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
The amendment filed 4/17/2026 has been received and made of record. As requested, claims 1-10, 12-15, and 17-22 are currently pending and are being examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the drawings and specification amendments, the drawings are still objected to. Element number 131 does not point to a crease or anything resembling a crease int eh container but rather just appear to still point to the container. The dotted lines 111 indicate dissemination of the hardening agent and not physical structural lines in the internal layer. Therefore, these recitations should be shown or cancelled from the claims.
With respect to the rejections under 112, applicant’s amendments have rendered the previous rejection moot. New rejections under 112 however are presented below as necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Termanini have been considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the material remains compliant after curing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that Termanini is to be cut with handheld scissors, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Termanini discloses that the internal layer can comprise polyester impregnated with a water-curable resin such as polyurethane (Col. 3, lines 33-41) which is the same material disclosed by applicant (see paragraphs [0037] and [0038] of applicant’s specification). Furthermore, a Shore hardness of 100 is the maximum hardness on the Shore A scale thereby indicating materials that are completely rigid. Therefore, the device of Termanini being of the same material would inherently have the same properties. Furthermore, the device of Termanini even if completely rigid would fall within the range of Shore A harness of 40-100. Furthermore, the device of Termanini is capable of being cut by handheld scissors (such as handheld cast cutting scissors).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that Termanini does not disclose distinct internal compartments containing different agents) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is noted that applciant’s invention appears to show one container or compartment 130 and does not disclose two distinct or segregated compartments. Furthermore, such is not recited in the claim. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
With regard to claim 20, note the new rejections under 112 as presented below and the new interpretation provided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the internal layer including one or more lines (recited in
claim 5, also note 112 rejection below), the two sections of the container layer where a first section includes the hardening agent and the second section includes one or more other agents (claim 10), and the crease (recited in claim 15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 has been amended to recite that the container layer causes dissemination of the one or more agents “from the container layer into a layer other than the container layer for delivery to underlying tissue”. However, claim 20 also recites “an external layer surrounding the internal layer and the container layer”. Applicant’s original disclosure does not provide support for an external layer that both surrounds the internal layer and the container layer and also dissemination of the one or more agents to underlying tissue. Applicant’s original specification discloses that the internal layer is shielded from air and water by the external layer 120 to prevent premature hardening/curing [0037]. Applicant’s specification discloses that the agent can reach the padding layer 150, but that “the bottom surface of the external layer 120 may include an aperture to avoid extending between the container layer 130 and the padding layer 150. Agents reaching the padding layer 150 can thus be administered to the underlying anatomy. Alternatively, or additionally, such agents may be pre-loaded in the padding layer 150” [0049]. Applicant’s original disclosure does not support an external layer both “surrounding the internal layer and the container layer” while also “cause dissemination of the one or more agents from the container layer into layers other than the container layer for delivery to underlying tissue”. The same issue applies to claim 21.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the internal layer hardens to a semi-rigid state having a Shore A hardness of about 40-100 such that the internal layer is cuttable using handheld scissors after hardening to a semi-rigid state”. This limitation seems to contradict each other. A Shore A hardness of 100 is known to one skilled in the art to be the maximum hardness measurable on a given Shore scale and indicates a material with extremely high resistance. Therefore, it is unclear if the claim would encompass all semi-rigid and rigid materials and if these would fall under the capability of being capable of being cuttable using handheld scissors since a Shore A hardness within the given range appears to include completely rigid materials.
Claim 3 recites “an additional agent in the container layer, the additional agent comprising an antibiotic, lidocaine, medication, or combination thereof”. The claim recites the external layer surrounds the internal layer and container, and the specification discloses that the external layer shields the internal layer from air and water. Therefore, it is unclear what benefit that additional agents would be given that the medicinal agents are shielded and surrounded by the external layer ([0037] for example). Similar issues apply to claim 19.
Claim 5 recites the “internal layer includes one or more lines through which the hardening agent can flow”. Applicant’s specification discloses that Figure 1B includes dotted lines 111 to indicate dissemination of the hardening agent through the internal layer 110. Therefore, it is unclear if applicant’s invention comprises actual lines in the internal layer through which the hardening agent can flow, or if the “lines” are merely for illustrative purposes to show dissemination. If they are physical lines in the internal layer they should be shown as such in the drawings. Applicant’s drawings still appear to show dotted lines showing the flow of the agent, not physical lines in the internal layer.
Claim 20 has been amended to recite that the container layer causes dissemination of the one or more agents “from the container layer into a layer other than the container layer for delivery to underlying tissue”. However, claim 20 also recites “an external layer surrounding the internal layer and the container layer”. In light of applicant’s original disclosure, it is unclear how an external layer that both surrounds the internal layer and the container layer and also dissemination of the one or more agents to underlying tissue. Applicant’s original specification discloses that the internal layer is shielded from air and water by the external layer 120 to prevent premature hardening/curing [0037]. It is unclear how the one or more agents can be delivered to underlying tissue when the external layer (which is disclosed as shielding from air and water) surrounds the internal layer and container layer. Applicant’s specification discloses that the agent can reach the padding layer 150, but that “the bottom surface of the external layer 120 may include an aperture to avoid extending between the container layer 130 and the padding layer 150. Agents reaching the padding layer 150 can thus be administered to the underlying anatomy. Alternatively, or additionally, such agents may be pre-loaded in the padding layer 150” [0049]. However, the claim recites that the external layer is “surrounding” the internal layer and the container layer thus being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. It is unclear if the claim requires an aperture to allow the agent to pass. It is also unclear if “a layer other than the container layer” includes the internal layer, external layer, the padding layer or another completely separate layer. The same issue applies to claim 21.
The remaining claims are rejected due to their dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. New claim 22 recites “the internal layer hardens to a semi-rigid state having a Shore A hardness of about 40-100. However, this limitation is already recited in claim 1 from which claim 21 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Termanini (US 7,172,565 B2).
Regarding claim 20, as best can be understood, Termanini discloses a customizable bandage (Abstract; Figures 1-3) comprising: an internal layer (3); a container layer (1) containing one or more agents, the one or more agents comprising a medicinal agent (the gel can be any water-laden gel commonly employed in the medical or cosmetics industry Col. 1, lines 58-67); an external layer (6) surrounding the internal layer and the container layer (Figures 1-3); optionally, an adhesive layer disposed on a lower surface of the external layer; and optionally, a padding layer (4) disposed on a lower surface of the external layer, wherein the container layer is configured to be selectively disrupted to cause dissemination of the one or more agents from the container layer into a layer other than the container layer (it is delivered to the internal layer 3, Col. 3, lines 15-25 and 42-53) for delivery to underlaying tissue (insofar as the device as a whole is placed on tissue).
Regarding claim 21, as best can be understood, Termanini discloses a customizable bandage (Abstract; Figures 1-3) comprising: an internal layer (3); a container layer (1) comprising a first section and a second section (upper and lower layers), wherein the first section comprises a hardening agent and the second section comprises a medicinal agent (Col. 1, line 58 to Col. 2, line 6; The gel can be any water-laden gel commonly employed in the medical or cosmetics industry or any other that is not so-employed, and is preferably an aqueous phase of the gel system. It also is preferably an emulsified vehicle incorporating the water as an essential ingredient. Water emulsions or gels prepared from water and well-recognized gel-forming materials such as polymers, thickeners and the like may be used. Materials such as hydroxymethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, mixtures thereof, acrylates, polyglycols, such as polypropylene glycol, and the like are suitable. The gel may also contain hardeners and accelerators for the curing such as tertiary amines, methylethylketone peroxide and diethylether, respectively and catalysts therefor including copper salts and other art-known materials); an external layer (6) surrounding the internal layer and the container layer (Figures 1-3); optionally, an adhesive layer disposed on a lower surface of the external layer; and optionally, a padding layer (4) disposed on a lower surface of the external layer, wherein the container layer is configured to be selectively disrupted to cause dissemination of the hardening agent from the first section into the internal layer to harden into a semi-rigid state such that the internal layer is cuttable using handheld scissors after hardening to a semi-rigid state (intended use, it is capable of being cut by handheld cast cutting scissors; Col. 2, lines 1-6; Col. 3, lines 26-53); dissemination of the one or more agents from the container layer into a layer other than the container layer (it is delivered to the internal layer 3, Col. 3, lines 15-25 and 42-53) for delivery to underlaying tissue (insofar as the device as a whole is placed on tissue).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by Termanini (US 7,172,565 B2) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Termanini (US 7,172,565 B2) in view of Malbey et al (US 2022/0125644).
Regarding claim 1, Termanini discloses a customizable bandage (Figures 1-3) comprising: an internal layer (3); a container layer (1) containing one or more agents (1a; Col. 2, lines 63-67; Col. 3, lines 15-32), the one or more agents comprising a hardening agent (the gel 1a comprises hardeners and accelerators for curing Col. 2, lines 1-6; Col. 2, lines 63-67; Col. 3, lines 15-32); an external layer (6) surrounding the internal layer and the container layer (Figures 1-3); optionally, an adhesive layer disposed on a lower surface of the external layer; and optionally, a padding layer (4) disposed on a lower surface of the external layer, wherein the hardening agent and internal layer are formulated such that dissemination of the hardening agent from the container layer causes the internal layer to harden into a semi-rigid state (Col. 2, lines 1-6; Col. 3, lines 26-53). Termanini discloses that the internal layer can comprise polyester impregnated with a water-curable resin such as polyurethane (Col. 3, lines 33-41) which is the same material disclosed by applicant (see paragraphs [0037] and [0038] of applicant’s specification). Furthermore, a Shore hardness of 100 is the maximum hardness on the Shore A scale thereby indicating materials that are completely rigid. Therefore, the device of Termanini being of the same material would inherently have the same properties. Furthermore, the device of Termanini even if completely rigid would fall within the range of Shore A harness of 40-100. Furthermore, the device of Termanini is capable of being cut by handheld scissors (such as handheld cast cutting scissors). Applicant is reminded that an anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) or 102(e) is established when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every element of of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data System, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 221 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Furthermore, it is well settled that the law of anticipation does not required that the reference teach what appeallant is teaching or has disclosed, but only that the claims on appeal “read on” something disclosed in the reference, i.e. all limitation of the claims are found in the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 218 USPQ 781 (Fed. Cir. 1083). Moreover, it is not necessary for the applied reference to expressly disclose or describe a particular element or limitation of a rejected claim word for word as in the rejected claim so long as the reference inherently discloses that element or limitation. Standard Havens Products Inc. v. Gencor Industries Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 21 USPQ 2d. 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Alternatively, Malbey teaches a similar bandage comprising polyester impregnated with a resin (shuch as polyurethane) that hardens when exposed to air or water ([0023], [0025]) and teaches that it hardens to have a semi-rigid state having a Shore A hardness of about 40-100 such that the internal layer is cuttable using handheld scissors after hardening ([0028]-[0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the device of Termanini having a Shore A hardness of about 40-100 such that the internal layer is cuttable using handheld scissors after hardening as taught by Malbey for ease of use and comfort to the user.
Regarding claim 2, Termanini discloses wherein the padding layer (4) is longitudinally aligned with the container layer on an opposite side of the internal layer (Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Termanini discloses wherein the internal layer comprises a material configured to wick and/or absorb the hardening agent (Col. 3, lines 15-25 and 33-42).
Regarding claim 6, Termanini discloses (i) the hardening agent comprises a curable resin formulated to cure upon exposure to air and/or water; or (ii) the hardening agent comprises water (Col. 1, lines 58-67; Col. 4, lines 1-8) and/or air and the internal layer includes a curable resin formulated to harden upon exposure to the water and/or air (Col. 3, lines 33-41).
Regarding claim 7, Termanini discloses the external layer is waterproof and/or airproof (Col. 3, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 8, Termanini discloses wherein the container layer is configured to be breakable to release the hardening agent upon manually applied pressure (Col. 3, lines 12-20 and 42-53).
Regarding claim 9, Termanini discloses wherein the customizable bandage has a rectangular (Figures 1-3), butterfly, star, spherical, ellipsoid, or wedge shape.
Regarding claim 10, Termanini discloses wherein the container layer includes two or more separate sections (see upper layer and lower layer of pouch 1; Figures 1-3; alternatively, left and right sections), wherein a first section includes the hardening agent and a second section includes one or more other agents (Col. 1, line 58-Col. 2, line 6; Col. 4, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 12, Termanini discloses two or more container layers (see upper layer and lower layer of pouch 1; Figures 1-3), wherein the two or more container layers include the container layer (Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, Termanini discloses wherein the padding layer comprises two or more pads (see upper layer of padding 4 and lower layer of padding 4), each longitudinally aligned with a corresponding container layer (see Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Termanini discloses wherein the container layer (1) includes a crease (see folded sides forming a crease on left and right sides, Figures 1-3), wherein the crease is configured to break upon exposure to sufficient manually applied pressure to the container layer (Col. 3, lines 12-18 and 42-53).
Regarding claim 17, Termanini discloses wherein the container layer is configured to upon breaking disseminate the hardening agent through the crease to the internal layer (Col. 3, lines 12-18 and 42-53; Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 18, Termanini discloses a method of managing or preventing a wound or injury (Abstract; Col. 1, lines 7-10), the method comprising: applying the semi-rigid bandage of claim 1 to a target site (see rejection of claim 1; Col. 1, lines 7-10; Col. 3, lines 20-25); activating the container layer to disseminate the hardening agent into the internal layer (Col. 3, lines 12-22); and allowing the internal layer of the customizable bandage to harden into a semi-rigid state (Col. 2, lines 1-6; Col. 3, lines 26-40).
Regarding claim 22, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Termanini (US 7,172,565 B2) in view of Malbey et al (US 2022/0125644).
Regarding claim 3, Termanini discloses that as applied above but does not disclose an additional agent comprising an antibiotic, lidocaine, medication, or combination thereof. Malbey teaches a semi-rigid bandage that comprises an antibiotic, lidocaine, medication, or combination thereof ([0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the device of Termanini having the additional agent taught by Malbey for preventing infection and increasing comfort to the user.
Regarding claim 19, Termanini discloses that as applied above but does not disclose internal layer further includes an anesthetic, analgesic, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, anti-allergy agent, or combination thereof. Malbey teaches a semi-rigid bandage that comprises an internal layer further includes an anesthetic, analgesic, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, anti-allergy agent, or combination thereof ([0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the device of Termanini having the additional agent taught by Malbey for preventing infection and increasing comfort to the user.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Termanini (US 7,172,565 B2), or alternatively Termanini in view of Malbey, in view of Scholz et al (US 6,100,206).
Regarding claim 5, Termanini discloses that as applied above but does not disclose the internal layer (3) includes one or more lines through which the hardening agent can flow. Scholz teaches an orthopedic casting article that includes one or more lines (26) through which the hardening agent can flow (Figure 5; Col. 4, lines 35-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the internal layer of Termanini having lines as taught by Scholz for facilitating transport of the hardening agent across the layer.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Termanini (US 7,172,565 B2) or alternatively Termanini in view of Malbey in view of Ferguson et al (US 6,042,557).
Regarding claim 14, Termanini discloses that as applied above but does not disclose a hook and loop attachment. Ferguson teaches an orthopedic splint having a hook and loop attachment (26, Figure 1; Col. 6, lines 50-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the device of Termanini having a hook and loop attachment as taught by Ferguson to hold the bandage on the user.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Kari Rodriquez whose telephone number is 571-270-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-3 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alireza Nia can be reached at (571) 270-3076. 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.
/KARI K RODRIQUEZ/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
