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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 06 July 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered. Therefore, the objections to claims 5-10 and 15-19 and the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Pawliszyn et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0257204 A1), hereinafter Pawliszyn (2021), have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Pawliszyn (2021).
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 6-7, 10, and 15-17 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 6 recites the unclear limitation “from one side edge to an opposite side edge.” For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “from one side edge to an opposite side edge” to mean “from one side edge to an opposite side edge of the solid substrate.”
Claim 7 recites the unclear limitation “towards edges that are not for spray ionization.” For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “towards edges that are not for spray ionization” to mean “towards edges of the solid substrate that are not for spray ionization.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the desorption liquid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the desorption liquid” to mean “the desorption solvent”.
Further regarding claim 10, the term “optionally” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 10 as “…the extractive phase coating is a solid phase microextraction (SPME) coating
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the extraction portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the extraction portion of the substrate” to mean “the extractive phase coating on the substrate”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a second extraction portion of the substrate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “a second extraction portion of the substrate” to mean “the second side of the substrate”.
Claims 16 and 17 recite the limitation “the formed ions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the formed ions” to mean “the expelled ionized molecules”.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dulay et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0181136 A1), hereinafter Dulay, in view of Pawliszyn et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0254729 A1), hereinafter Pawliszyn (2017).
Regarding claim 1, Dulay discloses a device for generating ionized molecules of interest for analysis in a mass spectrometer (paragraph 0048), wherein the molecules of interest are desorbed from the device into a desorption solvent (paragraph 0053), the device comprising:
a solid substrate (FIG. 3A, element 102) having a spray-ionization end (FIG. 3A, element 108) and a holding end (FIG. 3A, leftmost end of substrate 102, i.e., the end opposite end 108), the substrate sized and configured to hold the desorption solvent (FIG. 3A, reservoir 106) at the spray-ionization end (paragraph 0064, lines 2-4); and
a fluid barrier (FIG. 3B, walls 302 of reservoir 106) that extends at least 0.5 mm above a surface of the substrate (paragraph 0063, lines 5-10) and is configured to reduce movement of at least some of the desorption solvent from the spray-ionization end towards the holding end (paragraph 0062).
Dulay fails to disclose an extractive phase coating on at least a portion of the surface between the spray-ionization end and the fluid barrier.
However, Pawliszyn (2017) discloses an extractive phase coating (FIG. 4B, element 406) on at least a portion of the surface between the spray-ionization end (FIG. 4B, bottom end of element 400) and the fluid barrier (FIG. 4B, fluid barriers 404).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Dulay to include an extractive phase coating on at least a portion of the surface between the spray-ionization end and the fluid barrier, based on the teachings of Pawliszyn (2017) that the extractive phase coating improves sorption of the component of interest (Pawliszyn (2017), paragraph 0109).
Regarding claim 2, Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2017) as applied to claim 1 discloses the device according to claim 1.
In addition, Dulay discloses that the fluid barrier is integral with the substrate (paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 4, Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2017) as applied to claim 1 discloses the device according to claim 1.
In addition, Pawliszyn (2017) discloses that the substrate is at least a two-sided substrate (paragraph 0099, lines 1-2) and the device comprises a fluid barrier (paragraph 0098, lines 27-28) on each side (paragraph 0099, lines 1-2; FIG. 4B, protrusions 404).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2017) to include that the substrate is at least a two-sided substrate and the device comprises a fluid barrier on each side, based on the additional teachings of Pawliszyn (2017) that the plurality of barriers increase the strength of the substrate to prevent breakage, and the plurality of barriers also improve the resolution of analyte concentration gradients by preventing undesirable fluid diffusion (Pawliszyn (2017), paragraph 0098).
Regarding claim 5, Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2017) as applied to claim 1 discloses the device according to claim 1.
In addition, Dulay discloses that the substrate and the fluid barrier are configured and positioned to hold at least 5 μL of the desorption solvent between the spray-ionization end and the fluid barrier (paragraph 0009); and/or
the distance from the spray-ionization end to the fluid barrier is from 4 mm to 10 mm (paragraph 0064, lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 6, Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2017) as applied to claim 1 discloses the device according to claim 1.
In addition, Pawliszyn (2017) discloses that the fluid barrier extends from one side edge to an opposite side edge (FIG. 4B: protrusions 404 extend from the left side edge to the right side edge).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2017) to include that the fluid barrier extends from one side edge to an opposite side edge, based on the additional teachings of Pawliszyn (2017) that this increases the strength of the substrate to prevent breakage, and also improves the resolution of analyte concentration gradients by preventing undesirable fluid diffusion (Pawliszyn (2017), paragraph 0098).
Regarding claim 7, Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2017) as applied to claim 1 discloses the device according to claim 1.
In addition, Dulay discloses that the fluid barrier is configured to reduce movement of at least some of the desorption solvent towards edges that are not for spray ionization (FIG. 3A shows that walls 302 of reservoir 106 prevent desorption solvent from moving towards the side (upper and lower in the figure) edges of the substrate 102).
Regarding claim 8, Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2017) as applied to claim 1 discloses the device according to claim 1.
In addition, Dulay discloses that the device is configured to desorb the molecules of interest into the desorption solvent (paragraphs 0080-0081) and generate the ionized molecules while the surface of the substrate is substantially horizontal (FIG. 8 shows substrate 808 held in a horizontal orientation during generation of ion plume 826).
Regarding claim 9, Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2017) as applied to claim 1 discloses the device according to claim 1.
In addition, Dulay discloses that the fluid barrier is surface-deactivated (paragraph 0074 discloses that the fluid barrier is formed of the same material as the substrate; paragraph 0055 discloses that the substrate is hydrophobic and/or nonporous at its surface).
Regarding claim 10, Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2017) as applied to claim 1 discloses the device according to claim 1.
In addition, Dulay discloses that the substrate comprises an indentation or curve in the substrate to direct the desorption liquid along the longitudinal axis of the substrate (paragraph 0071);
the substrate is a polymer (paragraph 0057);
the substrate is surface-deactivated (paragraph 0055 discloses that the substrate is hydrophobic and/or nonporous at its surface);
the spray-ionization end comprises a tip having a substantially triangular shape and being defined by at least two edges that meet at an angle (FIG. 3A, triangular tip 108);
the substrate has an average thickness that is from 0.01 mm to 2 mm (paragraph 0061, 1 mm to 5 mm);
the substrate has a length from 1 cm to 10 cm (paragraph 0060, 10 mm to 20 mm, i.e., 1 cm to 2 cm);
the substrate has a non-uniform thickness such that the spray-ionization end has a smaller thickness relative to the rest of substrate, the non-uniform thickness creating a slope to lead by gravity the desorption solvent containing the molecules of interest towards the spray-ionization end (paragraph 0066);
the desorption solvent comprises at least one of methanol, acetonitrile and water (paragraph 0080); and/or
the device is configured to generate spray in a negative ionization mode (paragraph 0099).
Optimizing the angle between the edges of the spray-ionization end is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Dulay teaches that “[o]ther shapes [of the support substrate] may allow variability in the shape and size of reservoir 106” (paragraph 0059). As such, Dulay identifies the shape of the substrate, and by extension the angle between the edges of the spray-ionization end, as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., modifications to the shape and size of the reservoir. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the angle between the edges of the spray-ionization end and identifies said angle as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the angle between the edges of the spray-ionization end to meet the claimed angle since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
In addition, Pawliszyn (2017) discloses that the substrate has a width from 0.1 to 5 mm (paragraph 0082); and
the extractive phase coating is a solid phase microextraction (SPME) coating (paragraph 0017).
When a claimed range “overlap[s] or lie[s] inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I; 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). In the case at hand, Pawliszyn (2017) teaches a range of 0.05 mm to 15.0 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 5 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 have modified Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2017) to meet the claimed range of the substrate width.
Furthermore, the disclosure of Pawliszyn (2017) demonstrates that the function of SPME coatings is known in the art of mass spectrometry. Pawliszyn (2017) also shows that substituting an SPME coating for a different approach in sample preparation yields the predictable result of enriching the extracted analytes (Pawliszyn (2017), paragraph 0004). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2017) to include that the extractive phase coating is a solid phase microextraction (SPME) coating because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 17, Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2017) as applied to claim 1 discloses the device according to claim 1.
In addition, Dulay discloses a method for analyzing molecules previously extracted from a sample onto a device (paragraph 0053), the method comprises:
holding the substrate in a substantially horizontal orientation (FIG. 8 shows substrate 808 held in a horizontal orientation during generation of ion plume 826);
applying a desorption solvent to the device (FIG. 8, desorption solvent 818);
desorbing molecules from the device (paragraph 0080);
ionizing the desorbed molecules using an ionization source to expel ionized molecules from the spray-ionization end of the substrate (paragraphs 0080-0081); and
analyzing the formed ions by mass spectrometry (paragraph 0082).
Claims 11-12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dulay in view of Pawliszyn et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0318160 A1), hereinafter Pawliszyn (2015).
Regarding claim 11, Dulay discloses a method for analyzing molecules previously extracted from a sample and adsorbed onto a solid substrate (paragraph 0053), the substrate comprising a spray-ionization end (FIG. 3A, element 108), a holding end (FIG. 3A, leftmost end of substrate 102, i.e., the end opposite end 108), a fluid barrier (FIG. 3B, walls 302 of reservoir 106) that extends at least 0.5 mm above a surface of the substrate (paragraph 0063, lines 5-10) and is between the spray-ionization end and the holding end (FIG. 3A), the method comprising:
holding the substrate in a substantially horizontal orientation (FIG. 8 shows substrate 808 held in a horizontal orientation during generation of ion plume 826);
applying a desorption solvent to the substrate (FIG. 8, desorption solvent 818);
desorbing molecules (paragraph 0080);
ionizing the desorbed molecules using an ionization source to expel ionized molecules from the spray-ionization end of the substrate (paragraphs 0080-0081); and
analyzing the expelled ionized molecules by mass spectrometry (paragraph 0082),
wherein the fluid barrier is configured to reduce movement of at least some of the desorption solvent from the spray-ionization end to the holding end (paragraph 0062).
Dulay fails to disclose an extractive phase coating on at least a portion of the surface between the spray-ionization end and the fluid barrier; wherein the extracted molecules are adsorbed on the extractive phase coating; and desorbing molecules from the extractive phase coating.
However, Pawliszyn (2015) discloses an extractive phase coating (paragraph 0022, lines 24-31) on at least a portion of the surface (FIG. 3B, coating 38) between the spray-ionization end (FIG. 3B, rightmost portion of end 38) and the fluid barrier (FIG. 3B, rightmost end of barrier 32); wherein the extracted molecules are adsorbed on the extractive phase coating (paragraph 0017, lines 12-14); and
desorbing molecules from the extractive phase coating (paragraph 0017, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Dulay to include an extractive phase coating on at least a portion of the surface between the spray-ionization end and the fluid barrier; wherein the extracted molecules are adsorbed on the extractive phase coating; and desorbing molecules from the extractive phase coating, based on the teachings of Pawliszyn (2015) that such a coating stabilizes extracted analytes and reduces undesirable artefacts (Pawliszyn (2015), paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 12, Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2015) as applied to claim 11 discloses the method according to claim 11.
In addition, Dulay discloses that the fluid barrier is integral with the substrate (paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 14, Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2015) as applied to claim 11 discloses the method according to claim 11.
In addition, Dulay discloses that the ionization is negative ionization (paragraph 0099) and/or wherein the mass spectrometry is electrospray ionization (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 15, Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2015) as applied to claim 11 discloses the method according to claim 11.
In addition, Pawliszyn (2015) discloses that the extraction portion of the substrate is substantially flat (paragraph 0007, lines 2-3) and the method comprises holding the substrate in an orientation with the extraction portion having an absolute bank angle (paragraph 0019, lines 18-22).
Optimizing the bank angle of the substrate is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Pawliszyn (2015) teaches that “[d]epending on the ionization method being used, different parts of the solid coated substrate can be placed in front of the instrument to obtain characterization of the analyte distribution on the surface of the substrate” (paragraph 0019, lines 22-25). As such, Pawliszyn (2015) identifies the bank angle of the substrate as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing conditions for different ionization methods. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the bank angle of the substrate and identifies said bank angle as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the bank angle of the substrate to meet the claimed bank angle since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2015) to include that the extraction portion of the substrate is substantially flat and the method comprises holding the substrate in an orientation with the extraction portion having an absolute bank angle of less than 15°, based on the additional teachings of Pawliszyn (2015) that this provides flexibility in terms of which part of the substrate is placed directly in front of the mass spectrometer according to varying analysis requirements or to study inhomogeneous analyte distributions (Pawliszyn (2015), paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 16, Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2015) as applied to claim 11 discloses the method according to claim 11.
In addition, Pawliszyn (2015) discloses that the substrate comprises at least two sides (FIG. 3B, top and bottom sides of substrate 36),
the substrate comprises a fluid barrier on the second side (FIG. 3B, rightmost end of barrier 32) between the spray-ionization end (FIG. 3B, rightmost portion of end 38) and the holding end (FIG. 3B, portion of element 36 internal to element 32),
additional extracted molecules are adsorbed on a second extraction portion of the substrate between the fluid barrier and the spray-ionization end (paragraph 0067, lines 18-20),
and the method further comprises:
removing the desorption solvent from the solid substrate (paragraph 0067, lines 12-13; the desorption solvent is removed by gravity when the substrate is flipped),
repositioning the solid substrate to present the second side of the substrate in a substantially horizontal orientation (paragraph 0067, lines 12-13);
applying a desorption solvent to the second side of the solid substrate (paragraph 0067, lines 13-14);
desorbing molecules from the second side of the solid substrate (paragraph 0067, lines 13-14);
ionizing the desorbed molecules using an ionization source to expel ionized molecules from the spray-ionization end of the solid substrate (paragraph 0067, lines 15-17); and
analyzing the formed ions by mass spectrometry (paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2015) to include that the substrate comprises at least two sides, the substrate comprises a fluid barrier on the second side between the spray-ionization end and the holding end, additional extracted molecules are adsorbed on a second extraction portion of the substrate between the fluid barrier and the spray-ionization end, and the method further comprises: removing the desorption solvent from the solid substrate, repositioning the solid substrate to present the second side of the substrate in a substantially horizontal orientation; applying a desorption solvent to the second side of the solid substrate; desorbing molecules from the second side of the solid substrate; ionizing the desorbed molecules using an ionization source to expel ionized molecules from the spray-ionization end of the solid substrate; and analyzing the formed ions by mass spectrometry, based on the additional teachings of Pawliszyn (2015) that this enables reproducible and independent analysis of the same sample (Pawliszyn (2015), paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 18, Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2015) as applied to claim 11 discloses the method according to claim 11.
In addition, Dulay discloses a method for analyzing molecules in a sample (paragraph 0053), the method comprising:
holding a solid substrate in a substantially horizontal orientation (FIG. 8 shows substrate 808 held in a horizontal orientation during generation of ion plume 826), wherein the substrate comprises a spray-ionization end (FIG. 3A, element 108), a holding end (FIG. 3A, leftmost end of substrate 102, i.e., the end opposite end 108), and a fluid barrier (FIG. 3B, walls 302 of reservoir 106) that extends at least 0.5 mm above a surface of the substrate (paragraph 0063, lines 5-10) and is between the spray-ionization end and the holding end (FIG. 3A).
In addition, Pawliszyn (2015) discloses an extractive phase coating (paragraph 0022, lines 24-31; FIG. 3B, coating 38) between the fluid barrier (FIG. 3B, rightmost end of barrier 32) and the spray-ionization end (FIG. 3B, rightmost portion of end 38);
applying a sample solution to the extractive phase coating of the substrate (paragraph 0016, lines 5-7); and
removing the sample solution from the substrate to provide a solid substrate having molecules from the sample solution adsorbed thereon (paragraph 0016, lines 27-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Dulay in view of Pawliszyn (2015) to include an extractive phase coating between the fluid barrier and the spray-ionization end; applying a sample solution to the extractive phase coating of the substrate; and removing the sample solution from the substrate to provide a solid substrate having molecules from the sample solution adsorbed thereon, based on the additional teachings of Pawliszyn (2015) that the use of the extractive phase coating stabilizes extracted analytes and reduces undesirable artefacts (Pawliszyn (2015), paragraph 0011).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights