DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/08/2026 has been entered.
An amendment was filed on 01/08/2026. Claims 1, 11, and 21 have been amended, and claim 12 has been canceled. Currently, claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending and are being examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument with respect to Bonnette such that the two pumps are simultaneously driven by a reciprocating drive assembly, the constant pressure source drives in the positive and negative pressure directions at the same speed, and cannot independently control the input and output flows as they are mechanically coupled by the reciprocating drive, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The independent control in this instance is interpreted as the application of negative and positive pressure being separate processes. While the drives are mechanically coupled, Bonnette appears to already teach the application of negative and positive pressure being independent processes.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that because Bonnette teaches isovolumetric flow where waste outflow equals saline inflow, it is incapable of generating different negative and positive pressure values, examiner notes that the limitation of different negative and positive pressure values is broadly interpreted to also mean that the speed is variable such that in one instance the negative pressure and positive pressure are at one value, and another where each are at an equivalent value to each other but different from the first instance, as described within the rejections below with respect to Deak.
In response to the applicant’s argument Deak also fails to suggest that the controller being configured to generate different negative and positive pressure values so that the absolute value of the negative and positive pressures are different from one another to cause different aspiration and blood return flow rates, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As further explained in the rejections below, Deak is capable of controlling the motor speed in a way such that, even assuming the negative pressure has to be the same as the positive pressure, the negative and positive pressures are configured to be adjusted such that one positive pressure in one setting has a different absolute value from a negative pressure in another setting.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Deak only describes the infusion speed, and does not suggest having a different infusion and withdrawal speed, nor the explicit recitation of different absolute values of negative and positive pressures, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Deak teaches motor capable of changing the speed of the motor, and describes the drive pushing and pulling the plunger to move into the cylinder by the same mechanism (paragraph 0041), thus teaching a control of a negative and positive pressure. Moreover, as previously described, the controller being capable of controlling the speed of the motor grants the capacity for different absolute values of negative and positive pressures.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that the remaining claims are allowable by virtue of the independent claims are allowable, the arguments to allowability have been addressed above.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 11, 13, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogendijk (US 20040019310) in view of Bonnette (US 20070129679), and further in view of Deak (US 20170056581).
Regarding claim 1, Hogendijk discloses an apparatus (abstract), the apparatus comprising:
one or more pumps (60) configured to provide generate a negative pressure and a positive pressure (fig. 1A, pump 60 to provide negative and positive pressure)
a first inlet configured to couple the one or more pumps to an aspiration catheter (fig. 1, manifold inlet port 54 as an inlet for arterial tubing 32 to connect to a catheter)
a first outlet configured to couple the one or more pumps to a blood return circuit (fig. 1A, manifold outlet port 55 connected to venous line 40)
wherein the one or more pumps are configured to independently apply negative pressure and positive pressure (fig. 6B shows one step to apply negative pressure, and fig. 6C shows an independent step of applying positive pressure)
Hogendijk does not teach an electronic controller coupled to the one or more pumps and configured to independently control the negative pressure and the positive pressure, wherein the electronic controller controls the delivery of a pressurized drive fluid to the piston to generate different negative and positive pressure values so that the absolute value of the negative and positive pressures are different from one another to cause different aspiration and blood return flow rates.
However, Bonnette teaches a thrombectomy catheter (abstract) that utilizes a compressed air tank (40) to apply pressurized drive fluid to a piston (paragraph 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Hogendijk such that a pressurized drive fluid is delivered to the piston to generate the negative and positive pressure values to cause aspiration and blood return flow rates, as taught by Bonnette, for the purpose of providing a suitable means of granting isovolumetric flow (see Bonnette, paragraph 0035), thus granting control that the amount of fluid drained is the same amount of fluid returned.
Hogendijk, as modified by Bonnette, does not teach an electronic controller coupled to the one or more pumps, wherein the electronic controller controls the delivery of the pressurized drive fluid to the piston to generate different negative and positive pressure values so that the absolute value of the negative and positive pressures are different from one another to cause different aspiration and blood return flow rates.
However, Deak teaches wherein a controller for controlling the application of pressure to a syringe is well known in the art (paragraph 0020). Said controller controls the speed of the motor which would create different absolute values. In this instance, even if Deak moves the motor forward and backward at the same rate in one mode, Deak may also move the motor forward and backward at the same rate but faster or slower than the previous mode. The first mode creates a negative pressure, and the second mode creates a different positive pressure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Hogendijk in view of Bonnette such that it comprises an electronic controller coupled to the one or more pumps, wherein the electronic controller controls the delivery of the pressurized drive fluid to the piston to generate different negative and positive pressure so that the absolute value of the negative and positive pressures are different from one another to cause different aspiration and blood return flow rates, as taught by Deak, for the purpose of providing a suitable means of allowing for precise control of the piston (see Deak, paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 2, Hogendijk discloses wherein the one or more pumps consists of a single pump (fig. 1A, singular pump 60)
Regarding claim 3, Hogendijk discloses the device further comprising the aspiration catheter coupled to the first inlet (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 7, Hogendijk discloses one or more blood filters in fluid communication with the blood return circuit (fig. 1A, outlet port 55 flows through a filter 72 in communication with venous line 40)
Regarding claim 8, Hogendijk discloses the apparatus further comprising a first one-way valve in fluid communication with the first inlet and a second one-way valve in fluid communication with the first outlet (fig. 6B and 6C, two ball valves 82 and 92 in communication with either the inlet or the outlet, respectively), wherein the first one-way valve is oriented to allow blood to flow into a chamber of the pump from the aspiration catheter and the second one-way valve is oriented to allow blood to flow out of the chamber of the pump into the blood return circuit (fig. 6C shows blood flowing out of the chamber to the return circuit, fig. 6B shows blood flowing into the chamber of the pump).
Regarding claim 11, Hogendijk discloses an apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a pump configured having a piston (fig. 1A, pump 60 comprising a piston) to provide a negative pressure when driven in a first direction and a positive pressure when driven in a second direction (fig. 6A shows a piston creating negative pressure driven backwards, and fig. 6B shows a piston creating positive pressure when driven forwards)
a first inlet (54) configured to couple the pump to an aspiration catheter so that the negative pressure draws blood from the aspiration catheter into the pump at an inlet flow rate (fig. 1A, manifold inlet port 54 as an inlet for arterial tubing 32 to connect to a catheter)
a first outlet (55) configured to couple the pump to a blood return circuit including a blood return line so that the positive pressure causes blood to flow from the pump to the blood return circuit at an outlet flow rate (fig. 1A, manifold outlet port 55 connected to venous line 40), and
wherein the application of negative and positive pressure are independent based on reversible movement of the piston (fig 6B shows movement of a piston creating negative pressure, and fig 6C shows independent movement of a piston creating positive pressure)
Hogendijk does not teach an electronic controller coupled to the pump and configured to independently control delivery of a pressurized drive fluid to reversibly drive movement of the piston to generate the negative pressure and the positive pressure so that the absolute value of the negative and positive pressures are different from one another, wherein the inlet flow rate is greater than the outlet flow rate.
However, Deak teaches wherein a controller for controlling the application of pressure to a syringe is well known in the art (paragraph 0020). Said controller controls the speed of the motor which would create different absolute values. In this instance, even if Deak moves the motor forward and backward at the same rate in one mode, Deak may also move the motor forward and backward at the same rate but faster or slower than the previous mode. The first mode creates a negative pressure, and the second mode creates a different positive pressure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Hogendijk such that the electronic controller coupled to the pump and configured to independently control delivery of a pressurized drive fluid to reversibly drive movement of the piston to generate the negative pressure and the positive pressure so that the absolute value of the negative and positive pressures are different from one another, as taught by Deak, for the purpose of providing a suitable means of allowing for precise control of the piston (see Deak, paragraph 0029).
Hogendijk, as modified by Deak, does not teach wherein the inlet flow rate is greater than the outlet flow rate.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Hogendijk in view of Deak such that the inlet flow rate is greater than the outlet flow rate, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e., having first rate>second rate, first rate<second rate, and first rate = second rate) would have been obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(E)
Regarding claim 13, Hogendijk discloses the device further comprising the aspiration catheter coupled to the first inlet (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 17, Hogendijk discloses one or more blood filters in fluid communication with the blood return circuit (fig. 1A, outlet port 55 flows through a filter 72 in communication with venous line 40).
Regarding claim 18, Hogendijk discloses the apparatus further comprising a first one-way valve in fluid communication with the first inlet and a second one-way valve in fluid communication with the first outlet (fig. 6B and 6C, two ball valves 82 and 92 in communication with either the inlet or the outlet, respectively), wherein the first one-way valve is oriented to allow blood to flow into a chamber of the pump from the aspiration catheter and the second one-way valve is oriented to allow blood to flow out of the chamber of the pump into the blood return circuit (fig. 6C shows blood flowing out of the chamber to the return circuit, fig. 6B shows blood flowing into the chamber of the pump).
Regarding claim 21, Hogendijk discloses an apparatus (abstract) comprising:
a pump configured to generate a negative pressure and a positive pressure (fig. 1A, pump 60 to provide negative and positive pressure shown in figs. 6B and 6C), the pump comprising a piston (fig. 1A, pump 60 comprising a piston)
an inlet configured to couple the pump to an aspiration catheter (fig. 1, manifold inlet port 54 as an inlet for arterial tubing 32 to connect to a catheter)
an outlet configured to couple the pump to a blood return circuit (fig. 1A, manifold outlet port 55 connected to venous line 40),
wherein the pump is configured to independently apply negative pressure and positive pressure (fig. 6B shows one step to apply negative pressure, and fig. 6C shows an independent step of applying positive pressure)
Hogendijk does not teach an electronic controller coupled to the pump configured to independently control the negative pressure and the positive pressure by controlling the delivery of a pressurized drive fluid to both sides of the piston to generate different negative and positive pressure values so that the absolute value of the negative and positive pressures are different from one another to cause different aspiration and blood return flow rates.
However, Bonnette teaches a thrombectomy system (abstract) that delivers pressurized drive fluid to both sides of a piston to generate negative and positive pressure values (fig. 2, port 80 and port 88 for connection to drive piston 82 using pneumatic means, with paragraph 0059 describing the double-acting air cylinder 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Hogendijk such that a pressurized drive fluid is delivered to the piston to generate the negative and positive pressure values to cause aspiration and blood return flow rates, as taught by Bonnette, for the purpose of providing a suitable means of granting isovolumetric flow (see Bonnette, paragraph 0035), thus granting control that the amount of fluid drained is the same amount of fluid returned.
Hogendijk, as modified by Bonnette, does not teach an electronic controller coupled to the one or more pumps, wherein the electronic controller controls the delivery of the pressurized drive fluid to the piston to generate different negative and positive pressure values so that the absolute value of the negative and positive pressures are different from one another to cause different aspiration and blood return flow rates.
However, Deak teaches wherein a controller for controlling the application of pressure to a syringe is well known in the art (paragraph 0020). Said controller controls the speed of the motor which would create different absolute values. In this instance, even if Deak moves the motor forward and backward at the same rate in one mode, Deak may also move the motor forward and backward at the same rate but faster or slower than the previous mode. The first mode creates a negative pressure, and the second mode creates a different positive pressure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Hogendijk in view of Bonnette such that it comprises an electronic controller coupled to the one or more pumps, wherein the electronic controller controls the delivery of the pressurized drive fluid to the piston to generate different negative and positive pressure values so that the absolute value of the negative and positive pressures are different from one another to cause different aspiration and blood return flow rates, as taught by Deak, for the purpose of providing a suitable means of allowing for precise control of the piston (see Deak, paragraph 0029).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogendijk in view of Bonnette and Deak, and further in view of Weiss (US 4828543).
Regarding claim 4, Hogendijk does not teach a de-airing chamber coupled to the blood return circuit
However, Weiss discloses the system comprising a de-airing chamber coupled to the blood return circuit (fig. 5, venous compliance chamber 184 coupled to blood return circuit, compliance chamber serves as a debubbler. Col. 20, lines 3-32 describe the arterial compliance chamber 182 as a debubbler, and col. 20, lines 33-40 describes the venous compliance chamber 184 as a similar description of the arterial compliance chamber.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Hogendijk such that it comprises a de-airing chamber coupled to the blood return circuit, as taught by Weiss, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that takes bubbles out of the blood for safe return.
Regarding claim 14, Hogendijk does not teach a de-airing chamber coupled to the blood return circuit
However, Weiss discloses the system comprising a de-airing chamber coupled to the blood return circuit (fig. 5, venous compliance chamber 184 coupled to blood return circuit, compliance chamber serves as a debubbler. Col. 20, lines 3-32 describe the arterial compliance chamber 182 as a debubbler, and col. 20, lines 33-40 describes the venous compliance chamber 184 as a similar description of the arterial compliance chamber.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Hogendijk such that it comprises a de-airing chamber coupled to the blood return circuit, as taught by Weiss, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that takes bubbles out of the blood for safe return.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogendijk in view of Bonnette, Deak, and Weiss, and further in view of Meyer (US 20140217030).
Regarding claim 5, Hogendijk, as modified by Weiss, does not teach wherein the de-airing chamber comprises one of a pressure valve, a bag, and/or a syringe.
However, Meyer teaches wherein a de-airing chamber (705) comprises a pressure valve (410) (fig. 16, vent control valve 410 connected to degassing module 705, paragraph 0320).
Meyer is considered analogous art because it pertains to the use of a de-airing chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Hogendijk in view of Weiss such that the de-airing chamber comprises a pressure valve, as taught by Meyer, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that can be closed to prevent air ingress to the degassing module (see Meyer, paragraph 320).
Regarding claim 15, Hogendijk, as modified by Weiss, does not teach wherein the de-airing chamber comprises one of a pressure valve, a bag, and/or a syringe.
However, Meyer teaches wherein a de-airing chamber (705) comprises a pressure valve (410) (fig. 16, vent control valve 410 connected to degassing module 705, paragraph 0320).
Meyer is considered analogous art because it pertains to the use of a de-airing chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Hogendijk in view of Weiss such that the de-airing chamber comprises a pressure valve, as taught by Meyer, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that can be closed to prevent air ingress to the degassing module (see Meyer, paragraph 320).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogendijk in view of Bonnette, Deak, and Weiss, and further in view of Lane (US 4976682)
Regarding claim 6, Hogendijk, as modified by Weiss, does not teach the apparatus further comprises a clot collection chamber configured to be fluidically connected between the first outlet and the de-airing chamber.
However, Lane teaches an autotransfusion system (abstract) comprising a clot collection chamber (122) (fig. 2, collection vessel 122 comprising macrofilter 123, which removes particulate debris such as clots, col. 10, lines 61-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Hogendijk in view of Weiss such that it further comprises a clot collection chamber, as taught by Lane, for the purpose of providing a suitable additional structure that removes particulate debris before returning blood to the patient (see Lane, col. 10, lines 61-68)
Hogendijk, as modified by Weiss and Lane, does not teach wherein the clot collection chamber is fluidically connected between the first outlet and the de-airing chamber.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Weiss such that the clot collection chamber is fluidically connected between the first outlet and the de-airing chamber, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this instance, Weiss discloses that clots should be removed before returning the blood to the patient (col. 5, lines 34-45). As such, as long as clots are removed at a point before the blood is returned, the added collection chamber taught in Lane can be used at any other point in the system.
Regarding claim 16, Hogendijk does not teach the apparatus further comprises a clot collection chamber configured to be fluidically connected between the first outlet and the de-airing chamber.
However, Lane teaches an autotransfusion system (abstract) comprising a clot collection chamber (122) (fig. 2, collection vessel 122 comprising macrofilter 123, which removes particulate debris such as clots, col. 10, lines 61-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Hogendijk such that it further comprises a clot collection chamber, as taught by Lane, for the purpose of providing a suitable additional structure that removes particulate debris before returning blood to the patient (see Lane, col. 10, lines 61-68)
Weiss, as modified by Lane, does not teach wherein the clot collection chamber is fluidically connected between the first outlet and the de-airing chamber.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Weiss such that the clot collection chamber is fluidically connected between the first outlet and the de-airing chamber, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this instance, Weiss discloses that clots should be removed before returning the blood to the patient (col. 5, lines 34-45). As such, as long as clots are removed at a point before the blood is returned, the added collection chamber taught in Lane can be used at any other point in the system.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogendijk in view of Bonnette and Deak, and further in view of Lane.
Regarding claim 9, Hogendijk does not teach the device further comprising a clot collection chamber configured to be fluidically connected between the first inlet and the aspiration catheter
However, Lane teaches an autotransfusion system (abstract) comprising a clot collection chamber (122) (fig. 2, collection vessel 122 comprising macrofilter 123, which removes particulate debris such as clots, col. 10, lines 61-68). Said chamber is between the suction tip (118) and the inlet into a similar filter vessel (130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Weiss such that it comprises a clot collection chamber configured to be fluidically connected between the first inlet and the aspiration catheter, as taught by Lane, for the purpose of providing a suitable additional structure that removes particulate debris before returning blood to the patient (see Lane, col. 10, lines 61-68).
Regarding claim 10, Hogendijk does not teach the apparatus further comprising a clot collection chamber configured to be fluidically connected to the blood return circuit
However, Lane teaches an autotransfusion system (abstract) comprising a clot collection chamber (122) (fig. 2, collection vessel 122 comprising macrofilter 123, which removes particulate debris such as clots, col. 10, lines 61-68). Said chamber is between the suction tip (118) and the inlet into a similar filter vessel (130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Weiss such that it comprises a clot collection chamber, as taught by Lane, for the purpose of providing a suitable additional structure that removes particulate debris before returning blood to the patient (see Lane, col. 10, lines 61-68).
Moreover, because the clot collection chamber in Lane is before the pump leading to the main drainage canister, and because and analogous spot in Hogendijk would be fluidically connected to the blood return circuit, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the clot collection chamber in Hogendijk in view of Lane would be fluidically connected to the blood return circuit.
Regarding claim 19, Weiss does not teach the device further comprising a clot collection chamber configured to be fluidically connected between the first inlet and the aspiration catheter
However, Lane teaches an autotransfusion system (abstract) comprising a clot collection chamber (122) (fig. 2, collection vessel 122 comprising macrofilter 123, which removes particulate debris such as clots, col. 10, lines 61-68). Said chamber is between the suction tip (118) and the inlet into a similar filter vessel (130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Weiss such that it comprises a clot collection chamber configured to be fluidically connected between the first inlet and the aspiration catheter, as taught by Lane, for the purpose of providing a suitable additional structure that removes particulate debris before returning blood to the patient (see Lane, col. 10, lines 61-68).
Regarding claim 20, Weiss does not teach the apparatus further comprising a clot collection chamber configured to be fluidically connected to the blood return circuit
However, Lane teaches an autotransfusion system (abstract) comprising a clot collection chamber (122) (fig. 2, collection vessel 122 comprising macrofilter 123, which removes particulate debris such as clots, col. 10, lines 61-68). Said chamber is between the suction tip (118) and the inlet into a similar filter vessel (130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Weiss such that it comprises a clot collection chamber, as taught by Lane, for the purpose of providing a suitable additional structure that removes particulate debris before returning blood to the patient (see Lane, col. 10, lines 61-68).
Moreover, because the clot collection chamber in Lane is before the pump leading to the main drainage canister, and because and analogous spot in Hogendijk would be fluidically connected to the blood return circuit, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the clot collection chamber in Hogendijk in view of Lane would be fluidically connected to the blood return circuit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON W LEVY whose telephone number is (571)272-7582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 5712705879. 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.
/Brandon W. Levy/Examiner, Art Unit 3781