includes micro-scaled patterned material or nanometer-scaled patterned material. As seen in figure 1 of Lindsay and per paragraph 0036, the hairs may be patterned. Therefore, the combination of Lindsay, obviously combined with Glithero under the rejection of claim 1 reads to the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 10, Glithero and Lindsay teach, the fluid collection device of claim 9, wherein the micro-scaled patterned material or the nanometer-scaled patterned material includes polygonal or round patterns, round or polygonal dimples, and/or polygonal or round pillars (paragraph 0036, figure 3 of Lindsay).
Regarding claim 12, Glithero and Lindsay teach the fluid collection device of claim 1 wherein the dry adhesive region is a dry adhesive patch secured to the fluid impermeable barrier. The examiner notes that while the adhesive of Glithero is taught to be on the barrier and thus may be interpreted as a patch, it is not specifically stated to be a patch. The examiner notes that under the rejection of claim 1, Lindsay teaches that the gecko-like adhesive is formed in patches (50, see figure 3), and thus the device of Glithero and Lindsay reads to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, Glithero and Lindsay teach the fluid collection device of claim 12, wherein the dry adhesive patch is secured to the fluid impermeable barrier with at least one of an adhesive or welding. The examiner notes that per the rejection of claim 1 and 12, paragraph 0096 of Lindsay teaches that the fastening assembly, which as previously taught, comprises the hairs and thus the patches, can be bonded to the article using welds of adhesives.
Regarding claim 14, Glithero and Lindsay teach the fluid collection device of claim 1, wherein the dry adhesive region is integrally formed with the fluid impermeable barrier. The examiner notes that while the rejection of claim 1 uses patches to secure the gecko-like hairs to the device, the embodiment used of Lindsay does not integrally form the hairs with the fabric. However, a second embodiment of Lindsay teaches this
As seen in Lindsay figure 2A, the hairs of the adhesive of Lindsay are attached directly to the substrate material (42). Therefore, the gecko-like structures are interpreted to be integrally formed with the base material. Therefore, as Lindsay teaches that integral formation of the hairs is a suitable alternative to patches of the hairs applied to the fabric, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the integral formation gecko like adhesive structure as a matter of simple substitution, as said substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, adhesion between fabrics.
Regarding claim 15, Glithero and Lindsay teach the fluid collection device of claim 1, wherein the fluid collection device includes a generally cylindrical shape such that the front region and the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier are generally arched (Glithero figure 2b) and the dry adhesive region arcs complementary to the rear region (Glithero para. 0047, where the barrier may include various types of adhesives (including hook and loop (therefore dry) to attach to a garment). The examiner notes that as the barrier may include the adhesive and the barrier is seen in figure 2 to arched along the length, it is interpreted that the dry adhesive arcs complementary to the rear region as well.
Regarding claim 16, Glithero and Lindsay teach the fluid collection device of claim 1, wherein the rear region of the fluid collection device is generally planar such that the dry adhesive region is generally planar (Glithero figure 2a, where the device can be seen to be generally planar). The examiner notes that as the barrier may include the fastening/adhesive means and the barrier is seen in figure 2 to be planar along the length, it is interpreted that the dry adhesive is planar as well.
Regarding claim 17, Glithero discloses a method of collecting fluid from a user, the method comprising:
positioning an opening (Figure 2B (106), Figure 9 (910)) of a fluid collection device at least proximate to a urethra of the user (para. 0006,0024), the fluid collection device (figure 1, 2a, 2b, 4a)including a fluid impermeable barrier (Figure 2B (102)) defining a chamber (106), the opening having fluid communication with the chamber (see figure 2b), and an aperture (124) having a conduit (108) extending therethrough in fluid communication with the chamber (figure 2b); positioning a garment on the user over the fluid collection device (figure 9 (920)) interfacing a dry adhesive region (para. 0047, where the barrier may include various types of adhesives (including hook and loop (therefore dry) to attach to a garment, where the mechanical fasteners are interpreted as a dry adhesive) positioned on a rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier at least partially distal to the opening; and collecting fluid voided or discharged by the user in the chamber of the fluid collection device (figure 9 (930)).
The examiner notes that per the amendments filed 06/08/2026, claim 1 was amended to include the limitation that the dry adhesive region includes one or more of silicone or a polyurethane material. As detailed above under the same rejection, paragraph 0047, teaches that the barrier may include various types of adhesives. However, the claimed materials are not specifically disclosed in Glithero.
Lindsay teaches an absorbent article for urine and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Lindsay teaches the use of an adhesive structure for fastening to another material, where said adhesive structure are gecko-like adhesive hairs (para. 0036). Further, per paragraph 0093, the gecko-like structures are taught to be a suitable replacement for hook and loop fasteners, as Lindsay teaches that when not available, the gecko adhesive may instead be a conventional hook and loop adhesive.
Lindsay teaches that the adhesive material (gecko adhesive) may be made from various materials including silicone materials (para. 0056). Lindsay also teaches that another proposed technique for forming the adhesive may include a micro-pipette where the material used in said method may be silicone rubber or polyurethane resin (para. 0072). Per figure 3, Lindsay teaches that the hairs are formed in patches (50, see para. 0051). Paragraph 0096 of Lindsay teaches that the fastening assembly, comprises the hairs and thus the patches, can be bonded to the article using welds of adhesives.
Therefore, as Lindsay teaches that a suitable substitute for conventional hook and loop fasteners may be a gecko-like adhesive suitably formed of silicone or polyurethane in patches secured to the fabric through an additional adhesive, and Glithero teaches that conventional mechanical adhesives may be used to secure the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gecko like adhesive structure as a matter of simple substitution, as said substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, adhesion between fabrics.
For clarity based on applicant’s previous concerns about the adhesive not positioned on the rear region. The examiner notes that during the interview, the examiner determined that as the adhesive is applied to the barrier of the device of Glithero, and the barrier encompasses the device (with the exception of the open aperture at a front portion), the adhesive is at least positioned on a rear region.
Regarding claim 18, Glithero and Lindsay teach the method of claim 17, further comprising securing the dry adhesive region to the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier. The examiner notes that per the rejection of claim 17, paragraph 0096 of Lindsay teaches that the fastening assembly, which as previously taught, comprises the hairs and thus the patches, can be bonded to the article using welds of adhesives to form the article, and thus during formation a step of this bonding occurs.
Regarding claim 19, Glithero and Lindsay teach the method of claim 17, but fails to disclose wherein the dry adhesive region includes one or more of: a biomimetic dry adhesive region; micro-scaled patterned wedges or nanometer-scaled wedges; hierarchical polymer micro-scaled hairs or nanometer-scaled hairs; wall-shaped hierarchical micro-scaled structures or nanometer-scaled structures; one or more micro-scaled fibrillar structures or nanometer-scaled fibrillar structures; micro-scaled brushes or nanometer-scaled brushes; micro-scaled mushroom shaped structures or nanometer-scaled mushroom shaped structures; micro-scaled patterned material or nanometer-scaled patterned material having polygonal or round patterns, round or polygonal dimples, and/or polygonal or round pillars; and/or micro or nanometer-scaled tubes. Lindsay, as combined under the rejection of claim 17, teaches wherein the dry adhesive region includes a biomimetic dry adhesive region (para. 0036 as cited under the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, Glithero and Lindsay teach the method of claim 17, wherein the fluid collection device includes a generally cylindrical shape such that the front region and the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier are generally arched (Glithero figure 2b) and the dry adhesive region arcs complementary to the rear region (Glithero para. 0047, where the barrier may include various types of adhesives (including hook and loop (therefore dry) to attach to a garment). The examiner notes that as the barrier may include the adhesive/fastening means and the barrier is seen in figure 2 to arched along the length, it is interpreted that the dry adhesive arcs complementary to the rear region as well.
Regarding claim 21, Glithero and Lindsay teach the method of claim 17, wherein the rear region of the fluid collection device is generally planar such that the dry adhesive region is generally planar (Glithero figure 2a, where the device can be seen to be generally planar). The examiner notes that as the barrier may include the adhesive/fastening means, and the barrier is seen in figure 2a to be planar along the length, it is interpreted that the dry adhesive is planar as well.
Regarding claim 22, Glithero discloses a method of forming a fluid collection device, the method comprising: forming a fluid impermeable barrier (para. 0026, 0045 where the device is sized and shaped for use with a female user) having a rear region and a front region (figure 1,2a,2b, 4a, see figure 4a where the rear region is the end with tubing 108 extending out of, and the front region is the opposite region) at least partially defining an opening (Figure 2B (106)) and positioned on the fluid impermeable barrier to be at least proximate to a urethra of a user (para. 0006,0024, see also figure 9 (910)), the fluid impermeable barrier further at least partially defining a chamber (106) and an aperture (124) sized and dimensioned to receive a conduit (108) therethrough (para. 0054); positioning a fluid permeable body at least partially within the chamber to extend across at least a portion of the opening and configured to wick fluid away from the opening (para. 0040,0049 where the components of the permeable body (support (120) and membrane (118) are positioned); and positioning a dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier at least partially distal to the opening to interface a garment worn by the user (para. 0047, where the barrier may include various types of adhesives (including hook and loop (therefore dry) to attach to a garment).
The examiner notes that per the amendments filed 06/08/2026, claim 1 was amended to include the limitation that the dry adhesive region includes one or more of silicone or a polyurethane material. As detailed above under the same rejection, paragraph 0047, teaches that the barrier may include various types of adhesives. However, the claimed materials are not specifically disclosed in Glithero.
Lindsay teaches an absorbent article for urine and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Lindsay teaches the use of an adhesive structure for fastening to another material, where said adhesive structure are gecko-like adhesive hairs (para. 0036). Further, per paragraph 0093, the gecko-like structures are taught to be a suitable replacement for hook and loop fasteners, as Lindsay teaches that when not available, the gecko adhesive may instead be a conventional hook and loop adhesive.
Lindsay teaches that the adhesive material (gecko adhesive) may be made from various materials including silicone materials (para. 0056). Lindsay also teaches that another proposed technique for forming the adhesive may include a micro-pipette where the material used in said method may be silicone rubber or polyurethane resin (para. 0072). Per figure 3, Lindsay teaches that the hairs are formed in patches (50, see para. 0051). Paragraph 0096 of Lindsay teaches that the fastening assembly, comprises the hairs and thus the patches, can be bonded to the article using welds of adhesives.
Therefore, as Lindsay teaches that a suitable substitute for conventional hook and loop fasteners may be a gecko-like adhesive suitably formed of silicone or polyurethane in patches secured to the fabric through an additional adhesive, and Glithero teaches that conventional mechanical adhesives may be used to secure the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gecko like adhesive structure as a matter of simple substitution, as said substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, adhesion between fabrics.
For clarity based on applicant’s previous concerns about the adhesive not positioned on the rear region. The examiner notes that during the interview, the examiner determined that as the adhesive is applied to the barrier of the device of Glithero, and the barrier encompasses the device (with the exception of the open aperture at a front portion), the adhesive is at least positioned on a rear region.
Regarding claim 23, Glithero discloses the method of claim 22, but fails to disclose the method further comprising micro or nanopatterning geometric shapes with lithography or laser to form the dry adhesive region.
Lindsay, as applied to the rejection of claim 22 teaches, per paragraph 0056 and 0061, that the gecko patterning is taught to be made from known methods, including lithography. Therefore as it was found obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution, to use the gecko-like adhesive as the adhesive means of Glithero, it would have further have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the gecko-like adhesive by means of lithography as lithography is a known patterning technique used for creating said structures, as taught by Lindsay.
Regarding claim 24, Glithero and Lindsay teach the method of claim 23, wherein positioning the dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier includes securing a patch including the dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier after micro or nanopatterning geometric shapes on the patch to form the dry adhesive region. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 23, the gecko-like structures were formed from lithography.
As detailed under the rejection of claim 22, Lindsay teaches that, patches (50) are applied to the base layer (70) to attach the gecko like structures (para. 0051), see figure 3. Therefore, the gecko-like structures are attached to a patch where the patch is attached to the base layer during formation of the deivce, and thus the combined device of Glithero and Lindsay reads to the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 25, Glithero and Lindsay teach the method of claim 23, wherein micro or nanopatterning the geometric shapes to form the dry adhesive region includes micro or nanopatterning the geometric shapes on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier to form the dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier. The examiner notes that while the rejection of claim 22 uses patches to secure the gecko-like hairs to the device, the embodiment used of Lindsay does not integrally form the hairs with the fabric. However, a second embodiment of Lindsay teaches this
As seen in Lindsay figure 2A, the hairs of the adhesive of Lindsay are attached directly to the substrate material (42). Therefore, the gecko-like structures are interpreted to be integrally formed with the base material. Therefore, as Lindsay teaches that integral formation of the hairs is a suitable alternative to patches of the hairs applied to the fabric, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the integral formation gecko like adhesive structure as a matter of simple substitution, as said substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, adhesion between fabrics.
Regarding claim 26, Glithero and Lindsay teach the method of claim 22, wherein positioning a dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier includes securing a patch including the dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier. The examiner notes that per the rejection of claim 22, paragraph 0096 of Lindsay teaches that the fastening assembly, which as previously taught, comprises the hairs and thus the patches, can be bonded to the article using welds of adhesives.
Regarding claim 27, Glithero and Lindsay teach the method of claim 22, wherein positioning a dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier includes forming the dry adhesive region directly on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier. The examiner notes that while the rejection of claim 22 uses patches to secure the gecko-like hairs to the device, the embodiment used of Lindsay does not integrally form the hairs with the fabric. However, a second embodiment of Lindsay teaches this
As seen in Lindsay figure 2A, the hairs of the adhesive of Lindsay are attached directly to the substrate material (42). Therefore, the gecko-like structures are interpreted to be integrally formed with the base material. Therefore, as Lindsay teaches that integral formation of the hairs is a suitable alternative to patches of the hairs applied to the fabric, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the integral formation gecko like adhesive structure as a matter of simple substitution, as said substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, adhesion between fabrics.
Regarding claim 28, Glithero and Lindsay teach the method of claim 27, wherein the dry adhesive region includes one or more of: a biomimetic dry adhesive region; micro or nanometer-scaled wedges; hierarchical polymer micro or nanometer-scaled hairs; wall-shaped hierarchical micro or nanometer-scaled structures; one or more micro or nanometer-scaled fibrillar structures; micro or nanometer-scaled brushes; micro or nanometer-scaled mushroom shaped structures; micro or nanometer-scaled patterned material having polygonal or round patterns, round or polygonal dimples, and/or polygonal or round pillars; and/or micro or nanometer-scaled tubes. Lindsay, as combined under the rejection of claim 27, teaches wherein the dry adhesive region includes a biomimetic dry adhesive region (para. 0036 as cited under the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 29, Glithero and Lindsay teach the method of claim 22, wherein forming a fluid impermeable barrier includes forming the fluid impermeable barrier having a generally cylindrical shape such that the front region and the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier are generally arched (Glithero figure 2b) and the dry adhesive region arcs complementary to the rear region after positioning the dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier (Glithero para. 0047, where the barrier may include various types of adhesives (including hook and loop (therefore dry) to attach to a garment). The examiner notes that as the barrier may include the adhesive/fastening means, and the barrier is seen in figure 2 to arched along the length, it is interpreted that the dry adhesive arcs complementary to the rear region as well.
Regarding claim 30, Glithero and Lindsay teach the method claim 22, wherein forming a fluid impermeable barrier includes forming the fluid impermeable barrier with the rear region of being generally planar such that the dry adhesive region is generally planar after positioning the dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier (Glithero figure 2a, where the device can be seen to be generally planar). The examiner notes that as the barrier may include the adhesive/fastening means, and the barrier is seen in figure 2 to planar along the length, it is interpreted that the dry adhesive is planar as well.
Regarding claim 31, Glithero and Lindsay teach the fluid collection device of claim 1, wherein the dry adhesive region is positioned at least partially opposite to the opening and configured to at least partially adhere to an inside surface of clothing worn by the user. The examiner notes that per Glithero paragraph 0047, the device of Glithero may include various types of adhesives to attach to a garment. . The examiner further points to figure 4,4a, where the fluid collection device can be seen interfacing with the garment. As the dry adhesives are configured to interface with the garment, it is interpreted that they would be located on “one or more portions” that contact the garment (thus not the opening). As the region opposite the opening seen in figure 4,4a interfaces with the garment, it is interpreted that said region would be included in the “one or more portions” that comprise the adhesive. The examiner notes that it can further be seen in figure 4 that the device is surrounded by the fabric within port (44). Therefore at least a portion of the device adheres to an inside surface (inner surface of port (44) seen in figure 4a) of a garment worn by a user and thus is interpreted to at least partially adhere to said inside surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
311
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Wrubleski whose telephone number is (571)272-1150. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. 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.
/MATTHEW WRUBLESKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights