Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
1. The amendment filed 02/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 7 and 14 – 17 and new claim 18 are pending. Claims 8 – 13 have been cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1 – 13) in the reply filed on 09/21/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
3. Claims 14 – 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/21/2025.
4. Claims 1 – 7 and 18 are under consideration.
Priority
5. This application claims the benefit of priority of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/428,462, filed on 11/29/2022.
Drawings
6. The drawings remain objected to because of the following informalities: there is description of color in the Specification of Figure 11 on page 9, para. 0081 and Figure 12 on page 9, para. 0082 and Figuure13 on page 9, para. 0083 and Figure 16 on page 10, para. 0086, and the various colors cannot be distinguished from each other since the figures are in black and white.
7. Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
8. A petition from Applicant to accept Color Drawings was submitted on 02/16/2026 but has not been reviewed or granted.
Withdrawn Specification Objection
9. The objection to the specification for improper trade name or marker usage is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the specification.
Withdrawn Claim Objections
10. The objection to claim 5 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
11. The objection to claim 7 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
12. The objection to claim 9 is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of the claim.
13. The objection to claim 11 is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of the claim.
14. The rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
15. The rejection of claims 1 – 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
16. The rejection of claims 8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
17. The rejection of claims 1, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
18. The rejection of claims 8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) ) is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
19. The rejection of claims 1 – 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
20. The rejection of claims 8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
21. The rejection of claims 1 – 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
22. The rejection of claims 8 – 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
23. The rejection of claims 1 – 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
24. The rejection of claims 8 – 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
25. The rejection of claims 1 – 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
26. The rejection of claims 8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
27. The rejection of claims 1, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
28. The rejection of claims 8 – 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
Claim Interpretation
29. For the purpose of applying prior art, “wherein the droplets are subjected conditions that promote solidification into particles having a diameter between 400 microns and 3 millimeter” of claim 1 is interpreted to mean that step (b) of claim 1 comprises solidifying the droplets of the cell – hydrogel mixture based on Applicant’s specification at para. 00291.
30. For the purpose of applying prior art, “particles” of claim 1 is interpreted as solidified droplets that are cultured in step (c) base don Applicant’s specification at para. 00291.
31. For the purpose of applying prior art, “wherein the induced pluripotent stem cells are derived from peripheral blood mononuclear cells” of claim 4 is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation and therefore interpreted as requiring induced pluripotent stem cells (See MPEP 2113).
32. For the purpose of applying prior art, “within the liquid composition” of claim 5 is interpreted as differentiation in step (c) of claim 1.
33. For the purpose of applying prior art, “wherein the ECM hydrogel is prepared by enzymatic digestion of decellularized human omentum with pepsin” of claim 7 is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation and therefore interpreted as requiring ECM hydrogel solution derived from decellularized human omentum (See MPEP 2113).
Objections/Rejections Necessitated by Amendment
Claim Objections
34. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the usage of “droplets” and “particles” is confusing because the first wherein clause recites that the droplets become particles upon solidification but step (c) requires culturing the droplets. A suggestion would be to incorporate the “solidification” as an active step to produce particles instead of a “wherein” clause, followed by culturing the particles based on Applicant’s Example 2 at para. 00291. Appropriate correction is required.
35. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the liquid composition” lacks antecedent basis and therefore should be replaced with “droplets” to clarify that the induced pluripotent stem cells in the cell – hydrogel mixture droplets are cultured in step (c) of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
36. Claim(s) 1 – 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dvir (WO-2017103930-A1; Filed 12/15/2016; Published 06/22/2017; previously cited), hereinafter Dvir in view of Silva (Silva, Gabriel A., et al. Science 303.5662 (2004): 1352-1355.), hereinafter Silva in view of Edri (Edri, Reuven, et al. Advanced materials 31.1 (2019): 1803895; previously cited), hereinafter Edri.
Regarding claim 1 and 6, Dvir teaches a method comprising combining cells with an ECM hydrogel solution derived from decellularized human omentum (dECM) to produce a cell – hydrogel mixture (step (a) and (b) of claim 1) (page 31, lines 14 – 21; page 32, lines 15 – 28). Dvir does not teach “onto a solid surface” of step (b) of claim 1. Dvir teaches the final concentration of dECM was 1% and the desired cell density was suspended in omentum-hydrogel:culture medium mix at a ratio of 9:1 , (page 30, line 28 – 32; page 32, lines 15 – 17). Dvir teaches the droplets were transferred immediately to 37 °C for gelation and resuspended in culture medium ( “promote solidification” of claim 1 and “a temperature of above 30 °C” of claim 6) (page 31, lines 24 – 28; page 32, lines 18 – 22). Dvir teaches hiPSCs were differentiated to spinal cord neurons in culture until day 19, then encapsulated within omentum-hydrogel droplets and cultured while being differentiated until day 28 (step (c) and “comprise mature neurons” of claim 1) (page 32, lines 13 – 14; page 35, lines 9 – 14; Figure 10A - C; page 7, lines 22 – 24). Dvir teaches in the method can produce droplets up to 300 microns based on the diameter of the tubings connected to the syringes from which the droplets were dispensed (page 19, lines 10 – 12; page 31, lines 14 – 21) but does not teach “a diameter between 400 microns and 3 millimeters” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Dvir teaches enzymatically digesting the dECM with pepsin (page 30, lines 28 – 32).
Dvir does not teach dispensing droplets “onto a solid surface” or “a diameter between 400 microns and 3 millimeters” or “which form a neuronal network” of claim 1, “wherein the cells comprise pluripotent stem cells” of claim 2 or wherein the pluripotent stem cells are induced pluripotent stem cells of claims 3 – 5 or “wherein the neuronal network is a high-density 3D network within the entire particle” of claim 18. However, Dvir teaches the cell populations encapsulated in decellularized omentum can be derived from the patient himself (i.e. autologous to the patient) (page 21, lines 29 – 31). Dvir teaches encapsulating cells in hydrogels has shown promising results for reducing the immune response but many preclinical and clinical trials results have been inconsistent because of the limited ability of hydrogels to support cellular viability and function over an extended time period (page 8, lines 19 – 22). Dvir teaches the encapsulated cells in omentum hydrogel may be used in applications such as tissue engineering and regeneration procedures (page 9, line 1). Dvir teaches as the microparticles have a much greater surface area than the same amount of gel not formulated into droplets, their release can be much more precisely controlled and tailored to the specific desired usage and mass transfer of oxygen and nutrients is more efficient leading to improved cell viability (page 9, lines 1 – 5). Dvir teaches the particles can be injected into any site in which tissue regeneration is required (page 23, lines 17).
Regarding “onto a solid surface” of claim 1, Silva teaches a method of forming droplets of a mixture of neural progenitor cells and an artificial ECM by dispensing the cells and ECM on a 24 well culture plate (page 1352, left col. last para. and right col. last para.; Supplementary Online Material page 1). Silva teaches incubating the droplets at 37 °C and adding NPC culture media (Supplementary Online Material page 1). Silva teaches mixing the cells and 1% artificial ECM at a ratio of 1:1 (0.5% ECM) formed transparent gel-like solids (page 1353, left col. para. 1; Figure 1C, D). Silva teaches the NPCs differentiated into neurons and large neurites formed with neurite outgrowth (page 1353, left col. para. 2; page 1354, left col. para. 1; Figure 2E, 3C, and 4C). Silva teaches artificial 3D scaffolds that store or attract cells, and then direct cell proliferation and differentiation, are of critical importance in regenerative medicine (page 1352, left col. para. 1).
Regarding “a diameter between 400 microns and 3 millimeters” of claim 1, Silva teaches a droplet diameter of 3 mm in Figure 1C of the artificial ECM with cell culture media. Silva teaches a diameter of ~2 mm of a droplet extracted from an eye after intraocular injection in Figure 1E and teaches injection of the artificial ECM into rat spinal cords in vivo where the solution of artificial ECM can be transformed into a solid scaffold upon contact with the tissues (page 1355, left col. para. 2). Silva teaches this process localizes the artificial ECM in tissue and prevents passive diffusion of the molecules away from the epicenter of an injection site (page 1355, left col. para. 2).
Silva does not teach “which form a neuronal network” of claim 1, “wherein the cells comprise pluripotent stem cells” of claim 2 or wherein the pluripotent stem cells are induced pluripotent stem cells of claims 3 – 5 or “wherein the neuronal network is a high-density 3D network within the entire particle” of claim 18. However, Silva teaches artificial 3D scaffolds that store or attract cells, and then direct cell proliferation and differentiation, are of critical importance in regenerative medicine (page 1352, left col. para. 1). One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dvir and Silva because both teach differentiation of neuron progenitor cells to neurons in ECM droplets and both teach ECM can be used for tissue regeneration.
Regarding “which form a neuronal network” of claim 1, “wherein the cells comprise pluripotent stem cells” of claim 2 and wherein the pluripotent stem cells are induced pluripotent stem cells of claims 3 – 5 and “wherein the neuronal network is a high-density 3D network within the entire particle” of claim 18, Edri teaches a method of preparing neuronal implants by combining iPSCs (“pluripotent stem cells of claim 2; “induced pluripotent stem cells” of claims 3 – 5) with human omentum hydrogel and differentiating the iPSCs to spinal cord neurons and deep layers cortical neurons and dopaminergic neurons (claim 5) that form mature neuronal networks (“neuronal network” of claim 1 and claim 18) (page 2, left col. last para. and right col. para. 1 – 2; page 6, right col.; Figure 1a and 4; Supporting Information page 2, para. 2; Supporting Information page 3, para. 4 – 5). Edri teaches in order to engineer patient-specific motor neuron implants, the cell-containing hydrogels were exposed to a differentiation protocol and the cells assembled into neuronal networks with multiple intertwined motor neurons and synapses (page 7, left col. para. 2). Edri teaches in Supplementary Figure 13 that the rheological measurements of the spinal cord implants are similar to those of omentum ECM hydrogel between 0.5% and 1% in Supplementary Figure 2. Edri teaches RNA sequencing revealed the potential of the implants to secrete neurotransmitters (page 7, left col. para. 2). Edri teaches the cortical neurons within the implants exhibited synaptic activity and the dopaminergic neurons revealed electrical activity, dopamine release, and spontaneous signal propagation (page 7, left col. para. 1).
Edri teaches the neuronal implants may be used to treat diseases or injuries that are associated with the CNS, including brain lesions caused by physical injury or neurodegenerative disease, and spinal cord injuries (page 6). Edri teaches the results exemplify the potential of the hydrogel to direct proper differentiation into the desired tissue lineage allowing the engineering of functional patient-specific tissues (page 7, left col. para. 4). Edri teaches the hydrogel’s 3D microenvironment supports an efficient differentiation of cells to desired lineages, and encourages physiological processes that are necessary for tissue assembly, development, and maturation (page 7, left col. last para.). Edri teaches the concept of the matrix and the cells are taken from the omentum of the patient paves the way for the use of personalized implants with reduced immune response, and may provide better conditions for engraftment (page 7, right col. para. 1). Edri teaches a major challenge in the field of tissue engineering is how to directly differentiate cells in large, 3D microenvironments for the formation of thick, functional tissues (page 4, left col. last para.). Edri teaches direct differentiation within scaffolding material would benefit from cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions throughout development and maturation (page 4, left col. last para.).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention as claimed to combine the teachings of Dvir regarding a method of differentiating droplets of a cell-hydrogel mixture into neurons where the hydrogel is derived from human omentum with the teachings of Silva regarding a method of forming droplets of a mixture of neural progenitor cells and artificial ECM on a solid surface and culturing to form neurons where the droplets have a diameter of 2 – 3 mm with the teachings of Edri regarding a method of forming a neuronal implant by differentiating an iPSC-human omentum hydrogel mixture to arrive at the claimed method comprising (a) combining cells with a 0.75% extracellular matrix (ECM) hydrogel solution derived from decellularized human omentum to produce a cell - hydrogel mixture; (b) dispensing the cell - hydrogel mixture as droplets onto a solid surface; and (c) culturing the droplets under conditions that promote cellular differentiation into mature neural cells, wherein the droplets are subjected to conditions that promote solidification into particles having a diameter between 400 microns and 3 millimeters; and wherein the particles comprise mature neurons which form a neuronal network in the particle and also between one particle and another. It would have been obvious to adjust the concentration of ECM to arrive at 0.75% ECM since it is a result-effective variable dependent on the desired rheological properties as Edri teaches the spinal cord implants had rheological properties in between 1% and 0.5% ECM. One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dvir, Silva, and Edri in a method to create a neuronal implant for treating neural disorders or neuronal-associated physical injuries as Dvir teaches encapsulating cells in hydrogels has shown promising results for reducing the immune response but many preclinical and clinical trials results have been inconsistent because of the limited ability of hydrogels to support cellular viability and function over an extended time period and Silva teaches artificial 3D scaffolds that store or attract cells, and then direct cell proliferation and differentiation, are of critical importance in regenerative medicine and Edri teaches a major challenge in the field of tissue engineering is how to directly differentiate cells in large, 3D microenvironments for the formation of thick, functional tissues and Edri teaches direct differentiation within scaffolding material would benefit from cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions throughout development and maturation. One would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings as Edri teaches the method produced patient-specific motor neuron implants where the cells assembled into neuronal networks with multiple intertwined motor neurons and synapses and Edri teaches RNA sequencing revealed the potential of the implants to secrete neurotransmitters and Edri teaches the cortical neurons within the implants exhibited synaptic activity and the dopaminergic neurons revealed electrical activity, dopamine release, and spontaneous signal propagation and Edri teaches the neuronal implants may be used to treat diseases or injuries that are associated with the CNS, including brain lesions caused by physical injury or neurodegenerative disease, and spinal cord injuries.
Applicant’s Arguments/Response to Arguments
37. Affidavit states: The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 02/16/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1 – 7 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 over the teachings of Dvir and Edri as set forth in the last Office action because: The affidavit states page 2 para. 5 that it was determined that a 0.75% hydrogel solution provided a superior ability to support the generation of viable, implantable neural tissue and Table 1 indicates that 0.75% and 0.5% hydrogel percentages showed acceptable necrotic core, while 1% and 1.25% showed a substantial necrotic core in a 3D tissue construct. The affidavit states at page 3, para. 9 that development of a substantial necrotic core was observed only in 3D tissue constructs formed with a hydrogel concentration of 1% or greater and this is the same percentage of hydrogel used in the cited references. The affidavit states that there is a difference in curing times between the 0.5% and 0.75% hydrogels at page 4.
Response to Affidavit: In response, Dvir teaches the final concentration of dECM was 1% and the desired cell density was suspended in omentum-hydrogel:culture medium mix at a ratio of 9:1 , (page 30, line 28 – 32; page 32, lines 15 – 17). Therefore, Dvir teaches that the hydrogel concentration in the cell-hydrogel mixture was not 1% but less than 1%. Edri teaches the final concentration of decellularized omentum was either 1% or 1.5% but that this was mixed with iPSCs (page 7, right col. para. 3; Supplementary Materials page 2, para. 2). Therefore, Edri teaches that the hydrogel concentration in the cell-hydrogel mixture was not 1% but less than 1%. Edri teaches in Supplementary Figure 13 the rheological properties of the spinal cord implants are most similar to those of greater than 0.5% hydrogel and less than 1% hydrogel by comparison to the rheological properties of the hydrogel at different concentrations in Supplementary Figure 2 which would be expected to have an acceptable necrotic core based on Table 1 of the Affidavit. Edri teaches the neuronal implants may be used to treat diseases or injuries that are associated with the CNS, including brain lesions caused by physical injury or neurodegenerative disease, and spinal cord injuries (page 6) and that the implant has potential to secrete neurotransmitters (page 7, left col. para. 2), and the cortical neurons within the implants exhibited synaptic activity and the dopaminergic neurons revealed electrical activity, dopamine release, and spontaneous signal propagation (page 7, left col. para. 1). Therefore, it would be obvious to adjust the hydrogel percentage since it is a result-effective variable dependent on the rheological properties of the spinal cord implant as taught by Edri to obtain a neuronal implant for treating diseases or injuries associated with the CNS.
Applicant Argues: On page 6, last para. – page 7, para. 1, Applicant request withdrawal of the objection to the drawings because a petition for color drawings has been submitted.
Response to Argument: The objection to the drawings is maintained because the petition has not been reviewed or granted.
Applicant Argues: On page 8, para. 3 and page 9, para. 3 – 4 and page 10 – 11, Applicant asserts that none of the cited references teach the limitation of 0.75% ECM in amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that the requirement to use a 0.75% ECM hydrogel solution is not described or suggested in any of the cited references and none of the cited references could have indicated to one of skill in the art that a 0.75% ECM hydrogel solution would provide a superior ability to support the generation of transplantable neural engineered tissue as claimed.
Response to Argument: All prior rejections of claim 1 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claim. In the new rejection set forth above, Dvir teaches the final concentration of dECM was 1% and the desired cell density was suspended in omentum-hydrogel:culture medium mix at a ratio of 9:1 , (page 30, line 28 – 32; page 32, lines 15 – 17). Therefore, Dvir teaches that the hydrogel concentration in the cell-hydrogel mixture was not 1% but less than 1%. Edri teaches the final concentration of decellularized omentum was either 1% or 1.5% but that this was mixed with iPSCs (page 7, right col. para. 3; Supplementary Materials page 2, para. 2). Therefore, Edri teaches that the hydrogel concentration in the cell-hydrogel mixture was not 1% or 1.5% but less than 1.5% or less than 1%. Edri teaches in Supplementary Figure 13 the rheological properties of the spinal cord implants are most similar to those of greater than 0.5% hydrogel and less than 1% hydrogel by comparison to the rheological properties of the hydrogel at different concentrations in Supplementary Figure 2 which would be expected to have an acceptable necrotic core based on Table 1 of the Affidavit. Edri teaches the neuronal implants may be used to treat diseases or injuries that are associated with the CNS, including brain lesions caused by physical injury or neurodegenerative disease, and spinal cord injuries (page 6) and that the implant has potential to secrete neurotransmitters (page 7, left col. para. 2), and the cortical neurons within the implants exhibited synaptic activity and the dopaminergic neurons revealed electrical activity, dopamine release, and spontaneous signal propagation (page 7, left col. para. 1). Therefore, it would be obvious to adjust the hydrogel percentage since it is a result-effective variable dependent on the rheological properties of the spinal cord implant as taught by Edri to obtain a neuronal implant for treating diseases or injuries associated with the CNS.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
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 ZANNA M BEHARRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:45 am - 5:45 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, Peter Paras can be reached at (571)272-4517. 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.
/Z.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1632
/MARCIA S NOBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1632
Prosecution Insights