DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s Amendment/Remarks filed 10/24/2025.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 12-14 and 16 have been amended. Claims 2 and 3 are cancelled. No claims are newly added. Accordingly, claims 1 and 4-17 remain pending in the application and are currently under examination.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
Applicant’s amendment renders the objections to the drawings moot. Specifically, applicant submitted replacement drawings. Thus, said objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment renders the objections to the specification moot. Specifically, the specification has been amended to remedy the minor informalities. Thus, said objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment renders the objections to the claims moot. Specifically, the claims has been amended to remedy the minor informalities. Thus, said objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment renders the rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 USC 112(a) moot. Specifically, the claim sets out that the filler polymer is introduced in the combining step. Thus, said rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment renders the rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 USC 112(b) moot. Specifically, the claims has been amended to remedy the indefinite issue. Thus, said rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment renders the rejection of claims 1 and 5-11 under 35 USC 102 over Khoshbin moot. Specifically, the claims has been amended to include the limitation that the beads are polylactide based. Khoshbin is silent to said limitation. Thus, said rejection has been withdrawn for said claims. However, the rejection of claims 14-17 remains applicable as said amendment does not apply to claims 14-17.
Applicant’s amendment renders the rejection under 35 USC 103 over Vogel moot. Specifically, the claims has been amended to include the limitation that the beads are polylactide based. Vogel is silent to said limitation. Thus, said rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment renders the rejection under 35 USC 103 over Khoshbin in view of Mӓlson moot. Specifically, the claims has been amended to include the limitation that the beads are polylactide based. The references are silent to said limitation. Thus, said rejection has been withdrawn.
Maintained Rejections
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 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ninan (US 2006/0246033 A1, Nov. 2, 2006, hereafter as “Ninan”).
The claimed invention is drawn to beads for use in dermal filler polymers, the beads being characterized in that the beads are spherical, are polylactide based, and have an average diameter between 40 microns and 500 microns and range in diameter between 20 and 80 microns, the dermal filler polymer including hyaluronic acid or a derivative thereof and water.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 5, Ninan teaches injectable bulking agent compositions that can be used in fillers to treat soft tissue defects such as wrinkles (abstract; [0161]). Ninan teaches the bulking agents may comprise a biodegradable polymer such as polylactic acid (PLA) in form of microspheres having a diameter ranging from 20-120 microns, typically from 40-80 microns, preferably with a mean diameter of approximately 60 microns ([0132]). The preferred range of 40-80 microns taught by Ninan falls within the claimed range of 40 to 500 microns and preferred mean diameter of about 60 microns taught by Ninan falls within the claimed mean diameter range of 20 to 80 microns.
With regards to the limitation, “the dermal filler polymer including hyaluronic acid or a derivative thereof and water”, said limitation describes the intended use of the beads and not the beads themselves. The claims are drawn to the beads and, as such, said intended use limitation is of no significance to claim construction and, thereby, does not carry any patentable weight to the beads themselves (MPEP 2111.02).
Thus, the teachings of Ninan render the instant claims anticipated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 10/24/2025, regarding the 102 rejection over Ninan have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ninan does not teach the dermal filler polymer including hyaluronic acid or a derivative thereof and water as required by the claim. Remarks, pages 7-8.
In response, it is respectfully submitted that the rejected claims are drawn to beads for use in dermal filler polymers. The newly added limitation, “the dermal filler polymer including hyaluronic acid or a derivative thereof and water” further describes the intended use of the beads and not the beads themselves. Since the claims are drawn to the beads, said intended use limitation is of no significance to claim construction and, thereby, does not carry any patentable weight to the beads themselves (MPEP 2111.02). Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Thus, for these reasons, said rejection is maintained.
Claims 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khoshbin et al. (US 2019/0046429 A1, Feb. 14, 2019, hereafter as “Khoshbin”).
The claimed invention is drawn to an apparatus comprising a sealed container; and interiorly of the sealed container, a dermal filler having beads characterized in that the beads are spherical, have an average diameter between 40 and 500 microns and range in diameter between 20 and 900 microns; at least one filler polymer, which is hydraulic acid or a derivative thereof; and water; and method for injecting the dermal filler thereof.
Regarding instant claims 14 and 15, Khoshbin teaches a biocompatible, degradable dermal filler system is composed of unmodified macroporous resorbable chitosan microbeads dispersed uniformly in a continuous phase composed of cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel particles and unmodified hyaluronic acid (abstract; [0001]). Khoshbin teaches that said beads are spherical ([0028]; Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). Khoshbin also teaches an embodiment wherein the beads have an average diameter of about 95.3 ± 21.3 microns with a diameter range of about 50-170 microns and another embodiment wherein the beads have an average diameter of about 96.8 ± 20.1 microns with a diameter range of about 50-170 microns (Fig. 3). Khoshbin further teaches that the dermal filler contains phosphate-buffered saline (water) ([0033]). Khoshbin further teaches that the dermal filler is loaded into syringes ([0107] and [0111]; claims 28 and 29).
Regarding instant claim 16, Khoshbin teaches the elements discussed above. Khoshbin further teaches injecting the dermal filler with a fine gauge needle into soft tissue defects like nasolabial folds and marionette line ([0002], [0004] and [0015]).
Regarding instant claim 17, Khoshbin teaches the elements discussed above. Khoshbin further teaches injecting the dermal filler subcutaneously ([0112]).
Thus, the teachings of Khoshbin render the instant claims anticipated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 10/24/2025, regarding the 102 rejection over Khoshbin have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Khoshbin teaches particles of a different chemistry. Applicant states that Khoshbin teaches a biocompatible degradable dermal filler system composed of unmodified microporous chitosan microbeads dispersed uniformly in a continuous phase composed of cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel particles and unmodified hyaluronic acid. Remarks, page 8.
In response, it is respectfully submitted that the rejected claims are drawn to an apparatus comprising a sealed container; and interiorly of the sealed container, a dermal filler having beads characterized in that they the beads are spherical, have an average diameter between 40 microns and 500 microns and range in diameter between 20 and 900 microns; at least one filler polymer, which is hyaluronic acid or a derivative thereof, and water; and a method of injecting said dermal filler. Said claims do not require any particular particle/bead material as applicant contends. Accordingly, applicant appears to be arguing limitations that are not in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Thus, for these reasons, said rejection is maintained.
New Rejections
In light of Applicant’s amendments, the following rejections have been newly added:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites, “providing a sealed container containing beads characterized in that they are spherical, have an average diameter between 40 microns and 500 microns and range in diameter between 20 and 900 microns; combining into the beads at least one filler polymer including at least one of a hyaluronic acid or derivative thereof and water”. The instant specification states, “In addition to the beads, the dermal filler comprises: at least one filler polymer, which is hyaluronic acid or a derivative thereof; and water” ([0009])… “Dermal filler according to another example embodiment of the invention includes hyaluronic acid, beads and water” ([0049])…. “The filler was produced by combining the beads and Revanesse® Ultra™…and stirring” ([0049]). In light of the instant Specification, it is apparent that the dermal filler is composed of three components: beads, hyaluronic acid (or a derivative thereof) and water. The use of the phrase “combining into the beads at least one filler polymer including at least one of a hyaluronic acid or derivative thereof and water” in line 5 of the claim implies that hyaluronic acid (or a derivative thereof) and water are present in the beads, however the instant specification does not provide written description for beads containing hyaluronic acid (or a derivative thereof) and water.
Dependent claim 17 does not remedy the written description issue and as such said dependent claim suffers from the same deficiency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-13 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.
Claims 1 and 6 recite, “the beads... have an average diameter between 40 microns and 500 microns and range in diameter between 20 microns and 80 microns”. A diameter range of 20 to 80 microns cannot logically yield an average diameter outside of the 20-80 micron range. For example, an average diameter of 500 microns is impossible if the diameter range of the particles is 20 to 80 microns. Accordingly, the claims are indefinite because there is a conflict between the two ranges.
Dependent claims 5 and 7-13 do not remedy the indefinite issue and as such said dependent claims suffers from the same deficiency.
Claim 4 recites, “the beads ... can range in diameter between 400 microns and 650 microns”. Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites, “the beads... range in diameter between 20 microns and 80 microns”. The diameter range of claim 4 is outside the diameter range set out in claim 1. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what particles sizes (i.e., 20-80 microns, 400-650 microns, or 20-80 and 400-650 microns) are required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites, “the beads have an average diameter of about 500 microns”. Claim 4 depends form claim 1. Claim 1 recites, “an average diameter between 40 microns and 500 microns”. The term “about” allows for values slightly lower and slightly higher than the recited value. Thus, “about 500 microns” broadens the range of 40 to 500 microns and, as such, does not properly further limit said range.
Claim 4 recites, “the beads... can range in diameter between 400 microns and 650 microns”. Claim 4 depends form claim 1. Claim 1 recites, “range in diameter between 20 microns and 80 microns”. The range of 400 to 600 microns is outside the range of 20 to 80 microns and, as such, does not properly further limit the range of 20 to 80 microns.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 5-8, 10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 104258470 A, Jan 7. 2015, hereafter as “Li”).
The claimed invention is drawn to beads for use in dermal filler polymers, the beads being characterized in that they are spherical, have an average diameter between 40 microns and 500 microns and range in diameter between 20 and 80 microns, the dermal filler polymer including hyaluronic acid or a derivative thereof and water; a dermal filler composition thereof; and an apparatus.
Regarding instant claims 1, 5-7 and 10, Li teaches an injectable and degradable composition comprising polylactic acid (preferably poly L-lactide) microspheres and crosslinked hyaluronic acid mixed gel for injection, wherein the average grain diameter is 10 to 150 microns for the purpose of tissue bulking, e.g., reducing wrinkles (abstract; [0001], [0015] and [0020]). Li also teaches that the composition comprises a sodium chloride solution or phosphate buffer solution (water) (abstract; [0005]).
Li is silent to the particular average particle size range of “40 to 500 microns” and particle diameter range of “20 to 80 microns”, however MPEP 2144.05(I) states, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. Because the claimed ranges of 40 to 500 microns and 20 to 80 microns overlaps with the range disclosed in Li (i.e., 10 to 150 microns), a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states, Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Therefore, it would have further been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the particle size ranges to arrive at the claimed ranges by way of routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li teaches the general conditions of the claim, that is, to include polylactic acid particles having an average particle size of 10 to 150 microns and it is the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.
Regarding instant claim 8, Li teaches the elements discussed above. Li exemplifies embodiments having beads in concentrations 12.5 mg/ml (2 g / 160 ml), 20 mg/ml (3 g / 150 ml) and 21 mg/ml (3g / 140 ml) (Embodiments 1-3; [0028]-[0030]).
Regarding instant claims 14 and 15, Li teaches the elements discussed above. Li also teaches packaging the composition in a disposable syringe (sealed container) ([0012] and [0025]).
Thus, the teachings of Li render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Claims 1 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson et al. (US 2021/0308332 A1, Oct. 7, 2021, hereafter as “Olsson”).
The claimed invention is described above.
Regarding instant claims 1, 6 and 10, Olsson teaches a dermal filler composition comprising a hydrogel and solid particles, wherein the solid particles are polylactic acid and wherein the hydrogel is a crosslinked polysaccharide (abstract; [0010] and [0108]; Fig. 2). Olsson teaches the particular polysaccharide, hyaluronic acid ([0010]; Fig. 2). Olsson also teaches that the solid particles have an average size of 0.5-100 microns in diameter ([0109]-[0110]). Olsson teaches that water is also included in the composition ([0064] and [0147]; Fig. 5).
Olsson is silent to the particular average particle size range of “40 to 500 microns” and particle diameter range of “20 to 80 microns”, however MPEP 2144.05(I) states, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. Because the claimed ranges of 40 to 500 microns and 20 to 80 microns overlaps with the range disclosed in Olsson (i.e., 0.5 to 100 microns), a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states, Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Therefore, it would have further been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the particle size ranges to arrive at the claimed ranges by way of routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Olsson teaches the general conditions of the claim, that is, to include polylactic acid particles having an average particle size of 0.5 to 100 microns and it is the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.
Regarding instant claims 5 and 7, Olsson teaches the elements discussed above. Olsson also teaches that PLA beads are biodegradable ([0034]).
Regarding instant claim 8, Olsson teaches the elements discussed above. Olsson also teaches that the solid particles (beads) can be in included in amounts of 0.1-10%, such as 0.1-5%, in the filler composition ([0010], [0074] and [0079]-[0081]). While Olsson does not explicitly teach that the beads are included in an amount of about 5 to about 50 mg/ml of the filler, 0.1-10 wt% can be converted to 1-100 mg/ml and 0.1-5% can be converted to 1-50 mg/ml. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states, Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the amount of the beads and arrive at the claimed range by way of routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Olsson teaches the general conditions of the claim, that is, to include beads in an amount of 0.1-10% such as 0.1-5% and it is the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.
Regarding instant claim 9, Olsson teaches the elements discussed above. Olsson also teaches/illustrates that the gel is in particle round form (abstract; [0022]; Fig. 1C).
Regarding instant claim 11, Olsson teaches the elements discussed above. Olsson also teaches the particular crosslinking agent, BDDE as a well known crosslinking agent used to crosslink hyaluronic acid in dermal fillers ([0006]-[0007]). While, Olsson does not exemplify BDDE, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the particular crosslinking agent, BDDE, with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Olsson teaches that BDDE is a suitable crosslinking agent for hyaluronic acid based dermal filler compositions (MPEP 2144.07). It is noted that Olsson teaches that HA dermal fillers crosslinked with BDDE degrade faster than diaminotrehalose; however, "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same us” (MPEP 2123).
Regarding instant claims 12 and 13, Olsson teaches the elements discussed above. Olsson also teaches that the filler polymer (HA) can be in included in amounts of 10-50 mg/ml such as 10-30 mg/ml in the filler composition ([0074]). While Olsson does not explicitly teach that filler polymer is included in an amount of 1-3 wt% or about 1-4 wt%, 10-50 mg/ml and 10-30 mg/ml can be converted to 1-5% and 1-3%, respectively. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states, Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the amount of filler polymer (HA) and arrive at the claimed range by way of routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Olsson teaches the general conditions of the claim, that is, to include filler polymer in an amount of 10-50 mg/ml such as 10-30 mg/ml and it is the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.
Regarding instant claims 14 and 15, Olsson teaches the elements discussed above. Olsson also teaches providing the composition in a pre-filled syringe or pre-filled vial ([0091]).
Thus, the teachings of Olsson render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
All claims have been rejected; no claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY HAGOPIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6097. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Sue Liu can be reached on 571-272-5539. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Casey S. Hagopian
Examiner, Art Unit 1617
/CARLOS A AZPURU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617