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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment filed 12/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13, 15 and 17-22 are pending and under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/17/2025
With regard applicant’s argument, see pages 6-7, with respect 35 USC 103 rejections have been considered and are at least partially persuasive, but are moot in light of new rejection/interpretation.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 lines 1 and 2 recites “a width of each” and “a length of each” which should read “the longitudinal opening width of the each” and “the lateral opening length of the each” respectively.
Claim 22 line 1 recites “wherein each of the plurality of openings” which should read “wherein the each of the plurality of openings”
Claim 22 line 2 recites “the longitudinal axis of the nozzle wall” which should read “a longitudinal axis of the nozzle wall”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 12, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowe (US 20200360180 A1) in view of Hahn et al (US 5346132 A).
Regarding claim 1, Stowe substantially teaches applicant’s claimed invention, and specifically discloses a device with every structural limitation of applicant’s invention (except for the limitation shown in italics and grayed-out) including:
a non-gravitational fluid delivery device (figure 1, applicator 15 with nozzle 37 illustrated in 7) for delivering fluid to an eye of a user, the device comprising:
a nozzle (figure 7, nozzle 37) comprising a nozzle wall (figure 7, wall 95), the nozzle wall having opposing interior and exterior nozzle surfaces (figure 7, internal surface 105 and external surface 115 ), the exterior nozzle surface having a longitudinal nozzle width (annotated figure 7, longitudinal width) and a lateral nozzle width (annotated figure 7, lateral width), the longitudinal nozzle width being greater than the lateral nozzle width (annotated figure 7, the longitudinal width being greater than the lateral width);
and a plurality of openings (figure 7, array of openings 85 disposed along the longitudinal width) dispersed along the longitudinal nozzle width through which the fluid is configured to be selectively delivered to the eye during use of the device (figures 24 and 25a-d [0091], the openings selectively delivers fluid, as shown figure 25c, upon trigger 305 receives a signal from controller 290 ), each opening of the plurality of openings extending through the nozzle wall (figure 7, each openings 90 extend through the wall 95) from a substantially rectangular entry port (figure 7, opening100) in the interior nozzle surface to a substantially rectangular exit port (figure 7, opening 110) in the exterior nozzle surface, the each opening of the plurality of openings having a longitudinal opening width that is less than a lateral opening length.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a mist generator, Hahn teaches openings forms substantially rectangular and the each opening of the plurality of opening having a longitudinal opening width that is less than a lateral opening length (figure 4 col 12 lines 40-47, elongated rectangular mist port 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 Stowe to incorporate the teachings of Hahn and provides the plurality of openings as claimed for the purpose of generating desired droplet pattern as taught by Hahn (col 12 lines 40-47). For instance, the claimed openings allows for a higher concentration of rectangular apertures within the limited surface area of the nozzle, directly increasing the total volumetric flow capacity while maintaining a compact nozzle profile.
Regarding claim 2, Stowe, as modified by Hahn, teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the longitudinal opening width of the each opening of the plurality of openings inwardly tapers from the entry port to the exit port (Stowe; figure 7 and [0056], the openings 90 inwardly tapers from 100 to 110)
Regarding claim 3, Stowe, as modified by Hahn, teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the each opening of the plurality of openings includes a substantially truncated pyramid shape (Stowe; as illustrated in the side view of figure 7, each openings 90 defines a substantially truncated pyramid shape extending from 100 to 110) as the each opening of the plurality of opening extends through the nozzle wall from the interior nozzle surface to the exterior nozzle surface.
Regarding Claim 12, Stowe, as modified by Hahn, teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein at least the nozzle is formed from at least one of polyethylene and polyethylene (Stowe; [0101] Nozzle 37 is polypropylene or polyethylene).
Regarding claim 21, Stowe, as modified by Hahn, teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the longitudinal opening width of the each of the plurality of openings substantially parallel to the longitudinal nozzle width is less than half of the lateral opening length of the each of the plurality of openings substantially parallel to the lateral nozzle width.
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 Stowe, as modified by Hahn, and provide the longitudinal opening width is substantially parallel to the longitudinal nozzle width, as a person of ordinary skill has a good reasons to peruse the known options (arrange the opening width parallel or perpendicular to the nozzle width) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success (arraigning higher concentration of rectangular apertures within the limited surface arear of the nozzle, directly increasing the total volumetric flow capacity while maintaining a compact nozzle profile), it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In the instant case, the modification involves obvious to try (see MPEP 2143E).
The combination is still silent as to the longitudinal nozzle width is less than half of the lateral opening length.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stowe, as modified by Hahn, such that the longitudinal nozzle width is less than half of the lateral opening length as such a modification would have been an obvious matter of design choice involving a change in size/proportion. A change in size/proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 MPEP SECTION). One of skill in the art motivated to do so for the purpose of arranging more rectangular openings within the limited surface of the nozzle to allow more robust spray array.
Regarding claim 22, Stowe, as modified by Hahn, teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the each of the plurality of openings has a longitudinal axis substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the nozzle wall.
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 Stowe, as modified by Hahn, and provide the plurality of openings has a longitudinal axis substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the nozzle wall, as a person of ordinary skill has a good reasons to peruse the known options (arraigning the axis in perpendicular or parrel) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success (arraigning higher concentration of rectangular apertures within the limited surface arear of the nozzle, directly increasing the total volumetric flow capacity while maintaining a compact nozzle profile), it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In the instant case, the modification involves obvious to try (see MPEP 2143E).
Claims 4, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowe (US 20200360180 A1) in view of Hahn et al (US 5346132 A), and in further view of Collins (US 20090192443 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Stowe, as modified by Hahn, teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the nozzle wall is arcuate along the longitudinal nozzle width.
In the same field of endeavor, namely ophthalmic fluid delivery device, Collins teaches wherein the nozzle wall is arcuate along the longitudinal nozzle width (figure 13c [0149] the mesh plate 156g generally convex).
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 Stowe, as modified by Hahn, to incorporate the teachings of Collins and provide the nozzle wall as claimed, for the purpose of increasing the field of dispersion of the fluid as taught by Collins ([0149]). Specifically, such a modification would enable the device to generate the spray pattern that accommodates the anatomical geometry of the human eye (i.e., the horizontal width of the eye being greater than its vertical height). This allows the complete coverage of the ocular surface without requiring the physical width of the nozzle to match the full width of the eye, thereby maintaining a compact device profile while optimizing the delivery of the drug to the target area.
Regarding Claim 10, Stowe, as modified by Hahn, teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the nozzle wall has a transverse wall thickness of about 500 micrometers or less (Collins; [0147] the mesh plate 156 measures 0.1 mm thick).
In the same field of endeavor, namely an ophthalmic fluid delivery device, Collins teaches wherein the nozzle wall has a transverse wall thickness of about 500 micrometers or less (Collins; [0147] the mesh plate 156 measures 0.1 mm thick).
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 Stowe, as modified by Hahn, to incorporate the teachings of Collins and provide the nozzle wall as claimed, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of providing desired volume, velocity and droplet size distribution as taught by Collins ([0147]).
Regarding Claim 11, Stowe, as modified by Hahn and Collins, teaches the device of claim 10
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the longitudinal opening width of each opening at the exit port is about 75 to about 90 micrometers, the lateral opening length of each opening at the exit port being about 1 to about 2 millimeters.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified Stowe, as modified by Hahn and Collins, to have the openings as claimed as claimed, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984) MPEP 2144.04 IV. One of the ordinary skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of generating liquid droplets having a desired shape and controlled volumetric flow rate for use in an ophthalmic drug-delivery device. Furthermore, applicant has not shown unexpected result from the dimension claimed, indicating simply that the dimension can be within the claimed range (application specification [0047]).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowe (US 20200360180 A1) in view of Hahn et al (US 5346132 A), and in further view of Selby et al (US 20220031975 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Stowe, as modified by Hahn, teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the openings are separated into a plurality of opening subgroups, a longitudinal distance between directly adjacent associated exit ports belonging to a single opening subgroup being less than a longitudinal distance between directly adjacent exit ports of two directly adjacent opening subgroups.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an ejector device, Selby teaches a perforated membrane (figure 8, 850) wherein the openings are separated into a plurality of opening subgroups (figure 8 and [0095] apertures in the membrane 850 are separated into arrays 851-853), a longitudinal distance between directly adjacent associated exit ports belonging to a single opening subgroup (figure 8, distance between apertures belong to the subarray 851 is less than the distance among the arrays 851-853) being less than a longitudinal distance between directly adjacent exit ports of two directly adjacent opening subgroups
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 Stowe, as modified by Hahn, to incorporate the teachings of Selby and provides the plurality of openings as claimed, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of generating desired fluid trajectory and fluid droplet distribution as taught by Selby ([0091]-[0094]), for example, closely spaced openings within each subgroup promote coalescence and thereby promote the target delivery of larger droplets ([0050]) without requiring concave nozzle surface.
Regarding Claim 6, Stowe, as modified by Hahn and Selby, teaches the device of claim 5.
The combination further teaches wherein fluid exiting the openings of a corresponding one of the plurality of opening subgroups is configured to coalesce into a single subgroup fluid stream in mid-air prior to contacting the eye (Selby; [0050]-[0051] and [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding Claim 7, Stowe, as modified by Hahn and Selby, teaches the device of claim 6.
The combination further teaches wherein the subgroup fluid stream of each opening subgroup is configured to remain substantially separate from the subgroup fluid stream of another opening subgroup until the subgroup fluid streams reach the eye (the combination teaches all the structure as claimed, which inherently encompasses the functional limitation here. As set forth in MPEP 2114, if an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness inherently teaches the functional limitation here. In the instant case, the combination teaches all the structural limitation as claimed in claims 1, 5 and 6, i.e., nozzle wall having plurality openings comprising substantially rectangular ports, the openings are separated into a plurality of opening subgroups, and space between openings in a single subgroup less than adjacent opening subgroups, and as a result the combination is fully capable of performing claimed function here).
Regarding Claim 8, Stowe, as modified by Hahn and Selby, teaches the device of claim 5.
The combination further teaches wherein each opening subgroup of the plurality of opening subgroup has at least two openings (Selby; [0095] and figure 8).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowe (US 20200360180 A1) in view of Hahn et al (US 5346132 A) and Selby et al (US 20220031975 A1), and in further view of Collins (US 20090192443 A1)
Regarding Claim 9, Stowe, as modified by Hahn and Selby, teaches the device of claim 5.
The combination does not teach wherein the nozzle wall is arcuate along the longitudinal nozzle width such that fluid exiting from a longitudinally outermost subgroup coalesces into a subgroup fluid stream in mid-air and travels at a non-perpendicular angle to a longitudinal direction.
In the same field of endeavor, namely ophthalmic fluid delivery device, Collins teaches, wherein the nozzle wall is arcuate along the longitudinal nozzle width (Collins; Collins; figure 13c and [0149], mesh plate 156 is generally convex along both longitudinal and lateral nozzle lengths)
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 Stowe, as modified by Hahn and Selby, to incorporate the teachings of Collins and provide the nozzle wall as claimed, for the purpose of increasing the field of dispersion of the fluid as taught by Collins ([0149]). Specifically, such a modification would enable the device to generate the spray pattern that accommodates the anatomical geometry of the human eye (i.e., the horizontal width of the eye being greater than its vertical height). This allows the complete coverage of the ocular surface without requiring the physical width of the nozzle to match the full width of the eye, thereby maintaining a compact device profile while optimizing the delivery of the drug to the target area.
Consequently, the combination inherently teaches the fluid exiting from a longitudinally outermost subgroup coalesces into a subgroup fluid stream in mid-air and travels at a non-perpendicular angle to a longitudinal direction (the combination teaches all the structure as claimed, which inherently encompasses the functional limitation here. As set forth in MPEP 2114, if an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness inherently teaches the functional limitation here. In the instant case, the combination teaches all the structural limitation as claimed in claims 1, 5 and 9, i.e., nozzle wall having plurality openings comprising substantially rectangular ports, the openings are separated into a plurality of opening subgroups, and space between openings in a single subgroup less than adjacent opening subgroups, nozzle was arcuate along the longitudinal nozzle width, the combination is fully capable of performing claimed function here).
Claims 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowe (US 20200360180 A1) in view of Selby et al (US 20220031975 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Stowe teaches a nozzle (figure 7, nozzle 37) for a fluid delivery device, the nozzle comprising:
a nozzle wall (figure 7, wall 95) comprising opposing interior and exterior nozzle surfaces (figure 7, internal and external surfaces 105 and 115), the exterior nozzle surface having a longitudinal nozzle width and a lateral nozzle width (annotated figure 7, longitudinal width and lateral width), the longitudinal nozzle width being greater than the lateral nozzle width (annotated figure 7, the longitudinal width being greater than the lateral width); and
a plurality of openings (figure 7, array of openings 85) dispersed along the longitudinal nozzle width, each opening (figure 7, opening 90) of the plurality of openings extending through the nozzle wall from an entry port (figure 7, 100) in the interior nozzle surface to an exit port (figure 7, 110) in the exterior nozzle surface, the plurality of openings being separated into opening subgroups, each opening subgroup comprising at least one of the plurality of openings, at least one of the opening subgroups comprising at least two of the plurality of openings, a longitudinal distance between directly adjacent corresponding exit ports of a corresponding opening subgroup being less than a longitudinal distance between directly adjacent exit ports of two directly adjacent opening subgroups.
Stowe does not teach the plurality of openings being separated into opening subgroups, each opening subgroup comprising at least one of the plurality of openings, at least one of the opening subgroups comprising at least two of the plurality of openings, a longitudinal distance between directly adjacent corresponding exit ports of a corresponding opening subgroup being less than a longitudinal distance between directly adjacent exit ports of two directly adjacent opening subgroups.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an ejector device, Selby teaches a perforated membrane (figure 8, 850) comprising openings being separated into opening subgroups (figure 8 and [0095] openings in arrays 851-853), each opening subgroup comprising at least one of the openings (Selby; [0095] and figure 8, each array comprising at least one opening), at least one of the opening subgroups comprising at least two of the openings (Selby; [0095] and figure 8, each array comprising at least two opening), a longitudinal distance between directly adjacent corresponding exit ports of a corresponding opening subgroup being less than a longitudinal distance between directly adjacent exit ports of two directly adjacent opening subgroups (figure 8, distance between apertures belong to subarray 851 is less than the distance between the arrays 851-853).
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 Collins to incorporate the teachings of Selby and provides the plurality of openings as claimed, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the for the purpose of generating desired fluid trajectory and fluid droplet distribution as taught by Selby ([0091]-[0094]), for example, closely spaced openings within each subgroup promote coalescence and thereby promote the target delivery of larger droplets without requiring a concave nozzle surface ([0050])
Regarding claim 17, Stowe, as modified by Selby, teaches the device of claim 13.
The combination further teaches wherein each of the openings have a longitudinal opening width that inwardly tapers from the entry port to the exit port such that the each openings has a substantially truncated pyramid shape as the each of the openings extends through the nozzle wall from the interior nozzle surface to the exterior nozzle surface (Stowe; as illustrated in the side view of figure 7, each openings 90 inwardly tapers from 100 to 110 and defines a substantially truncated pyramid shape extending from 100 to 110)
Regarding Claim 18, Stowe, as modified by Selby, teaches the nozzle of claim 13.
The combination further teaches wherein fluid exiting the openings of a corresponding opening subgroup is configured to coalesce into a single subgroup fluid stream in mid-air prior to contacting the eye (Selby; [0050]-[0051] and [0055]-[0056], the droplets ejected from a single subgroup configured to coalesce)
Regarding Claim 19, Stowe, as modified by Selby, teaches the nozzle of claim 18.
The combination further teaches wherein the subgroup fluid stream of each opening subgroup is configured to not substantially coalesce with the subgroup fluid stream of another opening subgroup until the subgroup fluid streams reach the eye (the combination teaches all the structure as claimed, which inherently encompasses the functional limitation here. As set forth in MPEP 2114, if an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness inherently teaches the functional limitation here. In the instant case, the combination teaches all the structural limitation as claimed in claims 13 and 18, i.e., nozzle wall having plurality openings are separated into a plurality of opening subgroups, and space between openings in a single subgroup less than adjacent opening subgroups, the combination is fully capable of performing claimed function here).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowe (US 20200360180 A1) in view of Selby et al (US 20220031975 A1), and in further view of Hahn et al (US 5346132 A).
Regarding claim 15, Stowe, as modified by Selby, teaches the nozzle of claim 13.
The combination does not teach wherein at least one of the openings has a longitudinal opening width that is less than a lateral opening length.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a mist generator, Hahn teaches wherein at least one of the openings has a longitudinal opening width that is less than a lateral opening length (figure 4 col 12 lines 40-47, elongated rectangular mist port 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 Stowe, as modified by Selby, to incorporate the teachings of Hahn and provides the plurality of openings as claimed for the purpose of generating desired droplet pattern as taught by Hahn (col 12 lines 40-47). For instance, the claimed openings allows for a higher concentration of rectangular apertures within the limited surface area of the nozzle, directly increasing the total volumetric flow capacity while maintaining a compact nozzle profile.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowe (US 20200360180 A1) in view of Selby et al (US 20220031975 A1), and in further view of Collins (US 20090192443 A1)
Regarding Claim 20, Stowe, as modified by Selby, teaches the nozzle of claim 13.
The combination does not teach wherein the nozzle wall is arcuate along the longitudinal nozzle width such that fluid exiting from a longitudinally outermost subgroup coalesces into a subgroup fluid stream in mid-air and travels at a non-perpendicular angle to a longitudinal direction.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an ophthalmic fluid delivery device, Collins teaches wherein the nozzle wall is arcuate along the longitudinal nozzle width (Collins; figure 13c and [0149], mesh plate 156 is generally convex along the both longitudinal and lateral nozzle lengths)
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 Stowe, as modified by Selby, to incorporate the teachings of Collins and provide the nozzle wall as claimed, for the purpose of increasing the field of dispersion of the fluid as taught by Collins ([0149]). Specifically, such a modification would enable the device to generate the spray pattern that accommodates the anatomical geometry of the human eye (i.e., the horizontal width of the eye being greater than its vertical height). This allows the complete coverage of the ocular surface without requiring the physical width of the nozzle to match the full width of the eye, thereby maintaining a compact device profile while optimizing the delivery of the drug to the target area.
Consequently the combination inherently teaches that fluid exiting from a longitudinally outermost subgroup coalesces into a subgroup fluid stream in mid-air and travels at a non-perpendicular angle to a longitudinal direction (the combination teaches all the structure as claimed, which inherently encompasses the functional limitation here. As set forth in MPEP 2114, if an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness inherently teaches the functional limitation here. In the instant case, the combination teaches all the structural limitation as claimed in claims 13 and 20, i.e., nozzle wall having plurality openings dispersed along the longitudinal nozzle width, the plurality of openings being separated into opening subgroups, and space between openings in a single subgroup less than adjacent opening subgroups, nozzle was arcuate along the longitudinal nozzle width, the combination is fully capable of performing claimed function here).
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 SETH HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2545. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781