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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 11/28/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 2, 4, 14, 19 – 22, and 29 have been amended. Thus, claims 1 – 23, and 25 – 31 are presently pending in this application with claims 19 – 23, and 25 – 29 are currently withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Oberkircher’s cannula 2620 is not the “distal end portion of the main body”
Applicant argues (Remarks, pages 10 – 11) that Oberkircher’s cannula 20 and/or 2620 extends from and is separate from the main body 40, and therefore does not teach a needle exiting from a “distal end portion of the main body.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner is not relying on Oberkircher’s cannula 2620 as the “distal end portion of the main body” of the combined device. Hedgeland’s head (200), which is integrated into instrument (10) as a substitute for head (100) (Hedgeland, paragraph [0048]), is the “distal end portion of the main body.” Hedgeland already teaches: (a) a probe (body 30) comprising a main body having a distal end portion (head 200); (b) a needle (290) that extends and retracts from an exit location on a surface (distal face 210) of head 200; and (c) during use, the surface (distal face 210) is placed adjacent to and in contact with an outer surface of the eye (paragraph [0050]).
Oberkircher is relied upon solely for teaching a specific geometric configuration of a distal end portion, specifically a distal end portion having a longitudinal axis (LA) and an end-face (beveled distal end 2626) that is intersected by the longitudinal axis, and a needle that exits through a side opening (beveled opening 2682) that is on a side surface that is proximal to the end-face (Oberkircher, Figure 31A, paragraphs [0214]–[0215]). The proposed modification is to apply this geometric teaching to Hedgeland’s rigid head (200), specifically to reconfigure head (200) so that it has an end-face intersected by the longitudinal axis and the needle (290) exits from a side surface of head (200) that is proximal to said end-face, rather than from the distal face (210) as currently shown. In the combined device, head (200) remains part of the main body of Hedgeland’s instrument (10). The Examiner is not proposing to replace Hedgeland’s head (200) with Oberkircher’s cannula (2620) or to insert a separate cannula into Hedgeland’s device.
2. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Oberkircher’s cannula is not adjacent to and in contact with an outer surface of the eye and requires a scleral incision
Applicant argues (Remarks, pages 11 – 12) that in Oberkircher, the cannula 20/2620 is inserted into the eye through an incision and is not placed adjacent to the outer surface of the eye as required by claim 1. The Examiner acknowledges the operational differences between Oberkircher’s and Hedgeland’s devices. However, this argument is not commensurate with the basis of the rejection.
As explained above, the rejection does not rely on Oberkircher for teaching a device that is placed adjacent to and in contact with an outer surface of the eye. Hedgeland already teaches this feature. Paragraph [0050] of Hedgeland discloses that distal face (210) of head (200) is fully seated against the eye (E) before needle (290) is advanced. The modification of Hedgeland’s device in view of Oberkircher does not alter the manner in which the device contacts the eye. In the modified device, the side surface of head (200) (from which the needle exits) would be placed against the outer surface of the eye, just as distal face (210) is currently placed against the eye. The end-face (now intersected by the longitudinal axis, per Oberkircher’s teaching) would be a different surface of head (200). No scleral incision is needed in the modified device because the needle penetrates through the sclera from outside the eye, as taught by Hedgeland.
3. Regarding Applicant’s argument that it would not be obvious to combine Hedgeland and Oberkircher because the combination would render the device inoperable
Applicant argues (Remarks, pages 12 – 13) that the combination would not work because Oberkircher’s cannula is flexible while Hedgeland’s body is rigid, and modifying one to match the other would destroy its intended function. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The proposed modification does not require making Hedgeland’s device flexible or Oberkircher’s device rigid. The modification is geometric, not material. Specifically, the modification applies the spatial relationship taught by Oberkircher’s Figure 31A—a needle exit location on a side surface proximal to an end-face, with the end-face intersected by the longitudinal axis—to the rigid head (200) of Hedgeland’s instrument. A rigid head structure is fully capable of having (i) an end-face intersected by a longitudinal axis, and (ii) a needle exit opening on a side surface proximal to the end-face. The rigidity of head (200) would, in fact, provide the structural support that Applicant describes as beneficial in their own specification. This geometric reconfiguration does not change the material properties of Hedgeland’s device and does not compromise its ability to function as intended.
Applicant further argues that if the exit-point of needle (190) in Hedgeland were moved to a side surface, the needle would exit at a point not in contact with the eye. The Examiner notes that in the modified device, the side surface from which the needle exits would be the surface placed against the eye, which is exactly what claim 1 recites: “a portion of the side surface having the exit location is placed adjacent to and in contact with an outer surface of the eye.” The end-face of the distal end portion, which is intersected by the longitudinal axis, is a different surface. The modification simply reconfigures which surface of head (200) is the “end-face” (intersected by the longitudinal axis) and which is the “side surface” (from which the needle exits and which contacts the eye). The head (200) retains its overall rigidity and its ability to seat against the eye to support needle penetration.
4. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Hedgeland and Oberkircher teach different needle exit angles optimized for different applications
Applicant argues (Remarks, page 13) that Hedgeland’s exit angle is optimized for scleral penetration and Oberkircher’s is optimized for choroidal penetration, and therefore it would not be obvious to combine them. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, claim 1 does not recite a specific needle exit angle. Both Hedgeland and Oberkircher teach that the needle exit angle is a design variable that may be adjusted depending on the application. Hedgeland teaches that the exit angle (θ) may range from approximately 50 degrees to approximately 89 degrees and that the operator can selectively vary the exit angle (Hedgeland, paragraph [0041]). Oberkircher similarly discloses a range of exit angles (Oberkircher, paragraphs [0212], [0216]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the exit angle can be optimized for the specific target tissue and intended use, which is routine optimization. MPEP 2144.05(II).
5. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Oberkircher teaches away from the claimed subject matter
Applicant argues (Remarks, pages 13–14) that Oberkircher teaches a pre-bent needle advancing from the end of the cannula as an alternative to a side-exiting needle (paragraph [0213]), and therefore Oberkircher does not teach having the needle exit from the side of a main body. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraph [0213] of Oberkircher discloses alternative means of achieving the desired needle exit angle (e.g., pre-bent needle, needle guide, or curved lumen). This does not teach away from a side-exiting needle configuration. In fact, the embodiment of Figures 30 and 31A (cannula 2620 with beveled opening 2682) is a separate, distinct embodiment that explicitly teaches a needle exiting from a lateral opening (side surface) proximal to the distal end. The existence of additional alternative embodiments in Oberkircher does not negate the teaching of the embodiment relied upon. A reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches, including non-preferred embodiments.
6. Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claimed configuration provides unique benefits (posterior maneuvering, structural support)
Applicant argues (Remarks, pages 8 – 10) that having the needle exit from a side surface of the distal end portion of the main body provides structural integrity and allows the device to be positioned at a wider range of locations (including posterior locations) on the eye. The Examiner notes that the claims are examined based on the structural limitations recited therein, not based on the intended use or perceived benefits described in the specification. Claim 1 does not recite posterior positioning of the distal end portion, nor does it recite any particular range of positions on the eye. The structural limitations of claim 1 are met by the combination of Hedgeland and Oberkircher as explained in the rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 6, 9 – 12, 15 – 18, 30, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedgeland (U.S. 2023/0140303) in view of Oberkircher (U.S. 2015/0223977).
Regarding claim 1, Hedgeland teaches a device for injecting or draining a fluid into or from an eye (instrument 10, Figures 1 – 8B), wherein the device comprises:
a probe (body 30, Figure 1) comprising: a main body having a distal end portion (head 200 as shown in Figure 8A) as discussed in paragraphs [0048] and [0049]; paragraph [0048] discloses that head 200 can be integrated into instrument 10 as a substitute for head 100;
a needle (needle 290, Figures 8A and 8B, paragraph [0049]) that extends and retracts from an exit location (the opening of passageway 240 as shown in Figure 8A) on a side surface (distal face 210, Figures 8A and 8B) of the distal end portion of the main body (paragraph [0050] discloses he translation of needle 290 from a pre-actuated state as shown in Figure 8A and the actuated state as shown in Figure 8B after head 200 is fully seated against the eye, the needle extends from head 200 which is the distal end of the main body 30), the needle having a needle conduit (the needle has a needle conduit since paragraph [0052] discloses delivering therapeutic agent to the suprachoroidal space via needle 290 of head 200); Examiner notes that the head 200 has multiple side surfaces including surfaces 210 and 202 as shown in Figure 8A;
and one or more probe conduits (hollow interior region 34 as shown in Figure 6 and discussed in paragraph [0080]) for moving the fluid through the probe, the one or more probe conduits being fluidically coupled to the needle conduit (since therapeutic agent contained in hollow interior region 34 can be expelled into suprachoroidal space via the distal tip 292 of needle 290 as discussed in paragraph [0050]);
wherein during use, a portion of the side surface having the exit location is placed adjacent to and in contact with an outer surface of the eye and the needle is extended to penetrate into the eye (Figures 8A and 8B), specifically once distal face (210) is fully seated against the eye (E), the operator may manipulate actuator (250) to reach an actuated state as shown in FIG. 8B… In this actuated state, needle (290) has penetrated the sclera (S) and distal tip (292) is positioned in the suprachoroidal space (SCS) as discussed in paragraph [0050];
and the fluid is injected or drained through the needle conduit (with distal tip (292) positioned in the suprachoroidal space (SCS), the operator may actuate plunger (20) distally relative to body (30), thereby expelling the therapeutic agent contained in hollow interior region (34) of barrel (32) into the suprachoroidal space (SCS) via needle (290) as described above as discussed in paragraph [0050]).
However, Hedgeland does not disclose that the distal end portion having a longitudinal axis and an end-face that is intersected by the longitudinal axis, and that the side surface is proximal to the end-face.
Oberkircher teaches an apparatus for delivering therapeutic agent to an eye (cannula 2620, Figures 30 and 31A) similar to Hedgeland and the current application, further including that the distal end portion (distal end portion as shown in Figure 31A) having a longitudinal axis (axis “LA”, Figure 31A) and an end-face (distal end 2626) that is intersected by the longitudinal axis as shown in Figure 31A, and the side surface (side surface where opening 2682 is located, Figure 31A) being proximal to the end-face as shown in Figure 31A and discussed in paragraphs [0214] and [0215].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Oberkircher with the device of Hedgeland in order to deflect the needle in a direction to ensure penetration of the needle into the target area and minimize the possibility of retina perforation (paragraph [0216]).
Regarding claim 3, Hedgeland teaches that the side surface is concave with a radius of curvature that approximately matches a radius of curvature of the sclera (the curvature of distal face 110 is configured to complement the curvature of exterior surface of the patient’s eye as discussed in paragraph [0037] and that head 200 is similar to head 100 as discussed in paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Hedgeland teaches that a longitudinal axis of the distal end portion of the main body is at an angle to a longitudinal axis of a remainder of the main body (angle of zero degree as shown in Figure 7).
Regarding claim 5, Hedgeland teaches that the device comprises a needle actuator that is coupled to the needle and controllable for causing the needle to extend and retract (paragraph [0050] discusses an actuator to actuate the translation of the needle).
Regarding claim 6, Hedgeland teaches that the device comprises a fluid actuator that is coupled to the needle and controllable for causing the fluid to move between the one or more probe conduits and the eye through the needle conduit (paragraph [0057] discusses a pump that is operable to actively drive fluid).
Regarding claim 9, Hedgeland teaches a guidance light source that is adapted to generate a guidance light beam to indicate when a tip of the needle penetrates into different layers of the eye by changes in transmitted or reflected light (response module (264) may illuminate a light or provide some other form of visual feedback to indicate that distal tip (292) has reached the suprachoroidal space (SCS) as discussed in paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 10, Hedgeland teaches that wherein the device further comprises at least one guidance tool that is adapted to perform a measurement to determine a position of the tip of the needle and/or a target injection or drainage site in the eye, specifically response module (264) is operable to provide user feedback to the operator to indicate that distal tip (292) has reached the suprachoroidal space (SCS). For instance, response module (264) may include a tactile feedback feature that provides haptic feedback (e.g., a vibration, etc.) to the operator via actuator (250) and/or via body (30), etc., to indicate that distal tip (292) has reached the suprachoroidal space (SCS). In addition, or in the alternative, response module (264) may illuminate a light or provide some other form of visual feedback to indicate that distal tip (292) has reached the suprachoroidal space (SCS) as discussed in paragraph [0055] and discussion of one or more components that are operable to sense the depth position of needle (290) within the eye (E), to thereby determine when distal tip (292) has reached the suprachoroidal space (SCS) in paragraph [0053].
Regarding claim 11, Hedgeland teaches a control unit (response module 264, paragraph [0054]) that is contained in the probe or remote from the probe, the control unit comprising a memory unit for storing software instructions for performing one or more functions (response module 262 has a memory unit for storing software instructions for performing one or more functions since response module 262 is configured to provide one or more responses in response to a command signal from processing module 262 such as illuminate a light or emit an audible tone as discussed in paragraph [0054] and [0055]);
a device interface (processing module 262, paragraph [0054]) for receiving measurement data and transmitting control signals for operation of the device (processing module 262 process signals from strain sensor 260 and issue command signal to response module 264 as discussed in paragraph [0054]);
a processor (microprocessor included in processing module 262 as discussed in paragraph [0054]) that is communicatively coupled to the memory unit and the interface, the processor being configured to perform the one or more functions when executing the software instructions, the one or more functions including: receiving the measurement data (from strain sensor 260); and transmitting the control signals (to response module 264) as discussed in paragraph [0054];
and a power source for providing power to components of the device (the device has a power source since response module 264 is configured to illuminate a light and emit an audible tone as discussed in paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 12, Hedgeland teaches that the device includes a pump (paragraph [0057] discusses a pump that is operable to actively drive fluid) fluidically coupled to the one or more probe conduits that is controllable to create an injection pressure when the fluid is injected into the eye (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 15, Hedgeland teaches an injection fluid container (barrel 32, Figure 6) coupled to the one or more probe conduits.
Regarding claim 16, Hedgeland teaches that the needle is adapted to extend to a depth within a suprachoroidal, subretinal, or intravitreal space of the eye (paragraph [0055] discloses that the distal tip of the needle is adapted to reach the suprachoroidal space).
Regarding claim 17, Hedgeland teaches that the device is adapted for injecting the fluid into a suprachoroidal space of the eye to create a choroidal buckle for treating a rhegmatogenous retinal detachment or a retinal tear (paragraph [0043] discloses that the device is used to deliver fluid into a suprachoroidal space of the eye). Examiner further notes that Hedgeland discloses that the device can be used to treat other ocular conditions (paragraph [0033]). Since the device as disclosed by Hedgeland comprises all the features as claimed including injecting fluid into a suprachoroidal space, the device as taught by Hedgeland read on the current claim.
Regarding claim 18, Hedgeland teaches that the fluid comprises a treatment fluid including a drug (therapeutic agent as discussed in paragraphs [0033] and [0043]).
Regarding claim 30, Hedgeland teaches a display (a light or other form of visual feedback as discussed in paragraph [0055]) communicatively coupled to the processor (the light is controlled by response module 264 which communicate with processing module 262 as discussed in paragraphs [0054] and [0055]), and the processor is configured to display at least a portion of the measurement data on the display (strain sensor 260 detects that the distal tip 292 has reached the suprachoroidal space and the light is illuminated by response module 264 to display the detection which is a portion of the measurement data from the strain sensor).
Regarding claim 31, Hedgeland teaches a speaker is communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to control the speaker to generate audio signals corresponding to device operating parameters, specifically response module (264) may emit an audible tone or provide some other form of audible feedback to indicate that distal tip (292) has reached the suprachoroidal space (SCS) as discussed in paragraph [0055].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedgeland (U.S. 2023/0140303) in view of Oberkircher (U.S. 2015/0223977).
Regarding claim 2, Hedgeland and Oberkircher teach claim 1 as seen above.
Hedgeland and Oberkircher do not specify that the needle is configured to extend at the exit location on the side surface of the probe at an angle that is within plus or minus 15% of perpendicular to a tangent of the side surface of the distal end portion of the main body at the exit location.
However, Hedgeland teaches that the exit angle may range from 50 degrees to 89 degrees as discussed in paragraph [0041] and shown in Figure 7 and that the operator can selectively vary the exit angle (paragraph [0041]). Hedgeland further teaches (in another embodiment can be incorporated into any of the heads 100 and 200 as discussed in paragraph [0072]) that it is desirable to provide a variation of instrument (10) that allows the operator to adjust the exit angle (θ) of a needle if such adjustments are necessary to reach the suprachoroidal space (SCS) of a particular patient at hand as discussed in paragraph [0066]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the angle of exit as a result effective variable since the angle of exit can be adjust to be able to reach the suprachoroidal space of a particular patient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the needle to be configured to extend at the exit location on the side surface of the probe at an angle that is within plus or minus 15% of perpendicular to a tangent of the side surface of the distal end portion of the main body at the exit location, for the purpose of reaching the suprachoroidal space of a particular patient, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Further, Applicant may wish to note that the Federal Circuit has held that it is permissible to combine two different embodiments disclosed in the same piece of prior art and noted that such a combination does not require "a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedgeland (U.S. 2023/0140303) in view of Oberkircher (U.S. 2015/0223977), and in view of Chen (U.S. 2006/0089607).
Regarding claim 7, Hedgeland and Oberkircher teach claim 1 as seen above.
However, Hedgeland and Oberkircher do not specify that the side surface has a boss at the exit location and the needle is configured to extend and retract through the boss, or the side surface has a boss adjacent the exit location and the needle is configured to extend and retract adjacent to the boss.
Chen teaches a device similar to Hedgeland, Oberkircher, and the current application, further including that the side surface (surface 32, Figure 1) has a boss (projection 58, Figures 1 and 3) adjacent the exit location and the needle is configured to extend and retract adjacent to the boss (Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Chen with the combined device of Hedgeland and Oberkircher in order to lock the needle in the extended position (paragraph [0022]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedgeland (U.S. 2023/0140303) in view of Oberkircher (U.S. 2015/0223977), and in view of Price (U.S. 2017/0360606).
Regarding claim 8, Hedgeland and Oberkircher teach claim 1 as seen above.
However, Hedgeland and Oberkircher do not specify that the one or more probe conduits comprise an injection conduit and a drainage conduit, and the probe has a coupling that is adjustable between fluidically coupling the drainage conduit to the needle conduit and fluidically coupling the injection conduit to the needle conduit.
Price teaches a device similar to Hedgeland, Oberkircher, and the current application, further including that the one or more probe conduits (30 and 40, Figure 1) comprise an injection conduit (paragraph [0095] discloses supplying fluid to the needle via supply tubes 30 or 40) and a drainage conduit (paragraph [0108] discloses that device 10 can also provide drainage), and the probe has a coupling (actuation arms 24, Figure 1) that is adjustable between fluidically coupling the drainage conduit to the needle conduit and fluidically coupling the injection conduit to the needle conduit (coupling 24 is used to control the connection between the needle and supply tubes 30 and 40 as discussed in paragraph [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Price with the combined device of Hedgeland and Oberkircher in order to provide drainage (paragraph [0108]).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedgeland (U.S. 2023/0140303) in view of Oberkircher (U.S. 2015/0223977), and in view of Evans (U.S. 2016/0287437).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Hedgeland and Oberkircher teach claim 1 seen above.
However, Hedgeland and Oberkircher do not specify a flange at the exit location to maintain a position or a pressure between the side surface and the surface of the eye (claim 13); wherein the flange comprises one or more sensors to measure a position at one or more points between the side surface of the distal end portion of the probe and the surface of the eye (claim 14).
Evans teaches a device similar to Hedgeland, Oberkircher, and the current application, further including a flange (26, Figure 2) at the exit location to maintain a position between the side surface and the surface of the eye (paragraphs [0111] and [0112]) (claim 13),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Evans with the combined device of Hedgeland and Oberkircher in order to allow precise controlling of the position of the probe to prevent damage to the eye (paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 14, Hedgeland and Oberkircher teach claim 13 seen above.
However, Hedgeland and Oberkircher do not specify that wherein the flange comprises one or more sensors to measure a position at one or more points between the side surface of the distal end portion of the main body of the probe and the surface of the eye (claim 14).
Evans teaches a device similar to Hedgeland, Oberkircher, and the current application, further including that the flange comprises one or more sensors to measure a position at one or more points between the side surface of the distal end portion of the main body of the probe and the surface of the eye (Examiner notes that the flange itself can be a sensor that measure a position at one or more points between the side surface and the surface of the eye since the length of thickness of the flange is the distance between the surface of the eye and the point where the flange connect to the side surface).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Evans with the combined device of Hedgeland, Oberkircher, and Evans in order to allow precise controlling of the position of the probe to prevent damage to the eye (paragraph [0112]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH T BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1028. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8 - 5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at (571) 270-1744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ANH T. BUI
Examiner
Art Unit 3783
/Anh Bui/Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /CHELSEA E STINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783