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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (the methods) and species of collagen based constructs (claims 1-14), neutralized collagen (claim 6), and extruding the collagen (claim 12), in the reply filed on February 24, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7, 14, and 15-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are examined on the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The instant application claims domestic benefit from U.S. provisional application 63/341689 filed on May 1, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement (ISD) has been filed by Applicant.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because at least Figs. 13-15, 18-20, 22-24, 29, 33-35, and 39 appear to indicate markers in the images which are indicated by various fluorescent dyes, however the images are in black and white.
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.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Objections to the Specification
The use of the terms, Geltrex, STEMdiff, GlutaMax, and Matrigel (Pgs. 22-23) which are trade names or a marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites the abbreviation “NaOH” for sodium hydroxide. However, none of the members of the Markush group of buffers are abbreviated. It is recommended that Applicant replace the recitation of NaOH with “sodium hydroxide” for consistency.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 appears to be missing the word “or” in the recitation of “…a pipette, a syringe, a nozzle…”. Is it recommended that Applicant amend the claim to read “a pipette, a syringe, or a nozzle…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 2, 3 and 6 recite ranges between 0 – 30000 Da, 0 – 1000 mg/mL, and 0 – 30 mg/mL, respectively. Applicant’s specification indicates on Pg. 10, 1st para. that the description of a range is to be considered to have “specifically disclosed all the possible subranges as well as individual values within that range. For example, description of a range such as from 1 to 6 should be considered to have specifically disclosed subranges such as from 1 to 3, from 1 to 4, from 1 to 5, from 2 to 4…” Therefore, Applicant’s ranges as claimed in claims 2, 3, and 6 are interpreted to include embodiments wherein the molecular weight of PEG is 0 Da (claim 2), wherein the concentration of PEG in the macromolecular bath is 0 mg/mL (claim 3), and wherein the collagen concentration of the collagen solution is 0 mg/mL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a method of forming crowded collagen based constructs comprising providing a collagen solution in a buffer. Claim 6, which depends from claim 1, recites wherein the collagen solution has a collagen concentration ranging between 0 – 30 mg/mL. Based on Applicant’s specification regarding the definition of ranges (as detailed in the Claim Interpretation section), this is interpreted to include embodiments wherein the collagen solution does not comprise collagen. Applicant has reduced to practice formation of crowded collagen based constructs using collagen solutions having a collagen concentration of approximately 10 mg/mL (Pg. 20, 1st full para.) and a collagen based bioink comprising 1.5 mg/mL of collagen and Geltrex (Pg. 22, last para.), but has not provided working examples showing a method of making crowded collagen based constructs with a collagen solution having a collagen concentration of 0 mg/mL. As such, the specification does not provide enough information to reasonably convey to one having ordinary skill in the art that the Applicant is in possession of a method of forming crowded collagen based constructs with a collagen solution having a collagen concentration of 0 mg/mL. Thus, for the reasons detailed above, it is concluded that the claims do not meet the requirements for written description under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 8-13 are similarly rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites a method of forming crowded collagen based constructs comprising providing a collagen solution in a buffer. Claim 6 recites wherein the collagen solution has a collagen concentration ranging between 0 – 30 mg/mL. Based on Applicant’s specification regarding the definition of ranges (as detailed in the Claim Interpretation section), this is interpreted to include embodiments wherein the collagen solution does not comprise collagen. Applicant has reduced to practice formation of crowded collagen based constructs using collagen solutions having a collagen concentration of approximately 10 mg/mL (Pg. 20, 1st full para.) and a collagen based bioink comprising 1.5 mg/mL of collagen and Geltrex (Pg. 22, last para.), but has not provided working examples showing a method of making crowded collagen based constructs with a collagen solution having a collagen concentration of 0 mg/mL. As such, the specification does not provide enough information to reasonably convey to one having ordinary skill in the art that the Applicant is enabled for a method of forming crowded collagen based constructs with a collagen solution having a collagen concentration of 0 mg/mL.
Thus, for the reasons detailed above, it is concluded that the claims do not meet the requirements for enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 8-13 are similarly rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-3, 6, and 9-10 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.
With regard to claim 2, the term “high molecular weight polyethylene glycol” in line 2 is subjective term which renders the claim indefinite. A claim may be rendered indefinite by reference to subjective term (see MPEP 2173.05(b), IV). The phrase “high molecular weight polyethylene glycol” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for measuring the scope of the term, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claim 3 is included in the basis of this rejection because it does not clarify the scope of “high molecular weight polyethylene glycol”.
Claim 2 recites wherein the macromolecular bath solution comprises a high molecular weight PEG and wherein the molecular weight of the PEG is “ranging between 0 - 30000 Da” which renders the claim indefinite. As claimed, it is first, unclear what is to be considered “high molecular weight” PEG and which PEGs having a molecular weight between 0 and 30000 Da one of ordinary skill in the art would consider “high molecular weight PEG”; and second, how a skilled artisan would be able to use a PEG having a molecular weight of 0 Da in the method. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 2, recites wherein the concentration of the PEG in the macromolecular bath solution is “ranging between 0 – 1000 mg/mL” which renders the claim indefinite. As claim 2 requires the macromolecular solution to comprise high molecular weight PEG, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill would be able have a PEG comprising macromolecular bath solution having a PEG concentration of 0 mg/mL. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, which depends from claim 1, recites wherein the concentration of the collagen solution ranges between 0 – 30 mg/mL which renders the claim indefinite. As claim 1 recites formation of collagen based constructs using a collagen solution, it is not clear how one of ordinary skill would be able to generate collagen based constructs using a collagen solution in which the collagen concentration is 0 mg/mL. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 contains the trademark/trade names Matrigel and Geltrex. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe members of a Markush group comprising additional materials which can be added to the collagen solution and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the terms “slurry material” and “sacrificial slurry material” which render the claim indefinite. These terms are not defined by the claim nor does the specification provide a standard for ascertaining what is to be encompassed by these terms, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alavi and Guo (US 20200000962).
With regard to claim 1, Alavi and Guo disclose a method of making crowded collagen material via macromolecular crowding (Para. [0005], [0026] for use in tissue engineering (Para. [0007]). Alavi and Guo disclose that the method comprises a collagen solution which has been reconstituted in a solution (Para. [0033]), which can be placed inside a shaped space (Paras. [0036], [0041]), and dialyzed against a solution which contains large molecules (Para. [0042]), which is considered to reasonably read on providing a macromolecular bath solution and delivering the collagen solution into the macromolecular bath solution.
With regard to claim 2, Alavi and Guo disclose that the macromolecular bath solution can comprise PEG which has a molecular weight from about 2000 Da to about 30,000 Da (Para. [0042]).
With regard to claim 3, Alavi and Guo disclose that the macromolecular dialysis solution can have a concentration of about 10% (w/v), i.e., 100 mg/ml (Para. [0042]).
With regard to claim 4, Alavi and Guo disclose that the collagen can be reconstituted in a suitable solution which can comprise acetic acid (Para. [0033]) and can also comprise a suitable buffer such as phosphate buffered saline (Para. [0036]).
With regard to claim 5, Alavi and Guo discloses that the collagen can comprise collagen type I (Para. [0027]).
With regard to claim 6, Alavi and Guo discloses use of a collagen solution having a concentration of about 30 mg/ml (Paras. [0009], [0040]) or less and in which the pH has been neutralized. (Paras. [0009], [0034])
With regard to claim 9, Alavi and Guo disclose that the collagen solution can additionally comprise fibronectin or laminin (Paras. [0048], [0083]).
With regard to claim 10, Alavi and Guo disclose that the macromolecular bath solution can
comprise dextran and hyaluronan (Para. [0042]), which are considered to reasonably read on viscosity modifying reagents.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jun et al. (KR-20180049745-A, hereafter Jun, citations to Espacenet translation).
With regard to claim 1, Jun discloses a method of printing a bioink via discharging a bioink comprising cells and decellularized extracellular matrix into a wet coagulation bath (Paras. [0001], [0082]). Jun discloses that the bioink can comprise collagen (Paras. [0009], [0028], [0075]) which is combined in a buffer (Para. [0075]). Jun discloses use of a “coagulation bath” for wet 3D cell printing which can comprise polyethylene glycol (PEG) (Paras. [0034], [0079]), which is considered to reasonably read on a macromolecular bath solution. Jun discloses that delivering the collagen comprising bioink is into the macromolecular bath (Para. [0082]) results in the bioink immediately solidifying such that it maintains a stable shape (Para. [0083]), which is considered to reasonably read on formation of a crowded collagen based construct.
With regard to claim 4, Jun discloses that the collagen is in a buffer comprising acetic acid and sodium hydroxide (Para. [0075]).
With regard to claim 6, Jun discloses that the collagen solution is neutralized and has a concentration of 3% weight/volume, which is considered to reasonably read on a concentration ranging between 0-30 mg/mL (Para. [0075]).
With regard to claim 8, Jun discloses that the collagen bioink comprises mesenchymal stem cells (Para. [0076]).
With regard to claim 9, Jun discloses that the collagen bioink comprises decellularized extracellular matrix, which is considered to reasonably read on collagen solution comprising extracellular matrix proteins (Para. [0075]).
With regard to claim 10, Jun discloses that that macromolecular bath solution can comprise PEG as well as alginate, which is considered to reasonably read on a viscosity-modifying reagent (Paras. [0034], [0079]).
With regard to claim 11, Jun discloses use of extrusion of the collagen comprising bioink into the macromolecular bath solution via a pipette (See Fig. 1 on Pg. 12 of original document).
Claims 1-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ranamukhaarachchi et al. (2019, Macromolecular crowding tunes 3D collagen architecture and cell morphogenesis. Biomat. Sci., 7(2), 618-633, hereafter “Ranamukhaarachchi”) as evidenced by Corning (Corning Collagen I, rat tail, https://ecatalog.corning.com/life-sciences/b2c/US/en/Surfaces/Extracellular-Matrices-ECMs/Corning%C2%AE-Collagen/p/354236).
With regard to claim 1, Ranamukhaarachchi discloses a method of generating collagen based constructs using a molecular crowding agent (PEG) during gelation and cellular embedding (Abstract). Ranamukhaarachchi discloses use of type I collagen in a buffer (as evidenced by Corning), and a macromolecular bath solution comprising PEG reconstituted in PBS, in which the collagen solution is delivered into the PEG solution (Pg. 627, left col. last para.) in order to form crowded collagen gels (Pg. 624, right col., last para.).
With regard to claim 2, , Ranamukhaarachchi discloses that the macromolecular solution comprises 8000 Da PEG (Pg. 627, left col. last para.).
With regard to claim 3, Ranamukhaarachchi discloses that the PEG macromolecular solution can have concentrations of 0-10 mg/ml (Pg. 627, left col. last para.).
With regard to claim 4, Ranamukhaarachchi discloses use of rat tail type I collagen from Corning (Pg. 627, left col. last para.), which Corning evidences is supplied in a buffer comprising acetic acid.
With regard to claim 5, Ranamukhaarachchi discloses use of type I collagen (Pg. 627, left col. last para.).
With regard to claim 6, Ranamukhaarachchi discloses use of a collagen solution having a concentration of 2.5 mg/ml (Pg. 627, left col. last para.) and that the pH of the solution is adjusted using sodium hydroxide, which is considered to reasonably read on neutralized collagen solution (Pg. 627, left col. last para.).
With regard to claims 12 and 13, Ranamukhaarachchi discloses that a collagen solution was added to a macromolecular bath solution (Pg. 627, left col., last para) in order to form collagen based matrices via macromolecular crowding (Abstract) and that the gels were formed in 48-well plates, which is considered to reasonably read on a mold (Pg. 627, left col., last para). Therefore, Ranamukhaarachchi is considered to reasonably read on depositing the collagen solution in a mold filled with the macromolecular bath solution. As the collagen solution is a liquid, this is considered to reasonably read on “flowing” the solution into the mold.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranamukhaarachchi et al. (2019, Macromolecular crowding tunes 3D collagen architecture and cell morphogenesis. Biomat. Sci., 7(2), 618-633, hereafter “Ranamukhaarachchi”) as evidenced by Corning (Corning Collagen I, rat tail, https://ecatalog.corning.com/life-sciences/b2c/US/en/Surfaces/Extracellular-Matrices-ECMs/Corning%C2%AE-Collagen/p/354236).
With regard to claim 8, as detailed above, Ranamukhaarachchi teaches a method of generating collagen based constructs using a molecular crowding agent (PEG) during gelation and cellular embedding (Abstract). Ranamukhaarachchi teaches use of type I collagen in a buffer (as evidenced by Corning), and a macromolecular bath solution comprising PEG reconstituted in PBS, in which the collagen solution is delivered into the PEG solution (Pg. 627, left col. last para.) in order to form crowded collagen gels (Pg. 624, right col., last para.). Additionally, Ranamukhaarachchi teaches that breast cancer cells are added to the collagen construct mixture (Pg. 627, left col. last two paras.) in order to obtain crowded collagen matrices comprising cells.
In regard to the order of the steps, although Ranamukhaarachchi does not explicitly state the instantly claimed order, they disclose the steps individually, and their combination into the claimed order would have been obvious and would have been recognized to achieve a similar results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alavi and Guo (US 20200000962).
With regard to claim 12, as detailed above, Alavi and Guo teach a method of making crowded collagen material via macromolecular crowding (Para. [0005], [0026] for use in tissue engineering (Para. [0007]). Alavi and Guo disclose that the method comprises a collagen solution which has been reconstituted in a solution (Para. [0033]), which can be placed inside a shaped space (Paras. [0036], [0041]), which is considered to reasonably read on a mold. Alavi and Guo further teach that the dialysis can be performed in a shaped “cassette” using a solution which contains large molecules (Para. [0042]), which is considered to reasonably read on providing a macromolecular bath solution and delivering the collagen solution into the macromolecular bath solution.
In regard to the order of the steps, although Alavi and Guo does not explicitly state the instantly claimed order. However, they disclose the steps individually, and their combination into the claimed order would have been obvious and would have been recognized to achieve a similar results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
With regard to claim 13, Alavi and Guo teach that the collagen solution can be injected into a confined space which has a desired shape (Para. [0036]), which is considered to reasonably read on “flowing” a collagen solution into a mold.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN V PAULUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6301. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Doug Schultz can be reached at 571-272-0763. 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.
/ERIN V PAULUS/Examiner, Art Unit 1631
/ARTHUR S LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1631
Prosecution Insights