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 .
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
Group 1, claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 12-16, 18, is drawn to a reservoir device.
Group 2, claim(s) 19, 25, 29-30, 34, drawn to a cell encapsulation device with a gas permeable membrane.
Group 3, claim(s) 48, 52, 56-57, 62, drawn to a cell encapsulation device with two gas permeable membrane.
Group 4, claim(s) 74-75, 77, drawn to a system.
Group 5, claim(s) 78-84, drawn to a method of delivering a therapeutic agent.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The groups lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature. The groups have different special technical features regarding the reservoir device and the cell encapsulation device.
Additionally, the groups lack unity of invention because the technical features of claim 1 is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art of Vardi et al. (US 20040133188 A1, herein Vardi)
Regarding claim 1, Vardi discloses a reservoir device for providing oxygen to encapsulated cells (The device comprises an oxygen generator i.e. an element that can produce oxygen and make it available to the cells [0007]), the device comprising:
a reservoir (chamber 400 in Fig. 3A) suitable for enclosing a liquid (cells, cell clusters or tissue pieces may be dispersed in a liquid medium or matrix within the chamber [0013]);
a liquid contained within the reservoir, wherein the liquid is permeable to gas (The oxygen produced by photosynthesis in photosynthetic cells 135 is released from the photosynthetic cells 135 and diffuses through the inner membrane 110 into the annular space 115 and is thus made available to the functional cells 120 [0030]; it is understood that the oxygen permeates from cell 135 to cell 120 through the liquid medium);
and an oxygen-generating compound (The photosynthetic cells 135 constitute an oxygen generator [0027]), wherein said oxygen-generating compound is immersed in the liquid contained within the reservoir (photosynthetic cells 135 in chamber 400 in Fig. 3).
Furthermore, the groups lack unity of invention because the technical features of claim 19 is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art of O'cearbhaill et al. (WO 2018219590 A1, herein O'cearbhaill).
Regarding claim 19, O'cearbhaill discloses that A cell encapsulation device (1 in Fig. 7) comprising
a gas permeable membrane (inner microporous barrier layer 3 formed from two sheets of PDMS 3A and 3B; last paragraph of page 32) having proximal and distal ends (does not explicitly show the ends but we can use an annotated figure and say side of 2A is distal and side of 5 is proximal; last paragraph of page 32), said gas permeable membrane enclosing an inner space that extends longitudinally (shape of device is longitudinal in Fig. 7; last paragraph of page 32) between the proximal and distal ends of the gas permeable membrane, wherein the inner space is at least partially filled with air (The microporous inner membrane 3 has porosity tailored to allow metabolites such as oxygen, middle paragraph of page a34);
and a hydrogel layer (a macroporous scaffold formed from a polymer [i.e. an elastomer or hydrogel], last paragraph of page 21) covering an outer surface of the gas permeable membrane (outer macroporous barrier layer 2 comprising two sheets of liquid coil rope scaffold 2A and 2B; last paragraph of page 32).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 from O'cearbhaill
During a telephone conversation with the Applicant on January 29th, 2026, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 12-16, 18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim(s) 19, 25, 29-30, 34, 48, 52, 56-57, 62, 74-75, 77, 78-84, withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant does not present any arguments to the restriction of Groups 2, 3 and 5 from Group 1, but argues that no burden would exist to examine the claims of both Groups 1 and 4 because Groups 1 and 4 are related as combination-subcombination. This is not found persuasive because under 35 U.S.C 371, combination-subcombination is not applicable to national stage applications. Therefore, Groups 2, 3, 4 and 5 are restricted from Group 1.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 because Figures 1A-39E is/are black and white photographs. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. The photos show mechanical devices where line drawings are practicable. Applicant is advised to replace the photographs with acceptable line drawings showing the claimed features with appropriate reference numerals, or explain why line drawings are not practicable. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 (p) because the text in
Figure 1A-39E is unclear to be legible upon reproduction. Corrected replacement drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 are required.
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the reservoir device of claim 1, the gas permeable membrane of claim 4 and the wall of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to for the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, “the device” should be corrected to “the reservoir device” for claim language consistency.
In claim 1, “a liquid contained within the reservoir” in line 4 and “the liquid contained within the reservoir” in line 6 should be corrected to “the liquid” for claim language consistency.
In claim 9, line 2, “the liquid of the reservoir” should be corrected to “the liquid” for claim language consistency.
In claim 14, line 2, “the device” should be corrected to “the reservoir device” for claim language consistency.
In claim 15, line 2, “the device” should be corrected to “the reservoir device” for claim language consistency.
In claim 18, line 2-3, the term “the” should be inserted before “oxygen generating compound” and “liquid” as these phrases were previously introduced.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/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 8 requires the lone oxygen-generating compound to comprise 4 compounds and a combination of these 4 compounds. This differs in scope from the specification since the specification points out that only one of these compounds is required. Therefore, the scope of the claim differs from the scope supported by the specification so it is unclear how to interpret the claim in light of the specification. For the sake of examination, claim 8 is interpreted to recite “wherein the oxygen-generating compounds comprises a compound selected from lithium peroxide, sodium peroxide, potassium peroxide, potassium superoxide, and combinations thereof”. Applicant is therefore suggested to amend claim 8 to overcome rejection.
Claim 13 suffers the same issue as claim 8 since the claim recites that the wall must comprise 13 different materials as well as the combinations of these 13 materials. For the sake of examination, claim 13 is interpreted to recite “wherein the wall comprises a material selected from a biocompatible resin, a medical grade alloy, titanium, titanium alloy, stainless steel, cobalt chrome alloy, nickel titanium alloy, gold, platinum, silver, iridium, tantalum, tungsten, and combinations thereof.” Applicant is therefore suggested to amend claim 13 to overcome rejection.
Furthermore, claim 13, lines 1-3, recites “a biocompatible resin, a medical grade alloy, titanium, titanium alloy, stainless steel, cobalt chrome alloy, nickel titanium alloy, gold, platinum, silver, iridium, tantalum, tungsten, and combinations thereof”. Claim 13 is dependent on claim 12, however it is unclear if the materials in claim 13 refer to “a biocompatible material” of claim 12 or introduce new materials. For the sake of examination and in light of specification, the materials in this claim is being interpreted to refer to the “biocompatible material” of claim 12. Therefore, the Applicant is suggested to amend claim 13 to overcome rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 10, 12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Vardi (US 20040133188 A1, herein Vardi).
Regarding claim 1, Vardi discloses a reservoir device for providing oxygen to encapsulated cells (The device comprises an oxygen generator i.e. an element that can produce oxygen and make it available to the cells [0007]), the device comprising:
a reservoir (chamber 400 in Fig. 3A) suitable for enclosing a liquid (cells, cell clusters or tissue pieces may be dispersed in a liquid medium or matrix within the chamber [0013]);
a liquid contained within the reservoir, wherein the liquid is permeable to gas (The oxygen produced by photosynthesis in photosynthetic cells 135 is released from the photosynthetic cells 135 and diffuses through the inner membrane 110 into the annular space 115 and is thus made available to the functional cells 120 [0030]; it is understood that the oxygen permeates from cell 135 to cell 120 through the liquid medium);
and an oxygen-generating compound (The photosynthetic cells 135 constitute an oxygen generator [0027]), wherein said oxygen-generating compound is immersed in the liquid contained within the reservoir (photosynthetic cells 135 in chamber 400 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Vardi disclosed all limitations of claim 1. Vardi further disclosed wherein the reservoir further comprises an opening (see annotated Fig. 3A, oxygen sensor is inserted into the chamber 400, which can be interpreted as the chamber walls having an opening to allow sensor inside).
PNG
media_image2.png
318
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3A from Vardi
Regarding claim 7, Vardi disclosed all limitations of claim 1. Vardi further discloses wherein the oxygen-generating compound reacts with carbon dioxide to release oxygen (the oxygen generator comprises photosynthetic cells that convert carbon dioxide to oxygen [0009]).
Regarding claim 10, Vardi disclosed all limitations of claim 1. Vardi further discloses wherein the reservoir comprises a wall enclosing the liquid (The chamber has walls, which are permeable to nutrients needed by the cells [0008]; also surface 405 in Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 12, Vardi disclosed all limitations of claim 1. Vardi further discloses wherein the wall comprises a biocompatible material (The encapsulating material is selected so as to be biocompatible [0004]).
Regarding claim 14, Vardi disclosed all limitations of claim 1. Vardi further discloses wherein the device comprises a flattened configuration, a cylindrical configuration, a rectangular configuration or combinations thereof (a chamber 400 that is formed as a thin planar or wafer-like shape [0038]; see also chamber 400 in Fig. 3A which is rectangular in shape).
Regarding claim 15, Vardi disclosed all limitations of claim 1. Vardi further discloses wherein the device is configured for subcutaneous placement in a subject, preperitoneal placement in a subject, transperitoneal placement in a subject, transcutaneous placement in a subject, and/or intraperitoneal placement in a subject (chamber 400 that is formed as a thin planar or wafer-like shape that is implanted in the body close to the skin 402 [0038]).
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over by Vardi (US 20040133188 A1, herein Vardi) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Vardi disclosed all limitations of claim 1. However, Vardi failed to explicitly disclose wherein the reservoir comprises a plurality of openings.
Vardi however teaches the chamber has walls, which are permeable to nutrients needed by the cells [0008]. It can be interpreted by those skilled in the art that the chamber walls necessarily include micro pathways or openings for nutrients to enter the chamber due to the walls being permeable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the reservoir device to include chamber walls that are permeable as taught by Vardi which may function as having multiple openings to allow exchange between the interior and exterior of the chamber. Such modification constitutes a routine and predictable design choice (See MPEP 2144.VI.C).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 6, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over by Vardi (US 20040133188 A1, herein Vardi) and in further view of Ferrante et al. (US 20180133383 A1, herein Ferrante).
Regarding claim 4, Vardi disclosed all limitations of claim 2. Vardi however fails to explicitly disclose wherein the opening is capped with a gas permeable membrane.
However, Ferrante teaches that percutaneous gas diffusion device 100 may comprise a core layer 101 [0079]. Core layer 101 may comprise a material or composite of materials that are liquid-impermeable and gas-permeable. In this manner, for example, ambient air or external gases may diffuse through core layer 101 to an inlet port of a subcutaneously-implanted EOC or EOG device [0080].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reservoir device of Vardi with Ferrante to include wherein the opening is capped with a gas permeable membrane since such a modification may allow the device to be permeable to gas while being impermeable to external liquid contaminants and provide a barrier to microorganisms [0080]. Such reasoning is consistent with known engineering principles and represents a predictable design choice (See MPEP 2144.03)
Regarding claim 5, Vardi as modified by Ferrante disclosed all limitations of claim 4. Vardi however failed to explicitly disclose wherein the gas permeable membrane is permeable to oxygen and carbon dioxide.
However, Ferrante teaches that the inner layer (or core layer or core) may comprise a gas-permeable layer or gas-permeable composite of layers, through which one or more gases including, but not limited to, oxygen, nitrogen, nitric oxide, hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and water vapor may diffuse [0073].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reservoir device of Vardi with Ferrante to include wherein the gas permeable membrane is permeable to oxygen and carbon dioxide since such a modification may allow the device to facilitate gas exchange while preventing migration of liquid water, which may carry contaminants [0073]. Such reasoning is consistent with known engineering principles and represents a predictable design choice (See MPEP 2144.03)
Regarding claim 6, Vardi as modified by Ferrante disclosed all limitations of claim 4. Vardi however failed to explicitly disclose wherein the gas permeable membrane comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), silicone-based membrane and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
However, Ferrante teaches that materials that may be used as core layer 101 or as a component of core layer 101 may include, but are not limited to, porous polymers (e.g., silicone foam, urethane foam, sintered polyethylene, sintered polypropylene, sintered PVDF, sintered PTFE), non-porous, gas-permeable materials (e.g., silicone membranes), and combinations thereof [0080].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reservoir device of Vardi with Ferrante to include wherein the gas permeable membrane comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), silicone-based membrane and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) since such a modification may allow the material of the device to integrate with tissue and form a barrier that minimize risk of infection [0072]. Such reasoning is consistent with known engineering principles and represents a predictable design choice (See MPEP 2144.03).
Regarding claim 13, Vardi disclosed all limitations of claim 12. Vardi however failed to explicitly disclose wherein the wall comprises a biocompatible resin, a medical grade alloy, titanium, titanium alloy, stainless steel, cobalt chrome alloy, nickel titanium alloy, gold, platinum, silver, iridium, tantalum, tungsten, and combinations thereof.
However, Ferrante teaches materials that may be suitable for use as the one or more intermediate layers may include, but are not limited to, silicone membranes; microporous membranes formed from PTFE, PVDF, polyethersulfone, and polyethylene terephthalate; flexible non-porous materials, such as PTFE, polyethylene, and polypropylene; and rigid, non-porous materials including polyether ether ketone (PEEK), other biocompatible polymers, ceramics, and metals, such as implant grade stainless steel and titanium [0074].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reservoir device of Vardi with Ferrante to include wherein the wall comprises a biocompatible resin, a medical grade alloy, titanium, titanium alloy, stainless steel, cobalt chrome alloy, nickel titanium alloy, gold, platinum, silver, iridium, tantalum, tungsten, and combinations thereof since such a modification may allow the reservoir device’s walls to act as a barrier to prevent cell migration from the surrounding into the reservoir [0085]. Such reasoning is consistent with known engineering principles and represents a predictable design choice (See MPEP 2144.03).
Regarding claim 18, Vardi disclosed all limitations of claim 1. However, Vardi failed to explicitly disclose wherein the reservoir is configured to be refillable with oxygen-generating compound and/or liquid.
However, Ferrante teaches the substrate for the oxygen generation reaction is consumed over time and will eventually result in cessation of oxygen delivery, requiring subsequent surgical or percutaneous product drainage and substrate refilling [0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reservoir device of Vardi with Ferrante to include wherein the reservoir is configured to be refillable with oxygen-generating compound and/or liquid since such a modification may enable the reservoir device to facilitate periodic replacement of oxygen-generating compound to prevent cessation of oxygen delivery [0007]. Such reasoning is consistent with known engineering principles and represents a predictable design choice (See MPEP 2144.03).
Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over by Vardi (US 20040133188 A1, herein Vardi) and in further view of Ricordi et al. (WO 2008097498 A1, herein Ricordi).
Regarding claim 8, Vardi disclosed all limitations of claim 1. Vardi however failed to explicitly disclose wherein the oxygen-generating compound comprises lithium peroxide, sodium peroxide, potassium peroxide, potassium superoxide, and combinations thereof.
However Ricordi teaches that locally delivering substances that can promote not only growth of new capillaries but also protect/enhance the implanted biological material, e.g. cells/tissues and/or products thereof (such as, e.g., anti-inflammatory, antiapoptotic products and/or growth factors such as corticosteroids (e.g., prednisolone, dexamethasone, loteprednol etabonate, flucinolone acetonide, etc.), IGF-I, IGF-II, HGF, GLP-I, Exendin-4, INGAP, lysophylline, pentoxyfilline; COX-2 inhibitors; interleukin-1 receptor antagonist peptide (IRAP), interleukin-10 (IL-IO), alpha 1 -antitrypsin (AAT), TGF-beta; antibodies to IL-I, interferon-gamma, and TNF-alpha; anti-tissue factor, complement inhibitors, oxygen generating, releasing (such as encapsulated peroxides) [0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reservoir device of Vardi with Ricordi to include wherein the oxygen-generating compound comprises lithium peroxide, sodium peroxide, potassium peroxide, potassium superoxide, and combinations thereof since such a modification may incorporate peroxides as compact oxygen suppliers which chemically releases oxygen and would eliminate the need for an external gas tank to supply oxygen. Such reasoning is consistent with known engineering principles and represents a predictable design choice (See MPEP 2144.03).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over by Vardi (US 20040133188 A1, herein Vardi) and in further view of Flanagan et al. (US 20200060804 A1, herein Flanagan).
Regarding claim 9, Vardi disclosed all limitations of claim 1. Vardi however failed to explicitly disclose wherein the liquid of the reservoir is selected from the group consisting of perfluorocarbon (PFC) oil, mineral oil, silicone oil, and combinations thereof.
However, Flanagan teaches the oxygen-containing fluid may be, for example, a type of perfluorocarbon liquid, as known in the art. Examples of such perfluorocarbon liquids may include perfluorodihexyl ether, perfluorodibutyl sulfur tetrafluoride, perfluorotriisobutylamine, perfluoro-(N-ethylmorpholine), perfluoro-N,N-dipropylmethylamine, perfluorotriethylamine, perfluoro-N-methylpiperidine, perfluoro-N-methylmorpholine, perfluoro-N,N-dimethyl-N-hexylamine, perfluoro-N-butylmorpholine, perfluoro-4-(N,N-dimethyl-2-aminoethyl)-morpholine, and F-tertbutylperfluorocyclohexane, or combinations thereof [0074].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the reservoir device of Vardi with Flanagan to include wherein the liquid of the reservoir is selected from the group consisting of perfluorocarbon (PFC) oil, mineral oil, silicone oil, and combinations thereof since such a modification may incorporate perfluorocarbon liquids as taught by Flanagan as a compact oxygen supplier and would eliminate the need for an external gas tank to supply oxygen. Such reasoning is consistent with known engineering principles and represents a predictable design choice (See MPEP 2144.03).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOOD FAROOQ whose telephone number is (571)272-7276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8am - 5pm 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571)272-4965. 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/patentcenter 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.
/M.F./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KAMI A BOSWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783