Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 and 19-20, in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/11/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “an analysis system fluidly coupled to at least one lumen among the plurality of lumens, the analysis system configured to receive a fluid for analysis via the at least one lumen” (claims 2 and 20) and “wherein at least one lumen among the plurality of lumens is interchangeably coupled between two or more fluid sources via an intervening valve” (claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“analysis system” in claims 2 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In this instant case, the “analysis system” of claims 2 and 20 is interpreted as an inductively-coupled plasma instrument (ICP), such as an ICP mass spectrometer (instant specification,[0020] and [0023]), and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schiavinato et al. (US 20220196697 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schiavinato teaches a sample probe (Fig. 14) for autosampler system (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 14 and paragraph [0146] teaches a probe for a system that is automated) comprising:
a tube (Fig. 14, interpreted as the tube and 3D printed tip, which are both tubular shaped; Fig. 14, left side shows a tube enclosing three conduits, i.e. conduits 1, 2, and 3) enclosing at least a portion of a plurality of lumens (Fig. 14 and [0143] teaches a tube and printed tip, where the tube enclosing three conduits, i.e. lumens); and
a controller (Fig. 14, “MCU”; [0039], “control system”; [0129] teaches controlling the valves of each conduit with a microcontroller) communicatively coupled with a fluid handling system to introduce or draw one or more fluids through a corresponding one or more lumens among the plurality of lumens (Fig. 14 and [0039] teaches the control system controls solvent flow through a first conduit, gas supply through the second conduit, and sample flow through the third conduit), wherein during a droplet purge operation, the controller is configured to expel a gas from a tip of one of the lumens to purge a droplet of fluid from the tip (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 14 and [0039] teaches the control system controls gas supply through the second conduit, therefore, the controller is capable of expelling gas from the tip of the conduit tube to purge a droplet of fluid from the tip of the probe as claimed).
Regarding claim 2, Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising an analysis system (Fig. 14, “mass spectrometer”; [0139] teaches mass spectrometry includes ionization methods such as inductively coupled plasma sources, therefore the mass spectrometer reads on the 112(f) interpretation of analysis system since the mass spectrometer uses inductively coupled plasma, i.e. ICP mass spectrometer) fluidly coupled to at least one lumen among the plurality of lumens (Fig. 14 and [0143] teaches at least one conduit fluidly coupled to the mass spectrometer), the analysis system configured to receive a fluid for analysis via the at least one lumen (Fig. 14 and [0036],[0143] teaches the mass spectrometer capable of receiving a fluid sample for analysis via the conduit, e.g. conduit 3).
Regarding claim 6, Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more fluids is a liquid (Fig. 14 and [0039],[0041] teaches the control system controls solvent flow through a first conduit, wherein the solvent is water or an aqueous mixture, i.e. liquid).
Regarding claim 7, Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the one or more fluids includes at least one of: a diluent, a chemical standard, a reactive additive, a surfactant additive, a matrix modifier fluid, or a sample matrix additive (Fig. 14 and [0016],[0039],[0041] teaches the control system controls solvent flow through a first conduit, wherein the solvent is water, and/or an aqueous mixture including ethanol; wherein the solvent including water, and/or an aqueous mixture including ethanol is interpreted as a diluent, a chemical standard, a reactive additive, a surfactant additive, a matrix modifier fluid, or a sample matrix additive).
Regarding claim 8, Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more fluids is a gas (Fig. 14 and [0039],[0143] teaches the control system controls gas supply through the second conduit to the probe tip).
Regarding claim 9, Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the gas includes at least one of: a diluent, a chemical standard, a reactive additive, a surfactant additive, a matrix modifier fluids, or a sample matrix additive (Fig. 14 and [0039],[0143] teaches the gas includes N2 or CO2, which are interpreted as a diluent, a chemical standard, a reactive additive, a surfactant additive, a matrix modifier fluids, or a sample matrix additive).
Regarding claim 10, Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each lumen among the plurality of lumens is fluidly coupled to a respective one or more fluid sources (Fig. 14 teaches a first conduit fluidly coupled to a water source, a second conduit fluidly coupled to a gas source; Fig. 14 and [0036],[0110] teaches a third conduit is fluidly coupled to a fluid sample, i.e. fluid source, where a fluid sample is collected by the probe for analysis by the mass spectrometer).
Regarding claim 12, Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a tip of one or more lumens among the plurality of lumens (Fig. 14, tips of the conduits) is offset from a tip of the tube (Fig. 14, tips of the conduits 1, 2, and 3, are offset from the bottom tip of the tube that contacts the sample).
Regarding claim 14, Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a tip of the plurality of lumens and a tip of the tube together form a conical-shaped tip (Fig. 14 left picture shows the conduits 1, 2, and 3 and the end tip of the tube form a conical-shaped tip).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiavinato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 20180153530 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Schiavinato fails to teach: the system of claim 1, further comprising a sheath disposed between at least one lumen among the plurality of lumens and the tube.
Johnson teaches a probe (abstract; Figs. 1-7) comprising lumens (118, 144) for sample acquisition ([0002]). Johnson teaches a portion of a sheath extending proximally from the ultrasound transducer may include a braided material, such as carbon fiber, which provides enhanced stiffness (e.g., pushability) and torqueability during actuating ([0025]). Johnson teaches an exterior tube comprising interior lumens, where the lumens are designed to resist bending and/or kinking, and the tube can include one or more braided materials, such as carbon fiber, to provide enhanced stiffness, torqueability and/or flexibility along all (or a portion of) the exterior tube ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Schiavinato to incorporate Johnson’s teachings of a carbon fiber sheath and a tube including braided materials such as carbon fiber ([0025],[0029]) to provide: the system of claim 1, further comprising a sheath (i.e. carbon fiber sheath) disposed between at least one lumen among the plurality of lumens and the tube. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving at least stiffness of the system, therefore improving resistance to bending and kinking. Additionally, providing the sheath between at least one lumen and the tube as claimed would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts, since the particular placement of the sheath is an obvious matter of design choice in view of Johnson’s teachings of a sheath with carbon fiber materials and a tube having braided materials such as carbon fiber (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the sheath is made of a carbon fiber material (see above claim 3; Schiavinato in view of Johnson provides a carbon fiber sheath).
Regarding claim 5, modified Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the sheath resists bending of the plurality of lumens (interpreted as a functional limitation of the sheath, see MPEP 2114; see above claim 3; Schiavinato in view of Johnson provides a carbon fiber sheath as claimed, therefore would structurally be capable of resisting bending of the lumens to improve stiffness of the system).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiavinato as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 20220137061 A1; effectively filed 02/14/2019).
Regarding claim 11, Schiavinato fails to teach: the system of claim 10, wherein at least one lumen among the plurality of lumens is interchangeably coupled between two or more fluid sources via an intervening valve.
Schiavinato teaches delivering gasses, such as N2 or CO2 ([0143]). Schiavinato teaches solvent comprises water, sterile water, ethanol, and/or an aqueous mixture including ethanol ([0015]). Schiavinato teaches solenoid valves to control operation and fluid flow through the conduits ([0107]). Schiavinato teaches additional valves can incorporated ([0129]).
Wu teaches a system for automatic preparation of a sample for analysis (abstract). Wu teaches samples are obtained by an autosampler ([0045]). Wu teaches the system includes sample vials, a needle, buffer sources, change reagents, and carrier solutions, and a multi-port valve, i.e. intervening valve, to facilitate fluid communication between components of the system when desired ([0044]). Wu teaches the multi-port valve is in selective fluid communication with the multi-port valve, such that the sample (and/or buffer(s) from the buffer source(s) or change reagent(s) from the change reagent source(s)) can flow from the needle seat port to the multi-port valve via the multi-port valve ([0047]).
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 at least one lumen of Schiavinato to incorporate Schiavinato’s teachings of different gasses or solvents ([0015]) and valves ([0107],[0129]) and Wu’s teachings of an automated system including a multi-port valve for communication with different fluids ([0044],[0047]) to provide: the system of claim 10, wherein at least one lumen among the plurality of lumens is interchangeably coupled between two or more fluid sources via an intervening valve. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving automated control and connection of multiple desired fluid sources to the lumen, therefore improving flexibility of the sample probe for using additional fluids through the desired lumen.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiavinato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Giannuzzi (US 20190017904 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Schiavinato fails to teach: the system of claim 1, wherein a tip of the plurality of lumens and a tip of the tube together form a beveled-shaped tip.
Giannuzzi teaches a probe for sample extraction (abstract; [0013]). Giannuzzi teaches a need for manipulating samples during extraction ([0011]). Giannuzzi teaches the probe includes a beveled tip shape at the end of a conical probe to detach a sample from a bulk material for investigation (Fig. 6A-6C; [0015]-[0016],[0036]). Giannuzzi teaches the beveled probe tip allows for easily lifting out of a specimen ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tip of the plurality of lumens and the tube of Schiavinato to incorporate Giannuzzi’s teachings of a probe with a beveled tip for sample extraction ([0011],[0013],[0015]-[0016], [0036],[0041]; Figs. 6A-6C) to provide: the system of claim 1, wherein a tip of the plurality of lumens and a tip of the tube together form a beveled-shaped tip. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving sample extraction as taught by Giannuzzi. Additionally, doing so would have been an obvious change in shape of the tip, where the beveled-shape tip is an obvious matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious in view of Giannuzzi (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiavinato et al. (US 20220196697 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 20180153530 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Schiavinato teaches a sample probe (Fig. 14) for autosampler system (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 14 and paragraph [0146] teaches a probe for a system that is automated):
a tube (Fig. 14, interpreted as the tube and 3D printed tip, which are both tubular shaped; Fig. 14, left side shows a tube enclosing three conduits, i.e. conduits 1, 2, and 3) enclosing at least a portion of a plurality of lumens (Fig. 14 and [0143] teaches a tube and printed tip, where the tube enclosing three conduits, i.e. lumens), a tip of the tube and one or more tips corresponding to the one or more plurality of lumens together forming a conical-shaped tip (Fig. 14 left picture shows the conduits 1, 2, and 3 and the end tip of the tube form a conical-shaped tip); and
a controller (Fig. 14, “MCU”; [0039], “control system”; [0129] teaches controlling the valves of each conduit with a microcontroller) communicatively coupled with a fluid handling system to introduce or draw one or more fluids through a corresponding one or more lumens among the plurality of lumens (Fig. 14 and [0039] teaches the control system controls solvent flow through a first conduit, gas supply through the second conduit, and sample flow through the third conduit), the one or more fluids being at least one of a liquid or a gas (Fig. 14 and [0039],[0041] teaches a liquid solvent and gas), wherein during a droplet purge operation, the controller is configured to expel a gas from a tip of one of the lumens to purge a droplet of fluid from the tip (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 14 and [0039] teaches the control system controls gas supply through the second conduit, therefore, the controller is capable of expelling gas from the tip of the conduit tube to purge a droplet of fluid from the tip of the probe as claimed).
Schiavinato fails to teach: a carbon fiber sheath disposed between the tube and at least one lumen among the plurality of lumens, the carbon fiber sheath configured to resist bending of the plurality of lumens.
Johnson teaches a probe (abstract; Figs. 1-7) comprising lumens (118, 144) for sample acquisition ([0002]). Johnson teaches a portion of a sheath extending proximally from the ultrasound transducer may include a braided material, such as carbon fiber, which provides enhanced stiffness (e.g., pushability) and torqueability during actuating ([0025]). Johnson teaches an exterior tube comprising interior lumens, where the lumens are designed to resist bending and/or kinking, and the tube can include one or more braided materials, such as carbon fiber, to provide enhanced stiffness, torqueability and/or flexibility along all (or a portion of) the exterior tube ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Schiavinato to incorporate Johnson’s teachings of a carbon fiber sheath and a tube including braided materials such as carbon fiber ([0025],[0029]) to provide: a carbon fiber sheath disposed between the tube and at least one lumen among the plurality of lumens, the carbon fiber sheath configured to resist bending of the plurality of lumens. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving at least stiffness of the system, therefore improving resistance to bending and kinking. Additionally, providing the sheath between at least one lumen and the tube as claimed would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts, since the particular placement of the sheath is an obvious matter of design choice in view of Johnson’s teachings of a sheath with carbon fiber materials and a tube having braided materials such as carbon fiber (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
Regarding claim 20, Schiavinato further teaches the system of claim 19, further comprising an analysis system (Fig. 14, “mass spectrometer”; [0139] teaches mass spectrometry includes ionization methods such as inductively coupled plasma sources, therefore the mass spectrometer reads on the 112(f) interpretation of analysis system since the mass spectrometer uses inductively coupled plasma, i.e. ICP mass spectrometer) fluidly coupled to at least one lumen among the plurality of lumens (Fig. 14 and [0143] teaches at least one conduit fluidly coupled to the mass spectrometer), the analysis system configured to receive a fluid for analysis via the at least one lumen (Fig. 14 and [0036],[0143] teaches the mass spectrometer capable of receiving a fluid sample for analysis via the conduit, e.g. conduit 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davies et al. (US 20100304443 A1) teaches a sampling probe (abstract; Fig. 3B) comprising tube (320) enclosing a plurality of lumens (307-319).
Taghioskoui (US 20200015717 A1) teaches a sampling probe (Fig. 29A) including a tube (285) enclosing a plurality of lumens (Fig. 29A shows 5 lumens including elements 304a, 300, 301, 302, and 304b).
Van Berkel et al. (US 20100224013 A1) teaches a sampling probe (Figs. 1-5; abstract) including a tube (24) enclosing a plurality of lumens (Fig. 5, 34, 36).
Kucklick et al. (US 20050192532 A1) teaches a resilient sheath for a probe (abstract). Kucklick teaches for thin arthroscopes or other fragile medical instruments, the walls of sheath may be provided with braided carbon fibers or a mesh of steel, plastic or other composite that resists bending; and as the sheath and instrument bend, force is transferred to the mesh within the sheath, thereby protecting the fragile instrument inside the sheath ([0068]).
Keast et al. (US 20100312141 A1) teaches a sampling probe (abstract). Keast teaches the tip can include a straight conical, angled conical, curved, or beveled shape ([0053]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights