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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 11, 15, and 19 have been amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1, 3-20 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Schultz alone or in combination with Davies for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new grounds of rejection is made referencing newly cited Schofield which teaches at least two relief paths.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, ln. 13 should read ---at least one of the passageway---
Claim 11, ln. 12 should read --- at least one of the passageway---
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz (Pub. No.: US 2014/0276651 A1) and further in view of Schofield (US Pat. No.: 4,347,878).
Regarding claim 1, Schultz discloses (fig. 1-2, 5A) a fluid transfer shield (reduced-touch contamination device 102) to facilitate transferring fluid from a first container (syringe 103) to a secondary container (¶ 0080), the fluid transfer shield comprising:
A shield (luer locking collar 116) having an exterior and defining an interior space (fig. 5);
A first port (see portion comprising female luer-type connector 110) extending from the exterior of the shield (fig. 5A), the first port configured to be fluidly coupled to the first container (¶ 0078-¶ 0079);
A second port (male 6% conical fitting 125 with a male distal tip 104) extending opposite the first port (fig. 5A), partially along an axial length of the shield (fig. 5A), and into the interior space of the shield so that the shield laterally surrounds the second port (fig. 5A), the second port configured to be fluidly coupled to the secondary container (¶ 0080); and
A passageway extending between the first port and the second port fluidly coupling the first container and the second container when the first container is fluidly coupled to the first port and the secondary container is fluidly coupled to the second port (fig. 2, 5A, ¶ 0080).
Schultz fails to disclose wherein the second port includes at least two relief paths to allow airflow from the interior space to or from at least one of the passage or the second port.
Schofield teaches (fig. 1-3) an analogous fluid transfer device (funnel 10) comprising: a second port (central section 22), wherein the second port includes at least two relief paths (air vents 36, 38, col. 4, ln. 12-21) configured to define flow paths for passage of air so as to facilitate rapid and easy filling (col. 4, ln. 34-38).
While the funnel taught by Schofield is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (See § MPEP 2141.01(a) I). Further, in a simple mechanical invention, a broad spectrum of prior art must be explored and it is reasonable to permit inquiry into other areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that similar problems exist (Stevenson v. Int’l Trade Comm. See § MPEP 2141.01(a) IV). The claimed invention provides a relief path in order to effectively release air from the secondary container during a fluid transfer process so that the fluid flows smoothly (¶ 0056) and one skilled in the blood transfer art trying to solve that problem would have looked in the funnel art as the funnel art similarly pertains to the transfer of fluid; therefore, the funnel of Schofield is analogous art to the claimed invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second port of Schultz such that it includes at least two relief paths, as taught by Schofield, which would allow airflow from the interior space to or from at least one of the passageway or the second port, in order to define flow paths for passage of air so as to facilitate rapid and easy filling (Schofield col. 4, ln. 34-38).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above in claim 11, it would have been obvious to modify the second port of Schultz such that it includes the at least two relief paths of Schofield. Schultz in view of Schofield further disclose wherein the at least two relief paths are formed by a pair of planar faces (Schofield, flat sides 32, 34) on opposing sides of the second port (Schofield, col. 4, ln. 9-21), the pair of planar faces configured to form a channel between an exterior surface of the second port and an interior of a secondary container (Schofield, filler pipe 12) when the secondary container is engaged with the second port (Schofield, fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 7, Schultz discloses wherein the second port includes an interior surface that defines the passageway and an exterior surface (fig. 5A), the exterior surface having a tapered geometry so that a distal end of the second port is narrower than a proximal end of the second port (the second port is a male 6% conical fitting, ¶ 0009, ¶ 0073).
Regarding claim 8, Shultz discloses wherein the first port includes a female luer lock connector configured to receive a syringe (103) having a male luer lock connector as a first container to fluidly couple the syringe to the first port via the luer lock connector (¶ 0078-¶ 0079).
Regarding claim 11, Shultz discloses (fig. 1-2, 5A) a blood transfer shield (reduced-touch contamination device 102, see table 2) for fluidly coupling a syringe (103) to a secondary container (¶ 0080), the blood transfer shield comprising:
A shield (luer locking collar 116) having a cylindrical body and a base that defines an opening at a first end of the cylindrical body (fig. 5A);
A passageway extending through the cylindrical body of the shield, the passageway formed at a second end of the cylindrical body opposite the base (fig. 5A);
A first port (see portion comprising female luer-type connector 110) that forms a first end of the passageway (fig. 5A), the first port configured to securely engage the syringe to fluidly couple the syringe to the passageway (fig. 2, ¶ 0078-¶ 0080); and
A second port (male 6% conical fitting 125 with a male distal tip 104) extending opposite the first port (fig. 5A), partially within an interior space defined by a lateral sidewall of the shield (fig. 5A, ¶ 0074).
Schultz fails to disclose wherein the second port includes at least two relief paths to allow airflow from the interior space to or from at least one of the passage or the second port.
Schofield teaches (fig. 1-3) an analogous fluid transfer device (funnel 10) comprising: a second port (central section 22), wherein the second port includes at least two relief paths (air vents 36, 38, col. 4, ln. 12-21) configured to define flow paths for passage of air so as to facilitate rapid and easy filling (col. 4, ln. 34-38).
While the funnel taught by Schofield is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (See § MPEP 2141.01(a) I). Further, in a simple mechanical invention, a broad spectrum of prior art must be explored and it is reasonable to permit inquiry into other areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that similar problems exist (Stevenson v. Int’l Trade Comm. See § MPEP 2141.01(a) IV). The claimed invention provides a relief path in order to effectively release air from the secondary container during a fluid transfer process so that the fluid flows smoothly (¶ 0056) and one skilled in the blood transfer art trying to solve that problem would have looked in the funnel art as the funnel art similarly pertains to the transfer of fluid; therefore, the funnel of Schofield is analogous art to the claimed invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second port of Schultz such that it includes at least two relief paths, as taught by Schofield, which would allow airflow from the interior space to or from at least one of the passageway or the second port, in order to define flow paths for passage of air so as to facilitate rapid and easy filling (Schofield col. 4, ln. 34-38).
Regarding claim 12, Schultz discloses wherein the second port forms a second end of the passageway (fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 13, Schultz discloses wherein the second port defines an exterior surface opposite the passageway (fig. 5A), the exterior surface configured to be inserted into an opening of the secondary container to fluidly couple the secondary container with the passageway (the second port is a male distal tip, ¶ 0073).
Regarding claim 14, as discussed above in claim 11, it would have been obvious to modify the second port of Schultz such that it includes the at least two relief paths of Schofield. Schultz in view of Schofield further disclose wherein the exterior surface includes a first pair of faces (Schofield, upper surface 24 and lower surface 26) and a second pair of faces (Schofield, flat sides 32 and 34), the first pair of faces configured as curved surfaces that extend along the second port in an axial direction (Schofield, fig. 3, col. 3, ln. 35-37) and the second pair of faces configured as flat surfaces that extend along the second port in the axial direction (Schofield, fig. 3, col. 4, ln. 9-11).
Regarding claim 15, as discussed above in claim 11, it would have been obvious to modify the second port of Schultz such that it includes the at least two relief paths of Schofield. Schultz in view of Schofield further disclose wherein the second pair of faces are configured to form the at least two relief paths when a secondary container (filler pipe 12) is coupled with a passageway (Schofield col. 4, ln. 15-21).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Schofield, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Iibuchi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0008513 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Schultz in view of Schofield fail to disclose a flange extending radially from the exterior of the shield proximate a base of the shield.
Iibuchi teaches (fig. 1-5) a fluid transfer shield (resin hollow needle 1) and thus in the same field of endeavor comprising: a flange (two ribs 8a, 8b) extending radially from an exterior of a shield (hub section 5) proximate to a base of the shield (fig. 1, 5) in order to provide a portion of the shield to be used as a portion to be screwed when being screwed with a threaded portion of another medical device (¶ 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exterior shield of Schultz in view of Schofield such that it includes a flange proximate to a base of the shield, as taught by Iibuchi, in order to provide a portion of the shield to be used as a portion to be screwed when being screwed with a threaded portion of another medical device (Iibuchi ¶ 0053).
Regarding claim 5, Schultz in view of Schofield and further in view of Iibuchi fail to disclose wherein first and second support ribs extend from the exterior of the shield to the flange to rigidly support the flange.
Iibuchi further teaches wherein first and second support ribs (protrusions 9a, 9b) extend from the exterior of the shield to the flange (fig. 1, ¶ 0053) in order to provide a grip portion such that it is easy to screw the shield with another medical device (¶ 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid transfer shield of Schultz in view of Schofield and further in view of Iibuchi such that it includes first and second support ribs extend from the exterior of the shield to the flange to rigidly support the flange, as taught by Iibuchi, in order to provide a grip portion such that it is easy to screw the shield with another medical device (Iibuchi ¶ 0053).
While Schultz in view of Schofield and further in view of Iibuchi fail to disclose that the ribs extend exterior of the shield to the flange to “rigidly support the flange”, such limitation of claim 5 relate to the intended use of the system, which, in this case, imparts no further limitations on the structure of the device. The ribs of Schutlz in view of Schofield and further in view of Iibuchi are capable of rigidly supporting the flange and using the device for this purpose requires only routine skill in the art (See § MPEP 2114 II).
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above in claim 4, it would have been obvious to modify the fluid transfer device of Schultz in view of Schofield such that it includes the flange of Iibuchi. Schultz in view of Schofield and further in view of Iibuchi disclose wherein a perimeter of the fluid transfer shield that includes the shield and the flange adjacent to the base of the shield forms an oblong footprint (Iibuchi fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Schultz in view of Schofield fail to disclose a flange extending radially from the cylindrical body of the shield adjacent to the opening; and first and second buttresses extending downward from the second end of the cylindrical end of the cylindrical body to the flange.
Iibuchi teaches (fig. 1-5) a fluid transfer shield (resin hollow needle 1) and thus in the same field of endeavor comprising: a flange (two ribs 8a, 8b) extending radially from a cylindrical body a shield (hub section 5) adjacent to an opening (lumen-like portion 15, fig. 5); and first and second buttresses (protrusions 9a, 9b) extending downward from the second end of the cylindrical body to the flange (fig. 1, ¶ 0053), the flange and first and second buttresses configured to be gripped so as to facilitate screwing (¶ 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blood transfer shield of Schultz in view of Schofield such that it includes a flange extending radially from the cylindrical body of the shield adjacent to the opening; and first and second buttresses extending downward from the second end of the cylindrical end of the cylindrical body to the flange, as taught by Iibuchi, in order to provide a portion to be gripped so as to facilitate screwing (¶ 0053).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Schofield, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0014616 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Schultz in view of Schofield fail to disclose wherein the second port extends between approximately 7 millimeters and 11 millimeters into the interior space and the shield defines a body height between approximately 16 and 24 mm.
Davis teaches (fig. 3A-3D) a fluid transfer shield (enteral adapter coupling 30) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising a shield (collar 44) having an exterior and defining an interior space (fig. 3D) and a second port (first end 40) extending into the interior space of the shield (fig. 3D).
Davis teaches that the interior space has a diameter of larger than 10.23 mm while the diameter of the second port is 5.41 mm (¶ 0057). Since the diameter of the interior space can be larger than 10.23 mm, it can be between 19.41 mm and 32.82 mm, thus resulting in the second port extending between 7 mm and 11 mm. Davis further teaches the shield having a body height of 6.82 mm or greater (¶ 0057) which overlaps with the claimed range of between approximately 16 and 24 mm, such dimensions configured to dimension the second port and shield to receive the secondary container (Davis, ¶ 0056-¶ 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second port of Schultz in view of Schofield such that it extends between approximately 7 millimeters and 11 millimeters into the interior space and the shield defines a body height between approximately 16 and 24 mm, as suggested by Davis, in order to dimension the second port and shield to receive the secondary container (Davis, ¶ 0056-¶ 0057).
In this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 10, Schultz in view of Schofield fails to disclose wherein an opening diameter of the shield is between approximately 14 mm and 22 mm and an overall height of the fluid transfer shield in an axial direction is between 22 mm and 33 mm.
Davis teaches (fig. 3A-3D) a fluid transfer shield (enteral adapter coupling 30) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising a shield (collar 44) having an exterior and defining an interior space (fig. 3D).
Davis teaches that an opening diameter of the shield can be larger than 10.23 mm (¶ 0057) which overlaps with the claimed range of between approximately 14 mm and 22 mm, such dimensions configured to dimension the second port and shield to receive the secondary container (Davis, ¶ 0056-¶ 0057).. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opening of the diameter of the shield of Schultz in view of Schofield such that it is between approximately 14 mm and 22 mm, as taught by Davis, in order to configure the fluid transfer shield to receive the secondary container (Davis, ¶ 0056-¶ 0057).
In this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I.).
Further, Davis teaches that the fluid transfer shield has an extension portion (70) to vary the length of the fluid transfer shield as desired for engagement with equipment (¶ 0056). Thus, Davis discloses that the length of the fluid transfer shield is a result-effective variable and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention optimize the fluid transfer shield of Schultz such that it has an overall height of the fluid transfer shield in an axial direction is between 22 mm and 33 mm, as taught by Davis, in order configure the fluid transfer shield for engagement with desired equipment.
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Schultz discloses wherein the second port is tapered so that a respective distal end is narrower than a respective proximal end of the second port (the second port is a male 6% conical fitting, ¶ 0009, ¶ 0073).
Schultz in view of Schofield fail to disclose that the first port is tapered so that a respective distal end is narrower than a respective proximal end of the first port.
Davis teaches (fig. 3A-3D) a fluid transfer shield (enteral adapter coupling 30) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising a first port (second end 50), the first port is tapered so that a respective distal end is narrower than a respective proximal end of the first port (¶ 0008) in order to configure the first port to mate with and connect with a coupling (¶ 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first port of Schultz in view of Schofield such that it is tapered so that a respective distal end is narrower than a respective proximal end of the first port, as taught by Davis, in order to configure the first port to mate with and connect with a coupling (Davis ¶ 0008).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Schofield, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Di Ubaldi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0289941 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Schultz in view of Schofield fail to disclose wherein the shield comprises a semi-translucent polymer.
Di Ubaldi teaches (fig. 1-3) a transfer shield (connector 100) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising a semi-translucent polymer (¶ 0039) in order to configure the device to be used in low-lighting environments (¶ 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shield of Schultz such that it comprises the semi-translucent polymer of Di Ubaldi, in order to configure the device to be used in low-lighting environments (Di Ubaldi ¶ 0039).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyle in view of Schultz and further in view of Schofield.
Regarding claim 19, Kyle discloses (fig. 1-2) a method of transferring blood (fluid 38, ¶ 0047) from a first container (second syringe 16) to a secondary container (first syringe 12), the method comprising:
Drawing blood (fluid 38, ¶ 0047) into the first container (second syringe 16 is provided with a volume of fluid, which may have been transferred by positioning a tip element into fluid, ¶ 0044);
Fluidly coupling the first container to a first port (second end 24) of a blood transfer shield (connector component 20) (the second syringe 16 is inserted into the second end ¶ 0045), the first port extending from an exterior surface of the blood transfer shield (fig. 1);
Fluidly coupling the secondary container to a second port (first end 32) of the blood transfer shield (the first syringe is inserted into the first end 32, ¶ 0044); and
Expelling blood from the first container into the secondary container via a passageway (channel 36) (¶ 0046).
Kyle fails to disclose the second port extending partially within an interior space defined by a lateral sidewall of a shield of the blood transfer device.
Schultz teaches discloses (fig. 1-2, 5A) a method of transferring fluid from a first container to a secondary container (¶ 0080) and thus in the same field of endeavor, the method comprising a blood transfer shield (reduced-touch contamination device 102) comprising a second port (male 6% conical fitting 125 with a male distal tip 104) extending partially within an interior space defined by a lateral sidewall of a shield (luer locking collar 116) of the blood transfer shield (fig. 5A), such configuration reducing a fluid-path contamination potential (¶ 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kyle such that the second port extends partially within an interior space defined by a lateral sidewall of a shield, as taught by Schultz, in order to reduce fluid-path contamination potential (Schultz, ¶ 0074).
Kyle in view of Schultz fail to disclose the second port including at least two relief paths to allow airflow from the interior space to or from at least one of the second port or a passageway extending between the first port and the second port.
Schofield teaches (fig. 1-3) an analogous method of transferring fluid from a first container to second container (abstract) comprising: a second port (central section 22), wherein the second port includes at least two relief paths (air vents 36, 38, col. 4, ln. 12-21) configured to define flow paths for passage of air so as to facilitate rapid and easy filling (col. 4, ln. 34-38).
While the method taught by Schofield is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, the method taught by Schofield is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (See § MPEP 2141.01(a) I). Further, in a simple mechanical invention, a broad spectrum of prior art must be explored and it is reasonable to permit inquiry into other areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that similar problems exist (Stevenson v. Int’l Trade Comm. See § MPEP 2141.01(a) IV). The claimed invention provides a relief path in order to effectively release air from the secondary container during a fluid transfer process so that the fluid flows smoothly (¶ 0056) and one skilled in the blood transfer art trying to solve that problem would have looked in the funnel art as the funnel art similarly pertains to the transfer of fluid; therefore, the method of Schofield is analogous art to the claimed invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second port of Kyle in view of Schultz such that it includes at least two relief paths, as taught by Schofield, which would allow airflow from the interior space to or from at least one of the passageway or the second port, in order to define flow paths for passage of air so as to facilitate rapid and easy filling (Schofield col. 4, ln. 34-38).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyle in view of Schultz and further in view of Schofield, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Davis.
Regarding claim 20, Kyle in view of Schultz and further in view of Schofield fail to disclose wherein fluidly coupling the first container to the secondary container includes twisting the first container relative to the blood transfer shield.
Davis teaches (fig. 4A-4F) a method of transferring fluid from a first container to a second container (¶ 0009) and thus in the same field of endeavor, wherein fluidly coupling the first container to the second container includes twisting the first container relative to a blood transfer shield (adapter coupling 130, ¶ 0071) as the use of threads is commonly used for luer-type couplings (¶ 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kyle in view of Schultz and further in view of Schofield such that wherein fluidly coupling the first container to the secondary container includes twisting the first container relative to the blood transfer shield, as taught by Davis, as the use of threads is commonly used for luer-type couplings (Davis ¶ 0055).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Deussen et al. (US Pat. No.: 4,926,915) discloses a device having a ventilating groove. Choksi et al. (US Pat. No.: 4,058,121) discloses a device having a venting groove.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEAGAN NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1586. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 8:00 - 4:00 PT.
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.
/MEAGAN NGO/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights