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 of Species C (figure 8, claims 16-29 and 31-35) in the reply filed on 3/10/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding page 33, line 9, it appears that the use of term “land” in the recitation “land 60%” is an error.
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 24 and 25 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.
Regarding claim 24, the recitation “a neck portion of the medicament container” in lines 1-2 renders the claim indefinite because the claim is unclear if “a neck portion” is positively claimed as a part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes, examiner construes that “a neck portion of the medicament container” is positively claimed as a part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 25, the recitation “a dose dial of the medicament container” in lines 1-2 renders the claim indefinite because the claim is unclear if “a dose dial” is positively claimed as a part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes, examiner construes that “a dose dial” is positively claimed as a part of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 16-23, 26-28 and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitrosky et al. (US 2015/0174342 A1) in view of Holm et al. (US 2015/0088092 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Mitrosky discloses a drug delivery device (figure 7) comprising:
a medicament container 112 containing a medicament (paragraph 0020, lines 5-8);
a bung 124 (paragraph 0020, lines 5-8) configured to slide within the medicament container for dispensing the medicament,
a transmitter 212 configured to transmit a first signal in a distal direction within the medicament container 112 such that the first signal reflects off of at least one surface 140 of the medicament container 112;
a receiver 216 configured to receive a reflected portion of the first signal after the first signal has reflected off of the at least one surface 140 of the medicament container; and
a processor 204 (paragraph 0031, lines 6-14, paragraph 0032, lines 6-12) configured to determine an axial position of the bung based on the reflected portion of the first signal. Mitrosky is silent regarding the bung comprising a recess defined by a sidewall that extends from a distal surface of the bung to a proximal surface of the recess; wherein at least one of the transmitter or the receiver is disposed in the recess of the bung.
However, Holm teaches a design of a drug delivery device for detection of end-of-dose condition comprising the bung 10 (figure 1) comprising a recess 16 defined by a sidewall (side wall of element 10) that extends from a distal surface 15 of the bung to a proximal surface of the recess (surface of the element 16 inside element 10 away from element 15); wherein at least one of the transmitter 12 or the receiver 11 is disposed in the recess of the bung for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to arrange the receiver and transmitter for transmitting and recording the reflected rays and to prevent touching the transmitter and receiver with the reflecting surface (paragraph 0045, lines 9-14, figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the placement of the receiver and transmitter and the bung of Mitrosky to incorporate the bung comprising a recess defined by a sidewall that extends from a distal surface of the bung to a proximal surface of the recess; wherein at least one of the transmitter or the receiver is disposed in the recess of the bung as taught by Holm for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to arrange the receiver and transmitter for transmitting and recording the reflected rays and to prevent touching the transmitter and receiver with the reflecting surface (paragraph 0045, lines 9-14, figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Mitrosky is silent regarding wherein an axial length of the recess is at least 30% of an overall axial length of the bung.
Holm discloses wherein an axial length (see figure 1) of the recess 16 is at least some percent of an overall length of the bung 10 but is silent to the specifics of at least 30% of an overall axial length of the bung, as required by the claim.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the axial length of the recess would result in difference in function of Holm device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the axial length of the recess of Holm, would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed axial length. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the axial length “may” be in the claimed range and offering other acceptable ranges (for e.g. larger than 50%, of the land 60%, larger than 75% or even larger than or equal to 80% on page 33, lines 8-10) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the bung of Mitrosky and recess of Holm to have an axial length of the recess is at least 30% of an overall axial length of the bung as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 18, Mitrosky is silent regarding wherein the proximal surface of the recess comprises a distally-extending protrusion.
However, Holm teaches wherein the proximal surface of the recess 16 comprises a distally-extending protrusion 13 for the purpose of providing a barrier between the receiver and the transmitter (paragraph 0045, lines 9-18).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the bung of Mitrosky to incorporate wherein the proximal surface of the recess comprises a distally-extending protrusion as taught by Holm for the purpose of providing a barrier between the receiver and the transmitter (paragraph 0045, lines 9-18).
Regarding claim 19, Mitrosky is silent regarding wherein the distally-extending protrusion is configured to shield or screen the receiver from the transmitter.
However, Holm teaches wherein the distally-extending protrusion 13 (paragraph 0045, lines 9-18) is configured to shield or screen the receiver from the transmitter for the purpose of limiting or preventing the signals from reaching to the receiver directly from the transmitter (paragraph 0045, lines 9-18).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the bung of Mitrosky to incorporate wherein the distally-extending protrusion is configured to shield or screen the receiver from the transmitter as taught by Holm for the purpose of limiting or preventing the signals from reaching to the receiver directly from the transmitter (paragraph 0045, lines 9-18).
Regarding claim 20, Mitrosky is silent regarding wherein the transmitter and the receiver are disposed in the recess of the bung.
However, Holm teaches wherein the transmitter 12 and the receiver 11 are disposed in the recess 16 of the bung for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to arrange the receiver and transmitter for transmitting and recording the reflected rays and to prevent touching the transmitter and receiver with the reflecting surface (paragraph 0045, lines 9-14, figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mitrosky to incorporate wherein the transmitter and the receiver are disposed in the recess of the bung as taught by Holm for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to arrange the receiver and transmitter for transmitting and recording the reflected rays and to prevent touching the transmitter and receiver with the reflecting surface (paragraph 0045, lines 9-14, figure 2).
Regarding claim 21, Mitrosky is silent regarding wherein the recess is a first recess, the sidewall is a first sidewall, and the distal surface of the bung comprises a second recess defined by a second sidewall that extends from the distal surface of the bung to a proximal surface of the second recess.
However, Holm teaches wherein the recess 16 is a first recess (recess in which element 12 is placed), the sidewall (side wall of element 10 forming a recess for placing element 12) is a first sidewall, and the distal surface 15 of the bung 10 comprises a second recess (recess occupied by element 11) defined by a second sidewall (sidewall of element 10 forming a recess for placing element 11) that extends from the distal surface 15 of the bung 10 to a proximal surface of the second recess (recess occupied by element 11) for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to arrange the receiver and transmitter for transmitting and recording the reflected rays and to prevent touching the transmitter and receiver with the reflecting surface (paragraph 0045, lines 9-14, figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the bung of Mitrosky to incorporate wherein the recess is a first recess, the sidewall is a first sidewall, and the distal surface of the bung comprises a second recess defined by a second sidewall that extends from the distal surface of the bung to a proximal surface of the second recess as taught by Holm for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to arrange the receiver and transmitter for transmitting and recording the reflected rays and to prevent touching the transmitter and receiver with the reflecting surface (paragraph 0045, lines 9-14, figure 2).
Regarding claim 22, Mitrosky is silent regarding wherein an axial length of the first recess is different from an axial length of the second recess.
Holm discloses wherein the first recess and the second recess having respective axial length (see figure 1) but is silent regarding the specifics of an axial length of the first recess is different from an axial length of the second recess.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the axial length of the first and second recesses would result in a difference in function of Holm device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the axial length of the recesses of Holm, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed “an axial length of the first recess is different from an axial length of the second recess”. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed axial length solves any stated problem, indicating that the axial length “may” be different, and offering other acceptable situations (for e.g. “They may be located at the same … axial positions” on page 33, lines 5-6) and therefore, there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the bung of Mitrosky and an axial length of first and second recesses of Holm to have an axial length of the first recess is different from an axial length of the second recess as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 23, Mitrosky discloses wherein the distal surface (surface of element 124 contacting the medication placed in element 112) of the bung 124 is in contact with the medicament and the proximal surface (surface of element 112 contacting element 116) of the bung is configured to receive a force from a piston rod 116 of the drug delivery device (figure 7).
Regarding claim 26, Mitrosky discloses a bung 124 for a drug delivery device (figure 7) comprising:
a transmitter 212 configured to transmit a first signal in a distal direction within the medicament container 112 such that the first signal reflects off of at least one surface 140 of the medicament container 112;
a receiver 216 configured to receive a reflected portion of the first signal after the first signal has reflected off of the at least one surface 140 of the medicament container; and
Mitrosky is silent regarding the bung comprising a recess defined by a sidewall that extends from a distal surface of the bung to a proximal surface of the recess; wherein at least one of the transmitter or the receiver is disposed in the recess of the bung.
However, Holm teaches a design of a drug delivery device for detection of end-of-dose condition comprising the bung 10 (figure 1) comprising a recess 16 defined by a sidewall (side wall of element 10) that extends from a distal surface 15 of the bung to a proximal surface of the recess (surface of the element 16 inside element 10 away from element 15); wherein at least one of the transmitter 12 or the receiver 11 is disposed in the recess of the bung for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to arrange the receiver and transmitter for transmitting and recording the reflected rays and to prevent touching the transmitter and receiver with the reflecting surface (paragraph 0045, lines 9-14, figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the placement of the receiver and transmitter and the bung of Mitrosky to incorporate the bung comprising a recess defined by a sidewall that extends from a distal surface of the bung to a proximal surface of the recess; wherein at least one of the transmitter or the receiver is disposed in the recess of the bung as taught by Holm for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to arrange the receiver and transmitter for transmitting and recording the reflected rays and to prevent touching the transmitter and receiver with the reflecting surface (paragraph 0045, lines 9-14, figure 2).
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Mitrosky is silent regarding wherein an axial length of the recess is between 30% and 80% of an overall axial length of the bung or between 50% and 60% of the overall axial length of the bung.
Holm discloses wherein an axial length (see figure 1) of the recess 16 is at least some percent of an overall length of the bung 10 but is silent to the specifics of between 30% and 80% of an overall axial length of the bung or between 50% and 60% of the overall axial length of the bung, as required by the claim.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the axial length of the recess would result in difference in function of Holm device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the axial length of the recess of Holm, would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed axial length. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the axial length “may” be in the claimed range and offering other acceptable ranges (for e.g. larger than 50%, of the land 60%, larger than 75% or even larger than or equal to 80% on page 33, lines 8-10) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the bung of Mitrosky and recess of Holm to have an axial length of the recess is between 30% and 80% of an overall axial length of the bung or between 50% and 60% of the overall axial length of the bung as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 31, Mitrosky is silent regarding wherein at least one of the transmitter or the receiver is disposed at the proximal surface of the recess of the bung.
However, Holm teaches wherein at least one of the transmitter 12 or the receiver 11 is disposed at the proximal surface (surface of element 16 where elements 12 and 11 are placed of the recess 16 of the bung 10 for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to arrange the receiver and transmitter for transmitting and recording the reflected rays and to prevent touching the transmitter and receiver with the reflecting surface (paragraph 0045, lines 9-14, figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the bung of Mitrosky to incorporate wherein at least one of the transmitter or the receiver is disposed at the proximal surface of the recess of the bung as taught by Holm for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to arrange the receiver and transmitter for transmitting and recording the reflected rays and to prevent touching the transmitter and receiver with the reflecting surface (paragraph 0045, lines 9-14, figure 2).
Regarding claim 32, Mitrosky is silent regarding wherein at least a portion of the recess has a diameter that varies along an axial direction of the bung.
However, Holm teaches wherein at least a portion of the recess 16 has a diameter (diameter varies due to ramp feature of element 16 as shown in figure 1) that varies along an axial direction of the bung 10 for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to allow the transmitter and receiver operate without any interference (figure 1, paragraph 0045, lines 9-18).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the bung of Mitrosky to incorporate wherein at least a portion of the recess has a diameter that varies along an axial direction of the bung as taught by Holm for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to allow the transmitter and receiver operate without any interference (figure 1, paragraph 0045, lines 9-18).
Regarding claim 33, Mitrosky is silent regarding wherein the diameter of the recess decreases along a proximal direction of the bung.
However, Holm teaches wherein the diameter (diameter of element 16 is decreasing towards element 30 due to ramp feature of element 16) of the recess decreases along a proximal direction of the bung 10 for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to allow the transmitter and receiver operate without any interference (figure 1, paragraph 0045, lines 9-18).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the bung of Mitrosky to incorporate wherein the diameter of the recess decreases along a proximal direction of the bung as taught by Holm for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to allow the transmitter and receiver operate without any interference (figure 1, paragraph 0045, lines 9-18).
Regarding claim 34, Mitrosky is silent regarding wherein the recess is a first recess, the sidewall is a first sidewall, and the distal surface of the bung comprises a second recess defined by a second sidewall that extends from the distal surface of the bung to a proximal surface of the second recess.
However, Holm teaches wherein the recess 16 is a first recess (recess in which element 12 is placed), the sidewall (side wall of element 10 forming a recess for placing element 12) is a first sidewall, and the distal surface 15 of the bung 10 comprises a second recess (recess occupied by element 11) defined by a second sidewall (sidewall of element 10 forming a recess for placing element 11) that extends from the distal surface 15 of the bung 10 to a proximal surface of the second recess (recess occupied by element 11) for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to arrange the receiver and transmitter for transmitting and recording the reflected rays and to prevent touching the transmitter and receiver with the reflecting surface (paragraph 0045, lines 9-14, figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the bung of Mitrosky to incorporate wherein the recess is a first recess, the sidewall is a first sidewall, and the distal surface of the bung comprises a second recess defined by a second sidewall that extends from the distal surface of the bung to a proximal surface of the second recess as taught by Holm for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to arrange the receiver and transmitter for transmitting and recording the reflected rays and to prevent touching the transmitter and receiver with the reflecting surface (paragraph 0045, lines 9-14, figure 2).
Regarding claim 35, Mitrosky is silent regarding wherein proximal surface of the recess comprises a distally-extending protrusion is configured to shield or screen the receiver from the transmitter.
However, Holm teaches wherein the proximal surface of the recess 16 comprises a distally-extending protrusion 13 (paragraph 0045, lines 9-18) is configured to shield or screen the receiver from the transmitter for the purpose of limiting or preventing the signals from reaching to the receiver directly from the transmitter (paragraph 0045, lines 9-18).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the bung of Mitrosky to incorporate wherein the proximal surface of the recess comprises a distally-extending protrusion is configured to shield or screen the receiver from the transmitter as taught by Holm for the purpose of limiting or preventing the signals from reaching to the receiver directly from the transmitter (paragraph 0045, lines 9-18).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitrosky et al. (US 2015/0174342 A1) in view of Holm et al. (US 2015/0088092 A1) and further in view of Cowe et al. (US 2018/0185584 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Mitrosky/Holm (hereinafter referred as “modified Mitrosky”) discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 16. Mitrosky further discloses the device is capable to be used with other devices (paragraph 0035, lines 1-5) however, modified Mitrosky is silent regarding wherein a neck portion of the medicament container is configured to engage a shoulder portion of a container holder of the drug delivery device to limit distal movement of the medicament container relative to the container holder.
However, Cowe teaches a design of a medicament packaging (figure 3) comprising wherein a neck portion (see “NP” in figure 4b below) of the medicament container 100 is configured to engage a shoulder portion (see “SP” in figure 4b below) of a container holder 202 of the drug delivery device to limit distal movement of the medicament container 100 relative to the container holder 202 for the purpose of using a well-known alternative design of a syringe device that can accommodate a prefilled replaceable cartridge (paragraph 0011, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of modified Mitrosky to incorporate wherein a neck portion of the medicament container is configured to engage a shoulder portion of a container holder of the drug delivery device to limit distal movement of the medicament container relative to the container holder as taught by Cowe for the purpose of using a well-known alternative design of a syringe device that can accommodate a prefilled replaceable cartridge (paragraph 0011, lines 1-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
267
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitrosky et al. (US 2015/0174342 A1) in view of Holm et al. (US 2015/0088092 A1) and further in view of Groeschke et al. (US 2015/0018775 A1).
Regarding claim 25, modified Mitrosky discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 16. Mitrosky further discloses that the device could be used with pen-type injector (paragraph 0035, lines 1-5) however, modified Mitrosky is silent regarding wherein a dose dial of the drug delivery device is rotatable relative to a longitudinal axis of the drug delivery device to set a dosage of the medicament.
Groeschke teaches a design of a pen-type injector (figure 1) wherein a dose dial 18 of the drug delivery device 10 is rotatable relative to a longitudinal axis of the drug delivery device to set a dosage of the medicament (paragraph 0084, lines 7-9) for the purpose of setting a dose to be injected into the patient (paragraph 0084, lines 3-7).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of modified Mitrosky to incorporate wherein a dose dial of the drug delivery device is rotatable relative to a longitudinal axis of the drug delivery device to set a dosage of the medicament as taught by Groeschke for the purpose of setting a dose to be injected into the patient (paragraph 0084, lines 3-7).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitrosky et al. (US 2015/0174342 A1) in view of Holm et al. (US 2015/0088092 A1) and further in view of Amschler et al. (US 2019/0054252 A1).
Regarding claim 29, modified Mitrosky discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 26. Modified Mitrosky is silent regarding wherein the transmitter is axially offset from the receiver.
However, Amschler teaches a design of a device for measuring dosage (figure 6A) wherein the transmitter 650 is axially (as seen in figure 6A, the receiver and transmitter are located at different axial locations) offset from the receiver 670 for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to determine the volume of medicine being dispensed or contained in the reservoir (paragraph 0063).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the bung of modified Mitrosky to incorporate wherein the transmitter is axially offset from the receiver as taught by Amschler for the purpose of using a well-known alternative configuration to determine the volume of medicine being dispensed or contained in the reservoir (paragraph 0063).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Viitanen (US 2016/0231229 A1): discloses a design of a stopper with a measurement signal transmitter for measuring gas or gas mixture dissolved in the liquid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILAY J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-9689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, CHELSEA STINSON can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/NILAY J SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights