www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/116,099
`
`08/29/2018
`
`Masaya NAKATANI
`
`083710-2219
`
`3503
`
`McDermott Will and Emery LLP
`The McDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`ALLEN,JOSHUA 1.
`
`1795
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/30/2020
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`mweipdocket@mwe.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/116,099
`NAKATANI etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`JOSHUA L ALLEN
`1795
`No
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 09/30/2020.
`LC} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)l¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\(Z Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-13 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CJ] Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected.
`OO Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`CC) Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)) accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)0) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)X None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)L) All
`1... Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) ([] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20201023
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/116,099
`Art Unit: 1795
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`underthe first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Status of the Claims
`
`2.
`
`This is a final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments and remarks
`
`filed on 09/30/2020. Claims 1-13 are pending in the current office action. Claim 1 has
`
`been amendedby the applicant and claims 3-13 are new claims.
`
`Status of the Rejection
`
`3.
`
`All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are substantially
`
`maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
`
`4.
`
`New groundsof rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the
`
`amendments for new claims 3-13.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`5.
`
`Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`a.
`
`Claim 4, line 1: please amend to recite “the substance of biological
`
`origin’. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/116,099
`Art Unit: 1795
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim Objection Warning
`
`6.
`
`Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 12 will be
`
`objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two
`
`claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both
`
`cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing
`
`one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim.
`
`See MPEP § 706.03(k). In the instant case, Claims 10/11 and 12 appearto be
`
`substantially identical in scope and merely recite the same subject matter in an
`
`alternative sentence structure.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`7.
`
`The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code notincluded in this action can
`
`be found in a prior Office action.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 1-9, and 13 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Date et al. (Y. Date, S. Takano, H. Shiku, K. Ino, T. lto-Sasaki, M.
`
`Yokoo, H. Abe, T. Matsue, Monitoring oxygen consumption of a single mouse embryos
`
`using an integrated electrochemical microdevice, Biosensors and Bioelectronics 30
`
`(2011) 100-106) in view of Liu et al. (US 4,571,292 A2, cited in IDS).
`
`9.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Date discloses a method of examining a substanceof
`
`biological origin (electrochemical microdevice and method for measuring oxygen
`
`consumption of an embryo [abstract]) comprising:
`
`b.
`
`providing an examination device (microdevice [Fig. 3]) which includes
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/116,099
`Art Unit: 1795
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`C. a base havingafirst surface (a glass substrate hasafirst surface where
`
`the micropit is located [2.2. Device Fabrication, Fig. 3]);
`
`d.
`
`a wall disposed on the first surface of the base, the wall having an inner
`
`wall, the first surface of the base and the inner wall of the wall constituting a
`
`measuring region configuredto be filled with a solution containing a substance of
`
`biological origin (the device comprises a PDMS microwell that forms a wall
`
`wherein the inner surface of the wall and the substrate form a measuring region
`
`that comprises the embryo and measurement solution [2.2. Device Fabrication;
`
`2.4. Oxygen measurement using microelectrode array; Fig. 3]);
`
`e.
`
`a first electrode disposed on the first surface of the base, a second
`
`
`
`
`
`electrode disposed on the first surface of the base,whereinthetirstelectrede
`
`
`
`respectively (working electrode 1 (WE1) and working electrode 2 (WE2) are
`
`disposed on the top surface of the substrate [Pg. 101, 2.2. Device Fabrication,
`
`Para. 1; Fig. 3a-3c]); and
`
`
`
`f.distancea placing area on the first surface of the base, wherein-a-shertest
`
`
`
`
`
`first electrode and the second electrode are disposed in the placing area (the
`
`device comprises an area on the top surface of the substrate where the embryo
`
`is placed that further includes a micropit etched into the top surface of the
`
`substrate wherein the microelectrodes (WE1/WE2)are disposed within the area
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/116,099
`Art Unit: 1795
`
`Page 5
`
`that comprises the embryo on the top surface of the substrate [2.2. Device
`
`Fabrication; Fig. 3]);
`
`g.
`
`placing a substance of biological origin on the placing area byfiling the
`
`measuring region with a solution containing the substance of biological origin (an
`
`embryo is placed in the placing area on the micropit by adding the measurement
`
`medium ERAM-2 comprising the embryo to the micropit wherein the embryois
`
`immobilized on the micropit by gravity sedimentation [Pg. 102, 2.5 Oxygen
`
`consumption measurement of single mouse embryo using amperometric
`
`detection; Figs. 2-3]);
`
`h.
`
`measuring a first physicochemical change bythe first electrode in
`
`response to the substance of biological origin (the first working electrode WE1 is
`
`used to measure the change in oxygen concentration and the total oxygen
`
`consumption of the embryo(i.e., a physicochemical change) between the bulk
`
`and the area near the sample as a result of the developmental growth of the
`
`embryo at three different developmental stages from the two-cell stage to a
`
`blastocyst stage [Pg. 103, Equation 4; Pg. 104 through Pg. 105, Para. 1; Figs.
`
`5a-5b));
`
`L.
`
`measuring a second physiochemical change by the second electrode in
`
`response to the substance of biological origin (the second working electrode
`
`WE2 is used to measure the change in oxygen concentration and the total
`
`oxygen consumption of the embryo (i.e., a physicochemical change) between the
`
`bulk and the area near the sample as a result of the developmental growth of the
`
`embryo at three different developmental stages from the two-cell stage to a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/116,099
`Art Unit: 1795
`
`Page 6
`
`blastocyst stage [Pg. 103, Equation 4; Pg. 104 through Pg. 105, Para. 1; Figs.
`
`5a-50; Note: WE1 and WE2 are measuredindividually so each one of the
`
`working electrodes would be measuring an independent change in the oxygen
`
`concentration and total oxygen consumption of the embryo and thus each
`
`individual electrode would be measuring an individual “physicochemical
`
`change’]); and
`
`j.
`
`measuring a concentration gradient of a substance dissolving in the
`
`solution around the substance of biological origin, the substance dissolving due
`
`to an activity of the substance of biological origin (the change in oxygen
`
`concentration and the total oxygen consumption of the embryois recorded
`
`between the bulk and the area near the sample as a result of the developmental
`
`growth of the embryoat three different developmental stages from the two-cell
`
`stage to a blastocyst stage wherein the concentration profile around the embryo
`
`sample forms a hemispherical shape according to spherical diffusion theory
`
`wherein the oxygen concentration profile is in accordance with an ideal
`
`hemispherical diffusion [Pgs. 102-103, 2.6. Estimation of oxygen consumption
`
`based on spherical diffusion theory; Note: the limitation “obtaining a
`
`concentration gradient’ does not imply that any measurement/detection of a
`
`concentration gradient has occurred, but rather that a concentration gradient
`
`itself is “obtained”(i.e., occurs). In the instant case, a dissolved oxygen
`
`concentration gradient inherently forms as suggested by the spherical diffusion
`
`theory model wherein the embryo consumes oxygen close to the embryo anda
`
`concentration gradient forms as other oxygen diffuses towards the embryo. Date
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/116,099
`Art Unit: 1795
`
`Page 7
`
`therefore inherently discloses the step of “obtaining a concentration gradient of a
`
`substance dissolving in the solution around the substance of biological origin” as
`
`the dissolved oxygen would inherently form a concentration gradient/profile in
`
`accordance with an ideal hemispherical diffusion as taught by Date on Pg. 102
`
`under equation (7)]).
`
`10.|Date discloses wherein the first and second working electrodes W1/W2 are
`
`circularly located around the micropit but fails to teach wherein the electrodes are
`
`concentric and thus fails to disclose “wherein a shortest distance from a center of the
`
`placing areato the first electrode and a shortest distance from the center of the placing
`
`area to the second electrode are different’. Date is also silent on instrument amplifiers
`
`and thus fails to expressly teach “wherein the first and electrode and the second
`
`electrode are connected to instrument amplifiers, respectively”.
`
`11.
`
`Liu discloses an electrochemical cell for sensing electrochemically active species
`
`[abstract] wherein the electrodes 12/60, 14/63, and 13/64 are arranged concentrically to
`
`one another [Pg. 10:23-37; Fig. 6]. Liu further teaches that the current flow through the
`
`electrodes may be measured accurately by the meter wherein each electrode is
`
`connected to an amplifier 34/30/31 wherein the amplifier provides appropriate gain
`
`and/or impedance requirements for accurate current measurement [wherein the
`
`information obtained by the working electrode amplifier 34, when employed in relation to
`
`the other amplifiers 30/31, allow for information to be obtained representing
`
`concentration of the electrochemically active species [Col. 8:59 through Col. 9:34; Col.
`
`11:40-45; Fig. 2].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/116,099
`Art Unit: 1795
`
`Page 8
`
`12.—It would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circularly arranged pattern disclosed by
`
`Date to instead include a circularly arranged concentric design of the electrodes
`
`because Liu discloses that concentric electrodes are a suitable alternative electrode
`
`arrangement for the analysis of electrochemically active species in an electrochemical
`
`sensor [Liu; abstract; Fig. 6]. The simple substitution of one known element for another
`
`(i.e., substituting one circularly arranged electrode pattern for a concentrically arranged
`
`electrode pattern) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved(i.e.,
`
`monitoring/detecting the electrochemical properties of an electrochemically active
`
`species) [MPEP § 2143(B)]. Furthermore, differences in shape will not support the
`
`patentability of subject matter encompassedbythe prior art absent persuasive evidence
`
`that the particular configuration is significant. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). Therefore, it
`
`would have been a matter of choice to use a concentric shape, especially considering
`
`the teachings of Liu in Fig. 6, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`found obvious. 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 electronic structure of Date to
`
`include instrument amplifiers connected to the electrodes because Liu further teaches
`
`that such amplifiers provides appropriate gain and/or impedance requirements for
`
`accurate current measurement and allow for information to be obtained representing the
`
`concentration of the electrochemically active species [Col. 8:59 through Col. 9:34; Col.
`
`11:40-45; Fig. 2]. Furthermore, the claimed amplifier limitations are obvious because all
`
`the claimed elements were knownin the prior art and one skilled in the art could have
`
`combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/116,099
`Art Unit: 1795
`
`Page 9
`
`respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results
`
`(i.e€., adding instrument amplifiers, which would be well known by one skilled in the art,
`
`by known methods with no change in their respective functions would provide the
`
`obvious and predictable benefit of amplifying the signal output of the electrodes, as
`
`taught by Liu) [MPEP 2143(A)].
`
`13.|Regarding claim 2, Date further discloses wherein said measuring the first
`
`physicochemical change comprises measuring a current flowing in the first electrode,
`
`and wherein said measuring the second physicochemical change comprises measuring
`
`a current flowing in the second electrode (the first working electrode WE1 and second
`
`working electrode WE2 both measure a current indicative of the change in oxygen
`
`concentration and the total oxygen consumption of the embryo (i.e., a physicochemical
`
`change) between the bulk and the area near the sample as a result of the
`
`developmental growth of the embryoat three different develoomental stages from the
`
`two-cell stage to a blastocyst stage [Pg. 103, Equation 4; Pg. 104 through Pg. 105,
`
`Para. 1; Figs. 4b and 5a; Note: WE1 and WE2 are measuredindividually so each one of
`
`the working electrodes measure an independent change in the oxygen concentration
`
`and total oxygen consumption of the embryo and thus each individual electrode would
`
`be measuring an individual current indicative of the “physicochemical change’]).
`
`14.
`
`Regarding claim 3, Date further discloses wherein two or more electrodes are
`
`included in the examination device (the device includes three working electrodes WE1-
`
`WE3 and a reference/counterelectrode [Figs. 3a-3c]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/116,099
`Art Unit: 1795
`
`Page 10
`
`15.
`
`Regarding claim 4, Date further discloses wherein the biological origin in the
`
`examination device incudes a cell, a tissue, or an embryo (a single mouse embryo was
`
`positioned in the micropit for analysis [abstract; Fig. 3c}).
`
`16.
`
`Regarding claim 5, Date further discloses wherein the base of the examination
`
`device is formed with glass, resin, silicon, or ceramics (the substrate is a synthetic
`
`quartz glass substrate wherein the micropit is formed in the glass [Pg. 101, 2.2. Device
`
`fabrication, Paras. 1-2]).
`
`17.
`
`Regarding claim 6, Date further discloses wherein the first electrode and the
`
`second electrode in the examination device are on the same plane as the placing area
`
`where the substance of biological origin is placed (the microelectrode array, including
`
`WE1-WE8, are disposed in the examination device on the same plane as the micropit
`
`“placing area” where the embryo is disposed [Fig. 3a-3c; Note: the modification by Liu
`
`wherein the electrodes are concentric to one another would also put the WE1-WE3 in
`
`the same plane, only changing their shape to be concentric as outlined in Liu]).
`
`18.
`
`Regarding claim 7, Date further discloses wherein the first electrode and the
`
`second electrode in the examination device are made from platinum, gold or silver (the
`
`three microelectrodes WE1-WE38 are made of platinum [Pg. 103, 3. Results and
`
`Discussion, Para. 1; Figs. 3-4)]).
`
`19.
`
`Regarding claim 8, Date further discloses wherein the first electrode and the
`
`second electrode in the examination device individually measure potential differences or
`
`currents between a reference electrode and the first electrode and the second
`
`electrode, respectively (the first working electrode WE1 and second working electrode
`
`WE2 both measure a current indicative of the change in oxygen concentration and the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/116,099
`Art Unit: 1795
`
`Page 11
`
`total oxygen consumption of the embryo between the bulk and the area near the sample
`
`as a result of the developmental growth of the embryoat three different developmental
`
`stages from the two-cell stage to a blastocyst stage; the electrodes are each measured
`
`as two electrode cells relative to the Ag/AgCl reference electrode [Pg. 102, 2.3.
`
`Apparatus; Pg. 103, Equation 4; Pg. 104 through Pg. 105, Para. 1; Figs. 4b and 5a)).
`
`20.
`
`Regarding claim 9, Date further discloses wherein the wall of the examination
`
`device is formed with glass, resin, silicon, or ceramics (the wall is formed with PDMS
`
`and acrylic resin that is permanently bondedto the electrode patterned substrate [Pg.
`
`101, 2.2. Device Fabrication, Para. 4]).
`
`21.
`
`Regarding claim 13, Date, as modified by Liu above, further discloses wherein
`
`the first electrode and the second electrode are circular when viewed in a direction
`
`facing the first surface (the electrodes are circular and are circumferentially arranged
`
`around a central axis [Liu, Col. 10:23-37]).
`
`22.
`
`Claims 10-12 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Date in view of Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view
`
`of Nakatani et al. (WO 2011/142117 A1, cited in IDS; references herein are cited to
`
`English equivalent US 2013/0045536 A1, cited in IDS).
`
`23.
`
`Regarding claims 10-12, Modified Date discloses the limitations of claim 1 as
`
`discussed previously. Date further discloses wherein the embryo cells were cultured
`
`and then manually transferred to the device where the cultured embryos were observed
`
`daily [Pg. 101, Right Col., Para. 1].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/116,099
`Art Unit: 1795
`
`Page 12
`
`24.
`
`Date is silent, however, on the use of a separator material and thus fails to
`
`disclose “a separator which is disposed abovethe placing area, and includes a porous
`
`material or a fibrous material’, of instant claim 10, “wherein the separatoris further
`
`disposed abovethe first electrode and the second electrode’, of instant claim 11, and
`
`“a separator which is disposed abovethe first electrode and the second electrode, and
`
`includes a porous material or a fibrous material”, of instant claim 12.
`
`25.
`
`Nakatani teaches a cell culture substrate with an electrode for electrically
`
`measuring a state of the culture [Par. 0057] and method that utilizes fibrous protrusions
`
`(“porous or fibrous material") that are intertwined to form a matrix structure ("separator")
`
`that preventa cell from contacting the substrate [abstract]. Nakatani further teaches the
`
`fibrous protrusions ("separator") being positioned around a through hole suchthat the
`
`liquid droplet (sample) is inserted into and held by the through hole but does not touch
`
`the substrate [Par. 0080; Figs. 6-7], and that by employing a substrate on the surface of
`
`which an electrode is formed, a voltage can be applied while the cell is cultured [Par.
`
`0057, lines 1-4].
`
`26.—It would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`claimed invention to modify the area above the electrodes of modified Date, and
`
`subsequently the area where the embryois located (“placing area’), to include a fibrous
`
`protrusions ("fibrous material" and "separator") because Nakatani teaches that the
`
`fibrous protrusions prevent the specimen from making contact with the substrate or
`
`electrodes and still allow the specimen to be electrically measured [Par. 0057, lines 4-7]
`
`and would provide the additional benefit of enabling the embryo/cells of Date to be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/116,099
`Art Unit: 1795
`
`Page 13
`
`cultured directly in the device because Nakatani further discloses wherein the fibrous
`
`materials enable the efficient culturing of cells [Paras. 0013-0014].
`
`Responseto Arguments
`
`27.
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 have been considered but are
`
`moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the
`
`prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the
`
`argument.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
`
`this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP
`
`§ 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
`
`CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortenedstatutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the eventafirst 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
`
`extension fee 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 date of this final action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/116,099
`Art Unit: 1795
`
`Page 14
`
`Contact Information
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to JOSHUA L ALLEN whose telephone numberis
`
`(571)270-3176. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-7pm EST Mon-Thu.
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video
`
`conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-basedcollaboration 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, Luan Van can be reached on (571) 272-8521. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization wherethis application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/116,099
`Art Unit: 1795
`
`Page 15
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-
`
`my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on accessto the Private
`
`PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
`
`If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access
`
`to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-
`
`272-1000.
`
`/JOSHUA L ALLEN/
`Examiner, Art Unit 1795
`
`/MARIS R KESSEL/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
`
`