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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 28, following the amendment to the claim the limitations have been limited to that which was previously mentioned in the independent parent claim (claim 1).
The limitation is mentioned and its purpose explained within the specification (Immediate Application Specification; pg. 30 lines 22-29). As a result, it is recommended to include the recitation of “has an inclined side wall” as was present in the pre-amendment claim set.
For examination purposes claim 28 will be examined as the following:
The microfluidic cell culture device of claim 1, wherein the perfusion channel has an inclined side wall.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-29, 31 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “essentially” in claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 27, and 29 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, 27, and 29, the term "essentially" was recited in the phrase "essentially vertically" this is unclear since vertical by definition is having right angles to the horizontal plane. The use of "essentially vertical" was chosen rather than the use of "inclined" as was used in the pre-amendment claim set in claim 28, therefore it is unclear as to what "essentially vertical" defines if not an incline.
Regarding claim 7, the term "essentially" was recited in the phrase "essentially horizontally" this is unclear since horizontal by definition is having right angles to the vertical plane. It is unclear as to what “essentially horizontal” could mean and there was no supporting information or explanation within the specification to be consulted.
Claims 2-3, 5-29, 31, and 33-34 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim (Claim 1).
There is insufficient antecedent basis in claims 3, 5-6, 8-11, and 23-27:
Claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 23, and 24 recite the limitation “the compartment” on lines 2-3, 2-3, 2, 2, 1-2, and 2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the neighboring compartment portion" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bottom side" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation "the culture plate" in lines 1-2 and 1-2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation "the perfusion plate" in line 2 and 2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the bottom plate" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the vascular network" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 23-27 recite the limitation "the well portion" in lines 1-2, 1-2, 2, 1, and 2 respectively . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the open top end" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the organoid" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding all of the above lacking antecedent basis: the limitations will be interpreted as if correct antecedent basis was provided, without assuming dependencies of any of the claims, and will be examined as such.
Regarding claim 28, the limitations of the claim are unclear as they have previously been mentioned in the independent parent claim (claim 1). (See Claim Objections for suggestions)
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, 5, 20-23, 25-27, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vulto (US20200063081A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vulto teaches:
A microfluidic cell culturing device (Vulto; Abstract, Para. [0001]), comprising
a cell culture cavity (Vulto; Paras. [0120] and [215], Figs. 1-3, central organoid compartment (103));
a perfusion channel (Vulto; Paras. [0120], Figs. 1-3, two channels (102)) having an inlet and an outlet (Vulto; Paras. [0120], Figs. 1-3, two channels (102); The inlet and outlet of the channels would be the reservoirs (102) and the organoid compartment (103)); and
a capillary pressure barrier (Vulto; Paras. [0120], Figs. 3, 6, & 9, two channels (102), pressure barriers (105)) essentially vertically connecting the perfusion channel with the cell culture cavity (Vulto; Paras. [0054] and [0120], Figs. 3, 6, & 9, two channels (102), pressure barriers (105), While the horizonal planar shape is circular the height of the capillary pressure barrier created creates an "essentially vertical" connection between media/perfusate and the cell culture cavity).
Regarding claim 2, Vulto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Vulto further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the cell culture cavity has a compartment portion (Vulto; Para. [0120] and [0215], Figs. 1-3, central organoid compartment (103)).
Regarding claim 3, Vulto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Vulto further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the capillary pressure barrier essentially vertically connects the perfusion channel with the compartment portion of the cell culture cavity (Vulto; Paras. [0120], Figs. 3, 6, & 9, two channels (102), pressure barriers (105); The pressure barrier satisfies the essentially vertical connection since the connection is angled upwards).
Regarding claim 5, Vulto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Vulto further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the cell culturing cavity comprises a neighboring compartment portion (Vulto; Figs. 1 and 2, reservoir (101); Reservoir (101) is adjacent to the organoid compartment (103)) adjacent to the compartment portion.
Regarding claim 20, Vulto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Vulto further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein a vasculature network is arranged in the cell culture cavity (Vulto; Paras. [0001], [0012], [0090-0106]).
Regarding claim 21, Vulto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Vulto further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the cell culture cavity comprises a hydrogel in which the vasculature network is arranged (Vulto; Para. [0158]).
Regarding claim 22, Vulto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Vulto further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the cell culture cavity comprises a well portion having an open top end (Vulto; Para. [0116]).
Regarding claim 23, Vulto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Vulto further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the compartment portion of the cell culture cavity passes over into the well portion of the cell culture cavity (Vulto; Para. [0116]; Figs. 1-3 and 13-15, organoid compartment (103); The part of the organoid compartment where the organoid is located (the bottom part) is the compartment portion and the area above this which has the open top end is the well portion).
Regarding claim 25, Vulto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Vulto further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culture device of claim 1, wherein an organoid is arranged in the well portion of the cell culture cavity (Vulto; Para. [0116]; Figs. 1-3 and 13-15, organoid compartment (103)).
Regarding claim 26, Vulto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Vulto further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culture device of claim 1, wherein the well portion of the cell culture cavity comprises a hydrogel in which the organoid is arranged (Vulto; Para. [0157-0158], organoid compartment (103)).
Regarding claim 27, Vulto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Vulto further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culture device of claim 1, wherein the capillary pressure barrier essentially vertically connects the perfusion channel with the well portion of the cell culture cavity (Vulto; Para. [0116]; Figs. 1-3 and 13-15, organoid compartment (103); The well portion and compartment portion of the cell culture cavity are both encompassed by the organoid compartment. See Claim 1 for capillary pressure barrier).
Regarding claim 31, Vulto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Vulto further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culture device of claim 1, wherein the capillary pressure barrier comprises a capillary member (Vulto; Paras. [0120], Figs. 3, 6, & 9, pressure barrier (105)) with at least one hole connecting the perfusion channel with the cell culture cavity (Vulto; Paras. [0120], Figs. 3, 6, & 9, two channels (102), pressure barriers (105); There is no specification to the shape or type of hole, so the examiner is interpreting hole as a space absent of an object or blockage. As a result, the space above the pressure barrier (105) constitutes a hole from the top of the channels (102) to the top of the pressure barrier (105)).
Regarding claim 33, Vulto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Vulto further teaches:
Use of a microfluidic cell culturing device according to claim 1 for the creation of a self-assembled vascular network and/or for the creation of vascularized tissues such as spheroids, organoids and tissue biopsies (Vulto; Paras. [0001], [0012], [0090-0106], cell aggregates).
Claims 1, 6-13, 17-19, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Young (US20230193182A1).
Regarding claim 1, Young teaches:
A microfluidic cell culturing device (Young; Abstract, Paras. [0002-0004]), comprising
a cell culture cavity (Young; Paras. [0114-0119], Figs. 1A-1C and 2F, first microfluidic channel (100), elongate portion (105));
a perfusion channel (Young; Paras. [0114-0119], Figs. 1A-1C and 2F, third microfluidic portion (120), elongate portion (105)) having an inlet and an outlet (Young; Para. [0127], Fig. 1, reservoirs (101, 102, 121, 122)); and
a capillary pressure barrier (Young; Paras. [0114-0119], Figs. 1A-1C and 2F, vertical geometric meniscus-pinning feature (155)) essentially vertically connecting the perfusion channel with the cell culture cavity (Young; Paras. [0114-0119], Figs. 1A-1C and 2F, vertical geometric meniscus-pinning feature (155)).
Regarding claim 6, Young teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Young further teaches:
The microfluidic culturing device of claim 1, comprising a capillary pressure compartment barrier essentially vertically connecting the compartment portion and the neighboring compartment portion (Young; Paras. [0117-0119], Figs. 1A-1C, vertical geometrical meniscus pinning feature (155), first microfluidic channel (100), third microfluidic channel (120), elongate fluid communication portion (105); In Para. [0117] meniscus pinning is defined as forming a capillary pressure barrier; The capillary pressure barrier compartment is formed by the structures of the channels (100 & 120) in which it is sat in between).
Regarding claim 7, Young teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Young further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, having a bottom side essentially horizontally extending (Young; Figs. 2A-2B and 2D-2E, base layer (200)).
Regarding claim 8, Young teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Young further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the bottom side is configured such that, in use, the microfluidic cell culturing device seats on the bottom side (Young; Figs. 2A-2B and 2D-2E, base layer (200)).
Regarding claim 9, Young teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Young further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, comprising a culture plate (Young; Para. [0137], Figs. 2C-2D, base layer (200), channel layer (205); The base and channel layers are attached strongly such that after construction are essentially one plate.) and a perfusion plate (Young; Para. [0137], Fig. 2C-2D, port layer (210), reservoir layer (215)), wherein the culture plate is equipped with the compartment portion of the cell culture cavity (Young; Para. [0137], Figs. 2C-2D, base layer (200), channel layer (205); The cells are seeded within the gel onto the base layer within the channels in the channel layer.) and the perfusion plate is equipped with the perfusion channel (Young; Para. [0137], Fig. 2C-2D, port layer (210), reservoir layer (215); The port layer (210) is where the perfusion occurs and the reservoir layer (215) is where the media is filled).
Regarding claim 10, Young teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Young further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the culture plate is mounted on top of the perfusion plate or the perfusion plate is mounted on top of the culture plate (Young; Fig. 2C-2D, base layer (200), channel layer (205), port layer (210), reservoir layer (215)).
Regarding claim 11, Young teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Young further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the culture plate abuts the perfusion plate (Young; Fig. 2C-2D, base layer (200), channel layer (205), port layer (210), reservoir layer (215)).
Regarding claim 12, Young teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Young further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, comprising a bottom plate (Young; Figs. 2A-2B and 2D-2E, base layer (200)).
Regarding claim 13, Young teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Young further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the bottom plate abuts the cell culture plate (Young; Figs. 2A-2B and 2D-2E, base layer (200), channel layer (205)).
Regarding claim 17, Young teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Young further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the cell culture cavity has a transparent bottom (Young; Para. [0133]; Made of transparent acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)).
Regarding claim 18, Young teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Young further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the inlet of the perfusion channel upwardly extends and upwardly opens (Young; Fig. 2C, media port inlet (235); It is open upwards and extends from the base layer to the top of the plate/chip).
Regarding claim 19, Young teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Young further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the outlet of the perfusion channel upwardly extends and upwardly opens (Young; Fig. 2C, media port inlet (235), pipette (225); The media outlet is seen in Step 3 in Fig. 2C opposite of the pipette (225) adding media; It is open upwards and extends from the base layer to the top of the plate/chip).
Regarding claim 34, Young teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Young further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the perfusion channel at least partially overlaps with the cell culture cavity thereby creating an aperture of the capillary pressure barrier at the intersection between the perfusion channel and the cell culture cavity (Young; Paras. [0114-0119], Fings. 1A-1C, 2F, vertical geometrical meniscus pinning feature (155), first microfluidic channel (100), third microfluidic channel (120), elongate fluid communication portion (105); See rejections for Claim 1 and Claim 6 using Young above for further explanation).
Claims 1, 14-16, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US20230147702A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches:
A microfluidic cell culturing device (Lee; Abstract, Paras. [0048-0051], Figs. 1 and 2, microfluidic chip (100)), comprising
a cell culture cavity (Lee; Paras. [0094-0095], Figs. 1 and 2, first channel (104));
a perfusion channel (Lee; Paras. [0008], [0049-0050] Figs. 1 and 2, second channel (116)) having an inlet and an outlet (Lee; Paras. [0031] and [0063]); and
a capillary pressure barrier (Lee; Paras. [0027] and [0051-0059]; Fig. 2, height difference between first height (112) of the first channel (104) and the second height (122) of the second channel (116)) essentially vertically connecting the perfusion channel with the cell culture cavity (Lee; Paras. [0048-0052], Fig. 1 and 2, first channel (104), first height (112), second channel (116), second height (122); Channels having different heights (Para. [0049] last line) see Fig. 2 for visual height comparison)
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Lee further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the capillary pressure barrier has a vertical passage between the perfusion channel and the cell culture cavity (Lee; Paras. [0027] and [0051-0059]; Fig. 2, height difference between first height (112) of the first channel (104) and the second height (122) of the second channel (116); Channels having different heights (Para. [0049] last line)).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Lee further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, comprising an inflow medium channel which has an inlet (Lee; Paras. [0008], [0031], [0049-0050], [0063] Figs. 1 and 2, second channel (116)) and which opens into the cell culture cavity (Lee; Paras. [0031], [0048-0052], and [0062-0063], Figs. 1 and 2, first channel (104), second channel (116)).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Lee further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, comprising an outflow medium channel which has an outlet (Lee; Paras. [0008], [0031], [0049-0050], [0063] Figs. 1 and 2, second channel (116)) and which opens into the cell culture cavity (Lee; Paras. [0031], [0048-0052], and [0062-0063], Figs. 1 and 2, first channel (104), second channel (116)).
Regarding claim 29, Lee teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Lee further teaches:
The microfluidic cell culture device of claim 1, wherein the cell culture cavity has a side compartment portion (Lee; Para. [0066]), and wherein the capillary pressure barrier essentially vertically connects (Lee; Paras. [0027] and [0051-0059]; Fig. 2, height difference between first height (112) of the first channel (104) and the second height (122) of the second channel (116)) the perfusion channel with the side compartment portion of the cell culture cavity (Lee; Paras. [0094-0095], Figs. 1 and 2, first channel (104)).
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 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vulto (US20200063081A1) in view of Kugelmeier (US20230193179A1).
Regarding claim 24, Vulto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1.
Vulto does not teach:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the well portion of the cell culture cavity upwardly widens from the compartment portion to the open top end.
Kugelmeier teaches:
The microfluidic cell culturing device of claim 1, wherein the well portion of the cell culture cavity upwardly widens from the compartment portion to the open top end (Kugelmeier; Para. [0016]).
Kugelmeier further teaches:
The wells having the shape of a pyramid or of a cone having a rounded tip allows for the accommodation of cells and uniformity in their placement (Kugelmeier; Para. [0016]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the well of the cell culture cavity compartment of Vulto by shaping the well with inclined walls which widen the opening upwards as taught by Kugelmeier. Both Vulto and Kugelmeier are directed to microfluidic cell culture apparatuses. Kugelmeier teaches that the cone and/or pyramidal shape of the wells allows for the accommodation of cells and their uniform placement within the wells (Kugelmeier; Para. [0016]). This involves applying a known technique (inclined walls in a cell culture well that creates a pyramid or cone shape) to a similar device (a microfluidic cell culture apparatus) to yield predictable results (improved placement of cell bodies within the culture wells).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US20230193182A1) in view of Leiden (US20150238952).
Regarding claim 28, Young teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1.
Young teaches:
Phaseguides to create a capillary pressure barrier (Young; Paras. [0114-0119], Figs. 1A-1C, phaseguides (150, 155); It is commonly known to one with ordinary skill in the art that the purpose of phaseguides in microfluidic devices is to create a capillary pressure barrier)
Young does not teach:
The microfluidic cell culture device of claim 1, wherein the perfusion channel has an inclined side wall.
Leiden teaches:
The microfluidic cell culture device of claim 1, wherein the perfusion channel has an inclined side wall (Leiden; Para. [0004]).
Leiden further teaches:
The addition of inclined sidewalls creates a capillary pressure barrier and allows for selective placement of the barrier, which is dependent on the angle of incline of the walls (Leiden; Para. [0004]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phaseguides and walls without incline of Young by removing the phaseguides and walls and replacing them with walls having an incline as taught by Leiden. Both Young and Leiden are directed to microfluidics and the use of capillary pressure barriers. Leiden teaches that the addition of inclined sidewalls creates a capillary pressure barrier and allows for selective placement of the barrier, which is dependent on the angle of incline of the walls (Leiden; Para. [0004]). This involves applying a known teaching (inclined walls in microfluidic structures can be used to create capillary pressure barriers) to a similar device (a microfluidic apparatus which uses a capillary pressure barrier) to yield predictable results (the use of inclined walls to allow for malleability of the placement of the capillary pressure barrier within the microfluidic device).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONAVAN L BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)272-9636. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/D.L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights