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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-17, 32, 42, and 44 remain pending in the present application. Claims 1, 7, 9, 17, and 32 are currently amended. Claims 42-43 are new. Claim 32 remains withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-17, 42, and 44 are under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 17, applicant argues the combination of Gordon and Braga would have no motivation and would not be obvious as the pushbutton release would require a complete redesign of Gordon. Examiner disagrees as the use of pushbuttons/pushed latches is prolific in the art and in the general area of container attachments. Further, Braga presents a mechanically simple design (e.g. requiring one actuation point vs. two as in Gordon) and Examiner believes one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of modifying or incorporating such features into Gordon such as to comprise a projection and actuator as claimed.
Applicant also argues Braga is silent to the canister release mechanism comprising an actuator coupled with one or more movable latches and at least one projection configured to push the entire canister away from the pump device is to move the entire canister away from the pump device when the actuator is depressed.
However, the combination of Gordon and Braga teaches the latches as claimed (see rejection of claim 17 below).
Further, recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention as apparatus claims must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In the instant case, the device of Gordon and Braga is capable of being used such that the projections push the entire canister away from the pump device so as to move the entire canister away from the pump device when the actuator is depressed (instance, depending on how forcefully the actuator of Braga was operated). The terms “actuator” and “projection” are highly broad and Claim 17 does not recite additional structure that would clearly distinguish from Gordon.
While Examiner understands the distinction, in that Applicant’s specification discloses embodiments using a fully discrete actuator, which moves one or more latches to actively push the canister and housing away from one another by way of locking arms. However, the limitations of the specification are not read into the claims, and these limitations are not found claim 17. While claims are interpreted in light of the specification, reading such limitations directly into the claims would be improper. Further, it is unclear what essential features of an “actuator” are missing from Gordon or how manually handling the clips would not require actuation of some parts of the clips.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues Ford is non-analogous art as it is directed to a muffler for watercraft. However, Ford clearly addresses the same problem as Applicant with respect to noise reduction of pumps/motors and speaks to the general, physical principles of noise reduction. Such general principles of noise reduction are consistent across many fields of endeavor, irrespective of size/use (i.e. one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate using a second noise reduction chamber would not reduce noise only for the specific context of Ford).
Further, regarding Applicant’s arguments that the apparatus of Ford would be much larger than that of Gordon, such teachings need not be bodily incorporated as one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of applying fundamental concepts of noise reduction to the wound system of Gordon as Gordon already demonstrates a concern with noise reduction in wound dressings. For instance, one of ordinary skill in the art can incorporate the teachings of Ford by merely duplicating the already present noise reduction chamber of Gordon. In which case, the duplication of parts is known to be with an ordinary skill in the art, particularly as the second noise reduction chamber would perform the same function as the first noise reduction chamber. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) which relates to Duplication of Parts.
There appears no evidence that these fundamental principles of noise reduction addressed by Gordon and Ford would change between their respective contexts.
Applicant further argues the walls of Locke differ from the instant invention. However, the language of amended claim 1 would still appear broad enough as to be read on by the walls of Locke, as the plurality of interconnected chambers would still comprise individual wall segments as claimed. In addition, Applicant has not set forth criticality on the claimed inner wall shape. Thus, a mere change in shape of the inner walls of Locke would maintain the same function of redirecting airflow for noise reduction, and would be within ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 42, Locke does not specifically teach the inner wall being in an angle as claimed. However, Applicant also has not set forth criticality for this wall shape/angle. Further, Locke’s statement of certain embodiments being free from edges or corners would not limit one of ordinary skill in the art’s known capability to change shapes where there is no change in function.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims are moot as claim 1 remains rejected as set forth below.
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 1-2, 6-7, 9-14, 16, 42, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, in view of Ford et al (US 5,746,630 A) and Locke et al. (US 2021/0260271 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gordon teaches a negative pressure wound therapy device (Figs. 1, 5, and 10-12; Abstract), comprising:
a negative pressure source (pump 44/248, described in ¶s 123, 164, 175) including an inlet and an outlet (¶ 175 describes how the pump is connected to an entry port 216, and ultimate exhaust via filter 290, thus indicating an inlet and outlet on the pump itself; also pump outlet 414; ¶ 129 also indicates a pump inlet), the negative pressure source configured to provide, via a fluid flow path, a negative pressure to a wound covered by a wound dressing to aspirate fluid form the wound (¶s 3, 20, and 30-31);
a first noise reduction chamber positioned in the fluid flow path downstream of the negative pressure source and in fluid communication with the outlet of the negative pressure source (plenum 404/436; ¶ 177 describes how plenum chamber 404 is disposed between pump outlet port 414 and exhaust outlet 408), the first noise reducing chamber being configured to reduce noise generated as a result of aspirating fluid from the wound and/or reduce a level of pressure pulses in the fluid that is advanced through the negative pressure source (¶ 177 indicates the plenum chamber is used to reduce noise), the first noise reduction chamber including an inlet and an outlet (the inlet being where first conduit 420 connects, and the outlet being the second conduit 422 connects to the plenum 436);
a first second reduction chamber positioned in the fluid flow path downstream of the negative pressure source and in fluid communication with the outlet of the first noise reduction chamber (casing outlet moulding 291 and outlet 408; ¶ 177 describes how the moulding 291 is disposed between the plenum and outlet 408), and an exhaust port positioned in the fluid flow path downstream of the negative pressure source and in fluid communication with the outlet of the noise reduction chamber (exhaust outlet 408).
Gordon does not explicitly teach a second noise reducing chamber positioned in the fluid path downstream of the negative pressure source and in fluid communication with the outlet of the first noise reduction chamber, the second noise reduction chamber being configured to reduce noise generated as a result of aspirating fluid from the wound and/or reduce a level of pressure pulses in the fluid that is advanced through the negative pressure source,
wherein;
the second noise reduction chamber is spaced apart from the first noise reduction chamber, and
the second noise reduction chamber is different than the first noise reduction chamber.
In addressing the same problem as applicant, the problem being the noise reduction of motor exhaust, Ford teaches a muffler system (Fig. 2; Abstract) which comprises a motor (engine 10) comprising a first noise reduction chamber (exhaust system 114 and muffler 122) and a second noise reduction chamber (secondary muffler 30) between the first noise reduction chamber and an exhaust outlet (tubular conduit 24 extends out the opposite end of secondary muffler 30, away from both mufflers 122 and 30).
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 the device of Gordon to comprise a secondary noise reduction chamber positioned in the fluid flow path downstream of the first noise reduction chamber, and upstream the exhaust port, as taught by Ford. Doing so would thus comprise a second noise reducing chamber positioned in the fluid path downstream of the negative pressure source and in fluid communication with the outlet of the first noise reduction chamber, wherein; the second noise reduction chamber is spaced apart from the first noise reduction chamber, and the second noise reduction chamber is different than the first noise reduction chamber. Doing so would be advantageous as a secondary muffler would provide additional attenuation (Col. 4, lines 27-30 of Ford).
Further, the limitations of “the second noise reduction chamber being configured to reduce noise generated as a result of aspirating fluid from the wound and/or reduce a level of pressure pulses in the fluid that is advanced through the negative pressure source” is considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2144. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Gordon and Ford has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. the second noise reduction chamber as incorporated into Gordon would be configured to reduce noise in the manner claimed).
The combination of Gordon and Ford does not explicitly teach the first noise reduction chamber comprises an inner wall extending across a portion of an inner space of the first noise reduction chamber, the inner wall segment comprising a first end extending from a perimeter wall and a second end defining a passageway between the second end of the inner wall segment and the perimeter wall, the inner wall segment configured to deflect or divert airflow.
However, Locke teaches a wound dressing with noise reduction provisions (Figs. 1 and 3A; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising a first noise reduction chamber (baffle 70) for reducing noise from a pump (pump 50; ¶s 45 and 73), the first noise reduction chamber comprising an inner wall segment (walls 72) extending across a portion of an inner space of the first noise reduction chamber, the inner wall segment comprising a first end extending from a perimeter wall and a second end defining a passageway between the second end of the inner wall segment and the perimeter wall (Fig. 3A shows the baffle 70 having various opposite walls, such as top and bottom surfaces 77 and 78 respectively, as well as additional opposite sides; openings 73 define a second end of the wall segments which define a passageway between the second end of the inner wall and a perimeter wall), the inner wall segment configured to deflect or divert airflow (flow path 74 described in ¶s 73-79).
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 the device of Gordon and Ford to comprise the wall of Locke. Doing so would thus comprise the first noise reduction chamber comprises an inner wall extending across a portion of an inner space of the first noise reduction chamber, the inner wall segment comprising a first end extending from a perimeter wall and a second end defining a passageway between the second end of the inner wall segment and the perimeter wall, the inner wall segment configured to deflect or divert airflow. Doing so would be advantageous in reducing airflow to reduce audibility of the pump exhaust (¶ 76 of Locke).
Regarding claim 2, Gordon further teaches the first noise reduction chamber is configured to reduce noise generated by the negative pressure source (¶ 177).
Regarding claim 6, Ford further teaches wherein the second noise reduction chamber is positioned in series with the first noise reduction chamber and downstream from the first noise reduction chamber (Fig. 2 shows secondary muffler 30 being downstream from the primary muffler 122).
As previously stated, 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 the device of Gordon to comprise a secondary noise reduction chamber, as taught by Ford. Doing so would thus comprise the second noise reducing chamber positioned in series with the first noise reduction chamber and downstream from the first noise reduction chamber. Doing so would be advantageous as a secondary muffler would provide additional attenuation (Col. 4, lines 27-30 of Ford).
Regarding claim 7, Ford further discloses the second noise reduction chamber is positioned more proximal to an exhaust port of the device than the first noise reduction chamber (Fig. 2 shows how the muffler 30 is closer to the exhaust, which would define a port).
As previously stated, 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 the device of Gordon to comprise a secondary noise reduction chamber, as taught by Ford. Doing so would thus comprise the second noise reducing chamber positioned more proximal to the exhaust port of the device than the first noise reduction chamber. Doing so would be advantageous as a secondary muffler would provide additional attenuation (Col. 4, lines 27-30 of Ford).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gordon in view of Ford and Locke do not explicitly disclose the passageway comprises a height that is the same height as a height of the inner wall segment.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Gordon, Ford, and Locke to have the height of the passageway be the same as a height of the inner wall segment 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). In the instant case, the device of Gordon, Ford, and Locke would not operate differently with the claimed heights. Further, applicant places no criticality on the claimed relative dimensions (page 30 of Applicant’s specification merely indicates that the inner wall segment “can” have a similar or equal height to the perimeter wall and does not indicate criticality therein).
Regarding claim 10, Gordon further discloses an internal volume in the first noise reduction chamber is greater than a volume within a first conduit in fluid communication with the inlet of the first noise reduction chamber and is greater than a volume within a second conduit in fluid communication with the outlet of the first noise reduction chamber (Fig. 12 shows plenum 404 being greater in volume than the inlet or outlet interfaces of the conduits 520 and 422).
Ford also teaches the first and second noise reduction chambers being greater than a volume of in fluid communication with the inlets of the first or second noise reduction chambers and is greater than a volume within a second conduit in fluid communication with the outlet of the at least one of the first or second noise reduction chambers (Fig. 2 shows how both noise reduction chambers 122 and 30 are larger in volume than conduits 14 or 24).
As previously stated, 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 the device of Gordon to comprise a secondary noise reduction chamber, as taught by Ford. Doing so would thus comprise the second noise reducing chamber having a greater volume than a first conduit in fluid communication with an inlet of the first or second noise reduction chambers and an outlet of the first or second noise reduction chambers. Doing so would be advantageous as a secondary muffler would provide additional attenuation (Col. 4, lines 27-30 of Ford; additionally, it is a known technique to provide a greater receiving volume for fluid to reduce noise by allowing for expansion of a fluid).
Regarding claim 11, Gordon further teaches a flow module comprising a solenoid and one or more pressure sensors (¶ 230 describes that the embodiment in Figs. 1-4 may comprise a pressure sensor 2402 and solenoid valve 2406 to control flow and pressure within the canister).
Regarding claim 12, Gordon further teaches the negative pressure source comprises a motor (¶s 168, 185, and 187) and wherein the device further comprises a power source configured to power the motor (¶s 29 and 164 describe a rechargeable battery pack or other power supply).
Regarding claim 13, Gordon further teaches a canister couplable with the device and configured to collect fluid aspirated from the wound as a result of negative pressure being provided by the negative pressure source to the wound (¶s 30 and 34-42), and a cap coupled with an opening on the canister (Fig. 9 best shows top face 262 of waste container 204, coupled with opening 284 and 258; ¶ 175).
Regarding claim 14, Gordon further teaches a filter coupled with the cap (filter members 282 and 284).
Regarding claim 16, Gordon further teaches a hydrophobic filter coupled with the cap (filter members 282 and 284; ¶s 37 and 164 indicate suitable filters are hydrophobic).
Regarding claim 42, the combination does not explicitly teach at least a linear portion of the inner wall segment has a length at an angle that is not perpendicular or parallel to the perimeter wall.
However, Locke further teaches the inner wall may be different shapes (¶s 23 and 76 describe that the walls may have curved surfaces, said curved surfaces would not be perpendicular or parallel; ¶ 109 also indicates variations in shapes are known in the art).
Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the restrictor bands of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, such as to make the diameter constant between ends. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Also see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B) which relates to Changes in Shape. Further, Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed shape as this appears explicitly described only in the figures.
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Gordon, Ford, and Locke substantially disclose the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses the exhaust port is positioned in the fluid flow path downstream of the inlet of the second noise reduction chamber (as the combination set for in claim 1 incorporates the second noise reduction chamber upstream of the exhaust of Gordon; further, the final outlet at the end of the fluid flow path through the noise reduction chambers would necessarily be downstream of the inlet of the second noise reduction chamber and would comprise an exhaust).
Claims 3-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, Ford, and Locke, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davie et al. (US 2019/0001029 A1).
Regarding claims 3-5, the combination of Gordon, Ford, and Locke does not explicitly teach (claim 3) a check valve positioned in the fluid flow path and configured to prevent fluid from flowing in a reverse direction back towards the negative pressure source, (claim 4) wherein the first noise reduction chamber is configured to reduce a level of pressure pulses in the fluid that is advanced through the negative pressure source to reduce noise generated by the check valve, or (claim 5) wherein the first noise reduction chamber is positioned upstream of the check valve and the second noise reduction chamber is positioned downstream of the check valve.
However, in addressing the same problem as Applicant, the problem being noise reduction of medical pumps, Davie teaches a waste collection device (device 100 in Fig. 3; Abstract) comprising a check valve in the exhaust line of the pump (¶ 88 describes check valve 202 as shown in Figs. 12-14).
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 the exhaust line of Gordon and Ford (i.e. exhaust conduit 422 of Gordon) to comprise a check valve as taught by Davie. Doing so would thus comprise (claim 3) a check valve positioned in the fluid flow path and configured to prevent fluid from flowing in a reverse direction back towards the negative pressure source, and further (claim 5) wherein the first noise reduction chamber is positioned upstream of the check valve and the second noise reduction chamber is positioned downstream of the check valve (as the exhaust conduit 422 connects the first noise reduction chamber 404 of Gordon to the second noise reduction chamber 291). Doing so would be advantageous in preventing backflow and would also serve as an additional noise attenuator (¶ 88 of Davie).
Further, the limitations of claim 4, wherein the first noise reduction chamber is configured “to reduce a level of pressure pulses in the fluid that is advanced through the negative pressure source to reduce noise generated by the check valve”, are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2144. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the function as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Gordon, Ford, Locke, and Davie has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. the first noise reduction chamber would be configured to reduce a level of pressure pulses in the fluid that is exhausted by the pressure source and subsequently at the check valve).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gordon, Ford, and Locke, do not explicitly disclose foam being positioned in the second noise reduction chamber, although Gordon does disclose comprising foam in the exhaust (¶ 177 describes the moulding 291 as comprising open-pore foam).
In addressing the same problem as Applicant, the problem being noise reduction of medical pumps, Davie teaches a waste collection device (device 100 in Fig. 3; Abstract) comprising foam in noise reduction chambers (¶s 69-71 describes how the sound attenuated enclosures can comprise full portions).
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 the noise reduction chambers of Gordon and Ford to comprise foam, as taught by Davie. Doing so would be advantageous as foam materials help attenuate noise by observing sound waves and reduces sound waves created by vibrations (¶ 69 of Davie).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, Ford, and Locke, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lalomia et al. (US 2007/0135779 A1)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Gordon, Ford, and Locke does not explicitly teach the filter comprises a carbon filter.
In addressing the same problem as Applicant, the problem being noise reduction of medical pumps, Lalomia teaches a waste collection device (device 102 in Fig. 1; Abstract) comprising a carbon filter (filter 1340 described in ¶ 161).
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 the filter of Gordon and Ford to comprise carbon as taught by Davie. Doing so would be advantageous as carbon helps to remove foul odors (¶ 161).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, and further in view of Braga et al. (US 2009/0240218 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Gordon discloses a negative pressure wound therapy system (Figs. 1, 5, and 10-12; Abstract), comprising:
a pump device comprising a source of negative pressure (pump 44/248, described in ¶s 123, 164, 175) configured to be fluidly connected to a wound covered by a wound dressing (¶s 3, 20, and 30-31);
a canister couplable with the pump device and configured to collect fluid aspirated from a wound as a result of negative pressure being provided to the wound by the source of negative pressure (waste container 204; ¶s 30, 34-42, and 175); and
a canister release mechanism coupled with the pump device (catch arrangements 206), comprising an actuator coupled with one or more movable latches (clips 222), the canister release mechanism being configured to cause the pump device to disengage the canister form the pump device when the actuator is depressed;
wherein:
the one or more latches are configured to move between a first position in which the one or more latches secure the canister to the pump device and a second position in which the one or more latches release the canister from the pump device when the actuator is depressed (¶ 175 describes how the catch arrangement functions to engage and disengage the canister from the pump; the engaging and disengaging function requiring actuation of the clip portions, such as an engaging finger to provide a hinge against the canister, or the textured clip ends, which a user may apply force to in order to operate the rest of the clip).
Gordon does not explicitly disclose the canister release mechanism comprises at least one projection configured to push the entire canister away from the pump device so as to move the entire canister away from the pump device when the actuator is depressed.
However, Braga teaches a wound therapy system (Fig. 1; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising a canister release mechanism using projections which are configured to push the canister away from the pump assembly when the actuator is depressed (Figs. 7A-7B; ¶ 71 describes how the actuator button 458 is used to bias the canister away from the pump control unit 452), wherein said projections would also comprise movable latches (in their moving relative to/against the canister).
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 the device of Gordon to comprise the actuator and release mechanism of Braga. Doing so would be advantageous in providing a singular actuation point for the release of the canister, thus simplifying the design.
Further, the limitations of “the at least one projection configured to push the entire canister away from the pump so as to move the entire canister away from the pump device when the actuator is depressed” are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Gordon and Braga has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. the latch would be capable of pushing the entire canister away from the pump device so as to move the entire canister away from the pump device when the actuator is depressed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE whose telephone number is (571)272-9902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Rebecca E Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/GUY K TOWNSEND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781