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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 07/10/2026 in which claims 1, 2, 9, and 14, were amended. Claims 17-20 are previously cancelled. New claims 21 and 22 have been added. Currently, claims 1-16, 21, and 22, are pending for examination in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 07/10/2026, has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 07/10/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose the invention as claimed.
The examiner has fully considered the applicant’s arguments but they are not persuasive. It is the examiner’s position that given a careful reading, the claims do not distinguish over the prior art of record.
With regards to independent claim 1, applicant’s representative asserts the prior art to Puhakka fails to disclose “a connection from a first portion of the foldable housing containing the at least one internal reservoir to an intravenous (IV) line connected to a dispensing mechanism in a second portion of the foldable housing, wherein the first portion is hingedly coupled to the second portion.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection below, and as best shown in figures 1, 2, and 5, the foldable housing taught by Puhakka can be divided into hingedly connected first and second portions. Further, as best understood by the examiner, applicant’s representative appears to be arguing that the “reservoir” and “dispensing mechanism” taught by Puhakka fails to meet the amended claim language requiring each structure to be in different portions of the foldable housing. However, the examiner notes that applicant’s representative fails to recognize that Puhakka teaches a symmetrical internal structure. As such, Puhakka teaches two symmetrical internal reservoirs (figure 5, item 1); as well as a dispensing mechanism (figure 5, items 4 and 12) which exists in both the first and second portions of the foldable housing. In this light, and as clearly shown in the annotated figure below, the structure taught by Puhakka meets the claim limitations. Given this, applicant’s representative’s arguments are unconvincing.
With regards to independent claim 14 and dependent claim 2, applicant’s representative asserts the prior art to Savage fails to disclose “wherein the controller is configured to receive the one or more measured vital statistics from the one or more physiological sensors and stop dispensing when the one or more measured vital statistics exceeds a proscribed safe level.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection below, Savage clearly teaches wherein the controller (figure 4, item 410), which is configured to receive one or more measure vital statistics from the one or more physiological sensors (figure 4; paragraph [0208]), is configured to stop dispensing when the one or more measured vital statistics exceeds a proscribed safe level (“If the pump unit 140 or the paired handheld computing device 475 determines at 930 that an alarm condition has been detected (based on predetermined alarm conditions relating body temperature variation, heart rate variation, respiratory noise level, for example), then at 935 an alarm notification is transmitted to the destination computing device 470, so that suitable medical personnel can take heed of the alarm condition and initiate appropriate action. Depending on the particular alarm conditioned detected, the pump mechanism of the pump unit 140 may cease operation or may continue operation.”) (figure 9; paragraph [0222]). Given this, applicant’s representative’s arguments are unconvincing.
In light of the remarks and standing rejection above, the examiner asserts the prior art of record teaches all elements as claimed and these elements satisfy all structural, functional, operational, and spatial limitations currently in the claims. Therefore, the standing rejections are proper and maintained.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The originally filed specification fails to disclose the specific subject matter of claim 13 (“tamper detection mechanism”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, 3, 14-16, 21, and 22, 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 2] The claim recites the limitation of “at least one sensor that is configured to monitor at least one vital sign of the person and stop dispensing when the at least one vital sign exceeds a proscribed safe level.” (It is noted that applicant’s originally filed specification only provides support for the phrase “prescribed safe level.” The examiner notes the terms “prescribed” and “proscribed” are antonyms.) The originally filed specification does not provide support for a sensor that is configured to stop dispensing when a measured vital sign exceeds a proscribed safe level. As such, this is considered new matter.
[Claim 14] The claim recites the limitation of “wherein the controller is configured to receive the one or more measured vital statistics from the one or more physiological sensors and stop dispensing when the one or more measured vital statistics exceeds a proscribed safe level.” (It is noted that applicant’s originally filed specification only provides support for the phrase “prescribed safe level.” The examiner notes the terms “prescribed” and “proscribed” are antonyms.) The originally filed specification does not provide support for a controller that is configured to stop dispensing when a measured vital statistic exceeds a proscribed safe level. As such, this is considered new matter.
[Claims 3, 15, 16, 21, and 22] The claims are rejected based upon their dependency from claims 2 and 14.
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 2, 3, 14-16, 21, and 22, 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 2] The claim recites the limitation of “stop dispensing when the at least one vital sign exceeds a proscribed safe level.” The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim, since the term “proscribed” refers to something forbidden or not permitted. As such, it is unclear how to interpret a “safe level” of a vital sign which would not be permitted. Further, as noted in the 112(a) rejection above, applicant’s specification only discusses a “prescribed safe level.” Given this, it is additionally unclear if the claim limitation was intentional or a typographical error. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the limitation requires dispensing to cease if a vital sign exceeds a threshold.
[Claim 14] The claim recites the limitation of “stop dispensing when the one or more measured vital statistics exceeds a proscribed safe level.” The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim, since the term “proscribed” refers to something forbidden or not permitted. As such, it is unclear how to interpret a “safe level” of a vital statistic which would not be permitted. Further, as noted in the 112(a) rejection above, applicant’s specification only discusses a “prescribed safe level.” Given this, it is additionally unclear if the claim limitation was intentional or a typographical error. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the limitation requires dispensing to cease if a vital statistic exceeds a threshold.
[Claims 3, 15, 16, 21, and 22] The claims are rejected based upon their dependency from claims 2 and 14.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Puhakka (WO 95/00191).
[Claim 1] Puhakka teaches an infusion unit (figure 1) comprising:
a foldable housing (figure 1, item 7) configured to be secured around an arm (figure 1, item 11) of a person (figures 1 and 2),
at least one internal reservoir (figure 5, item 1; as shown on the left side of the annotated figure below; the examiner notes figure 5 shows two symmetrical reservoirs) for temporarily holding a first medication in a bladder (the examiner notes the “first medication” and “bladder” are only functionally recited) (figures 2 and 5);
a connection (figure 5, “T-connector” and associated tubing, as shown in annotated figure below) from a first portion (see annotated figure below) of the foldable housing (figure 1, item 7) containing the at least one internal reservoir (figure 5, item 1) to an intravenous (IV) line (figure 5, item 2) connected to a dispensing mechanism (figure 5, items 4 and 12; as shown on the right side of the annotated figure below; the examiner notes figure 5 shows two symmetrical reservoirs) in a second portion (see annotated figure below) of the foldable housing (figure 1, item 7), wherein the first portion (see annotated figure below) is hingedly coupled (as best shown in figures 1 and 4) to the second portion (see annotated figure below) (page 6, lines 6-18);
the dispensing mechanism (figure 5, items 4 and 12) that forces the first medication from within the at least one internal reservoir (figure 5, item 1) through the intravenous (IV) line (figure 5, item 2) (page 5, lines 1-10),
wherein the at least one internal reservoir (figure 5, item 1) is an IV fluid solution bag (page 4, lines 19-21) that has at least one exit port (figure 5) that connects to the intravenous (IV) line (figure 5, item 2); and
a controller (figures 3, 5, and 6, items 5/16) that operates (via shutoff valve 16) the dispensing mechanism (figure 5, items 4 and 12) based on a predefined parameter (page 6, lines 13-16).
PNG
media_image1.png
936
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Claim 4] Puhakka teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends. In addition, Puhakka discloses an interface (figure 3) that allows the controller (figures 3, 5, and 6, items 5/16) to be programmed externally from the foldable housing (figure 1, item 7) (page 4, lines 35-37; page 5, line 1).
[Claim 6] Puhakka teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends. Puhakka also teaches the infusion unit (figure 1) comprises at least two internal reservoirs (figure 5, item 1; again, the examiner notes figure 5 shows two symmetrical reservoirs) with a second medication (the examiner notes the recited “second medication” is not required to be different from the previously functionally recited “first medication”) in at least one of the at least two internal reservoirs (figure 5, item 1) (figure 5; page 1; lines 12-29; page 4, lines 19-21).
[Claim 8] Puhakka teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 8 depends. Puhakka additionally discloses one or both of a flow sensor (figures 3 and 6, item 15) (page 5, lines 26-30) or an air bubble sensor (figures 3 and 6, item 15) (page 6, lines 18-23).
[Claim 9] Puhakka teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 9 depends. In addition, Puhakka teaches wherein the foldable housing (figure 1, item 7) comprises an outer shell (figure 1, item 7) with a hinge (figure 4, item 9) and a lock (figure 3, item 10) between the first portion (see annotated figure above) and the second portion (see annotated figure above) of the foldable housing (figure 1, item 7) (figures 3 and 4; page 3, lines 7-12; page 4, lines 23-25).
[Claim 13] Puhakka teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 13 depends. Puhakka also discloses a tamper detection mechanism (figure 3, item 10) (page 3, lines 7-12; page 4, lines 23-25).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Savage (PGPub 2016/0199576).
[Claim 14] Savage teaches a wearable infusion unit (figure 1, item 100) comprising:
at least one internal reservoir (figure 2b, item 130) for temporarily holding a medication in a bladder (paragraph [0190]);
a connection (figure 2a, item 215) from the at least one internal reservoir (figure 2b, item 130) to an intravenous (IV) line (figure 2a, item 210) (paragraph [0190]);
a dispensing mechanism (figure 3, item 330) that forces the medication from within the at least one internal reservoir (figure 2b, item 130) through the intravenous (IV) line (figure 2a, item 210) (paragraphs [0204], [0205]);
a controller (figure 4, item 410) (paragraph [0208]); and
one or more physiological sensors (figure 4, item 450) communicatively coupled to the controller (figure 4, item 410) and configured to measure one or more vital statistics (“body temperature, heart rate, pulse, respiratory rate, electrocardiogram signals, respiratory noise, blood pressure and/or blood oxygen saturation”) of a user wearing the wearable infusion unit (figure 1, item 100) (figure 4; paragraph [0208]),
wherein the controller (figure 4, item 410) is configured to receive the one or more measured vital statistics (“body temperature, heart rate, pulse, respiratory rate, electrocardiogram signals, respiratory noise, blood pressure and/or blood oxygen saturation”) from the one or more physiological sensors (figure 4, item 450) (figure 4; paragraph [0208]) and stop dispensing when the one or more measured vital statistics exceeds a proscribed safe level (see 112b interpretation above) (“If the pump unit 140 or the paired handheld computing device 475 determines at 930 that an alarm condition has been detected (based on predetermined alarm conditions relating body temperature variation, heart rate variation, respiratory noise level, for example), then at 935 an alarm notification is transmitted to the destination computing device 470, so that suitable medical personnel can take heed of the alarm condition and initiate appropriate action. Depending on the particular alarm conditioned detected, the pump mechanism of the pump unit 140 may cease operation or may continue operation.”) (figure 9; paragraph [0222]).
[Claims 15 and 16] Savage teaches the limitations of claim 14, upon which claims 15 and 16 depend. In addition, Savage discloses the controller (figure 4, item 410) is configured to transmit the one or more measured vital statistics (“body temperature, heart rate, pulse, respiratory rate, electrocardiogram signals, respiratory noise, blood pressure and/or blood oxygen saturation”) from the one or more physiological sensors (figure 4, item 450) to a remote computing device (figure 4, items 470/475) (figure 4; paragraphs [0208], [0209]), as well as receive instructions from the remote computing device (figure 4, items 470/475) based on the one or more measured vital statistics (“body temperature, heart rate, pulse, respiratory rate, electrocardiogram signals, respiratory noise, blood pressure and/or blood oxygen saturation”) (figure 4; paragraphs [0208], [0209]).
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puhakka (WO 95/00191), in view of Savage (PGPub 2016/0199576).
[Claims 2 and 3] Puhakka teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claims 2 and 3 depend. Puhakka does not specifically disclose at least one sensor that is configured to monitor at least one vital sign of a person.
However, Savage teaches an infusion unit (figure 1, item 100) comprising at least one monitoring sensor that is configured to monitor at least one of a heart rate, an 02 content, blood pressure and electrocardiogram (figure 4; paragraphs [0102], [0109], [0208]) and stop dispensing when the at least one vital sign exceeds a proscribed safe level (see 112b interpretation above) (“If the pump unit 140 or the paired handheld computing device 475 determines at 930 that an alarm condition has been detected (based on predetermined alarm conditions relating body temperature variation, heart rate variation, respiratory noise level, for example), then at 935 an alarm notification is transmitted to the destination computing device 470, so that suitable medical personnel can take heed of the alarm condition and initiate appropriate action. Depending on the particular alarm conditioned detected, the pump mechanism of the pump unit 140 may cease operation or may continue operation.”) (figure 9; paragraph [0222]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the structure taught Puhakka, with the use of a monitoring sensor, as taught by Savage, in order to provide increased functionality and safety, by allowing for a means by which patient health might be immediately assessed relative to received treatment.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puhakka (WO 95/00191), in view of Whitney et al. (USPN 4,345,595).
[Claims 5 and 7] Puhakka teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 6, upon which claims 5 and 7 depend. Puhakka does not specifically disclose each of said at least two reservoirs have an internal volume of 5 ml or less.
However, Whitney teaches an infusion unit (figure 1, item 10) comprising an internal reservoir (figure 2, item 21) having an internal volume of 5 ml or less (column 11, lines 12-26).
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 structure taught by Puhakka, with the use of the claimed internal volume, as taught by Whitney, in order to provide increased functionality and versatility, by allowing for a convenient dose of medication to be delivered relative to an appropriate treatment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puhakka (WO 95/00191), in view of Herskowitz (USPN 5,330,431).
[Claim 10] Puhakka teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 10 depends. Puhakka does not specifically disclose a sensor configured to detect a presence of the at least one internal reservoir.
However, Herskowitz teaches an infusion unit (figure 1, item 10) comprising a sensor (figure 2, items 162/164) for detecting a presence of a reservoir (figure 4, item 20) (column 6, lines 15-34).
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 structure taught by Puhakka, with the use of a presence sensor, as taught by Herskowitz, in order to provide increased functionality and control, by allowing for a means by which a user could be certain a reservoir was present and properly installed.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puhakka (WO 95/00191), in view of Della Bidia (hereinafter ‘Della’) (WO 2018/096408 A1).
[Claim 11] Puhakka teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 11 depends. Puhakka does not specifically disclose a wireless connection to an external communication device.
However, Della teaches an infusion unit (figure 1, item 1) comprising:
a cylindrical housing (figure 2, item 21) that is configured to be secured around an arm of a person (figure 5);
said infusion unit (figure 1, item 1) further including at least one internal reservoir (figure 2, item 2a) for temporally holding a medication (page 5, line 24 – page 6, line 4);
a connection (figure 3, item 3) from said at least one internal reservoir (figure 2, item 2a) (page 7, lines 5-11);
a dispensing mechanism (figure 3, item 4/41) that forces said medication from within said at least one internal reservoir (figure 2, item 2a) (page 8, lines 14-18), and
a controller (“control unit”) that operates said dispensing mechanism (figure 3, item 4/41) (page 5, lines 4-5);
wherein the infusion unit further comprises a wireless connection to an external communication device (page 5, lines 18-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the infusion unit taught by Puhakka, to have included a wireless connection to an external communication device, as taught by Della, in order to provide increased functionality and control, by allowing for a well-known means by which device and patient data might be remotely monitored by a medical professional.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puhakka (WO 95/00191), in view of White et al. (PGPub 2009/0203329).
[Claim 12] Puhakka teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 12 depends. Puhakka does not specifically disclose a scanner that is configured to read a label associated with contents of the at least one internal reservoir.
However, White teaches an infusion unit (figure 2, item 10) comprising a scanner (figure 2, item 62) that is configured to read contents of a reservoir (figure 2, item 12) (paragraph [0049]).
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 structure taught by Puhakka, with the use of a scanner, as taught by White, in order to provide increased functionality, safety, and control, by allowing for a means by which relevant reservoir content information might by verified by a user.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage (PGPub 2016/0199576), in view of Hatamian et al. (PGPub 2023/0329972).
[Claim 21] Savage teaches the limitations of claim 16, upon which claim 21 depends. Savage does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured to receive instructions to adjust a dosage dispensed by the dispensing mechanism.
However, Hatamian teaches a wearable infusion unit (figure 1, item 100) comprising a controller (figure 24, item 2410) which is configured to receive instructions to adjust a dosage dispensed by the dispensing mechanism (figure 24, items 120/1970) (paragraphs [0057], [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the functionality of the controller taught by Savage, to be configured to receive instructions to adjust a dosage dispensed by the dispensing mechanism, as taught by Hatamian, in order to provide increased functionality and control, by allowing for a means by which treatment might be altered in consideration of real-time patient physiological responses (Hatamian; paragraph [0099]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage (PGPub 2016/0199576), in view of Yomtov et al. (PGPub 2004/0106953).
[Claim 22] Savage teaches the limitations of claim 14, upon which claim 21 depends. Savage does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured to adjust mixtures of medication based on a time of day.
However, Yomtov teaches an infusion unit (“drug delivery module”) (figure 1) comprising a controller (“microprocessor”) which is configured to adjust mixtures of medication based on a time of day (paragraph [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the functionality of the controller taught by Savage, to be configured to adjust mixtures of medication based on a time of day, as taught by Yomtov, in order to provide increased functionality and control, by allowing for a means by which treatment might be altered in consideration of real-time patient physiological responses (Yomtov; paragraphs [0070], [0089], [0090]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON E FLICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m.-3 p.m. Eastern Time.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/JASON E FLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 09/18/2026
