DETAILED ACTION
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 with traverse of Invention I, corresponding to claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 07/01/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that in regards to the restriction of Invention I from Invention II, the Office has not established that the device of claims 1-11 can be produced by materially different manufacturing processes than the method of claims 12-16, the Office having provided no evidentiary documentation to the effect. This is not found persuasive, however, because simple comparison of claim 1 (Invention I) to claim 12 (Invention II) shows that the device of claim 1 (Invention I) can be made without an active ingredient powder (API) (such not being a required feature of claim 1) and, thus, can be formed without the method step of pressing the API powder into the methyl acrylate copolymer, as is required in claim 12 (Invention II).
The traversal is also on the ground(s) that, in regards to the restriction of Invention I from Invention III, the Office has not established that the device of claims 1-11 can be used in a different manner than that described in claims 17-19. This is found persuasive, therefore the restriction requirement of Invention I from Invention III is withdrawn.
The requirement, as it pertains to the restriction of Invention I/III from Invention II, is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention (II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/01/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou (NPL, “A Magnetically Actuated Novel Robotic Capsule for Site-Specific Drug Delivery Inside the Gastrointestinal Tract”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses a drug administering device, comprising: a spherical body (see Fig. 1a, 1b, and 3, and pg. 2, Col. 2, ln 16-36): a magnetic actuator (“ring-shaped permanent magnet with axial magnetization” of Fig. 1a-3) arranged within the spherical body and configured to respond to an externally applied magnetic field (see Fig. 1a-3, “II. System Overview” of pg. 4011-4012 and “E. Active Locomotion by Magnetic Force and Torque” of pg. 4015-4016); and a plurality of microneedles (two “needle” of Fig. 1a-3, which may be considered microneedles by virtue of their micrometer scale) arranged on the spherical body (at least when the needle is protruded, as in Fig. 13d), the microneedles being configured to penetrate tissue (when protruded - see Fig. 13a-13g, “C. Protrusion and Retractable of Needle” and “D. Forced Drug Release by Magnetic Membrane” of pg. 4015, and “C. Drug Releasing” of pg. 4018-4019).
Regarding claim 17, Zhou discloses a method for administering an active pharmaceutical ingredient to a patient, the method comprising: actuating translational and rotational movement of a spiny milli-ball (SMB) robot (interpreted as a steerable spherical device comprising a magnetic actuator and protruding needles – see in re claim 1) within the patient's gastrointestinal (Gi tract) by moving and rotating a magnet arranged outside of the patient (see Fig. 2, “II. System Overview” of pg. 4011-4012 and “E. Active Locomotion by Magnetic Force and Torque” of pg. 4015-4016): and causing a microneedle of the SMB robot to penetrate through a surface of the patient's GI tract by increasing a magnetic attractive force imposed on the SMB robot by the magnet arranged outside of the patient (see Fig. 13a-13g, “C. Protrusion and Retractable of Needle” and “D. Forced Drug Release by Magnetic Membrane” of pg. 4015, and “C. Drug Releasing” of pg. 4018-4019).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (NPL, “Magneto-Responsive Microneedle Robots for Intestinal Macromolecule Delivery”) in view of Zhou.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a drug administering device, comprising: a body (disk-shaped hydrogel substrate); a magnetic actuator (RdFeB magnetized particles) contained within the body, the magnetic actuator configured to respond to an externally applied magnetic field (see Fig. 1a-1c, 2e-2g, and 4a-4h, pg. 2, Col. 1, ln 13 – pg. 3, Col. 1, ln 12, and pg. 3, Col. 2, ln 20 – pg. 4, Col. 1, ln 21); and a plurality of microneedles (microneedles comprising drug-loaded tip and separable connection portions) arranged on the body, the microneedles being configured to penetrate tissue (see Fig. 1a-1c, 3a-3c, and 4e-4h, pg. 2, Col. 1, ln 13 – pg. 3, Col. 2, ln 5, and pg. 5, Col. 2, ln 37 – pg. 6, Col. 1, ln 4). Zhang fails to teach that the body of the drug administering device is spherical, instead exhibiting a disk-shaped body in the exemplary embodiment. However, it is well known within the art to provide spherical bodies for such steerable drug delivery devices, as exemplified by Zhou (see in re claim 1, anticipated by Zhou). Further, it is known that forming such a device in a spherical fashion provides significant advantages in facilitating locomotion of the device within the GI tract by reducing friction or entanglement between the device and the folded tissues of the intestines, and by allowing precise positioning (by rolling) in any direction (Zhou, pg. 4011, Col. 2, ln 16 – pg. 4012, ln 12). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body of the drug administration device of Zhang to be spherical in shape, rather than disk-like, such that the device comprises a spherical body within which the magnetic actuator may be arranged (see example of Zhou) and upon which the plurality of microneedles may be arranged in the manner already taught by Zhang, in order to thereby facilitate locomotion of the device within the GI tract by reducing friction or entanglement between the device and the folded tissues of the intestines, and by allowing precise positioning (by rolling) in any direction, as described by Zhou (pg. 4011, Col. 2, ln 16 – pg. 4012, ln 12).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses a method for administering an active pharmaceutical ingredient to a patient, the method comprising: actuating translational and rotational movement of a drug delivery robot (see in re claim 1) within the patient's gastrointestinal (Gi tract) by moving and rotating a magnet arranged outside of the patient (see Fig. 1a-1c and 2e-2g, and pg. 3, Col. 2, ln 20 – pg. 4, Col. 1, ln 21): and causing a microneedle of the robot to penetrate through a surface of the patient's GI tract by increasing a magnetic attractive force imposed on the robot by the magnet arranged outside of the patient (see Fig. 1a-1c, 3a-3c, and 4e-4h, pg. 2, Col. 1, ln 13 – pg. 3, Col. 2, ln 5, and pg. 5, Col. 2, ln 37 – pg. 6, Col. 1, ln 4). While Zhang fails to teach that the drug delivery robot is a spiny milli-ball (SMB) robot (interpreted as a steerable spherical device comprising a magnetic actuator and protruding needles – see in re claim 1), the drug delivery robot of Zhang exhibits all such structure except that Zhang fails to teach that the body of the drug administering device is spherical, instead exhibiting a disk-shaped body in the exemplary embodiment. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Zhang in the manner and for the reasons described in re claim 1, whereupon Zhang as modified would exhibit a spiny milli-ball (SMB) robot in the manner claimed.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as modified by Zhou according to claim 1, and in further view of Raz (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0076683 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang as modified by Zhou according to claim 1 exhibits the drug administering device of claim 1 (see in re claim 1). Zhang further discloses that the plurality of microneedles each comprise: an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) layer (drug loaded tip, comprising insulin – see Fig. 1a-c and associated captions, as well as pg. 1, Col. 2, ln 24 – pg. 2, Col. 1, ln 12). Zhang fails to teach that the plurality of microneedles each comprise a microneedle shell arranged to cover a radially outer periphery of the API layer, however, such is a common feature of microneedles within the art, even those designed for use in the GI tract. Raz, for example, exhibits microneedle configurations for use in the intestines, each containing a core active pharmaceutical ingredient (active agent) layer (see Fig. 1-4B, [0008-0015], [0025], and [0034]). Raz teaches that such microneedles may each comprise a microneedle shell (outer coating of intestine environment protective component with tip coating) arranged to cover a radially outer periphery of the active pharmaceutical ingredient layer (active agent) in order to strengthen the tip of the microneedle to prevent breakage and to ensure that the active agent is not degraded prior to arriving at its target location within the intestines (see [0008], [0029], [0054-0056], and [0171-0175], wherein various protective outer coatings/shells 51, 151, 153, 155, some comprising tip coatings such as 43, 44, and 142, cover a radially outer periphery of the active pharmaceutical ingredient layer 36, 37, 38, 130, 131, and 132). Since the drug administering device of Zhang must travel within the intestines until reaching its target location, thereby being exposed to tip damage or degradation of the API layer (drug loaded tip, comprising insulin – known to degrade rapidly within the intestines), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microneedles of Zhang such that the plurality of microneedles each comprise a protective microneedle shell arranged to cover a radially outer periphery of the API layer, in the manner taught by Zhang, in order to thereby prevent breakage and to ensure that the active agent is not degraded prior to arriving at its target location within the intestines, as described by Raz.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang as modified by Zhou and Raz exhibits the drug administering device according to claim 2. Zhang discloses that each microneedle has a penetrating tip pointed radially away from the body (made spherical in the modification in re claim 1) of the device (see Fig. 1-4), and Raz exhibits in all cases that the shell (outer coating of intestine environment protective component with tip coating) retains this same structure of a penetrating tip pointed radially away from the body upon which the microneedle is mounted (see Fig. 1 and 2, and [0171-0175]), thus, it follows that as part of the above modification in re claim 2, the microneedle shell of the proposed combination comprises a penetrating tip pointed radially away from the spherical body of the device. Further, it is clear from Fig. 3b of Zhang (with associated caption establishing the scale bar values) that each microneedle has a height of approximately 500 micrometers. Raz also teaches that such microneedles may extend to a height within the range of 20 to 900 micrometers, 200 to 1000 micrometers, or similar (fully encompassing the claimed range) (see [0095]). Raz also teaches that the shell of each microneedle may extend from the base of the microneedle to the tip (encasing the interior layers of the microneedle, as in the embodiments of Fig. 1, shells 51-53, and Fig. 2), and that the shell may have a thickness of less than 25 micrometers (see Fig. 1-2, [0033] and [0171-0175]). Thus, it is clear that should one of ordinary skill in the art select a configuration in which the shell extends from the base of the microneedle to the tip (thereby providing the best protection for underlying layers including the insulin API layer), the proposed combination of claim 2 also exhibits that the microneedle shell has a height of between 200 and 800 micrometers. Finally, while Zhang does not disclose the internal angle of the penetrating tip of the microneedles, nor does Raz disclose the internal angle of the shell (which may match that of the API layer underneath – see embodiments of Fig. …), Raz does, however, teach that the tip of such a microneedle configured for use in the GI tract must have a sharp pointed shape to promote penetration, as in the embodiments of Fig. 1, wherein for microneedles 21-26, 28, and 29, the internal angle of the tip of the microneedle and any shell present is visually apparent to be less than 27 degrees (see Fig. 1, [0052], and [0171]). Raz also gives ranges of suitable microneedle heights (200 to 1000 micrometers, for example) and maximum/base diameters (100 to 400 micrometers, for example (see [0095]). Thus, it is clear that for symmetric cone shaped microneedles (as in Zhang), simple geometry based upon these ranges shows that Raz contemplates internal angles as sharp as 5.7 degrees (for height 1000 micrometers and diameter 100 micrometers). Thus an angle of up to 23 degrees (height 500 micrometers, diameter 200 micrometers) may be consider well within the range of suitably sharp for penetration as taught by Raz. Based upon these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as part of the design optimization process for each microneedle, to select an internal angle of less than 27 degrees for the microneedles and shells of Zhang in order to thereby ensure suitable penetration of the GI tract wall, as taught by Raz.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as modified by Zhou and Raz according to claim 2, and in further view of Raz and Yu (NPL, “Systemic comparisons of dissolving and swelling hyaluronic acid microneedles in transdermal drug delivery”).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang as modified by Zhou and Raz according to claim 2 exhibits the drug administering device of claim 2 (see in re claim 2). Zhang fails to teach that the plurality of microneedles each further comprise: a hyaluronic acid methacrylate (HAMA) hydrogel layer; and a poly vinyl alcohol (PVA) layer, wherein the HAMA hydrogel layer is arranged between the API layer and the PVA layer. Raz, however, further teaches that the protective microneedle shell (outer coating of intestine environment protective component) may comprise a poly vinyl alcohol (PVA) layer ([0056], ln 8). Raz also teaches that such GI tract microneedles may comprise a controlled release coating (controlled release component 150, 152, 154) arranged between the API layer and the protective shell (PVA outer coating of intestine environment protective component layer) (see Fig. 2, [0030], [0033], and [0174-0176]) in order to enable the rate at which medication is delivered into the blood stream of the user to be controlled (medically beneficial, especially in regards to insulin treatments, as is well known in the art) (see [0175]). Raz further teaches that such a layer may comprise methacrylate polymers ([0031], [0043-0045], [0050], and [0173]). Further, Yu teaches that Hyaluronic acid (HA) is well known to be a highly biocompatible and fast dissolving material for use in constituting the body or layers of microneedles (I. Introduction, paragraph 2). Yu further teaches that hyaluronic acid may be methacrylated based on understood practices in the art, and used to constitute a microneedle body (see Fig. 1, associated caption, and 2.2 Synthesis of methacrylated hyaluronic acid). Based upon these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the microneedles of Zhang by providing a controlled release coating of the type taught by Raz, arranged between the API layer and the protective shell, as taught by Raz, and comprising methacrylate polymers, as taught by Raz, in order to enable the rate at which medication (insulin in Zhang) is delivered into the blood stream of the user to be controlled (medically beneficial, especially in regards to insulin treatments, as is well known in the art). It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Hyaluronic acid into the controlled release coating by forming the coating as comprising methacrylated hyaluronic acid, thereby incorporating the advantageous biocompatibility and fast dissolving properties of hyaluronic acid into the controlled release coating, allowing the user to optimize the speed at which the medication is released to reflect the desired target injection site and medication delivery needs.
Regarding claim 5, Raz further teaches that the microneedle shell may be configured to dissolve in an alkaline environment of certain target pH (corresponding to a particular location within the intestines) and thereby release the API layer ([0054-0057], [0060], and [0097-0099]). Such allows tight control of the exposure of the API layer to degrading intestinal fluids and structures, thus, it would further have been obvious to incorporate this property as part of the above modification in re claim 2.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Kam (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0302756 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou discloses the drug administering device of claim 1 (see in re claim 1). Zhou fails to teach a protective coating configured to cover the spherical body and the microneedles, wherein the protective coating is configured to dissolve upon exposure to a stomach acid. Such a feature, however, is common within the field of ingestible drug administering devices. Kam, for example, exhibits a drug administering device (needle delivery system 140) similar to that of Zhou (see Fig. 1-2 and [0018-0021]), and teaches that such a device may be protected from damage, degradation, or premature drug delivery by providing a protective coating (enteric coating 130) configured to cover the body and the microneedles of the device (see Fig. 1-2, [0018-0020], and [0023]). Kam further teaches that at least a portion of the protective coating may include a rigid candy coating for preventing damage due to water ingress into lower layers of the enteric coating or medicament within the device (see [0020], ln 40-47), such a candy coating being configured to (capable of) dissolve upon exposure to a stomach acid (well known within the art). Thus, in view of the teachings of Kam and in order to protect the drug administering device of Zhou from damage, degradation, or premature drug delivery (as described by Kam), thereby enabling it to arrive within the target GI tract without compromising its operability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide one or more protective coatings configured to cover the spherical body and the microneedles, wherein the protective coating (at least the candy coating) is configured to dissolve upon exposure to a stomach acid (the remainder of enteric coatings upon entry into the intestines), such as in the manner taught by Kam.
Regarding claim 8, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the protective coating as comprising a candy-coating – i.e. a mixture of sugar, water, and corn syrup – as taught by Kam (see [0020], ln 40-47, wherein at least part of the enteric coating may comprise a candy coating in order to protect the device and other layers of the enteric coating from damage from water ingress experienced in the GI tract), such being a formulation understood within the art to perform successfully as a protective coating for ingestible drug delivery devices.
Regarding claim 18, Zhou discloses the method of claim 17 (see in re claim 17). Zhou fails to teach coating the SMB robot with a protective coating to form an orally ingestible SMB robot, the protective coating configured to cover microneedles of the SMB robot such that the microneedles do not scratch soft tissue of the patient between the patient's mouth and GI tract, however, it is common within the field of ingestible drug administering devices to provide such a protective coating, as exemplified by Kam (enteric coating 130, see in re claim 7), for purposes of protecting patient tissues (such as by preventing accidental early deployment of the needles in Zhou), as well as for protecting the device from damage, degradation, or premature drug delivery (see Kam, Fig. 1-2, [0018-0020], and [0023]). Thus, in view of the teachings of Kam and in order to protect patient tissues as well as in order to protect the drug administering device of Zhou from damage, degradation, or premature drug delivery (as described by Kam), thereby enabling it to arrive within the target GI tract without compromising its operability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the method step of coating the SMB robot with a protective coating to form an orally ingestible SMB robot, such as in the manner described by Kam, the protective coating thereby being configured to cover microneedles of the SMB robot such that the microneedles do not scratch soft tissue of the patient between the patient's mouth and GI tract.
Regarding claim 19, while neither Zhou nor Kam teach waiting for a predetermined period of time before causing the microneedle of the SMB robot to penetrate through the surface of the patient's GI tract, the predetermined period of time corresponding to a time required for the protective coating to dissolve within the patient, it is clear that the above modification in re claim 18 would render the drug delivery device of Zhou unable to deploy its microneedles until the protective coating has dissolved, and it is also clear from [0039] of Kam that the protective coating (enteric coating 130) may be selected to have a specifically known, predetermined maximum time upon entry to the intestines after which the coating is known to have been dissolved, thereby allowing deployment of microneedles at an expected and proper time while preventing premature deployment (see [0020] and [0039]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in order to ensure that the device is operable before attempting to cause the microneedle of the SMB robot to penetrate through the surface of the patient's GI tract, to wait for such a predetermined period of time after it is known that the SMB robot has entered the intestines before attempting cause the microneedle of the SMB to penetrate through the surface of the patient's GI tract (lest the needles not be deployable, and it thus be unclear whether delivery of the drug has been achieved as intended).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4 and 9-11 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art cited in this office action and any prior office actions represents the closest art to the claimed invention as found by the examiner. Regarding the above cited claims, none of these references teach or suggest the claimed invention as a whole, and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine teachings from these references to obtain the claimed invention. In support of this finding, a comparison of the present claim limitations to the closest prior art is presented below.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the microneedle shell comprises copolymers of methyl acrylate, talc, and sodium citrate”, which alongside the remainder of the claim and any intervening claims renders the claim patentably distinct over the prior art. While Raz teaches that the microneedle shell may comprise methyl acrylate copolymers ([0058], [0173], and [0177]), no reference could be found which taught talc and sodium citrate alongside methyl acrylate for such a layer of a microneedle for use in the GI tract (unique conditions to transdermal microneedles), nor could a modifying reference be found which rendered a combination of these material obvious. Since Raz and the above cited references represent the closest prior art to the claimed configuration, and since no other reference was found by the examiner which discloses or teaches this limitation(s), it is thus concluded that this limitation(s), in combination with the remainder of the claim and any intervening claims, is/are patentably distinct over prior art. Any claims that are dependent upon this claim are also considered to be patentably distinct over prior art by virtue at least of the subject matter of this claim.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the diameter of the drug administering device including the protective coating is from 6.7 mm to 7.9 mm, which alongside the remainder of the claim and any intervening claims renders the claim patentably distinct over the prior art. The spherical body of the drug delivery device of Zhou is described as 13 mm (A. General Design Considerations, paragraph 2), while the size of the body (magnetic substrate) of the drug delivery device in Zhang is optimally only 3 mm (pg. 3, Col. 1, ln 8-10 and pg. 5, Col. 2, ln 34-36). Kam does not teach a thickness for the protective coating which remedies the small size of Zhang, nor can it remedy the too large size of Zhou. Since these references represent the closest prior art to the claimed configuration, and since no other reference was found by the examiner which discloses or teaches this limitation(s), it is thus concluded that this limitation(s), in combination with the remainder of the claim and any intervening claims, is/are patentably distinct over prior art. Any claims that are dependent upon this claim are also considered to be patentably distinct over prior art by virtue at least of the subject matter of this claim.
Regarding claim 10, the claim now recites the limitation “wherein the magnetic actuator comprises iron(II,III) oxide (Fe3O4) nanoparticles and gelatin”, which alongside the remainder of the claim and any intervening claims renders the claim patentably distinct over the prior art. No reference could be found which teaches or suggests constructing a magnetic actuator for an ingestible device comprising these components. The closes reference discovered by the office – Morello (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0193543 A1) – contemplates iron oxides, including Fe3O4, but lacks gelatin, or a description of the iron oxide particles as being nanoparticles (see [0076]). This configuration is presumably chosen by the applicant to allow for full biodegradability of the device within the GI tract. No reference discovered within the prior art describing the type of drug delivery device claimed has been found that seeks such full biodegradability, let alone describes materials for enabling an actuator component to be biodegradable. Since the cited references represent the closest prior art to the claimed configuration, and since no other reference was found by the examiner which discloses or teaches this limitation(s), it is thus concluded that this limitation(s), in combination with the remainder of the claim and any intervening claims, is/are patentably distinct over prior art. Any claims that are dependent upon this claim are also considered to be patentably distinct over prior art by virtue at least of the subject matter of this claim.
Regarding claim 11, the claim now recites the limitation “wherein the entire drug administering device is biodegradable within 60 minutes when in an environment having pH greater than 7”, which alongside the remainder of the claim and any intervening claims renders the claim patentably distinct over the prior art. No reference discovered within the prior art describing the type of drug delivery device claimed has been found that seeks such full biodegradability, let alone biodegradability within a specific time period. Since the cited references represent the closest prior art to the claimed configuration, and since no other reference was found by the examiner which discloses or teaches this limitation(s), it is thus concluded that this limitation(s), in combination with the remainder of the claim and any intervening claims, is/are patentably distinct over prior art. Any claims that are dependent upon this claim are also considered to be patentably distinct over prior art by virtue at least of the subject matter of this claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric A Lange whose telephone number is (571)272-9202. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-noon and 1pm-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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC A LANGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/CHELSEA E STINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights