DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action in response to US Patent Application No. 18/782,312, filed 24 July, 2024, with priority to German Application No. 10 2023 119 706.1 filed 25 July ,2023. All claims 1-15 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The examiner’s understanding of certain claim language set forth in claim 1 is established below
Claims 1 refers to a “target curve of the fluid line system temperature” (claims 1, lines 5-10). The target curve is understood to refer to a predetermined plot/graph of fluid line system temperature vs. time, wherein the plot/graph represents a temperature profile of the fluid line system which corresponds with a cumulative thermal dose sufficient to kill germs present in the fluid line system .
Lines 11-13 of claim 1 recite: heating the fluid line system with a disinfection fluid in sections of the target curve of the fluid line system temperature in which the fluid line system temperature is to be increased or kept constant”. This limitation is understood to require that the fluid line system is heated in accordance with the target [temperature] curve of the fluid line system, such that a heated disinfection fluid is applied to the fluid line system at times when the temperature curve indicates the fluid line system temperature should be increased or kept constant.
Lines 17-23 of claim 1 discuss that the target curve is defined with a heating coefficient, a passive cooling coefficient, and a ready-to-use time “taken into account”. The phrasing “taken into account” is quite broad and amounts to a mental process; since a person can “take into account” any various factors and decide upon a target curve based on any relative weighing of such factors, the limitations of lines 17-23 have generally been treated as not setting forth any meaningful grounds for patentable distinction.
The last clause of claim 1 is understood to require that the claim includes a passive cooling step which begins before a cumulative thermal dose reaches a target threshold and while a fluid line system temperature remains above a minimum disinfection temperature.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the average level of the fluid line system temperature between the first time the minimum disinfection temperature is reached and the last time the fluid line system temperature falls below the minimum disinfection temperature is lowered in a direction of the minimum disinfection temperature, when the fluid line system temperature is capable of being lowered, after the last time the fluid line system temperature falls below the minimum disinfection temperature, without active cooling before the ready-to-use time to the maximum ready-to-use temperature”. The language of the claim is confusing to the extent that it is not clear what is actually being claimed. It would appear that an aspect of the claim may to the temperature of the system reaching a maximum ready-to-use temperature without active cooling. However, it is not clear what material steps or limitations are involved when “the average level of the fluid line system temperature…is lowered in a direction of the minimum disinfection temperature”, which conditions are being referred to with the clause “when the fluid line system temperature is capable of being lowered”, or if/how the clauses relate to each other. The claim should be rewritten to clarify what is actually being claimed. As best understood, the claim entails lowering to a maximum ready-to-use temperature without active cooling.
While not additional rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth, it is noted that the phrasing and language throughout the claims could be improved to more readily, concisely, and clearly convey the subject matter actually being claimed; the applicant is encouraged, but not currently required, to make adjustments to improve the quality of the claims in this regard.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckberry et al. (US 10,543,305 B2, cited in the IDS filed 10 June, 2025) in view of Kenley (US 6153102 A).
Regarding claim 1, Buckberry teaches a process of disinfecting a fluid line system of a medical apparatus (present invention aims to provide an efficient method of heat sanitization of a hemodialysis water circuit—column 2, lines 12-13), the process comprising the steps of:
measuring a fluid line system temperature in a predetermined temperature measuring section inside the fluid line system (temperature sensor are arranged on the sanitizing water circuit, including a driver temperature 222 on a feed pipe 220, and a return temperature sensor 226 and a check temperature sensor 228 arranged on a return pipe 224—see column 4, lines 54-67; processor 230 senses temperature from temperature sensors—column 5, lines 11-25; sensing the temperature of a volume of liquid with a sensor—column 2, lines 15-26) ;
defining a target curve of the fluid line system temperature by a predetermined minimum value of a target lethality of germs potentially present in the predetermined temperature measuring section (the processor 230 calculates the necessary temperature profile over the heating time to ensure the volume of water receives a sanitizing dose—column 8, lines 40-42), wherein the target lethality (cumulative time-temperature value) is calculated by integration of the target curve of the fluid line system temperature over time from a first time a minimum disinfection temperature sufficient to kill germs potentially present in the predetermined temperature measuring section is reached until a last time the fluid line system temperature falls below the minimum disinfection temperature (AO method which uses a knowledge of the lethality of the particular process at different temperatures to assess the overall lethality of the cycle and express this as the equivalent exposure time at a specified temperature—see column 1, line 45, through column 2, line 11, and column 3, lines 1-21, which use the same mathematical model as disclosed in the instant application to generate a time-temperature value as an indicator of lethality which is calculated by integrating the temperature of the fluid line system within a power function over time; when processor receives data that volume of water exceeds a threshold temperature, the processor 230 periodically samples the temperature of the volume of water via return temperature sensor 226—column 5, lines 26-35; processor 230 calculates cumulative time-temperature value for the volume of liquid which is compared to a target total time-temperature value indictive of a sanitizing dose--column 5, lines 39-46; processor 230 switches off heater 210 when target time-temperature value reached--column 5, lines 47-52—or processor 230 switches off water heater in advance of a sanitizing dose being reached by calculating that there is sufficient thermal energy contained within the water circuit that the water temperature will remain above the threshold temperature for long enough to ensure a sanitizing dose is reached--column 5, lines 53-61)
heating the fluid line system with a disinfection fluid in sections of the target curve of the fluid line system temperature in which the fluid line system temperature is to be increased or kept constant (processor 230 activates heater 210—column 5, lines 11-25—which evidently sends a heated disinfection fluid into the fluid line system; the heating is continued until a sufficient thermal dosage has been delivered or will be delivered by the time the system passively cools below the minimum disinfecting temperature—see column 5, lines 47-61—wherein when the temperature curve is predetermined by the processor—see column 8, lines 40-42—such functions amount to a step of heating the fluid line system in accordance with the predetermined temperature curve indicating that the system temperature should increase or stay the same); and
cooling the fluid line system in sections of the target curve of the fluid line system temperature in which the fluid line system temperature is to be lowered (processor 230 switches off water heater 210 in advance of a sanitizing dose being reached by calculating that there is sufficient thermal energy contained within the water circuit that the water temperature will remain above the threshold temperature for long enough to ensure a sanitizing dose is reached—column 5, lines 53-61; the heater is switched off 407…and the temperature of the water falls below the threshold temperature at 403—Fig. 4, column 6, lines 40-44; when the temperature curve is predetermined by the processor—see column 8, lines 40-42—the deactivation of the heater and consequent passive cooling of the system is evidently timed in accordance with the temperature curve so that cooling occurs in correspondence with cooling sections of the target curve).
wherein, before the predetermined minimum value of the target lethality is reached and before the last time the fluid line system temperature falls below the minimum disinfection temperature, cooling of the fluid line system takes place at least temporarily by passive cooling solely by stopping or interrupting heating (processor 230 switches off water heater 210 in advance of a sanitizing dose being reached by calculating that there is sufficient thermal energy contained within the water circuit that the water temperature will remain above the threshold temperature for long enough to ensure a sanitizing dose is reached—column 5, lines 53-61; the heater is switched off 407…and the temperature of the water falls below the threshold temperature at 403—Fig. 4, column 6, lines 40-44).
Buckberry further teaches that the processor determines the target curve based on at least an input threshold temperature and an overall heating time (column 8, lines 34-39). An overall heating time fairly defines a time at which the system is at an elevated temperature, and corresponds with or effectively sets a ready-to-use time at which the system would be returned to a non-elevated temperature. Also, the processor’s ability to determine a temperature curve/profile sufficient to deliver a lethal dose based on a set minimum temperature and overall heating time necessarily requires the processor to have some information on the heating dynamics of the system (e.g., maximum a rate of heating or rate of passive cooling), which are associated with heating and passive cooling coefficients.
Additionally—the extent that Buckberry is not explicitly clear in indicating if heating and passive cooling efficient are “taken into account”—Kenley, in in the analogous art of disinfection of lines in medical instruments (title), discusses disinfection of a line (12) of a medical device (10) by filling the line with a fluid heated to a high level disinfection temperature (column 4, lines 14-20), wherein an optimum dwell time of the heated fluid in the line is determined by taking into account a rate of heat loss of the fluid, based in part on a coefficient of heat transfer of the tubing constituting the line (12) (column 4, lines 21-36).
Accordingly, it is evident that it is ordinary in the art to consider various factors, including cooling rates and heat transfer coefficients, when determining an optimal temperature profile for disinfecting a fluid line associated with a medical device.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adapt the method of Buckberry such that the processor at least “takes into account” a heating coefficient, a passive cooling coefficient, and a ready-to-use time for the benefit of enabling an optimum temperature curve to be generated which can achieve sufficient disinfection while minimizing a duration of time the fluid line is exposed to elevated temperatures (consider Buckberry at column 2, lines 31-34). Also, it is emphasized that the phrasing “take into account” as recited in claim 1 quite broad and is weakly limiting on how the method requires the target curve be defined.
Regarding claim 10, Buckberry in view of Kenley teaches the process according to claim 1. Buckberry indicates that a typical benchmark for target lethality is an AO value of 1800 (column 2, lines 10-11; column 3, line 21; claims 14 and 22). Such a benchmark may reasonably be considered to include a safety factor because it is indicated to represent a typical benchmark for safe and effective disinfection. Thus, Buckberry fairly teaches a safety factor is included when defining the predetermined minimum value of the target lethality. It is emphasized that claim 10 does not impose any meaningful limitation on how a “safety factor” should be interpreted.
Regarding claim 11, Buckberry in view of Kenley teaches the process according to claim 1. Buckberry essentially teaches that the temperature curves only crosses the minimum temperature once during heating and once during cooling through the process (see Fig. 4, temperature curve only passes over threshold temperature 403 once during heating and once during cooling); accordingly, the target curve of the fluid line system temperature is defined so that an average level of the fluid line system temperature between the first time the minimum disinfection temperature is reached and the last time the fluid line system temperature falls below the minimum disinfection temperature lies above the minimum disinfection temperature (see Fig. 4, temperature never drops below threshold temperature 403 between around the 60 second mark and the 500 second mark, which correspond to the first time the minimum disinfection temperature is reached and the last time the fluid system temperature falls below the minimum disinfection temperature; thus, the average temperature within that tie must be greater than the minimum disinfection temperature).
Regarding claim 12, Buckberry in view of Kenley teaches the process according to claim 11. As best understood, claim 12 requires that a ready to-use-maximum temperature is achieved without active cooling. Buckberry does not clearly disclose active cooling and is understood to rely on passive cooling (heater switched off and water temperature decreases—see Figs. 3-4, column 6, lines 17-20, and 40-45), and the system is returned to room temperature (401) by the end of the process (see Fig. 4). Thus, it is presumed that Buckberry achieves a ready-to-use temperature without active cooling, and teaches the limitations of claim 12. See the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above regarding the lack of clarity with respect to the claim language of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the claimed apparatus requires a control device for carrying out the process according to claim 1. As indicated above, Buckberry [in combination with Kenley] teaches the process according to claim 1, and a control device (processor 230) designed to carry out the process (see rejection of claim 1 above). The apparatus of Buckberry further includes a fluid line system (sanitizing water circuit comprising tank 202, feed pipe 220, water circulation path 17 of dummy cartridge 16, and return pipe 224—column 4, lines 39-48), at least one temperature sensor (222, 226, 228) which is designed to be capable of measuring a fluid line system temperature in a predetermined temperature measuring section inside the fluid line system (column 4, lines 54-67), an inlet (inlet 204) for introducing a disinfectant fluid and/or a coolant into the fluid line system and an outlet (drain 206) for discharging the disinfectant fluid and/or the coolant from the fluid line system (column 4, lines 39-41), a heater (210) for heating the disinfectant fluid (column 4, lines 36-38), and
a control device (230) for controlling the inlet, the outlet and the heater in response to the fluid line system temperature measured by the at least one temperature sensor (processor 230 controls the heating of the water and receives the temperature values for the sanitizing water circuit—column 5, lines 4-6; processor 230 activates heater 210 to heat water and the pump draws water around the sanitizing water circuit…the temperature of the water exiting and entering the tank is periodically sensed to develop a feedback loop which moderates the heating to maintain the temperature of the volume of water at a target temperatures—column 5, lines 11-35).
Regarding claim 14, Buckberry in view of Kenley teaches the medical apparatus according to claim 13. Buckberry further teaches the medical apparatus is a blood treatment apparatus (kidney dialyzer—column 5, lines 9-10; dialysis machine 10—Fig. 1, column 1, lines 55-58; heat sanitization of a hemodialysis water circuit—column 2, lines 13-14).
Regarding claim 15, Buckberry in view of Kenley teaches the medical apparatus according to claim 14. Buckberry further teaches the medical apparatus is a dialysis machine (kidney dialyzer—column 5, lines 9-10; dialysis machine 10—Fig. 1, column 1, lines 55-58; heat sanitization of a hemodialysis water circuit—column 2, lines 13-14).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckberry et al. (US 10,543,305 B2) in view of Kenley (US 6,153,102 A), and further in view of Hayakawa (US 20230356269 A1, cited in the IDS filed 10 June, 2025) and Aikus et al. (US 5,603,894).
Regarding claim 2, Buckberry in view of Kenley teaches the process according to claim 1. Claim 2 is understood to require that the heat transfer coefficients which are taken into account when developing the target temperature curve of the fluid line system are determined based on a test or a simulation. Buckberry is not explicitly clear in disclosing such a step as part of the process. Generally, experimentally determining a parameter would ordinarily be considered well within the scope of a person having ordinary skill in the art. For example, Kenley discusses experimentally determining an optimum dwell time (column 4, lines 21-36).
Also, Hayakawa (US 20230356269 A1)—in the analogous art of cleaning and sterilizing methods for fluid lines of a filling machine (title abstract)—discusses calculating heat transfer coefficients from measured temperature data ([0073]).
Additionally, Aikus (US 5,603,894)—in the analogous art of sterilizing a composition through elevating and lowering a temperature of the composition (abstract)—teaches measuring temperatures at various points within a fluid line system to determine coefficients of heat transfer and calculating a degree of sterilization based on the coefficients of heat transfer (column 2, lines 15-33).
Accordingly, it is evident that experimentally determining heat transfer coefficients is commonplace, and determining said coefficients allows modeling of an expected degree of sterilization under various operating conditions.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the method of Buckberry such that the the heating coefficient and/or the passive cooling coefficient is/are determined by at least one test and/or by a simulation, before the target curve of the fluid line system temperature is determined, for the benefit of providing coefficients which represent actual heat transfer behavior to a model for determining an expected sterilization dosage.
Regarding claim 3, the claim overlaps in scope with claim 2. Accordingly, see the rejection of claim 2 above regarding how the combined teachings of Buckberry, Kenley, Hayakawa, and Aikus renders obvious adapting the method of Buckberry such that the heating coefficient and/or the passive cooling coefficient is/are defined, before or after the fluid line system temperature is measured in the predetermined temperature measuring section, by at least one test and/or by a simulation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckberry et al. (US 10,543,305 B2, cited in the IDS filed 10 June, 2025) in view of Kenley (US 6153102 A), and further in view of Aikus et al. (US 5,603,894).
Regarding claim 4, Buckberry in view of Kenley teaches the process according to claim 1. Buckberry teaches the system operating in a feedback mode wherein the controller adjusts heater operation based on reading from temperature sensors (column 5, lines 21-25), but does not explicitly indicate if the heating coefficient and/or the passive cooling coefficient is/are monitored while the process is carried out and, when the heating coefficient and/or the passive cooling coefficient is/are changed, the step of defining the target curve of the fluid line system temperature is carried out repeatedly. Kenley also does not clearly disclose such feature(s).
Claim 4 is essentially understood to involve tracking actual heating rates (associated with heat transfer coefficients) during the process so that the target temperature curve can be updated based on actual system performance.
As discussed with respect to claim 2 above, Aikus teaches measuring temperatures at various points within a fluid line system to determine coefficients of heat transfer and calculating a degree of sterilization based on the coefficients of heat transfer (column 2, lines 15-33); Aikus further indicates that the degree of sterilization be continuously calculated by continuously monitoring temperature and flow rates so that the degree of sterilization can is recalculated, and adjusting the temperature or flow rates when the degree of sterilization falls below a predetermined level or if operating conditions are otherwise unsuitable (see column 9, lines 28-39).
From these teachings of Aikus, it is known to monitor heat transfer coefficients during a heat sterilization process, and that the monitored coefficients assist in determining if a target degree of sterilization is being achieved or if adjustments are needed. Also, iterative models which receive update live in response to measured data are broadly known. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Buckberry such that the heat transfer coefficients are monitored while the process is carried out and used to update the target operating conditions, as similarly seen in Aikus, for the benefit of updating target temperature conditions to account for the actual heat transfer dynamics within the system and ensure a sterilizing dosage of thermal energy is delivered.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckberry et al. (US 10,543,305 B2) in view of Kenley (US 6,153,102 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weatherill (US 2007/0102357 A1) and Aikus et al. (US 5,603,894).
Regarding claim 5, Buckberry in view of Kenley teaches the process according to claim 1. Buckberry [in view of Kenley] does not teach clearly teach active cooling, nor determining an associated active cooling coefficient which is “taken into account” when generating the temperature curve of the fluid line system.
However, in the analogous art of heat sanitization for reverse osmosis systems (tittle), Weatherill teaches cool down cycles which follow sanitization cycles performed on a reverse osmosis system (abstract), wherein the cooling cycle involves circulating cool water through flow paths in order to flush and cool the flow paths and discharging heated water from the sanitizing cycles outside of the system ([0009]).
Therefore, it would at least be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Buckberry to include an active cooling step wherein the fluid line system is cooled by supplying a coolant and/or discharging hot disinfectant fluid—as substantially taught by Wetherill ([0009])—for the benefit of more rapidly bringing the fluid line system back to room temperature, which allows safe use of the system.
Buckberry, Kenley, and Weatherill do not particularly discuss that an active cooling coefficient indicative of a time-dependent decrease of the fluid line system temperature when the fluid line system is actively cooled is taken into account when the target curve of the fluid line system temperature is defined.
However, as discussed with respect to claim 2 above, Aikus (US 5,603,894) teaches measuring temperatures at various points within a fluid line system to determine coefficients of heat transfer and calculating a degree of sterilization based on the coefficients of heat transfer (column 2, lines 15-33). Accordingly, it is evident that experimentally determining heat transfer coefficients is commonplace, and determining said coefficients allows modeling of an expected degree of sterilization under various operating conditions.
Thus, in modified embodiments of Buckberry wherein active cooling is performed, the processor would need to account for a heat transfer coefficient associated with the active cooling stage to appropriately model a complete temperature curve achievable by the system for sufficient disinfection.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the cited prior art and further modify the method of Buckberry such that an active cooling coefficient indicative of a time-dependent decrease of the fluid line system temperature when the fluid line system is actively cooled is taken into account when the target curve of the fluid line system temperature is defined, for the benefit of enabling the processor of Buckberry to model a complete temperature curve achievable by the system for sufficient disinfection.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Buckberry, Kenley, Wetherill, and Aikus teaches the process according to claim 5. For similar reasons as discussed with respect to claim 2 above, it would be obvious to determine the active cooling coefficient before the target curve of the fluid line system temperature is defined based on at least one test and/or by means of a simulation (see rejection of claim 2 above establishing that experimentally determining heat transfer coefficients is commonplace, and determining said coefficients prior to modeling the temperature curve needed to achieve a desired degree of sterilization allows for more accurate prediction of actual system behavior by the model).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Buckberry, Kenley, Wetherill, and Aikus teaches the process according to claim 5. Claim 7 overlaps in scope with claim 6. Accordingly, see the rejection of claim 6 above regarding how the combined teachings of Buckberry, Kenley, Wetherill, and Aikus render obvious modifying the process of Buckberry such that the active cooling coefficient is defined before
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Buckberry, Kenley, Wetherill, and Aikus teaches the process according to claim 5. Claim 8 is similar to claim 4 except that it requires that the active cooling coefficient be monitored during the process with live updates fed back to the target curve model. As indicated with respect to claim 4 above, Aikus establishes that it is known to monitor heat transfer coefficients during a heat sterilization process, and that the monitored coefficients assist in determining if a target degree of sterilization is being achieved or if adjustments are needed; Also, iterative models which receive update live in response to measured data are broadly known. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Buckberry such that the heat transfer coefficients associated with an active cooling phase are monitored while the process is carried out and used to update the target operating conditions, as similarly seen in Aikus, for the benefit of updating target temperature conditions to account for the actual heat transfer dynamics within the system and ensure a sterilizing dosage of thermal energy is delivered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 sets forth that a last possible active cooling starting time is calculated by the target lethality, the ready-to-use time, the passive cooling coefficient and the active cooling coefficient, the maximum ready-to-use temperature is reachable only by active cooling after the last possible active cooling starting time, and the fluid line system is cooled exclusively by passive cooling until the last possible active cooling starting time. None of the cited references teach such steps of calculating a last possible time for active cooling and only initiating active cooling at said time, as claimed. No prior art was found which reasonably teaches such a feature within the context of the instant claims, and in combination with all further claim limitations. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 9 is found to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2009/011879 A2 teaches an electronic device (120) having a passive cooling device (104) and an active cooling device (106), wherein the active cooling device (106) is activated only after the cooling ability of the passive cooling device (104) is expended/expired (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights