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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/04/2023 being considered by the examiner. A copy of initialed form is attached for Applicant’s record.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 6 and 11 recite “…wherein the medicament…” should be changed to -----wherein the at least one medicament ---.
Claim 3 recites “…steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament…” which should be changed to ---the steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament---. Or appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “…the Vitamin…” which should be changed to ---the Vitamin E---. Or 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.
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.
Claims 11 and 16 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 11 recites “the lens matrix which is not previously defined. There is lack of antecedent basis. For purpose of examination, claim is best interpreted to mean ---a lens matrix---.
Claim 12, "the exposing the contact lens Vitamin E" lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, claim 12 is best interpreted to mean ---the exposing the hydrogel-based contact lens to a first solution including Vitamin E and a solvent---.
Claim 12, "the contact lens" lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of the examination, claim 12 is best interpreted to mean ---the hydrogel-based contact lens---.
Claim 16 recites “NSAID is ketorolac or bromfenac”; however, NSAID is not defined in claim 11 or 16. It is unclear what is NSAID and how it relates to other part of the lens.
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.
3. Claims 1, 5, 11, 13 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chauhan et al.(US 8,404,265 of record, hereinafter Chauhan).
Regarding claim 1, Chauhan discloses a contact lens (a contact lens, Abstract), comprising: a silicone-hydrogel-based lens (a silicone-hydrogel contact lens, Abstract) comprising Vitamin E (the diffusion attenuator can be Vitamin E, Abstract) and at least one medicament (the bioactive agent can be a drug or a nutraceutical, Abstract), wherein the medicament includes an antibiotic medicament (suitable drugs or mixtures of drugs for delivery by the contact lenses can include antibiotics; col. 8, lines 29-37), a steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament, and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament, or combination thereof, wherein the contact lens is (characterized as) having a sustained release of the at least one medicament (the lens loaded with a hydrophobic nutraceutical, such as Vitamin E, and the drug is capable of sustaining release of some ophthalmic drugs for extended periods of time, col. 10, lines 55-59).
Regarding claim 5, Chauhan discloses the contact lens of claim 1. Chauhan further discloses wherein Vitamin E is entrapped in the hydrogel-based lens (Abstract, at least one diffusion attenuator within silicone-hydrogel contact lens) and wherein the at least one medicament (a drug or a nutraceutical) is incorporated into the contact lens.
Regarding claim 11, Chauhan discloses a method of preparing a hydrogel-based contact lens (a method of preparation of a silicone-hydrogel contact lens, col.2, lines 53-61), the method comprising: exposing the hydrogel-based contact lens to a first solution including Vitamin E and a solvent (the barrier forming liquid, which can include Vitamin E can be dissolved in a solvent that swells the contact lens and the lens can be placed in the barrier liquid loaded solvent, col.12, lines 42-45), wherein the solvent swells a hydrogel of the hydrogel-based contact lens so that the Vitamin becomes entrapped by the hydrogel to form a modified contact lens (swelling of the lens is accompanied by uptake of the barrier forming liquid, col.12, lines 45-46); exposing the modified contact lens to a second solution including at least one medicament absorbed into the lens matrix to form a final contact lens (drug-containing, Vitamin E-loaded lenses were prepared by directly adding drug to a Vitamin E-ethanol solution before soaking the lens in the solution, col.21, lines 24-27), wherein the medicament includes an antibiotic medicament, a steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament (subsequently the lens was dried and dexamethasone was loaded by soaking Vitamin E-loaded lens in dexamethasone-PBS solution for 7 days, col.23, lines 46-49), and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament, or combination thereof, wherein the final contact lens is characterized as having a sustained release of the at least one medicament (the lens is loaded with a hydrophobic nutraceutical, such as Vitamin E, and the drug is capable of sustaining release of some ophthalmic drugs for extended periods of time, col.10, lines 55-59).
Regarding claim 13, Chauhan discloses the method of claim 11. Chauhan further discloses wherein the exposing the modified contact lens to at least one medicament comprises soaking the contact lens for 1 hour to 10 days at about room temperature with the second solution comprising the at least one medicament (col.18, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 18, Chauhan discloses the method of claim 11. Chauhan further discloses wherein the silicone-hydrogel is made of one or more of the following: hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), dimethyl acrylate (DMA), methacrylic acid, or 3-[tris (trimethylsiloxy)silyl]propyl methacrylate (Tris methacrylate)(column 6, lines 51-53; col.8, lines 6-15).
Regarding claims 19-21, Applicant’s claims 19-21 do not distinguish over the Chauhan’s reference regardless of the method steps for treating an ocular. Only the final product is relevant, not methods of making, using, treating. It should be noted that method steps of treating an ocular condition, such as positioning, removing…etc. are not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself.
A "product by method" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by method" claim, and not the patentability of the method, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in " product by method" claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. See also MPEP 706.03(e). Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
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.
4. 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.
5. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chauhan et al.(US 8,404,265 of record, hereinafter Chauhan) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Chauhan discloses the contact lens of claim 1, wherein the Vitamin E functions as a sustained release medium for the at least one medicament (the diffusion attenuators, such as Vitamin E promote a tortuous path for the diffusion of the bioactive agent to mediate the rate by which the bioactive agent diffuses from the contact lens, Abstract), wherein the sustained release is for about 2 to 7 days (contact lenses loaded with Vitamin E and dexamethasone exhibited a release duration of about 12 days, col.28, lines 62-66). Chauhan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sustained release is for about 2 to 7 days. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to include the Vitamin E as a sustained release medium for the at least one medicament for about 2 to 7 days, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve sustained release of at least one medicament (e.g., dexamethasone) from the contact lens for a period of time that is optimal to provide an anti-inflammatory effect.
6. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,404,265 to Chauhan et al. (hereinafter, "Chauhan"), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Oliphant et al. (Quinolones: a comprehensive review, Am. Fam. Physician; 1 February 2002; Vol. 3 65; No. 3; Pgs. 455-64; of record, hereinafter "Oliphant") and further in view of Torres-Luna et al. (Extended delivery of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs through contact lenses loaded with Vitamin E and cationic surfactants, Cont. Lens Anterior Eye; 11 May 2019; Vol. 42; No. 5; Pgs. 546-552; of record, hereinafter “Torres-Luna").
Regarding claim 3, Chauhan discloses the contact lens of claim 1. Chauhan further discloses wherein the steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament is dexamethasone (bioactive agents can be drugs, such as dexamethasone, Chauhan, col. 2, lines 17-19).
Chauhan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the antibiotic medicament is levofloxacin. Oliphant, in the analogous field of bioactive agents for treating bacterial infections (Abstract), teaches wherein the antibiotic medicament is levofloxacin (ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin are both quinolones, and levofloxacin is used for similar indications as second-generation quinolones, such as ciprofloxacin, Oliphant, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Chauhan with the teaching of Oliphant for the purpose of using levofloxacin instead of ciprofloxacin as the antibiotic medicament. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a different but equivalent quinolone known for similar indications as ciprofloxacin, as suggested by Oliphant.
Chauhan also fails to explicitly disclose wherein the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament is ketoralac. Torres-Luna, in the analogous field of hydrogel contact lenses for controlled release of bioactive agents (Abstract), teaches wherein the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament is ketoralac (hydrogel contact lenses containing Vitamin E were loaded with ketorolac tromethamine and flurbiprofen sodium, Abstract). Torres-Luna also teaches that ocular delivery of NSAIDs is preferable to corticosteroids (Torres-Luna, p. 1, 1st Col., first Para.), and that a major limitation of drug-loaded contact lenses is that the drug(s) are released from the lenses into the eye too quickly (Torres-Luna, p. 1, 1st Col., third Par.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the lime of the invention to modify Chauhan with the teaching of Torres-Luna for the purpose of incorporating ketoralac into a Vitamin E-loaded hydrogel contact lens. The motivation for doing so would have been to deliver an alternative medicament to corticosteroids to the eye in a controlled and sustained manner, as suggested by Torres-Luna.
7. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,404,265 to Chauhan et al. (hereinafter, "Chauhan"), as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Torres-Luna et al. (hereinafter, "Torres-Luna").
Regarding claim 14, Chauhan the method of claim 11. However, Chauhan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament is ketoralac. Torres-Luna, in the analogous field of hydrogel contact lenses for controlled release of bioactive agents (Abstract), teaches wherein the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament is ketoralac (hydrogel contact lenses containing Vitamin E were loaded with ketorolac tromethamine and flurbiprofen sodium, Abstract). Torres-Luna also teaches that ocular delivery of NSAIDs is preferable to corticosteroids (Torres-Luna, p. 1, 1st Col., first Para.), and that a major limitation of drug-loaded contact lenses is that the drug(s) are released from the lenses into the eye too quickly (Torres-Luna, p. 1, 1st Col., third Par.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the lime of the invention to modify Chauhan with the teaching of Torres-Luna for the purpose of incorporating ketoralac into a Vitamin E-loaded hydrogel contact lens. The motivation for doing so would have been to deliver an alternative medicament to corticosteroids to the eye in a controlled and sustained manner, as suggested by Torres-Luna.
8. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,404,265 to Chauhan et al. (hereinafter, "Chauhan"), as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Oliphant el al. (of record, hereinafter "Oliphant")
Regarding claim 15, Chauhan discloses the contact lens of claim 11. Chauhan further discloses wherein the steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament is dexamethasone (bioactive agents can be drugs, such as dexamethasone, Chauhan, col. 2, lines 17-19).
Chauhan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the antibiotic medicament is levofloxacin. Oliphant, in the analogous field of bioactive agents for treating bacterial infections (Abstract), teaches wherein the antibiotic medicament is levofloxacin (ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin are both quinolones, and levofloxacin is used for similar indications as second-generation quinolones, such as ciprofloxacin, Oliphant, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Chauhan with the teaching of Oliphant for the purpose of using levofloxacin instead of ciprofloxacin as the antibiotic medicament. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a different but equivalent quinolone known for similar indications as ciprofloxacin, as suggested by Oliphant.
Regarding claim 16, Chauhan discloses the contact lens of claim 11. Chauhan further discloses wherein the steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament is dexamethasone (bioactive agents can be drugs, such as dexamethasone, Chauhan, col. 2, lines 17-19).
Chauhan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the antibiotic medicament is levofloxacin. Oliphant, in the analogous field of bioactive agents for treating bacterial infections (Abstract), teaches wherein the antibiotic medicament is levofloxacin (ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin are both quinolones, and levofloxacin is used for similar indications as second-generation quinolones, such as ciprofloxacin, Oliphant, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Chauhan with the teaching of Oliphant for the purpose of using levofloxacin instead of ciprofloxacin as the antibiotic medicament. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a different but equivalent quinolone known for similar indications as ciprofloxacin, as suggested by Oliphant.
For purposes of examination, limitation “NSAID is ketorolac or bromfenac” is not considered on the merits.
9. Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chauhan et al. (US 8,404,265 hereinafter, "Chauhan") in view of Samuel et al.(US 2013/0178518 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Chauhan discloses contact lens of claim 1 above with an amount of Vitamin E in the contact lens. However, Chauhan does not disclose wherein the amount Vitamin E in the contact lens is about 1% to 70%. Samuel, in same field of endeavor, teaches an amount Vitamin E in the contact lens is about 1% to 70% (Abstract, Para.[0010]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teaching of Samuel to device of Chauhan for purpose of forming a diffusion barrier.
Regarding claim 17, Chauhan discloses contact lens of claim 11 above with an amount of Vitamin E in the contact lens. However, Chauhan does not disclose wherein the amount Vitamin E in the contact lens is about 1% to 70%. Samuel, in same field of endeavor, teaches an amount Vitamin E in the contact lens is about 1% to 70% (Abstract, Para.[0010]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teaching of Samuel to device of Chauhan for purpose of forming a diffusion barrier.
10. Claims 6, 7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chauhan et al. (US 8,404,265 hereinafter, "Chauhan") in view of Torres-Luna et al. (hereinafter, "Torres-Luna").
Regarding claim 6, Chauhan discloses a contact lens (a silicone-hydrogel contact lens, Abstract), comprising: a hydrogel-based lens (a silicone-hydrogel contact lens, Abstract) comprising Vitamin E {the diffusion attenuator can be Vitamin E, Abstract) and ketoralac and at least one medicament (the bioactive agent can be a drug or a nutraceulical, Abstract), wherein the medicament includes an antibiotic medicament (suitable drugs or mixtures of drugs for delivery by the contact lenses can include antibiotics, col. 8, lines 29-37), a steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament, and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament, or combination thereof, wherein contact lens is characterized as having a sustained release of the at least one medicament (the lens loaded with a hydrophobic nutraceutical, such as Vitamin E, and the drug is capable of sustaining release of some ophthalmic drugs for extended periods of lime, col.10, lines 55-59).
Chauhan fails to explicitly disclose that the contact lens comprises ketoralac.
Torres-Luna, in the analogous field of hydrogel contact lenses for controlled release of bioactive agents (Abstract), teaches wherein the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament is ketoralac {hydrogel contact lenses containing Vitamin E were loaded with ketorolac tromethamine and flurbiprofen sodium, Abstract). Torres-Luna also teaches that ocular delivery of NSAIDs is preferable to corticosteroids (Torres-Luna, p.1, 1st col., first Para.), and that a major limitation of drug-loaded contact lenses is that the drug(s) are released from the lenses into the eye too quickly {Torres-Luna, p.1, 1st column, third Para.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Chauhan with the teaching of Torres-Luna for the purpose of incorporating ketoralac into a Vitamin E-loaded hydrogel contact lens. The motivation for doing so would have been to deliver an alternative medicament to corticosteroids to the eye in a controlled and sustained manner, as suggested by Torres-Luna.
Regarding claim 7, modified Chauhan discloses the contact lens of claim 6. Chauhan also discloses wherein the Vitamin E functions as a sustained release medium for the at least one medicament {the diffusion attenuator, such as Vitamin E effectively increases the path length, l, for diffusion of a bioactive agent through the lens from the path length absent the diffusion attenuator, Chauhan, col. 6, lines 27-30).
Chauhan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sustained release is for about 3 to 7 days. It would have been obvious lo one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to include the Vitamin E as a sustained release medium for the at least one medicament for about 3 to 7 days, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve sustained release of at least one medicament (e.g., a bioactive agent) from the contact lens for a period of time that is optimal in providing a desired therapeutic effect.
Regarding claim 10, Chauhan and Torres-Luna disclose the contact lens of claim 6. Chauhan further discloses wherein Vitamin E is entrapped in the hydrogel-based lens (Abstract, at least one diffusion attenuator within silicone-hydrogel contact lens) and wherein the at least one medicament (a drug or a nutraceutical) is incorporated into the contact lens.
Regarding claim 12, Chauhan discloses the method of claim 11. Chauhan further discloses wherein the exposing the contact lens Vitamin E comprises soaking the contact lens for 1 min to 24 hours with the first solution comprising the Vitamin E and the solvent (Vitamin E was loaded into lenses by soaking the lens in 3 ml of a Vitamin E-ethanol solution for 24 hours, Chauhan, Col. 14, Lines 14-16).
Chauhan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the exposing the contact lens to Vitamin E comprises soaking the contact lens for 1 min to 24 hours at about room temperature with the first solution comprising the Vitamin E and the solvent.
Torres-Luna, in the analogous field of hydrogel contact lenses for controlled release of bioactive agents {Abstract), teaches wherein the exposing the contact lens to Vitamin E comprises soaking the contact lens for 1 min to 24 hours at about room temperature with the first solution comprising the Vitamin E and the solvent {the soaking duration of pure lenses with Vitamin E and ethanol was for 24 hours at room temperature, Torres-Luna, p. 2, 2nd Col., first Para.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Chauhan with the teaching of Torres-Luna for the purpose of exposing the Vitamin E-loaded lens for 1 min to 24 hours at about room temperature. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively load the lens with Vitamin E, as suggested by Torres-Luna.
Chauhan also fails to explicitly disclose wherein the exposing the contact lens to Vitamin E comprises soaking the contact lens for 1 min to 24 hours at about room temperature with the first solution comprising the Vitamin E and the solvent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to expose the contact lens to Vitamin E by soaking the contact lens for 1 min to 24 hours at about room temperature with the first solution comprising the Vitamin E and the solvent, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would have been to load an optimal amount of Vitamin E into the contact lens.
11. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chauhan et al. (US 8,404,265 hereinafter, "Chauhan") in view of Torres-Luna et al. (hereinafter, "Torres-Luna"), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Oliphant et al. (of record, hereinafter "Oliphant").
Regarding claim 8, Chauhan and Torres-Luna disclose the contact lens of claim 6. Chauhan further discloses wherein the steroidal anti-inflammatory medicament is dexamethasone (bioactive agents can be drugs, such as dexamethasone, Chauhan, col. 2, lines 17-19).
Chauhan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the antibiotic medicament is levofloxacin. Oliphant, in the analogous field of bioactive agents for treating bacterial infections (Abstract), teaches wherein the antibiotic medicament is levofloxacin (ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin are both quinolones, and levofloxacin is used for similar indications as second-generation quinolones, such as ciprofloxacin, Oliphant, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Chauhan with the teaching of Oliphant for the purpose of using levofloxacin instead of ciprofloxacin as the antibiotic medicament. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a different but equivalent quinolone known for similar indications as ciprofloxacin, as suggested by Oliphant.
12. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chauhan et al. (US 8,404,265 hereinafter, "Chauhan") in view of Torres-Luna et al. (hereinafter, "Torres-Luna") as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Samuel et al.(US 2013/0178518 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Chauhan and Torres-Luna disclose contact lens of claim 6 above with an amount of Vitamin E in the contact lens. Neither Chauhan nor Torres-Luna discloses wherein the amount Vitamin E in the contact lens is about 1% to 70%. Samuel, in same field of endeavor, teaches an amount Vitamin E in the contact lens is about 1% to 70% (Abstract, Para.[0010]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teaching of Samuel to device of Chauhan for purpose of forming a diffusion barrier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2343. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/TUYEN TRA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872