DETAILED ACTION
Note: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
1. Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 27, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilkerson et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0336618 A1).
5. With regard to claim 1, Wilkerson discloses an apparatus (ejector assembly, 1600) for projecting droplets onto a cornea of a patient’s eye for ophthalmic diagnostics (Fig. 1-3A; abstract; [0066]), the apparatus comprising: a liquid sampling unit (ejector mechanism, 1601) configured to project a quantity of liquid (fluid, 1610; [0067]; [0072-0073]); an electric droplet generator (ejector plate, 1602 with drop generator element, 1632) configured to receive the quantity of liquid (1610) and output one or more electrically charged droplets ([0068]; [0072-0073]); and a steering unit (piezoelectric actuator, 1604) configured to electrostatically steer the one or more electrically charged droplets (stream of droplets, 1612) along a trajectory (direction, 1614) onto the cornea of the patient’s eye (1616; [0069]; [0075]).
6. With regard to claim 2, Wilkerson discloses that the liquid sampling unit (1601) comprises: one or more pressurized containers (reservoir, 1620) having an outlet (one or more openings, 1628) and configured to store liquid (Fig. 1; [0093]); and a valve (1632) coupled to the outlet (1628) via one or more conduits (lumen spanning each opening, 1628; Fig. 3A; [0093]), wherein outputting the quantity of liquid (1610) comprises actuating the valve (via 1604) and outputting the quantity of liquid (1612) provided by the one or more pressurized containers (1620) via the valve ([0092-0093]).
7. With regard to claim 6, Wilkerson discloses that the steering unit (1604; Fig. 1) comprises one or more electrodes (1606a, 1606b) having one or more electrostatic plates inducing an electric field across a pathway of the electrically charged droplets ([0098]; [0121]), wherein the steering unit (1604) is configured to alter a strength and a direction of the electric field to control the trajectory of the one or more electrically charged droplets (1612; [0075]; [0116]; [0118-0119]).
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.
7. Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkerson in view of Cater (US PGPUB 2010/0072301 A1).
8. With regard to claim 3, Wilkerson discloses that the liquid sampling unit (1601) comprises: one or more vented containers (reservoir, 1620 see unnamed reference numeral 1642) having a first outlet (one of the one or more openings, 1628) and configured to store liquid (Fig. 1; [0093]; [0097]); a valve (1632) coupled to the first outlet (1628) via one or more conduits (lumen spanning each opening, 1628; Fig. 3A; [0093]), and a pump (piezoelectric pump, 1604 and electrodes, 1606) coupled the valve (1632) and configured to output the quantity of liquid ([0073]; [0075]; [0081]; [0092-0093]; [0098]; [0121]).
However, Wilkerson is silent in regard to a pressure sensor controller coupled to the pump, the pressure sensor controller being configured to sense a pressure of the quantity of liquid and adjust the pump based on the pressure of the quantity of liquid.
Within the same field of pharmaceutical discharge devices, Cater discloses a discharge device (abstract; Figs 1-2), including a pressure sensor controller (130, 160) coupled to the pump (112; [0037-0042]; [0108-0109]), the pressure sensor controller being configured to sense a pressure of the quantity of liquid and adjust the pump based on the pressure of the quantity of liquid ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sampling unit disclosed by Wilkerson to include a pressure sensor controller coupled to the pump, similar to that disclosed by Cater in order to allow for a direct determination of the pressure within a given chamber for causing the electrical valve actuator to open the discharge valve as soon as limiting pressure is exceeded, as suggested by Cater in paragraph [0048].
9. Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkerson.
10. With regard to claim 4, Wilkerson discloses that the electric droplet generator (1602, 1632) comprises: a piezo-electric actuator (1604) configured to oscillate a width of a pathway between a first width and a second width ([0073]; [0099-0101]); and a charging unit configured to emit an electric field across the pathway ([0029]; [0082]; [0107-0108]; [0113-0114]), wherein the quantity of liquid (1610) forms into one or more individual droplets (1612) when the pathway (through 1628) oscillates from the first width to the second width ([0093]; [0096]; [0099]), and wherein the one or more individual droplets are charged by the electric field thereby forming the one or more electrically charged droplets ([0067-0068]; [0072-0073]; [0075]).
Within the cited embodiment above, Wilkerson fails to explicitly disclose that the charging unit is a capacitive electrostatic charging unit.
However, in alternate embodiments (see at least Fig. 5), Wilkerson suggests a capacitive electrostatic charging unit (electrostatic electrodes, 1 and 2; [0118-0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging unit disclosed by Wilkerson to be a capacitive electrostatic charging unit, similar to that disclosed by Wilkerson in the Figure 5 alternative embodiment, in order to provide static potential control, ejecting the fluid as droplets which have maintained their charge in transit, as suggested by Wilkerson in paragraph [0119].
11. Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkerson in view of Chen et al. (FR 2,868,942 A3).
12. With regard to claim 5, Wilkerson in silent in regard to an ultraviolet light emitter configured to project one or more beams of ultraviolet light across the pathway for sterilizing the one or more electrically charged droplets.
However, within the same field of instruments for treating eyes, Chen discloses an eye treatment instrument (ultrasonic atomizer; abstract; Figs. 1-4), comprising to an ultraviolet light emitter (ultraviolet light diodes, 410) configured to project one or more beams of ultraviolet light across the pathway for sterilizing the one or more electrically charged droplets (paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of summary of invention; paragraphs 8 and 9 of detailed description).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric droplet generator disclosed by Wilkerson to include an ultraviolet light emitter, similar to that disclosed by Chen, in order to irradiate the cloud of fluid dispensed, resulting in effective sterilization of the fluid, as suggested by Chen in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the summary of invention.
13. Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkerson in view of Benedict et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0093998 A1).
14. With regard to claim 5, Wilkerson is silent in regard to a liquid waste collector coupled to a waste container, wherein the liquid waste collector is configured to trap one or more errant droplets, the one or more errant droplets corresponding to electrically charged droplets that fall outside of the trajectory; wherein the waste container is removably coupled to the liquid waste collector.
However, within the same field of handheld therapeutics atomizers, Benedict discloses a handheld filament extension atomizer for precision delivery of drugs and therapeutics (abstract; Figs. 24-26), comprising a liquid waste collector (docking station, 80) coupled to a waste container (waste collection, 86), wherein the liquid waste collector (80) is configured to trap one or more errant droplets (excess sprayed cleaning solution), the one or more errant droplets corresponding droplets that fall outside of the trajectory ([0048]; [0053-0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus disclosed by Wilkerson to include a liquid waste collector, similar to that disclosed by Benedict, in order to provide a waste collection area for collection of excess fluid, as suggested by Benedict in paragraph [0051], limiting the amount of excess fluid ending up on a patient’s face or clothing during use.
While Benedict fails to explicitly disclose that the waste container is removably coupled to the liquid waste collector, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the waste container and liquid waste collector disclosed by Wilkerson in view of Benedict to be removably coupled to one another, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the two separable in order to empty, clean and/or replace the waste container once full or after use.
15. Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkerson in view of Straub et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0186319 A1) in view of Benedict.
16. With regard to claims 9 and 10, Wilkerson fails to explicitly disclose an optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurement unit.
However, within the same field of ocular therapy, Straub discloses a personalized patient interface for ophthalmic devices (abstract; Figs. 1, 3, 14), comprising an optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurement unit (OCT ophthalmic enclosure, 11; [0007]; [0049]; [0051]), wherein the OCT measurement unit is suggested to be incorporated into eye medication dispensers/applicators ([0050]; [0103-0105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus disclosed by Wilkerson to include an OCT measurement unit, similar to that disclosed by Straub, in order permit in situ real-time cross-sectional (e.g., depth) imaging of tissue, e.g., imaging of the anterior or posterior of an eye – and extract motion information, such fluid (e.g., blood) flow, as suggested by Straub in paragraph [0007].
Further, while Straub discloses a controller ([0098-0099]; [0113]) in communication with the OCT measurement unit (11), capable of measuring a physical state of the cornea utilizing the OCT measurement unit ([0007]; [0049]; [0051]), Wilkerson and Straub are silent in regard to a controller, in communication with the liquid sampling unit, the electric droplet generator, and the steering unit.
However, Benedict discloses a controller, in communication with all controllable components of the therapeutic delivery system ([0025]; [0029]; [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus disclosed by Wilkerson to include a controller similar to that disclosed by Straub and Benedict, in order provide the user with feedback, and programmed control over components of the apparatus, as suggested by Benedict in paragraph [0029] and Straub in paragraph [0098].
17. Claim(s) 11, 13, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkerson in view of Straub in view of Abreu (US PGPUB 2002/0049389 A1).
18. With regard to claim 11, Wilkerson discloses a method for ophthalmic diagnosis of a physical state of a cornea of a patient’s eye ([0007-0009]; Fig. 1-3A; abstract; [0066]), the method comprising: projecting one or more liquid droplets (1612) formed from a quantity of liquid (1610); electrically charging the one or more liquid droplets thereby forming one or more electrically charged droplets ([0068]; [0072-0073]); steering the one or more electrically charged droplets (1612) along a trajectory (1614) onto the cornea of the patient’s eye (1616; [0069]; [0075]); measuring a response to an impact of the one or more electrically charged droplets (1612) on the cornea ([0138]); determining one or more physical parameters (pupil diameter effect, corneal adherence, IOP, etc.) associated with the cornea based on measuring the response ([0271]; [0276]); determining, based on the one or more physical parameters, a condition of the cornea ([0271]; [0276]); and outputting, a diagnosis (such as glaucoma) based on the condition of the cornea ([0138]; [0083]; [0089]).
However, Wilkerson fails to explicitly disclose that the step of measuring is done through the use of an optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurement unit.
Straub discloses a personalized patient interface for ophthalmic devices and methods (abstract; Figs. 1, 3, 14), comprising an optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurement unit (OCT ophthalmic enclosure, 11; [0007]; [0049]; [0051]), wherein the OCT measurement unit is suggested to be incorporated into eye medication dispensers/applicators ([0050]; [0103-0105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement step disclosed by Wilkerson to be done through the use of an OCT measurement unit, similar to that disclosed by Straub, in order permit in situ real-time cross-sectional (e.g., depth) imaging of tissue, e.g., imaging of the anterior or posterior of an eye – and extract motion information, such fluid (e.g., blood) flow, as suggested by Straub in paragraph [0007].
Additionally, Wilkerson fails to explicitly disclose that the step of steering is done through the use of a dynamic electric field.
Within the same field of ophthalmic therapeutic devices, Abreu discloses a device to detect physical and chemical parameters of the eye (abstract; Fig. 1), wherein fluid is steered via a dynamic electric field ([0253]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the step of steering disclosed by Wilkerson to be done through the use of a dynamic electric field, similar to that disclosed by Abreu, in order to control and change the direction of fluid flow with changes in the configuration of electrical fields dynamically moving fluid to a particular direction and the voltage gradient determining the concentration and location of the fluid along the apparatus, as suggested by Abreu in paragraph [0253].
19. With regard to claim 13, Wilkerson in view of Straub in view of Abreu discloses the method of claim 11 above. Further, Wilkerson discloses that the one or more physical parameters include a response time, a natural frequency, a wave velocity and/or wave attenuation ([0073]; [0075]; [0078]; [0100-0101]; [0108-0109]; [0138]; [0236]; [0271]; [0276]).
20. With regard to claim 14, Wilkerson in view of Straub in view of Abreu discloses the method of claim 11 above. Further, Wilkerson discloses that wherein the condition of the patient’s eye corresponds to a Young’s modulus of the cornea (as modified by OCT unit of Straub above), a topology of the cornea (as modified by OCT unit of Straub above), and/or an intraocular pressure of the cornea ([0146]; [0271]; [0276]).
21. With regard to claims 16 and 17, Wilkerson in view of Straub in view of Abreu discloses the OCT measuring unit of claim 11 above. Further, Straub discloses that the OCT measuring unit (Fig. 14) comprises: an OCT interferometer configured to emit a beam of laser light ([0105-0107]); one or more optical components (optical components; mirrors) configured to condition the beam of laser light and project the beam of laser light onto the cornea of the patient ([0068]; [0103-0105]); and an eye-tracking unit, configured to track a position of the pupil and detect physical changes of the cornea during the impact of the one or more electrically charged droplets based on the light reflected off the cornea ([0013]; [0059]; [0084]), wherein the one or more physical parameters are determined based on the physical changes of the cornea ([0005]; [0090]; also see [0271]; [0276] of Wilkerson); wherein the one or more optical components include: a fast-scanning mirror, a slow-scanning mirror, a hot mirror, one or more light emitting diodes, and/or an output lens ([0068]; [0090]; [0103-0105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the OCT measurement unit disclosed by Wilkerson in view of Straub and Abreu to include an OCT interferometer, optical components and an eye-tracking unit, similar to that disclosed by Straub, in order permit in situ real-time cross-sectional (e.g., depth) imaging of tissue, e.g., imaging of the anterior or posterior of an eye – and extract motion information, such fluid (e.g., blood) flow, as suggested by Straub in paragraph [0007].
22. With regard to claim 18, Wilkerson discloses that the quantity of liquid is output by a liquid sampling unit (1601) comprising: one or more pressurized containers (reservoir, 1620) having an outlet (one or more openings, 1628) and configured to store liquid (Fig. 1; [0093]); and a valve (1632) coupled to the outlet (1628) via one or more conduits (lumen spanning each opening, 1628; Fig. 3A; [0093]), wherein outputting the quantity of liquid (1610) comprises actuating the valve (via 1604) and outputting the quantity of liquid (1612) provided by the one or more pressurized containers (1620) via the valve ([0092-0093]).
23. With regard to claim 20, Wilkerson discloses that the electric droplet generator (1602, 1632) comprises: a piezo-electric actuator (1604) configured to oscillate a width of a pathway between a first width and a second width ([0073]; [0099-0101]); and a charging unit configured to emit an electric field across the pathway ([0029]; [0082]; [0107-0108]; [0113-0114]), wherein the quantity of liquid (1610) forms into one or more individual droplets (1612) when the pathway (through 1628) oscillates from the first width to the second width ([0093]; [0096]; [0099]), and wherein the one or more individual droplets are charged by the electric field thereby forming the one or more electrically charged droplets ([0067-0068]; [0072-0073]; [0075]).
Within the cited embodiment above, Wilkerson fails to explicitly disclose that the charging unit is a capacitive electrostatic charging unit.
However, in alternate embodiments (see at least Fig. 5), Wilkerson suggests a capacitive electrostatic charging unit (electrostatic electrodes, 1 and 2; [0118-0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging unit disclosed by Wilkerson to be a capacitive electrostatic charging unit, similar to that disclosed by Wilkerson in the Figure 5 alternative embodiment, in order to provide static potential control, ejecting the fluid as droplets which have maintained their charge in transit, as suggested by Wilkerson in paragraph [0119].
24. Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkerson in view of Straub in view of Abreu, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chen.
25. With regard to claim 12, Wilkerson, Straub and Abreu are silent in regard to prior to the impact of the one or more electrically charged droplets on the cornea, sterilizing the one or more liquid droplets or the one or more electrically charged droplets by emitting one or more beams of ultraviolet light across a pathway of the one or more liquid droplets or the one or more electrically charged droplets.
However, within the same field of instruments for treating eyes, Chen discloses an eye treatment instrument (ultrasonic atomizer; abstract; Figs. 1-4), comprising to an ultraviolet light emitter (ultraviolet light diodes, 410) configured to project one or more beams of ultraviolet light across the pathway for sterilizing the one or more electrically charged droplets (paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of summary of invention; paragraphs 8 and 9 of detailed description).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Wilkerson in view of Straub and Abreu to include a step of sterilizing the liquid droplets via an ultraviolet light emitter, similar to that disclosed by Chen, in order to irradiate the cloud of fluid dispensed, resulting in effective sterilization of the fluid, as suggested by Chen in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the summary of invention.
26. Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkerson in view of Straub in view of Abreu, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ivri et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0314198 A1).
27. With regard to claim 15, While Straub is fully capable of diagnosing cataract treatment, Wilkerson, Straub and Abreu are silent in regard to the diagnosis comprising cataract treatment based on surgically induced astigmatism, cataract refractive treatment, cataract diffractive treatment, corneal refractive treatment, a risk level of post-LASIK complications, and/or orthokeratology treatment.
However, within the same field of topical ocular delivery methods and devices, Ivri discloses methods of administering liquid formulations of an ophthalmic agent to a topical ocular location (abstract; Fig. 1), and specifically discusses conditions for potential treatment as being hose characterized by miscellaneous refractive errors, including hyperopia, astigmatism, post-surgical optical aberrations, e.g., following cataract surgery, LASIK, PRK, corneal transplantation etc. ([0107]; claim 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diagnosis disclosed by Wilkerson in view of Straub and Abreu to comprise cataract treatment, similar to that disclosed by Ivri, in order to provide patient diagnoses involving ocular conditions well-known in the art, as suggested by Ivri in paragraph [0107], with a reasonable expectation of success.
28. Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkerson in view of Straub in view of Abreu, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Cater.
29. With regard to claim 19, Wilkerson discloses that the quantity of liquid is output by a liquid sampling unit (1601), the liquid sampling unit (1601) comprising: one or more vented containers (reservoir, 1620 see unnamed reference numeral 1642) having a first outlet (one of the one or more openings, 1628) and configured to store liquid (Fig. 1; [0093]; [0097]); a valve (1632) coupled to the first outlet (1628) via one or more conduits (lumen spanning each opening, 1628; Fig. 3A; [0093]), and a pump (piezoelectric pump, 1604 and electrodes, 1606) coupled the valve (1632) and configured to output the quantity of liquid ([0073]; [0075]; [0081]; [0092-0093]; [0098]; [0121]).
However, Wilkerson, Straub and Abreu are silent in regard to a pressure sensor controller coupled to the pump, the pressure sensor controller being configured to sense a pressure of the quantity of liquid and adjust the pump based on the pressure of the quantity of liquid.
Within the same field of pharmaceutical discharge devices, Cater discloses a discharge device (abstract; Figs 1-2), including a pressure sensor controller (130, 160) coupled to the pump (112; [0037-0042]; [0108-0109]), the pressure sensor controller being configured to sense a pressure of the quantity of liquid and adjust the pump based on the pressure of the quantity of liquid ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sampling unit disclosed by Wilkerson in view of Straub in view of Abreu to include a pressure sensor controller coupled to the pump, similar to that disclosed by Cater in order to allow for a direct determination of the pressure within a given chamber for causing the electrical valve actuator to open the discharge valve as soon as limiting pressure is exceeded, as suggested by Cater in paragraph [0048].
Conclusion
30. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smyth et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0012893) discloses toroidal pharmaceutical formulations.
Collins, JR. (US 2009/0212133) discloses an ophthalmic fluid delivery device and method.
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J MENSH whose telephone number is (571)270-1594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571)272-7159. 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.
/ANDREW J MENSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights