DETAILED OFFICIAL 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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the specification filed 11 September 2023, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 11 September 2023 and 16 December 2024 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and have been considered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 12-13, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities.
[claim 7] – the ratio of dissolved silicon concentration upon filling to post-storage after 10 weeks at 60°C [line 3] is previously recited in claim 1, and the second recitation of said ratio [line 6] constitutes a typographical error. The amendment below is respectfully suggested in order to correct the issues, and claim 7 is interpreted for examination on the merits in accordance therewith.
7. The kit of claim 1,0w), and a dissolved boron concentration after storage in the glass vial at 60°C for 10 weeks (B10w0, wherein B10w/B0w is from 1 to 1.9.
[claim 12] – improper grammar which hinders the readability of the claim, identified in the amendment below which is respectfully suggested in order to correct the issue.
“…wherein the aqueous formulation comprises”
[claim 13] – improper grammar, identified in the amendment below.
“…wherein the aqueous formulation comprises”
[claim 17] – improper grammar, identified in the amendment below.
“…wherein the frustoconical shoulder wall
[claim 18] – improper grammar, identified in the amendment below.
“…wherein the frustoconical shoulder wall…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 – which recites “The kit of claim 1, for use in diagnosis of an ophthalmic disease or condition” – constitutes or is analogous to a “use” claim which does not define any steps involved in the process of using the kit to diagnose said disease or condition, i.e., does not define any steps for diagnosing said disease or condition. As such, claim 20 is indefinite, as it is unclear how or in what manner the kit is utilized to diagnose a disease or condition – one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to envisage or readily determine the metes and bounds of the scope of the claim, and the public would not be clearly informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement thereupon. See MPEP 2173, MPEP 2173.05(q).
For examination on the merits, the limitations of claim 20 are interpreted as being met by the kit defined by claim 1. In order to overcome the indefiniteness issue, it is respectfully suggested to cancel claim 20.
Appropriate action is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein Si10w/Si0w is from 1 to 1.9” fails to include and/or further limit the corresponding range defined in claim 1, that is, “wherein Si10w/Si0w is from 1 to 1.6” – the range of 1 to 1.9 is broader than the range of 1 to 1.6.
In light of the subject matter of claims 5 and 6 which are directly and ultimately dependent upon claim 4, respectively, claim 4 is interpreted for examination on the merits in accordance with the following amendment: “wherein the aqueous formulation has a dissolved boron concentration upon filling the glass vial (B0w), and a dissolved boron concentration after storage in the glass vial at 60°C for 10 weeks (B10w), wherein B10w/B0w is from 1 to 1.9.” The amendment is respectfully suggested in order to overcome the 112(d) rejection.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
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 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams et al. (US 2023/0303305; “Abrams”), in view of “Ak-Fluor® (Fluorescein Injection): Side Effects, Uses, Dosage, Interactions, Warnings”, RxList.com, 16 December 2021 (hereinafter “RxList”) (copy provided herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Abrams discloses a glass vessel, e.g., vial having a coating positioned on the interior surface thereof intended for contact with an aqueous pharmaceutical formulation comprising an active agent, wherein the coating is configured and effective to prevent/avoid the leaching of metal ions from the vial into the formulation [Abstract; Fig. 4; 0002-0004, 0014, 0016, 0023, 0052, 0083, 0104-0105, 0122, 0131, 0133, 0156, 0158-0160, 0175-0176].
The coated vial is suitable for storage of an aqueous formulation having a pH within the range of 3 to 14, e.g., 5 to 14, e.g., 5 to 9 at temperatures of 25° C or less [0154], or higher temperatures, e.g., 40° C [0155]. The vial is suitably formed from Type-I borosilicate glass, wherein the coating prevents leaching/dissolution of metal ions, in particular silicon (Si) and boron (B) ions from the glass vial wall into the formulation at pH values of 5 or higher [0159, 0162-0165, 0167, 0169-0170]. The volume of the vial typically ranges from 0.5 to 50 mL [0131, 0175].
Abrams discloses that the aqueous formulation may comprise an injectable drug that is, inter alia Ak-Fluor® (fluorescein injection) [0109] (MPEP 2131.02(II)).
RxList teaches that Ak-Fluor® is an aqueous solution of fluorescein sodium having a pH (adjusted) from 8.0 to 9.8 and a concentration of 100 mg/mL (10%) or 250 mg/mL (25%), and is commonly stored in single-dose vials (5 mL) and ampoules (5 mL), at 20 to 25° C [RxList, pp. 1-3].
Abrams and RxList each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention. Given that Abrams explicitly names Ak-Fluor® as a suitable injectable drug product for storage in the coated vial (MPEP 2131.02(II)), where Ak-Fluor® exhibits a pH range and storage temperature range each within the corresponding bounds disclosed by Abrams as suitable for storage in the coated vial, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have filled the internally-coated glass vial of Abrams with either of Ak-Fluor®, 10% (100 mg/mL) and Ak-Fluor®, 25% (250 mg/mL), each exhibiting pH from 8.0 to 9.8, in order to prevent the leaching of at least Si and B ions into the aqueous formulation during storage in the vial and thereby increase/ensure the safety and efficacy of the fluorescein injection at the time of use after storage.
The coated glass vial of Abrams in accordance with the modification above (hereinafter “modified Abrams”) would have exhibited all of the features/elements set forth/cited above, and would have been filled with the aqueous formulation Ak-Fluor® having a pH of 8.0 to 9.8 (wherein the formulation has a pH of from about 8 to about 10) and a concentration of 100 mg/mL or 250 mg/mL (an aqueous formulation comprising from about 50 mg/mL to about 300 mg/mL fluorescein sodium).
Given that the coated glass vial is explicitly taught by Abrams as preventing/avoiding the leaching of Si and B ions from the glass vial into the aqueous pharmaceutical formulations stored therein, and given that Abrams explicitly teaches Ak-Fluor® as a suitable injectable for storage within said coated glass vial, there is a strong and reasonable expectation that the coated glass vial filled with Ak-Fluor® would have necessarily exhibited a dissolved Si concentration ratio Si10w/Si0w (after 10 weeks storage at 60° C relative to initial filling) of from 1 to 1.6, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2113, MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
The coated glass vial (filled with Ak-Fluor®) of modified Abrams above (hereinafter referred to as “vial” for simplicity) reads on the kit defined by each and every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-7, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on each kit defined by claims 2-7. That is, in the absence of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary, it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the vial of modified Abrams would have necessarily exhibited each of the dissolved Si concentration(s), ratio thereof, dissolved B concentration(s), and ratio thereof. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2113, MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claims 8-11, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on each kit defined by claims 8-11. Given that the coated interior surface of the glass vial of modified Abrams prevents the leaching of ions as described above, it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the vial of modified Abrams would have necessarily exhibited a BTRZ0w of no more than 20 nm (claim 8), and no more than 10 nm (claim 11), and a BTRZ10w of no more than 250 nm (claim 8), no more than 100 nm (claim 9), and no more than 10 nm (claim 10), absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP sections cited above.
Regarding claims 12-13, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on each kit defined by claims 12-13. The Ak-Fluor® of the vial of modified Abrams may be either of Ak-Fluor®, 10% and Ak-Fluor®, 25% corresponding to 100 mg/mL (claim 12, wherein the aqueous formulation comprises from about 70 mg/mL to about 130 mg/mL of fluorescein sodium) and 250 mg/mL (claim 13, wherein the aqueous formulation comprises from about 200 mg/mL to about 300 mg/mL of fluorescein sodium), respectively, which are within the respective claimed concentration ranges.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the kit defined by claim 14. As evidenced by RxList, Ak-Fluor® includes sodium hydroxide, and may include hydrochloric acid and/or additional sodium hydroxide for pH adjustment [RxList, p. 2] (wherein the aqueous formulation comprises at least on pH adjusting agent selected from sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, or a combination thereof).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the kit defined by claim 15 – Ak-Fluor® is an aqueous solution.
Regarding claims 16-17, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the coated vial of modified Abrams set forth/cited above, as depicted in Abrams [Fig. 4], exhibits a shoulder portion which interconnects the neck of the vial to the body of the vial, wherein the wall of the vial at the shoulder portion is frustoconical, and extends toward the body at a transition angle (β) – corresponding to β disclosed/depicted in the spec [Figs. 1-5; 0053-0059] – which measures about 140° to about 145°. Thus, Abrams reasonably teaches, suggests, or implies that the angle β may be at least 140°, i.e., that it was known/recognized that β may be at least 140°.
The measured shoulder transition angle β (about 140° to about 145°), and/or the implicitly disclosed/taught angle range of at least 140°, of the coated vial of modified Abrams is/are within the claimed range of at least 120° (claim 16), and overlap/encompass, and thereby render prima facie obvious the claimed range of at least 140° (claim 17) (MPEP 2144.05(I)). The coated vial of Figure 4 of Abrams is reproduced below, captioned as Figure 1, and has been annotated by the Examiner to illustrate/support the rejection.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Coated Vial of Fig. 4 of Abrams, Annotated by the Examiner
The shoulder transition angle β, measuring approximately 140° to 145°, and the line overlaying the body portion and line overlaying the shoulder wall extending to the body portion which from said angle at the intersection thereof, are shown/indicated in Figure 1 above. The vial of modified Abrams, in accordance with the foregoing analysis as supported by reproduced/annotated Fig. 4 , reads on each kit defined by claims 16-17.
Regarding claims 19-20, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on each kit defined by claims 19-20. Ak-Fluor® is an injectable solution, specifically an intravenous injection [RxList, p. 2] (claim 19, wherein the formulation is suitable for intravenous injection) which is used as a diagnostic aid for ophthalmic conditions [RxList, pp. 1-3] (claim 20, for use in diagnosis of an ophthalmic disease or condition).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams in view of RxList as applied to claim 17 above, further in view of Langsdorf et al. (US 2019/0350806; “Langsdorf”).
Regarding claim 18, as set forth above in the rejection of claims 16-17, the shoulder transition angle β of the vial of modified Abrams is, or may be, at least 140°. Abrams is silent regarding β being at least 150°.
Langsdorf teaches a Type-I borosilicate glass vial suitable for packaging of liquid (or other) pharmaceutical compositions comprising an active agent [Abstract; Fig. 4; 0001-0004, 0007, 0074-0075, 0078, 0083, 0167]. The glass vial wall, inclusive of a cylindrical body, shoulder region, and cylindrical neck, exhibits a frustoconical shoulder that exhibits a shoulder angle (α) relative to a horizontal plane taken at the bottom of the cylindrical neck vial, of 10° to 70° [0186; Fig. 4]. The cylindrical body (wall) of the vial is vertical or substantially vertical, and the cylindrical neck (wall) is also vertical or substantially vertical [Fig. 4] – that is, the cylindrical walls of the body and neck, respectively are each perpendicular to the horizontal plane at the bottom of the neck represented by the horizontal dashed line depicted in [Fig. 4]. In order to illustrate the basis of the rejection, the glass vial of Langsdorf depicted in Figure 4 is reproduced hereinbelow, captioned as Figure 2.
PNG
media_image2.png
704
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Vial of Fig. 4 of Langsdorf
The shoulder angle α, which exhibits a range of 10° to 70° relative to the horizontal dashed line taken at the bottom of the neck, is shown above. Given that the cylindrical neck wall extends perpendicular from -– and thereby defines a 90° angle relative to – the horizontal dashed line, it stands to reason that the angle extending from the dashed line representing the slope of the shoulder to the vertically-extending neck wall, hereinafter referred to as α’, ranges from 100° to 160°, i.e., addition of 90° to the value of α. The aforesaid angle α’ corresponds to angle α disclosed in the spec [Figs. 1-5; 0051-0052, 0060-0065].
Further, given that the cylindrical body wall is vertical and thereby extends perpendicular relative to the horizontal dashed line at the bottom of the neck, the cylindrical body wall also extends perpendicular to a horizontal plane (imaginary, not depicted above) taken at the top of the body wall (where the shoulder transitions/extends into said body), thereby defining an angle β – extending from said imaginary horizontal plane to said dashed line representing the slope of the shoulder – which is the geometric alternate interior angle relative to α and therefore also ranges from 10° to 70°.
In view of alternate interior angle β, the vial of Langsdorf necessarily exhibits/defines an angle β’ – extending from the dashed line representing the slope of the shoulder (depicted above in Figure 1) to the vertically-extending body wall – which ranges from 100° to 160°, i.e., addition of 90° to the value of alternate interior angle β. The aforesaid angle β’ corresponds to shoulder transition angle β disclosed in the spec [Figs. 3-5; 0055-0059]. That is, Langsdorf teaches angle β’ of the vial, ranging from 100° to 160°, which corresponds to, overlaps, and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed shoulder transition angle β of at least 150° (claim 18) (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Langsdorf teaches that the vial (set forth/cited above), suitable for use in storing pharmaceutical compositions comprising active agents, exhibits improved burst strength and high resistance to axial loads [0006]
Abrams and Langsdorf each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention. In view of the combined teachings thereof, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coated glass vial of modified Abrams by utilizing the glass vial (Type I borosilicate glass) of Langsdorf (i.e., the geometric shape/structure) as the initial vial which is subsequently coated and filled with the Ak-Fluor® aqueous formulation (in accordance with rejection of claim 1 above), in order to impart increased burst strength and/or high axial load resistance to the filled vial, and/or because the Type-I borosilicate glass vial of Langsdorf would have been readily recognized as suitable for the intended use indicated/required by Abrams (MPEP 2144.07).
In accordance with the foregoing modification, the coated glass vial of modified Abrams, filled with either of the Ak-Fluor® solutions and in accordance with all of the other elements set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, would have exhibited the structure and geometric features of the vial of Langsdorf as detailed above, in particular a shoulder transition angle β ranging up to 160°, e.g., from about 140° to 160°. The should transition angle β range overlaps with, and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed transition angle β at least 150° (claim 18) (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
The vial of modified Abrams set forth above reads on the kit defined by claim 18, as dependent upon claims 17, 16, and 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,793,891 (hereinafter “the ‘891 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘891 patent claims anticipate the instant claims, as indicated below.
Claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the ‘891 patent. That is, claim 1 of the ‘891 patent recites each and every limitation recited in instant claim 1.
Claim 2 is anticipated by claim 2 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 3 is anticipated by claim 1 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 4 is anticipated by claim 1 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 5 is anticipated by claim 3 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 6 is anticipated by claim 3 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 7 is anticipated by claim 1 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 8 is anticipated by claim 4 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 9 is anticipated by claim 7 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 10 is anticipated by claim 9 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 11 is anticipated by claim 10 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 12 is anticipated by claim 11 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 13 is anticipated by claim 13 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 14 is anticipated by claim 15 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 15 is anticipated by claim 16 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 16 is anticipated by claim 1 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 17 is anticipated by claim 20 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 19 is anticipated by claim 22 of the ‘891 patent.
Claim 20 is anticipated by claim 23 of the ‘891 patent.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
US 2019/0330097 to Gauthier et al. – teaches a quartz glass pharmaceutical container, e.g., vial exhibiting frustoconical shoulders [Abstract; Figs. 1, 4; 0068, 0073]
US 2021/0308010 to Eugster et al. – discloses glass pharmaceutical vials exhibiting shoulder transition angle(s) which (through geometrical calculation) range from 90° to 140° and correspond to Applicant’s disclosed shoulder transition angle α [Abstract; Figs. 1-2 and 4-6D – (c51); 0001-0009, 0039, 0207-0209, 0230-0231, 0319, 0321, 0324]
US 2018/0214875 to Miles et al. – discloses glass containers suitable for storage of pharmaceutical compositions at acidic pH values, said containers depicted exhibiting shoulder transition angles (corresponding to α and β as disclosed in the spec) which are each approximated to be above 140° [Abstract; Figs. 1-3; 0009-0042]
US 2022/0387257 to Reisse et al. – discloses glass pharmaceutical vials depicted as exhibiting shoulder transition angles (corresponding to α and β as disclosed in the spec) which are each approximated to be about or above 140° [Abstract; Figs. 8, 11A-12]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Michael C. Romanowski whose telephone number is (571)270-1387. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F, 09:30-17:30.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights