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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II, claims 21-25 and 31-41, in the reply filed on 2/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group I and III there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/10/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21-25 and 31- 41 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 21 recites the limitation "the plurality of needles" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended the claim be amended to say “the plurality of microneedles”.
The term “about” in claim 31 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what lengths the range encompasses. The same issue is present in claim 32.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected because they depend from claims rejected above as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21-22, 34, and 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayter (US 20250235100 A1) in view of Crespo Paravano (US 20230023786 A1).
In regards to claim 21 Hayter teaches a method, comprising:
generating an identifier record for an identifier associated with to a sensor, the identifier being affixed to the sensor during manufacturing of the sensor ([0199] unique identifier (e.g., GUID) is record, analyte sensor serial number is identifier, obvious that serial number is affixed to sensor during manufacturing),
generating an object record for the sensor ([0199] analyte sensor serial number is an object record);
associating, by the an information system, the identifier record with the object record so that the sensor including the identifier affixed thereon is associated with the identifier ([0084] “In some aspects, remote device 130 can be configured to receive a unique identifier (e.g., GUID, UUID, etc. based on a match between the order and the patient information” GUID links the patient information and the order which includes the sensor);
in response to receiving prescription information for a patient from a first device associated with a prescribing entity, associating a patient record of the patient with the identifier record so that the sensor including the identifier affixed thereon is associated with the patient ([0197] “In step 402, as shown in the example of FIG. 2, an order for analyte assessment, associated with an EMR of a patient, can be sent by a third party 260 to lab test facility 250 via order interface 254, which can be received and stored by software application 240”, software application acts as first device, [0199] “In some aspects, authenticating the unique identifier (e.g., GUID) can include comparing or matching of the unique identifier with patient information, analyte sensor serial number, QR sticker, or a combination thereof to confirm or validate the unique identifier (e.g., GUID) is correct” GUID is associated with patient information) ;
receiving a request to validate the identifier and information of the patient from a second device associated with the patient prior to administration of the sensor ([0199] “In step 406, as shown in the example of FIG. 2, software application 240 can authenticate the unique identifier (e.g., GUID) with remote device 230 (e.g., via mobile app 220)”, software application acts as second device, Inherently receives a request to validate in order to carry out the authentication/validation step);
validating the identifier and the information of the patient based on the object record, the identifier record, and the patient record and the associations therebetween, and sending a response to the second device based on the validation ([0199] “In some aspects, authenticating the unique identifier (e.g., GUID) can include comparing or matching of the unique identifier with patient information, analyte sensor serial number, QR sticker, or a combination thereof to confirm or validate the unique identifier (e.g., GUID) is correct”);
and sending, to a third device associated with managing electronic records of patients, treatment data associated with the administration of the sensor such that the third device can update electronic records of the patient ([0203] In step 414, as shown in the example of FIG. 2, software application 240 can generate a report based on the sensor data, and upload the report to the EMR of the patient. In some aspects, software application 240 can generate reports from the stored sensor data, and software application 240 can upload these reports (e.g., via result interface 256) to the EMR account specified in the associated order (e.g., to third party 260) software application acts as third device).
Hayter fails to teach a microneedle array patch the microneedle array patch including a base structure and a plurality of microneedles disposed on a flat surface of the base structure, the base structure configured to provide support to the plurality of needles during insertion of the plurality of microneedles into skin.
Crespo Paravano teaches a microneedle array patch the microneedle array patch including a base structure and a plurality of microneedles disposed on a flat surface of the base structure [0022] “In one embodiment, every electrode required for the electrochemical readout is implemented in individual microneedles and/or needles that are in turn implemented in a polymeric substrate”, [0063] Fig 1 shows that substrate is flat,
the base structure configured to provide support to the plurality of needles during insertion of the plurality of microneedles into skin ([0059] “This layer also facilitates skin penetration”, microneedles are attached to substrate which supports them).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the analyte sensor of Hayter with the microneedle analyte sensor of Crespo Paravano. Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one type of analyte sensor for another in order to obtain the predictable result of using a microneedle patch to sense analytes.
In regards to claim 22 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the plurality of microneedles includes first and second sets of microneedles, the first set of microneedles having a first length and the second set of microneedles having a second length greater than the first length (Crespo Paravano [0129] “In one specific example, the modified microneedles and needles are of different lengths to reach the interstitial fluid and the bloodstream simultaneously by means of the same patch”).
In regards to claim 34 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the identifier is at least one of a quick-response (QR) code, a bar code, a radiofrequency identification (RFID) chip, or a serial number (Hayter [0199] analyte sensor serial number is identifier).
In regards to claim 36 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 21, wherein validating the identifier and the information of the patient includes: retrieving, by the information system, the identifier record associated with the identifier and the patient record associated with the user and determining that the identifier record and the patient record are associated with one another (Hayter [0199] “In some aspects, authenticating the unique identifier (e.g., GUID) can include comparing or matching of the unique identifier with patient information, analyte sensor serial number, QR sticker, or a combination thereof to confirm or validate the unique identifier (e.g., GUID) is correct”).
In regards to claim 37 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising:
measuring, via a sensor disposed on a microneedle of the plurality of microneedles, one or more physiological parameters when the microneedle array patch is inserted into the skin of the user (Crespo Paravano [0024] The wearable sensing (micro)needle patch is compatible with an electronics module that allows for the analyte sensing through fluctuations in the analytical signal (e.g., voltage, current, resistance, capacitance, impedance, etc.). The wearable sensing (micro)needle patch preferably detects parameters that are depending on the analyte concentration/activity/level in a biological fluid but also in any kind of sample);
and transmitting, via a transmitter disposed on the microneedle array patch, the measurements of the one or more physiological parameters to the information system (Hayter [0075] sensor has transmitter, [0077] “In some aspects, on body electronics 124 can be configured to wirelessly transmit stored analyte related sensor data (e.g., first analyte 123a, second analyte 123b, etc.) during a monitoring time period (e.g., sensor wear) to one or more external devices”).
In regards to claim 38 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 37, wherein the one or more physiological parameters include skin impedance, pH, a level of interstitial fluid, or a concentration of biomarkers (Crespo Paravano [0024] “the wearable sensing (micro)needle patch is configured for the transdermal detection of ions (e.g., potassium, sodium, pH, magnesium, calcium, ammonium, chloride, etc.) through potentiometric readout by the fabrication of a working electrode and reference electrode”).
Claim(s) 21-22, 31, 34, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayter (US 20250235100 A1) in view of Robertson (US 20100312188 A1).
In regards to claim 21 Hayter teaches a method, comprising:
generating an identifier record for an identifier associated with to a sensor, the identifier being affixed to the sensor during manufacturing of the sensor ([0199] unique identifier (e.g., GUID) is record, analyte sensor serial number is identifier, obvious that serial number is affixed to sensor during manufacturing),
generating an object record for the sensor ([0199] analyte sensor serial number is an object record);
associating, by the an information system, the identifier record with the object record so that the sensor including the identifier affixed thereon is associated with the identifier ([0084] “In some aspects, remote device 130 can be configured to receive a unique identifier (e.g., GUID, UUID, etc.) based on a match between the order and the patient information” GUID links the patient information and the order which includes the sensor);
in response to receiving prescription information for a patient from a first device associated with a prescribing entity, associating a patient record of the patient with the identifier record so that the sensor including the identifier affixed thereon is associated with the patient ([0197] “In step 402, as shown in the example of FIG. 2, an order for analyte assessment, associated with an EMR of a patient, can be sent by a third party 260 to lab test facility 250 via order interface 254, which can be received and stored by software application 240”, software application acts as first device, [0199] “In some aspects, authenticating the unique identifier (e.g., GUID) can include comparing or matching of the unique identifier with patient information, analyte sensor serial number, QR sticker, or a combination thereof to confirm or validate the unique identifier (e.g., GUID) is correct” GUID is associated with patient information) ;
receiving a request to validate the identifier and information of the patient from a second device associated with the patient prior to administration of the sensor ([0199] “In step 406, as shown in the example of FIG. 2, software application 240 can authenticate the unique identifier (e.g., GUID) with remote device 230 (e.g., via mobile app 220)”, software application acts as second device, Inherently receives a request to validate in order to carry out the authentication/validation step);
validating the identifier and the information of the patient based on the object record, the identifier record, and the patient record and the associations therebetween, and sending a response to the second device based on the validation ([0199] “In some aspects, authenticating the unique identifier (e.g., GUID) can include comparing or matching of the unique identifier with patient information, analyte sensor serial number, QR sticker, or a combination thereof to confirm or validate the unique identifier (e.g., GUID) is correct”);
and sending, to a third device associated with managing electronic records of patients, treatment data associated with the administration of the sensor such that the third device can update electronic records of the patient ([0203] In step 414, as shown in the example of FIG. 2, software application 240 can generate a report based on the sensor data, and upload the report to the EMR of the patient. In some aspects, software application 240 can generate reports from the stored sensor data, and software application 240 can upload these reports (e.g., via result interface 256) to the EMR account specified in the associated order (e.g., to third party 260) software application acts as third device).
Hayter fails to teach a microneedle array patch the microneedle array patch including a base structure and a plurality of microneedles disposed on a flat surface of the base structure, the base structure configured to provide support to the plurality of needles during insertion of the plurality of microneedles into skin.
Robertson teaches a microneedle array patch the microneedle array patch including a base structure and a plurality of microneedles disposed on a flat surface of the base structure ([0253] substrate is base structure that microneedles sit on),
the base structure configured to provide support to the plurality of needles during insertion of the plurality of microneedles into skin ([0248] microneedles are attached to substrate which inherently supports them as they insert into the skin).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the analyte sensor of Hayter with the microneedle analyte sensor of Robertson. Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one type of analyte sensor for another in order to obtain the predictable result of using a microneedle patch to sense analytes.
In regards to claim 22 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the plurality of microneedles includes first and second sets of microneedles, the first set of microneedles having a first length and the second set of microneedles having a second length greater than the first length (Robertson [0252] “The length of the microneedles may also vary, ranging in some instances between 10 μm and 1 mm, such as between 100 μm and 500 μm, and including between 150 μm and 350”).
In regards to claim 31 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the first length is in a range of between about 500 and about 800 pm and the second length is in a range of between about 50 μm and 250 μm (Robertson [0252] “The length of the microneedles may also vary, ranging in some instances between 10 μm and 1 mm, such as between 100 μm and 500 μm, and including between 150 μm and 350”).
In regards to claim 34 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the identifier is at least one of a quick-response (QR) code, a bar code, a radiofrequency identification (RFID) chip, or a serial number (Hayter [0199] analyte sensor serial number is identifier).
In regards to claim 36 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 21, wherein validating the identifier and the information of the patient includes: retrieving, by the information system, the identifier record associated with the identifier and the patient record associated with the user and determining that the identifier record and the patient record are associated with one another (Hayter [0199] “In some aspects, authenticating the unique identifier (e.g., GUID) can include comparing or matching of the unique identifier with patient information, analyte sensor serial number, QR sticker, or a combination thereof to confirm or validate the unique identifier (e.g., GUID) is correct”).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayter (US 20250235100 A1) in view of Crespo Paravano (US 20230023786 A1) as applied to claim 21, further in view of Pierart (US 20220287638 A1).
In regards to claim 23 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 21. Modified Hayter fails to teach each microneedle of the plurality of microneedles including a square obelisk structure. Pierart teaches microneedles in the shape of a square obelisk structure ([0043][0047] “The microneedle 20 as a whole can preferably be of obelisk shape”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the microneedles of modified Hayter to be obelisk shaped like the microneedles of Pierart in order to “minimize the penetration diameter into the skin whilst maximizing the surface area of the active portion” (Pierart [0047]).
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayter (US 20250235100 A1) in view of Crespo Paravano (US 20230023786 A1) as applied to claim 21, Mathur (US 20090280850 A1).
In regards to claim 24 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 21, wherein receiving the request to validate the identifier and the information of the patient includes: receiving the request at a first layer of an information system, the first layer including an Application Programming Interface (API) (Hayter [0124] “In some aspects, software application 190 can include an application programming interface (API) for two or more computer programs to communicate with each other”, [0199] Mobile app sends request to software application);
processing the request from the first layer to managing validation of the identifier and the information of the patient (Hayter [0199] “In some aspects, authenticating the unique identifier (e.g., GUID) can include mobile app 220 sending patient information to software application 240, software application 240 searching active orders for patient information, and when a match is found, sending the associated unique identifier (e.g., GUID) to mobile app 220”);
and validating the identifier and the information the patient at the second layer by retrieving information from a database of the information system (Hayter [0199] active orders are part of a database).
Modified Hayter fails to explicitly teach two layers of the information system.. Mathur teaches using multiple layers to handle data ([0011] “with the operating system including a plurality of layers including an application programming interface that handles media and more than one layer of the plurality of layers configured to handle media transmitted from the application programming interface to the wireless communication interface”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the software application of modified Hayter to have multiple layers like Mathur in order to carry out the actions of receiving the patient information from the mobile app and searching the database.
In regards to claim 25 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 24, further comprising: receiving, at the first layer of the information system, the treatment data including the identifier, the prescription, and usage data of the microneedle array patch and one or more additional microneedle array patches ([0118] prescription data and sensor data are associated with sensor, sensor data is usage data, [0199] Identifier is matched to patient information, database would inherently receive usage data for multiple sensors/orders to create the database)
processing and routing the treatment data to one or more modules of a second layer such that the treatment data is stored in the database of the information system and/or sent to the third device ([0199] [0202] “software application 240 can search the database of active orders for a match to the uploaded unique identifier (e.g., GUID), and software application 240 can store and associate the sensor data with the order information”, data must be stored in the database).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayter (US 20250235100 A1) in view of Crespo Paravano (US 20230023786 A1) as applied to claim 21, further in view of Burns (US 20250064349 A1).
In regards to claim 32 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 21. Modified Hayter fails to teach a method wherein the microneedle array is arranged on the flat surface of the base structure in an area having a width of between about 2 mm and about 30 mm and a length of between about 10 mm and about 30 mm. Burns teaches a microarray patch with an area having a width of between about 2 mm and about 30 mm and a length of between about 10 mm and about 30 mm ([0043] In the exemplary embodiment, patch component 112 may have a patch component length 124 of approximately 25 millimeters (mm) and a patch component height 126 of approximately 13 mm). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate base of modified Hayter to have a width of 13 mm and a length of 25 mm like the patch of Burns. Doing so would be a mere change in size/shape. MPEP 2144.04.IV
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayter (US 20250235100 A1) in view of Crespo Paravano (US 20230023786 A1) as applied to claim 21, in view of Hyde (US 20130046235 A1).
In regards to claim 33 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 21. Modified Hayter teaches a method wherein the plurality of microneedles are arranged on the flat surface of the base structure in an array that is 10 microneedles to 50 microneedles by 10 microneedles to 50 microneedles. Hyde teaches a microneedle array that is 10 microneedles by 10 microneedles ([0074][0088] “Microneedle arrays (10.times.10) containing 100 microneedles in an area of 20.times.20 mm are constructed with conical microneedles approximately 100 .mu.m to 1000 .mu.m in length and 300 .mu.M in diameter”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the array of modified Hayter to have be 10 x 10 microneedles like the array of Hyde. Doing so would be a mere duplication of parts and rearrangement of parts. MPEP 2144.04.VI
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayter (US 20250235100 A1) in view of Crespo Paravano (US 20230023786 A1) as applied to claim 21, further in view of Kantrowitz (US 20070013528 A1).
In regards to claim 35 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 21. Modified Hayter fails to teach a method further comprising: in response to receiving, at the second device, a response from the information system indicating that the identifier and the microneedle array patch are valid, presenting instructions to the patient to administer the microneedle array patch; and in response to receiving, at the second device, a response from the information system indicating that the identifier and the microneedle array patch are not valid, present an alert to the patient. Kantrowitz teaches alerting if a sensor and patient association are not valid ([0010] “Also provided is a system for alerting hospital personnel to presence of an object or person having a radio frequency identification tag not associated with a first patient in proximity to the first patient”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hayter to include issuing an alert when the patent info and sensor info do not match like the method of Kantrowitz in order to prevent the wrong sensor being used on a patient.
Claim(s) 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayter (US 20250235100 A1) in view of Crespo Paravano (US 20230023786 A1) as applied to claim 37, further in view of Abadi (US 20230065458 A1).
In regards to claim 39 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 37, including sensing glucose (Crespo Paravano [0122] patch detects glucose). Modified Hayter fails to teach: processing the measurements of the one or more physiological parameters to obtain the treatment data, the treatment data including information associated with at least one of: confirmation of administration, efficacy of treatment, performance of the microneedle array patch, or side effects. Abadi teaches a device comprising microneedles for drug delivery ([0030] “Some adhesive embodiments utilize an array of needles, for example microneedles, while others utilize only a single needle”, [0174] insulin is administered when glucose is above or below a threshold) and an administration sensor that detects that a dose of a drug has been administered ([0140] “indicating that the administration of the scheduled and available dose has been detected by the device's onboard administration sensor(s)”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the microneedle array of modified Hayter to both sense glucose and deliver drugs like the device of Abadi in order to deliver drugs when a user’s glucose is too low or high. It would also be obvious to include the administration sensor Abadi which inherently detects a parameter that is processed in order to confirm that administration of the drug was carried out.
In regards to claim 40 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 37, including sensing glucose (Crespo Paravano [0122] patch detects glucose). Modified Hayter fails to teach sending, via the transmitter, the physiological information to the information system such that the information system can monitor one or more vitals of the patient and provide feedback for adjusting usage of a subsequent microneedle array patch. Abadi teaches a device comprising microneedles for drug delivery ([0030] “Some adhesive embodiments utilize an array of needles, for example microneedles, while others utilize only a single needle”, [0174] insulin is administered when glucose is above or below a threshold) and monitoring vitals one or more vitals of the patient and provide feedback for adjusting usage of a subsequent microneedle array patch ([0229] “Vitals 1337 may indicate anomalies or trends within the dataset. Such data may for example drive decisions by a pharmaceutical company in regards to suggested dosing, side effect warnings, risks to certain demographics, and indications for use”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the microneedle array of modified Hayter to both sense glucose and deliver drugs like the device of Abadi in order to deliver drugs when a user’s glucose is too low or high. It would have also been obvious to include a vitals sensor on the patch to detect vitals that can be used to adjust dosage in the future like the method of Abadi.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayter (US 20250235100 A1) in view of Crespo Paravano (US 20230023786 A1) as applied to claim 21, further in view of Abadi (US 20230065458 A1) in view of Gan (US 20210257073 A1).
In regards to claim 41 modified Hayter teaches the method of claim 21, including sensing glucose (Crespo Paravano [0122] patch detects glucose). Modified Hayter fails to teach: recording that the microneedle array patch and one or more additional microneedle array patches have been administered by a user based on the treatment data received from the information system; and calculating a compliance score of the user based on the prescription for the user and the recorded administration of the microneedle array patch and the one or more additional microneedle array patches.
Abadi teaches a device comprising microneedles for drug delivery ([0030] “Some adhesive embodiments utilize an array of needles, for example microneedles, while others utilize only a single needle”, [0174] insulin is administered when glucose is above or below a threshold) and an administration sensor that detects that a dose of a drug has been administered ([0140] “indicating that the administration of the scheduled and available dose has been detected by the device's onboard administration sensor(s)”) and records the administered doses ([0162] dosage inherently must to be recorded to know the completely successful administrations up to present). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the microneedle array of modified Hayter to both sense glucose and deliver drugs like the device of Abadi in order to deliver drugs when a user’s glucose is too low or high. It would also be obvious to include the administration sensor Abadi which inherently detects a parameter that is processed in order to confirm and record that administration of the drug was carried out.
Modified Hayter/Abadi fails to teach calculating a compliance score of the user based on the prescription for the user and the recorded administration of the microneedle array patch and the one or more additional microneedle array patches. Gan teaches calculating a compliance score of the user based on the prescription for the user and the recorded administration of a medicine ([0055] According to a concept of the invention, there is proposed a method and system of predicting or estimating an adherence score representing a subject's adherence to a medication dosage scheme. A subject-reported adherence score is upwardly revised based on application usage information of an application used by the subject to report their adherence). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the microneedle array of modified Hayter/Abadi to calculate an adherence score like the method described in Gan in order to accurately assess adherence to a medication scheme, in a way that is both cheap and relatively simple to implement (Gan [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY EPPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/LUCY EPPERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791