DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 19, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejection of claim(s) 18-20 is/are obviated by Applicant’s cancellation.
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Bhansali (US 2017/0227486) in view of Sales (EP 3708360), supported by Belbruno (US 2014/0242601) as an evidence.
Regarding claim 1, Bhansali teaches an electrochemical biosensor (Fig. 3; ¶39: a MIP biosensor), comprising:
at least one working electrode (¶13: sensing electrode); and
an electrocatalytic film (¶13: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix; a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures; here both of them are together are deemed to be the recited electrocatalytic film on the electrode surface) on a surface of the at least one working electrode (¶13: immobilized atop a sensing electrode; modifying the electrode surface), wherein the electrocatalytic film comprises:
a plurality of shape-selective cavities (Fig. 3), wherein an individual shape-selective cavity is configured to selectively bind a template molecule (¶61: the MIP can be a crosslinked polymeric network formed in the presence of an imprinting compound or "template molecule," such that the template molecule is later removed leaving a matrix that is able to recognize and bind to the template molecule via a complementary binding cavity; "complementarity" indicates that the cavity left behind in the MIP matrix has a size matching the template molecule, as well as binding sites that have affinity toward functional groups present in the template molecule), and
a plurality of electrocatalytic centers (¶13: a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures), wherein an individual electrocatalytic center of the plurality of electrocatalytic centers is adjacent to an individual shape-selective cavity of the plurality of shape-selective cavities (¶73: depositing a plurality of metallic nanoscopic structures onto the surface of the conductive electrode prior to the electrochemical polymerization; thus the plurality of metallic nanoscopic structures on the surface of the electrode would be adjacent to each of the complementary binding cavities of the MIP matrix immobilized atop the electrode),
wherein the shape-selective cavities having binding affinity for template molecules that is greater than binding affinity for chemical analogs of the template molecules (as evidenced by Belbruno ¶3: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP is a polymer that is formed in the presence of a template or target analyte molecule producing a complementary cavity that is left behind in the MIP when the template is removed, and thus the MIP demonstrates affinity for the original template molecule over other related and analogous molecules).
Bhansali fails to teach an electrically insulative substrate.
However, Sales teach a device for analysing biomolecules (¶3) using a tailored molecularly-imprinted polymer for a given biomolecule (¶64). The device uses screen-printed technology consisting of layer-by-layer depositions of ink (i.e., ¶6: screen-printed electrodes SPEs) upon a solid substrate defining the geometry of the intended sensor (¶8), which is mostly plastic, as PET or PVC (¶12). Thus, Sales teaches the electrodes on an electrically insulative substrate (¶12: plastic).
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 Bhansali by incorporating an electrically insulative substrate as taught by Sales because the substrate would provide a support and defines the geometry of the sensor (¶¶8, 12). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Bhansali teaches wherein the plurality of electrocatalytic centers comprises a non-biological catalyst (¶13: nanoscopic metallic structures).
Regarding claim 3, Bhansali teaches wherein the non-biological catalyst comprises: a single-atom catalyst comprising copper (¶21: the nanoscopic metallic structures comprise materials selected from copper).
Regarding claim 4, Bhansali teaches wherein the metal atom is a copper atom (¶21: the nanoscopic metallic structures comprise materials selected from copper).
Regarding claim 6, Bhansali teaches wherein the electrocatalytic film (¶13: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix; the nanoscopic metallic structures) comprises a single layer (here the molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix and the modified electrode surface comprising a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures are together deemed to be a single layer on the electrode surface), and wherein the single layer comprises the MIP layer (here, the combined layer of the molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix and the nanoscopic metallic structures is deemed to be the MIP layer) and the plurality of electrocatalytic centers immobilized within the MIP layer (here, within the combined layer of molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix and the nanoscopic metallic structures, the plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures of the modified electrode surface is within the MIP layer).
Alternatively, even if Bhansali does not disclose the plurality of electrocatalytic centers (¶13: a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures) immobilized within the MIP layer (¶13: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix), 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 Bhansali and Sales by combining the molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix and the nanoscopic metallic structures into one single layer, i.e., immobilizing the plurality of electrocatalytic centers within the MIP layer as claimed because merely making several parts disclosed in the prior art into a single unit is not patentable. 2144.04 (V)(B)
Regarding claim 8, Bhansali teaches wherein the electrocatalytic film comprises two or more layers (¶13: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix; the nanoscopic metallic structures), wherein the two or more layers comprise a first layer (¶13: the nanoscopic metallic structures) adjacent to the surface of the at least one working electrode, wherein the first layer comprises the plurality of electrocatalytic centers (¶73: depositing a plurality of metallic nanoscopic structures onto the surface of the conductive electrode), and wherein a second layer is an MIP layer (¶13: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix) over the first layer (¶73: depositing a plurality of metallic nanoscopic structures onto the surface of the conductive electrode prior to the electrochemical polymerization), and wherein the second layer comprises the plurality of shape-selective cavities (Fig. 3; ¶61).
Regarding claim 10, Bhansali teaches wherein the at least one working electrode comprises carbon (¶94: a planar screen-printed carbon working electrode).
Regarding claim 12, Bhansali teaches wherein the MIP layer comprises at least one monomer, wherein the at least one monomer is pyrrole (¶93: pyrrole monomer).
Regarding claim 27, Bhansali teaches wherein the individual electrocatalytic center is configured to exchange charge with an analyte molecule within the individual shape-selective cavity (¶110: the ions insert easily into the positively charged PPy film and are thus involved in rapid electron transfer kinetics; ¶111: Fig. 5: when the cortisol was effectively loaded onto the PPy matrix, it hinders the electrochemical response).
Further, the designation “configured to exchange charge with an analyte molecule within the individual shape-selective cavity” is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 28, Bhansali teaches wherein the individual electrocatalytic center comprises a single-atom catalyst (¶21: the nanoscopic metallic structures comprise materials selected from copper) anchored or coordinated within a polymer matrix (the modified electrode surface comprising nanoscopic metallic structures is anchored within the combined layer, including both the molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix and the plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures).
Regarding claim 29, Bhansali teaches wherein the MIP layer is conductive (¶16: a layer of conductive polymer matrix film; ¶13: a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures; both of them are conductive).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhansali in view of Sales, and further in view of Choi (C. S. Choi, Electrochemical Behavior and Characterization of Polypyrrole-Copper Phthalocyanine Tetrasulfonate Thin Film: Cyclic Voltammetry and in Situ Raman Spectroscopic Investigation, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1990 (112), pp. 1757-68).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Bhansali and Sales disclose all limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the non-biological catalyst comprises: a phthalocyanine ring comprising a metal atom (claim 3) or wherein the phthalocyanine ring comprises an ionizable sidechain, and wherein the ionizable sidechain comprises any of a sulphonate group (claim 5).
However, Choi teaches a sensor using polypyrrole thin films doped with copper phthalocyanine tetrasulfonate (PPy-CuPcTs) on an electrode for electrochemical measurements ([Abstract]). In the cyclic voltammetric (CV) studies of the PPy-CuPcTs film electrode, the presence of cathodic an anodic currents for the redox reaction is due to CuPcTs (p. 1764, section B.4), showing sharp and high anodic currents in the CV measurement, e.g., 6 times larger amount of charge for the anodic peak in the presence of (MV)Cl2 (p. 1765, section B.6).
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 Bhansali and Sales by substituting the electrocatalytic centers with copper phthalocyanine tetrasulfonate (PPy-CuPcTs) in the presence of (MV)Cl2 as taught by Choi because the catalyst comprising a phthalocyanine ring with a metal atom and an ionizable sidechain, e.g., sulphonate group, would show sharp and high anodic currents in the CV measurements (pp. 1764-65, sections B.4 and B.6). The suggestion for doing so would have been that the catalyst comprising a phthalocyanine ring with a metal atom and an ionizable sidechain, e.g., sulphonate group, is a suitable material for the electrocatalytic centers and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhansali in view of Sales, and further in view of Campbell (US 2022/0175278).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Bhansali and Sales discloses all limitations of claims 6 and 8, respectively. As described claims 6 and 8, the electrocatalytic film can be either a single layer as a first layer comprises the MIP layer (¶13: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix; a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures) or wherein the electrocatalytic film comprises two or more layers, i.e., a first layer adjacent comprising the plurality of electrocatalytic centers (¶13: a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures) and a second layer comprising as the plurality of shape-selective cavities an MIP layer (¶13: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix) over the first layer (¶73: depositing a plurality of metallic nanoscopic structures onto the surface of the conductive electrode prior to the electrochemical polymerization). Bhansali and Sales fail to teach a second layer over the first layer, wherein the second layer comprises a non-electrocatalytic material (claim 7) or wherein a third layer over the second layer, and wherein the third layer comprises a non-electrocatalytic material (claim 9).
However, Campbell teaches a device 300 with a substrate 110, on which a working electrode 135 and a surface layer 340 are laid over layer by layer (Fig. 3; ¶31). The surface layer 340 is referred to as a surface-immobilized layer, and is one or more of a functional layer, a membrane, a film, a sensing layer, a diffusion limiting layer, or an interference rejection layer (¶31).
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 Bhansali and Sales by incorporating a top (either the second layer or a third layer), e.g., an interference rejection layer, within the surface-immobilized layer (corresponding to the combined layer over the electrode) as taught by Campbell because the top layer would reject interferences (Campbell, ¶31) and enhance the selective sensing capability (¶86). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhansali in view of Sales, and further in view of Rogers (US 2020/0155047).
Regarding claim 11, Bhansali and Sales disclose all limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the biosensor further comprising a microheater on the electrically insulative substrate.
However, Rogers teaches a microfluidic system for monitoring biofluid property ([Abstract]). The microfluidic system includes a RF heater supported by the substrate for increasing a temperature for the sensor to measure the characteristic of the biofluid (¶78). Here, Examiner notes that the RF heater in a microfluidic substrate must be a microheater.
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 Bhansali and Sales by integrating the microheater on the substrate as taught by Rogers because the heater represents a suitable heater for controlling temperature for the sensor to measure the characteristic of the biofluid (¶78). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Bhansali in view of Sales, further in view of Amoabediny (US 2017/0010259), and further in view of Johnson (US 2014/0273187), supported by Belbruno as an evidence.
Regarding claim 13, Bhansali teaches a sensor system (Fig. 3; ¶39: a MIP biosensor), comprising:
an electrochemical biosensor (Fig. 3; ¶39) comprising:
at least one working electrode (Fig. 1: WE), a reference electrode (Fig. 1: RE) and a counter electrode (Fig. 1: CE), wherein an electrocatalytic film (¶13: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix; a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures) is on the at least one working electrode (¶13: immobilized atop a sensing electrode; modifying the electrode surface to comprise a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures), wherein the electrocatalytic film comprises a molecular imprinted polymer (MIP) layer (Fig. 3; ¶13: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix; a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures; here both of them are together deemed to be the claimed MIP layer), and wherein the MIP layer comprises:
a plurality of shape-selective cavities (Fig. 3), wherein an individual shape-selective cavity is configured to selectively bind a template molecule (¶61: the MIP can be a crosslinked polymeric network formed in the presence of an imprinting compound or "template molecule," such that the template molecule is later removed leaving a matrix that is able to recognize and bind to the template molecule via a complementary binding cavity; "complementarity" indicates that the cavity left behind in the MIP matrix has a size matching the template molecule, as well as binding sites that have affinity toward functional groups present in the template molecule), and
a plurality of electrocatalytic centers (¶13: a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures), wherein an individual electrocatalytic center of the plurality of electrocatalytic centers is adjacent to an individual shape-selective cavity of the plurality of shape-selective cavities (¶73: depositing a plurality of metallic nanoscopic structures onto the surface of the conductive electrode prior to the electrochemical polymerization; thus the plurality of metallic nanoscopic structures on the surface of the electrode would be adjacent to each of the complementary binding cavities of the MIP matrix immobilized atop the electrode), wherein the shape-selective cavities having binding affinity for template molecules that is greater than binding affinity for chemical analogs of the template molecules (as evidenced by Belbruno ¶3: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP is a polymer that is formed in the presence of a template or target analyte molecule producing a complementary cavity that is left behind in the MIP when the template is removed, and thus the MIP demonstrates affinity for the original template molecule over other related and analogous molecules).
Bhansali fails to teach an electrically insulative substrate wherein the electrodes are integrated on the insulative substrate.
However, Sales teach a device for analysing biomolecules (¶3) using a tailored molecularly-imprinted polymer for a given biomolecule (¶64). The device uses screen-printed technology consisting of layer-by-layer depositions of ink (i.e., screen-printed electrodes SPEs) upon a solid substrate defining the geometry of the intended sensor (¶8), which is mostly plastic, as PET or PVC (¶12). The SPE devices contains a three-electrode system, including working, auxiliary and reference electrodes, printed on the solid substrate of planar format (¶9). Thus, Sales teaches the electrodes integrated on an electrically insulative substrate (¶12: plastic).
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 Bhansali by incorporating an electrically insulative substrate on which the electrodes are integrated as taught by Sales because the substrate would provide a support and defines the geometry of the sensor (¶¶8, 12). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Bhansali does not disclose a plurality of interconnect pads integrated on the insulative substrate and electrically coupled to the at least one working electrode, the reference electrode and the counter electrode or a reader to be coupled to the electrochemical biosensor.
However, Amoabediny teaches a microfluidic electrochemical device ([Abstract]), including an electrode array 110 including electrodes, e.g., a reference electrode 102, an auxiliary electrode 103 and a working electrode 104 (Fig. 1; ¶30). The electrode array 101 further includes contacts 105 for allowing connection with an external measurement system (Fig. 3: indicating contacts 105 connected to electrodes; ¶30). The contact pads are connected to the reader using a printed circuit board (PCB) (¶46) for output electrochemical readings (¶44).
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 Bhansali by incorporating contacts coupled to electrodes and a reader coupled to the sensor as taught by Amoabediny because they enable connections with an external measurement system (¶30) and output the electrochemical readings to the reader (¶¶44, 46). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Bhansali and Amoabediny do not disclose the reader comprising an interface.
However, Johnson teaches a point of care sensor including portable readers ([Abstract]). The reader 102 include an interface 108 to connect the point of care system 100 to a computer system (Fig. 1A; ¶¶39-40).
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 Choi by incorporating an interface in the reader as taught by Johnson for connecting the point of care system and a computer system. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhansali in view of Sales, Amoabediny, and Johnson, and further in view of Rogers, and further in view of Gorte (US 2007/0080061).
Regarding claim 15, Bhansali, Sales, Amoabediny, and Johnson disclose all limitations of claim 13.
Bhansali, Sales, Amoabediny, and Johnson do not disclose a microheater that is integrated to the insulative substrate.
However, Rogers teaches a microfluidic system for monitoring biofluid property ([Abstract]). The microfluidic system includes a RF heater embedded in or supported by the substrate (¶78).
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 Bhansali, Sales, Amoabediny, and Johnson by integrating a microheater to the substrate as taught by Rogers because it represents a suitable heater for controlling temperature of an electrochemical sensor. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Bhansali, Sales, Amoabediny, Johnson, and Rogers do not disclose wherein the plurality of interconnect pads is electrically coupled to the microheater.
However, Gorte teaches a NOx sensor ([Abstract]) including leads, contact pads and the leads 24 supply current to the heater and electrodes (¶33). The heater/electrode are in electrical communication and extend from the heater/electrode to the terminal end of the sensor where they are in electrical communication with the corresponding and appropriate contact pads (¶33).
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 Bhansali, Sales, Amoabediny, Johnson, and Rogers by coupling the pads and the heater as taught by Gorte because it provides electrical communication for the heater via appropriate contact pad. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 16, Bhansali, Sales, Amoabediny, Johnson, Rogers, and Gorte disclose all limitations of claim 15, and Johnson further discloses the reader interface connected between the biosensor 31 and the biosensor control electronics 43 (Fig. 12A; ¶166). Thus, the combined Bhansali, Sales, Amoabediny, Johnson, Rogers, and Gorte would necessarily result in the coupling between the interface and the interconnect pads as claimed because the pads would provide electrical communications for the heater/electrode of the electrochemical sensors through their corresponding and appropriate contact pads (Gorte, ¶33).
Regarding claim 17, Bhansali, Sales, Amoabediny, Johnson, Rogers, and Gorte disclose all limitations of claim 16. Johnson further discloses the reader 22 including a processor 41 that may implement program code 40 for operating the reader 22 (Fig. 12A; ¶¶166-167). The biosensor control electronics 43 include circuitry to control assay parameters, e.g., voltage of assay electrodes for an electrochemical assay, assay temperature, and the like (¶169). FIG. 11C shows heater duty cycle and various temperatures during operation. The assay temperature, derived from the screen-printed thermocouple temperature measurement, is maintained at 40°C, with feedback from the thermocouple used to control duty cycle (¶165). Amoabediny discloses the contacts 105 for allowing connection with an external measurement system, e.g., potentiostat (Fig. 3: indicating contacts 105 connected to electrodes; ¶30). Thus, the combined Bhansali, Sales, Amoabediny, Johnson, Rogers, and Gorte would necessarily result in the reader comprising a potentiostat circuitry and a temperature controller circuitry electrically coupled to the interface, and both circuitries are electrically coupled to the processor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive in view of new grounds of rejection.
The argument against Choi without disclosure of a MIP layer (Response, pp. 9-10) are moot because the newly Bhansali teaches a MIP biosensor including an electrocatalytic film on the working electrode and the electrocatalytic film includes a plurality of shape-selective cavities (¶13: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix; Fig. 3: the cavities after elution of the template molecules) and a plurality of electrocatalytic centers (¶13: a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures on the modified electrode surface).
The argument for lack of “greater binding affinity” (p. 10) is moot because for the MIP layer of the Bhansali is formed in the presence of a template or target analyte molecule producing a complementary cavity that is left behind in the MIP when the template is removed (Bhansali, Fig. 3), and thus the MIP would necessarily demonstrate affinity for the original template molecule over other related and analogous molecules, as evidenced by Belbruno (¶3).
The arguments against obviousness rationale (pp. 11-13) are moot because Bhansali and Sales are now relied on to reject the amended claim 1.
The arguments against the combination of the prior art for claim 13 (pp. 14-16) based on that (1) the combination would not yield predictable results (p. 15) and (2) Rogers and Gorte constitute non-analogous art (p. 16). These argument are unpersuasive. In instant rejection, the cited references are relied on to teach a reader (Amoabediny, ¶46), and contact pads (Amoabediny, ¶30) for connecting the sensor and the reader, a microheater embedded in the substrate (Rogers, ¶78), and electrical communications with the heater using contact pads (Gorte, ¶33), all of which are analogous art regarding sensors, and pertains to the same issues to be resolved, e.g., heating using a microheater, electrical communication with the electrodes and the microheater. These components serve their own functions as intended for, and thus would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to utilize for predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Luan V Van can be reached on (571)272-8521. 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795