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 .
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 “at least one relief valve” in claim 3, “at least one outlet is a drain valve” in claim 5, “nozzle” and “ultrasonic vibrator” in claim 6, “vibration assembly” in claim 8, “at least on filter fluidly connected between the liquid nutrient container and atomizer” in claim 12, “delivery means” in claims 13, 14 (container) and 16, and “temperature regulation means” in claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 190 (see para [0083] et seq., of applicant’s corresponding US 2024/0247217). The examiner assumes this is referring to element 170 shown in the figures .
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “170” has been used to designate both “source of carbon dioxide” and “drain” in Figs. 1, 5-7.
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
In the patentability analysis of applicant’s apparatus claims 1-15 below, aspects or limitations the examiner interprets as functional/process/intended use, and/or not positively recited as part the claimed apparatus have been generally italicized whereas aspects interpreted as positively recited structural components are normally bolded. The bold font and italics are shown when the structure and function are initially introduced though not necessarily repeated, particularly in dependent claims. The examiner applies this formatting for both the examiner and applicant’s convenience. However, absent the referenced typestyles, the patentability analysis will still be clear regarding which limitations the examiner interprets as structural versus functional/process/intended use and not positively recited structure.
The functional/process/intended use and/or elements not positively recited as part of the apparatus do not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense with respect to the prior art. Also note that it has been held that recitations in which an element is "adapted to/for", “configured to/for”, “positionable”, “moveable/immovable”, etc., only requires the ability to so perform (i.e., functional/process/intended use).
Please note the italicized claim recitations below have not been ignored by the examiner. All of the claimed recitations (limiting and not limiting) in applicant’s claims 1-15 have been considered by the examiner and afforded the appropriate amount of patentable weight. In certain instances during prosecution, the examiner’s current interpretations regarding the patentable weight of these limitations may change based on the facts of the case. See MPEP at least §2111.02, 2173.01 I 2114, and 2173.05(g).
The examiner's patentability analysis provides one or more interpretations and claim mappings of the claimed structures and steps although other interpretations may be possible. In the patentability analysis, the Office applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification and specific limitations from the specification have not been read into the claims.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites 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), 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do use the word “means,” and thus being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder “means” 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:
“means for harvesting a portion of the biological material” in claim 7, which has been interpreted by the examiner as corresponding to vibration assembly comprising a rod…connected to the bioreactor and a vibration means (wherein the vibration means has been interpreted as a frequency resonator or structural equivalents thereof); see para [0048] et seq., of applicant’s specification;
“delivery means configured to inoculate biological material on the at least one substrate with the bioreactor chamber” in claim 13, has not been disclosed in applicant’s specification as corresponding any structure (see below); and
“temperature regulation means” in claim 15 has been interpreted by the examiner as corresponding to an “external heater or electrical conduction” (see para [0034]) or structural equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation "wherein the substrate comprises honeycomb" should be --wherein the substrate comprises a honeycomb like shape--. 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.
Claims 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “a vibration assembly comprising a rod configured to connect to
opposing sides of the bioreactor chamber and be connected at at least one end to a
vibration means. Opposing sides of the bioreactor chamber have not been previously
established in the claim. Also, it is not clear if the rod is connected to the vibration
means as well as opposing sides of the bioreactor chamber. Furthermore, the “at at”
should read --at--. Clarification is requested.
As discussed above, the limitation “delivery means” in claims 13 and 14 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. That is applicant’s disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weathers et al., (US 4,857,464; hereinafter “Weathers”-already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Weathers discloses an apparatus (10, Fig. l; col. 3, line 60-col. 4, line 99) for growing biological material, comprising:
a bioreactor chamber (12) comprising:
at least one substrate (screen 14) positioned within an interior of the bioreactor chamber to support the growth of the biological material;
at least one inlet to supply nutrient (inlet of mist emitting device 32); and
at least one outlet (outlet leading to product storage vessel 38) configured to enable biological material to be retrieved from the bioreactor chamber;
a liquid nutrient container (vessel 26) comprising:
at least one liquid nutrient outlet (outlet of vessel 26) fluidly connected to the bioreactor chamber to supply a liquid nutrient; and
an atomizer (mist emitting device 32) fluidly connected between the bioreactor chamber and the liquid nutrient container (Fig. 1)
and comprising:
a carbon dioxide inlet (inlet of mist emitting device 32 fluidly connected to gas cylinder 20) fluidly connected to receive a source of carbon dioxide ( col. 4, lines 4-10);
wherein the atomizer is configured to receive liquid nutrient from the liquid nutrient container and produce a liquid nutrient mist and provide a mixture of the liquid nutrient and the carbon dioxide from the carbon dioxide inlet to the bioreactor chamber (Fig. 1: the mist emitting device 32 receives nutrient and gas); and
wherein the biological material is grown within the apparatus without exposure to water in its liquid form (col. 4, lines 4-14).
Regarding claim 3, Weathers discloses the bioreactor chamber also comprises at least one relief valve (interpreted as filter gas outlet 34), configured to release excess oxygen produced by the biological material within the bioreactor chamber.
Regarding claim 4, Weathers discloses the liquid nutrient container comprises at least one nutrient inlet configured to enable refilling of the liquid nutrient container with liquid nutrient (Fig. 1; reusable media is replaced to storage vessel 26 via conduit 42).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Weathers discloses the atomizer comprises a nozzle and an ultrasonic vibrator configured to induce the flow of carbon dioxide by the flow the liquid nutrient within the atomizer.
Regarding claim 7, Weathers discloses a means for harvesting a portion of the biological material from the at least one substrate within the bioreactor chamber (see col. 4, lines 33-39).
Regarding claim 9, Weathers discloses a light source 36 configured to provide a uniform intensity of light to the at least one substrate (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Weather discloses an air compressor (mist emitting device 32 by pressurized gas or pump) configured to create a Venturi effect to provide nutrient flow through the atomizer (see col. 4, lines 15-16).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Weathers teaches a delivery means (container 26) configured to inoculate biological material on the at least one substrate with the bioreactor chamber (cell loading and recovery port 16, see Fig. 1 and col. 3, line 60 et seq.)
Regarding claim 15, Weathers teaches a temperature regulation means configured to provide heating and/or cooling to the bioreactor chamber (the processor in Weathers is programmable to continuously adjust mist emission frequency and duration, humidity, temperature, and other process parameters, as required by the particular organism cultivated, see col. 3, line 15 et seq.)
Regarding claim 16, Weathers discloses a method of use of the apparatus for growing biological material as claimed in claim 1, the method
comprising the following steps:
a. sterilizing the liquid nutrient container (implied in col. 4, lines 11-14) and the bioreactor chamber (col. 3, line 60-col. 4, line 3);
b. coating the at least one substrate within the bioreactor chamber with a carbon source and water via the delivery means ( col. 4, lines 4-14);
c. seeding the at least one substrate within the bioreactor chamber with a seed of biological material (via cell loading and recovery port 16);
d. providing a mist of liquid nutrient produced by the atomizer and carbon dioxide to facilitate growth of the biological material on the at least one substrate (col. 4, lines 4-29);
e. releasing a portion of the grown biological material from the at least one substrate and f. retrieving the released portion of the biological material from the bioreactor chamber via the at least one outlet (col. 4, lines 33-39); and
g. repeating steps d. to f (implicit).
Regarding claim 17, Weather teaches the carbon source is carbon dioxide (see col. 4, lines 4-14).
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shaiu (US 2006/0240544-already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Shaiu discloses an apparatus (2, Fig. 2) for growing biological material, comprising:
a bioreactor chamber (20) comprising:
at least one substrate (rotatable culture bed 25) positioned within an interior of the bioreactor chamber to support the growth of the biological material (Par. [0038]);
at least one inlet (231) to supply nutrient; and
at least one outlet (side doors 2031, Par. [0041]) configured to enable biological material to be retrieved from the bioreactor chamber;
a liquid nutrient container (nutrient reservoir 21) comprising:
at least one liquid nutrient outlet ( outlet of nutrient reservoir 21) fluidly connected to the bioreactor chamber to supply a liquid nutrient; and
an atomizer (ultrasonic mist generator 23) fluidly connected between the bioreactor chamber and the liquid nutrient container (Fig. 2) and comprising:
a carbon dioxide inlet (gas inlet 232) fluidly connected to receive a source of carbon dioxide (Par. [0037]);
wherein the atomizer is configured to receive liquid nutrient from the liquid nutrient container and produce a liquid nutrient mist and provide a mixture of the liquid nutrient and the carbon dioxide from the carbon dioxide inlet to the bioreactor chamber (Par. [0037]); and
wherein the biological material is grown within the apparatus without exposure to water in its liquid form (Par. [0039]: the nutrient is delivered from the nutrient reservoir 21 as a mist).
Regarding claim 3, Shaiu discloses the bioreactor chamber also comprises at least one relief valve (interpreted as a vent; see para [0041] et seq.) configured to release excess oxygen produced by the biological material within the bioreactor chamber.
Regarding claim 6, Shaiu discloses the atomizer comprises a nozzle and an ultrasonic vibrator configured to induce the flow of carbon dioxide by the flow the liquid nutrient within the atomizer, (see para [0008], [0033], [0037]).
Regarding claim 9, Shaiu discloses a light source 28 configured to provide a uniform intensity of light to the at least one substrate (see Fig. 2 and para [0033] et seq.)
Regarding claim 10, Shaiu teaches the liquid source is configured to pass through the at least one substrate and is selected from the group consisting of an LED light source (see para [0040] et seq.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weathers or Shaiu in view of Plummer (WO 2014/102527- already of record).
With regard to claim 2, Weathers and Shaiu do not disclose wherein the substrate comprises a honeycomb like shape. In the related art of bioreactors, Plummer discloses a bioreactor (1) that comprises one or more cell culture chambers (8) each containing an interchangeable scaffold 10, 32. Plummer discloses the substate preferably comprises an interlinked pattern of holes or pores designed to maximize the surface area of the scaffold exposed to the cells that grow inside it by using hexagonal pores arranged in a honeycomb format, (see Fig. 3B; page 5, lines 8-10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the claimed invention was effectively filed to have configured (or substituted) the substrates in Weathers and Shaiu with a substrate having a honeycomb configuration as taught by Plummer, since Plummer recognizes that a honeycomb substate maximizes the surface area of the scaffold exposed to the cells that grow inside it for higher throughput (see Fig. 3B; page 5, lines 8-10).
Claim 8, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weathers in view of Kasuto et al., (US 2014/0030805; hereinafter “Kasuto”).
As discussed above, Weathers discloses a means for harvesting a portion of the biological material from the at least one substrate within the bioreactor chamber (see col. 4, lines 33-39). However, Weathers does not explicitly teach the means for harvesting includes a vibration assembly comprising a rod connected to opposing sides of the bioreactor and connected at least at one end to a vibration means (a frequency resonator).
In the related art of bioreactors, Kasuto discloses a vibration assembly for harvesting cells grown in vitro on a three-dimensional ("3D") substrate by applying a vibratory force of sufficient frequency, amplitude, and duration to release the cells from the 3D matrix so they may be recovered with high yield, and high cell viability and vitality. The vibratory force may also be used to seed cells onto the matrix prior to growth and also to effectively mix media through the 3D matrix during growth of the cells in a 3D bioreactor system (see para [0002] et seq.) Kasuto discloses the use of a rod connected to opposing sides of the bioreactor and connected at least to one end of a vibration means (see Fig. 5 and para [0118] et seq.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have substituted the harvesting means in Weathers with the vibration assembly disclosed in Kasuto, since Kasuto recognizes that the use of a vibration assembly to harvest cell releases more cells from the matrix (substrate) compared to using other type of mechanisms used to agitate the substrate (see para [0002] et seq. Kasuto recognizes the advantage of providing controlled vibrations to the substrate by varying the amplitude and frequency as desired to achieve a particular result thereby making the assembly more versatile (see para [0116] et seq.)
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weathers.
Regarding claim 5, Weathers discloses a drain configured to enable biological material to be retrieved from the bioreactor chamber (conduit leading to product storage vessel 38, col. 4, lines 33-39) It is expected that the conduits in Weathers would include valves since Weather discloses drainage collectors 116 conduct liquid to collecting vessel 118, where materials are retrieved, optionally processed, and reused where appropriate. The phrase “optionally processed” implies the use of valve that the controller can open/close based on whether or not biological material is recycled or retrieved by the operator. However, if it is found that a drain valve is not implicitly disclosed in Weathers, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the claimed invention was effectively filed to include a valve in the apparatus of Weathers for the expected benefit of providing controlled evacuation of biological material from the bioreactor chamber.
Regarding claim 12, Weathers does not disclose at least one filter fluidly connected between the liquid nutrient container and the atomizer. However, Weather does disclose placing a filter (24) between gas cylinder (20) and mist emitting device (32) to remove contaminants (see col. 4, lines 9-10). Thus, it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to place at least one filter fluidly connected between the liquid nutrient container and the atomizer to remove contaminants from this pathway as well.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Pertinent Prior Art
While the following prior art listed below is not specifically discussed in this Official action, the examiner considers the prior art listed below relevant to the overall prosecution and may be relied upon during subsequent examinations based on applicant’s future responses.
Das et al., (US 8,722,389) disclose systems for culturing algae, the systems comprise a liquid reservoir, a fog chamber, an algal mat generator chamber and a light source. Further aspects of systems consistent with the present disclosure include a liquid reservoir that has a first inlet and outlet for receiving and delivering a growth medium, respectively, to the fog chamber via a connecting tube. The fog chamber may have a first inlet for receiving the liquid growth medium and a second inlet for receiving carbon dioxide from a carbon dioxide source, and is further adapted to produce a stream of nebulized growth medium ("fog") that is subsequently delivered to the algal mat generator chamber with carbon dioxide via a first outlet. The algal mat generator chamber has a first inlet for receiving the stream of nebulized growth medium and carbon dioxide from the fog chamber. The system may further comprise a light source and includes at least one solid support in the generator chamber on which to grow a population of algal cells. The system may include means for harvesting the algae from the one or more solid supports. The term "nebulize" refers to the generation of a fine mist or fog of a liquid and is typically used in reference to a liquid growth medium. A "nebulized" liquid may also be described as a "fog", "mist", "vaporized liquid", "humidified liquid" or "atomized liquid".
Huschek et al., (US 2022/0389357) disclose a microalgae bioreactor comprising nozzles to finely spray a suspension containing the microalgae in a chamber flooded with light and supplied with carbon dioxide as gaseous nutrient. The droplets of the suspension finely sprayed in the upper region of such a chamber gradually float to the bottom in the chamber, said droplets, or the microalgae contained therein, being exposed to the light in the chamber for the duration of this downward movement. At the bottom of the chamber, the suspension is collected in the form of the droplets gathering there and then supplied back to its nozzles, which are used for spraying in the aforementioned chamber, by means of a piping and pump system.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:30am-7pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on 571-270-3638. 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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights