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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 21-31 and 34-36 are pending, claims 1-20 and 32-33 have been cancelled, claims 35-36 are newly added, and claims 21-31 and 34-36 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Previous 35 USC 112 Rejection has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 03/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Matthews that describes a two portal system…but it does not disclose or suggest positioning a barrier member between a spinal stenosis and the thecal sac….will not interfere with positioning and visualization of the fluoroscopically marked tissue ablation device” (pg. 5-6), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, Saadat teaches a tissue barrier (500, figure 10b; [0138]) that can be used with a tissue modification device, where the barrier can be separate from the tissue modification device ([0138]). The barrier can be delivered between target and non-target tissues before, during/along with, or after the delivery of the tissue modification device ([0138]). Matthews teaches a bi-portal approach to the disc space for instruments for spinal surgery ([0001]; [0038]), where a scope (20, figure 1) and a discectomy instrument (22, figure 1) are inserted through first and second access ports (18-19, figure 1) in a postero-lateral approach to a disc space ([0038]). Although, the approach to the disc space can be different ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Brett to provide a barrier member (barrier 500, figure 10b) with a second probe (introducer 514, figure 10b) as taught by Saadat. Doing so would protect non-target tissues ([0138]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to modify the barrier member and tubular body with a material that is readily identifiable via fluoroscopic imaging as taught by Saadat. Doing so would facilitate the proper location of the barrier member and tubular body ([0108]; Saadat). It also would have been obvious to modify the method of Brett and Saadat to introduce the barrier member and tubular body using a bi-portal approach as taught by Matthews ([0038]). Doing so would be an alternative approach to a disc/spine area than a uni-portal access ([0038]; Matthews).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Saadat does not disclose, teach, or suggest a method wherein the barrier member and the tissue ablation device are positioned from different locations….Nowhere does Saadat specifically indicate that the ablation device is to be inserted at a different location than the barrier” (pg. 6 of Remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. For similar reasons stated above, the Office Action relies on a combination of references. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “The overly broad interpretation of the meaning of access by a different location as meaning the same opening through the skin…cannot reasonably be construed to infer access through the same opening in the skin” (pg. 6 of Remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As similarly stated above, Saadat teaches a tissue barrier (500, figure 10b; [0138]) that can be used with a tissue modification device, where the barrier can be separate from the tissue modification device ([0138]). The barrier can be delivered between target and non-target tissues before, during/along with, or after the delivery of the tissue modification device ([0138]). Matthews teaches a bi-portal approach to the disc space for instruments for spinal surgery ([0001]; [0038]), where a scope (20, figure 1) and a discectomy instrument (22, figure 1) are inserted through first and second access ports (18-19, figure 1) in a postero-lateral approach to a disc space ([0038]). Although, the approach to the disc space can be different ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Brett to provide a barrier member (barrier 500, figure 10b) with a second probe (introducer 514, figure 10b) as taught by Saadat. Doing so would protect non-target tissues ([0138]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to modify the barrier member and tubular body with a material that is readily identifiable via fluoroscopic imaging as taught by Saadat. Doing so would facilitate the proper location of the barrier member and tubular body ([0108]; Saadat). It also would have been obvious to modify the method of Brett and Saadat to introduce the barrier member and tubular body using a bi-portal approach as taught by Matthews ([0038]). Doing so would be an alternative approach to a disc/spine area than a uni-portal access ([0038]; Matthews).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “tissue ablation device” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 28 and 35-36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 28, change “through skin” to “through the skin”.
In claims 35-36, change “claim 21” to “claim 21,” (i.e., add a comma).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 27 and 34-35 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.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation “detecting light…displaying an image” is unclear. It is unclear what structure is performing this method (i.e., what structure has the CMOS imaging detection and displaying an image).
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “device comprises manually introducing a rigid instrument” is unclear. It is unclear if the rigid instrument is being introduced through the tissue ablation device or if it is a separate instrument being introduced/maneuvered by the tissue ablation device.
Regarding claim 35, the limitation “extending a probe element distally from a distal end of the probe…to be ablated” is unclear. It is unclear if the probe element is a part of the tissue ablation device since the probe element is supposed to ablate the contacted herniated disc tissue.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 23-29, 31, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brett (US 2003/0158591), in view of Saadat (US 2011/0190772) and Matthews (US 2003/0028251).
Regarding claim 21, Brett discloses a method for treating a spinal defect comprising: percutaneously introducing (approach epidurally [0052] | used intraoperatively, but not necessarily for percutaneous spine surgery [0054] | the Examiner interpreted the device can still be percutaneously introduced) a tubular body (190, figure 6) into the patient to access the spinal region (spine surgery [0054]), a distal end of the tubular body being positioned adjacent to the spinal stenosis tissue (see 40, figure 4 | narrowing of the spinal canal from disc injury is interpreted as spinal stenosis), subsequently actuating a tissue ablation device (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a laser coupled to a waveguide | one or more laser 420 and fiber-optic strands 430, figure 15; [0064]) within the tubular body at the spinal stenosis; and removing at least a portion of the spinal stenosis with the tissue ablation device (disc refurbisher…shrinkage…destruction…treated [0049]). Brett is silent regarding percutaneously inserting a barrier member with a probe into a spinal region of a patient through skin of the patient at a percutaneous insertion location, the spinal region being visualized during insertion of the barrier member with fluoroscopic visualization to position the barrier member between a spinal stenosis tissue to be removed and thecal sac tissue adjacent to the spinal stenosis; percutaneously introducing the tubular body at a different location than the percutaneous insertion location of the probe, the distal end of the tubular body being visualized with fluoroscopic visualization during movement in the spinal region; subsequently actuating a fluoroscopically marked tissue ablation device that is positioned relative to the previously positioned barrier member; and removing the at least a portion of the spinal stenosis with the fluoroscopically marked tissue ablation device wherein the barrier member prevents damage to the thecal sac tissue adjacent to the spinal stenosis during removal of at least the portion of the spinal stenosis.
Saadat teaches a tissue modification device ([0015], see figure 3a) to modify tissue in a spine ([0018]). The tissue modification device can be used with a tissue barrier (500, figure 10b; [0138]), where the barrier can be separate from the tissue modification device ([0138]). The barrier can be delivered between target and non-target tissues before, during/along with, or after the delivery of the tissue modification device ([0138]). The barrier is interposed between the non-target tissue and one or more tissue modification devices to prevent unwanted damage of the non-target tissue ([0138]). The barrier can be introduced via an introducer (514, figure 10b; [0139]). Additionally, the material of a feature/structure may be chosen to be readily identifiable by fluoroscopic imaging techniques to facilitate the proper location of the features/structure ([0108]).
Matthews teaches a bi-portal approach to the disc space for instruments ([0038]) for spinal surgery ([0001]). A scope (20, figure 1) and a discectomy instrument (22, figure 1) are inserted through first and second access ports (18-19, figure 1) in a postero-lateral approach to a disc space ([0038]). The approach to the disc space can be different, like a lateral approach, anterior approach, or an antero-lateral approach ([0038]). A uni-portal disc space access is also contemplated ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Brett to provide a barrier member (barrier 500, figure 10b) with a second probe (introducer 514, figure 10b) as taught by Saadat. Doing so would protect non-target tissues ([0138]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to modify the barrier member, tubular body, and tissue ablation device with a material that is readily identifiable via fluoroscopic imaging as taught by Saadat. Doing so would facilitate the proper location of the barrier member, tubular body, and tissue ablation device ([0108]; Saadat). It would also have been obvious to modify the method of Brett and Saadat to introduce the barrier member and tubular body using a bi-portal approach as taught by Matthews ([0038]). Doing so would be an alternative approach to a disc/spine area than a uni-portal access ([0038]; Matthews). The modified method would comprise percutaneously inserting (percutaneous procedure [0118]; Saadat) a barrier member (500, figure 10b; Saadat) with a probe (514, figure 10b; Saadat) into a spinal region of a patient through skin of the patient at a percutaneous insertion location (separate from the …may be delivered after…[0138]; Saadat), the spinal region being visualized during insertion of the barrier member with fluoroscopic visualization (fluoroscopic [0108]; Saadat) to position the barrier member between a spinal stenosis tissue to be removed and thecal sac tissue adjacent to the spinal stenosis (delivered between target and non-target tissues [0138]; Saadat | thecal sacs…disc [0058]; Brett); percutaneously introducing the tubular body at a different location than the percutaneous insertion location of the probe (bi-portal approach; [0038] Matthews), the distal end of the tubular body being visualized with fluoroscopic visualization during movement in the spinal region (fluoroscopic [0108]; Saadat); subsequently actuating a fluoroscopically marked tissue ablation device (fluoroscopic [0108]; Saadat) that is positioned relative to the previously positioned barrier member (one or more laser 420 and fiber optic strand 430, figure 15; [0064] Brett | delivered between target and non-target tissues [0138]; Saadat); and removing the at least a portion of the spinal stenosis with the fluoroscopically marked tissue ablation device (fluoroscopic [0108]; Saadat) wherein the barrier member prevents damage to the thecal sac tissue adjacent to the spinal stenosis during removal of at least the portion of the spinal stenosis (disc refurbisher…shrinkage…destruction…treated [0049]; Brett | delivered between target and non-target tissues [0138]; Saadat).
Regarding claim 23, Brett further discloses removing at least the portion of the spinal stenosis includes removing tissue positioned in or adjacent to an epidural space from a herniated disc material (injured intervertebral disc [0020]; energy delivered…the shrinkage…destruction…[0020]; Brett).
Regarding claim 24, Brett further discloses removing at least the portion of the spinal stenosis tissue includes removing tissue positioned in or adjacent to an epidural space (epidural space [0057]; Brett) adjacent to a disc from which the spinal stenosis tissue extends into the spinal canal (injured intervertebral disc [0020]; energy delivered…the shrinkage…destruction…[0020]; sequestrated disc fragment…[0062]; Brett).
Regarding claim 25, Brett, Saadat, and Matthews disclose all of the features in the current invention. They are silent regarding introducing the tubular body into the spinal region comprises percutaneously inserting the tubular body through a cannula to access the spinal region with an interlaminar approach, a transforaminal approach or a sacral hiatus approach.
Matthews further teaches using an access port (18 or 19, figure 1) for the instrument to be inserted through ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to modify the method to use an access port (18 or 19, figure 1) to introduce the tubular body as taught by Matthews ([0038]; Matthews). Doing so would provide a protected port to the disc space ([0038]). The modified method would comprise introducing the tubular body into the spinal region comprises percutaneously inserting the tubular body through a cannula to access the spinal region (access port [0038]; Matthews) with an interlaminar approach, a transforaminal approach (see figure 4; Brett) or a sacral hiatus approach.
Regarding claim 26, Brett further discloses distending an epidural space with the distal end of the tubular body (lift and displace the dura [0057]; Brett).
Regarding claim 27, Brett further discloses displaying an image (displayable on a monitor [0082]; see figure 27). Brett also discloses an imaging detector (camera [0052]; Brett). They are silent regarding detecting light from an epidural space with a CMOS imaging detector.
Saadat teaches examples of visualization devices that include flexible/partially flexible/rigid fiber optic scopes, rigid rod and lens endoscopes, or CCD or CMOS chip ([0131]).
It would have been obvious to modify the method to use a CMOS chip as taught by Saadat ([0131]). Doing so is an alternative visualization device ([0131]; Saadat). The modified method would comprise detecting light from an epidural space (epidural space [0051]; Brett) with a CMOS imaging detector (CMOS chip; [0131]; Saadat).
Regarding claim 28, Brett further discloses the tubular body has a curved distal surface (see 210 and 220, figure 6; Brett) that displaces an epidural membrane that covers an epidural space (see figure 4 | lift and displace…moved from side to side [0057]), the curved distal surface being percutaneously introduced through skin of the patient (approached epidurally [0052] | used intraoperatively, but not necessarily for percutaneous spine surgery [0054] | the examiner interpreted the device can still be percutaneously introduced), the method further comprising displacing the distal surface along a length of the spinal region (lift and displace…moved from side to side [0057]).
Regarding claim 29, Brett and Saadat further disclose distending an epidural membrane (see figure 4; Brett) with the barrier member (500, figure 10b; Saadat).
Regarding claim 31, Brett and Saadat further disclose the step of percutaneously inserting the barrier member comprises inserting the probe (514, figure 10b; Saadat) into the spinal region to position the barrier member between the spinal stenosis tissue and the thecal sac tissue (interposed…[0139]; Saadat | thecal sacs…[0058]; Brett), the barrier member extending distally from the probe (see 500 deployed from 514, figure 10b; Saadat) under fluoroscopic visualization (fluoroscopic [0108]; Saadat).
Regarding claim 34, Brett further discloses the fluoroscopically marked tissue ablation device (fluoroscopic [0108]; Saadat) comprises manually introducing a rigid instrument (optical fibers that transmit laser energy…energy transmission means, such as a wire, lumen…[0065]; Brett | optionally containing operational members…, see figure 13) to remove at least a portion of the spinal stenosis. The examiner interpreted the lumen to be rigid, which is typical in the art (best seen with a hollow tube of 380, figure 13 | hollow tube or lumen [0062]).
Regarding claim 35, Saadat further teaches extending a probe element (barrier 500 may include one or more lumens…passing a guidewire…removing/exchanging any of a variety of tissue modification [0139]) distally from a distal end of the probe to contact herniated disc tissue to be ablated (removing…tissue modification [0139]; Saadat).
Regarding claim 36, Brett, Saadat, and Matthews disclose all of the features in the current invention as shown above in claim 21. They are silent regarding at least a portion of the probe includes a moveable tip.
Matthews teaches a delivery instrument (40, figure 3a) can be a flexible cannula or catheter that can be moved or manipulated around ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to modify the method to use a probe that is flexible as taught by Matthews ([0049]). Doing so would allow the probe to be moved or manipulated around ([0049]). The modified method would comprise at least a portion of the probe includes a moveable tip (flexible cannula [0049]; Matthews | a flexible cannula would provide a moveable tip, as the tip would be flexible as well).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brett (US 2003/0158591) and Saadat (US 2011/0190772) and Matthews (US 2003/0028251) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Adair (US 4,905,670).
Regarding claim 22, Brett further discloses the step of positioning the tissue ablation device further comprises moving a light-emitting probe (optical fibers that transmit laser energy…energy transmission means, such as a wire, lumen… [0065]; Brett) and a waveguide, wherein light emitted is coupled into the waveguide comprising a hollow fiber body (may be through any energy transmission means…lumen…fiber-optic strand [0065] | the examiner interpreted the lumen can also contain the fiber-optic strand/wires). Brett and Saadat and Matthews are silent regarding a carbon dioxide laser, wherein light emitted from the carbon dioxide laser is coupled into the waveguide.
Adair discloses a videoscope with an optical fiber (66, figure 2). A laser beam is directed along the fiber to destroy lesions (Col. 4, lines 31-34). A carbon dioxide laser or a YAG laser can be used as the laser (Col. 4, lines 37-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify Brett and Saadat and Matthews with a carbon dioxide laser as taught by Adair. Doing so would allow for a satisfactory laser to destroy lesions (Col. 4, lines 37-38).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brett (US 2003/0158591) and Saadat (US 2011/0190772) and Matthews (US 2003/0028251) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of To (US 2011/0098531).
Brett and Saadat and Matthews disclose all of the features in the current invention as shown above in claim 21. They are silent regarding positioning the fluoroscopically marked tissue ablation device further comprises viewing a radio-opaque marker on a distal end of the fluoroscopically marked tissue ablation device under fluoroscopic visualization.
To teaches a retractor, whose elements can be made from radio opaque materials. This will allow the retractor elements to be perceptible using external imaging modalities ([0082]). The external imaging modality can be through the use of fluoroscopy, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or computer tomography ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the tissue ablation device to be made from radio opaque materials as taught by To. Doing so would allow for external imaging ([0082]). The modified method would comprise positioning the fluoroscopically marked tissue ablation device further comprises viewing a radio-opaque marker (radio opaque materials [0082]; To) on a distal end of the fluoroscopically marked tissue ablation device (marker…all or a portion…radio opaque marker [0082] | the radio opaque marker can be on the distal end of the tissue ablation device) under fluoroscopic visualization (fluoroscopic [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA F WU whose telephone number is (571)272-9851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4 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, Michael Carey can be reached at 571-270-7235. 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.
PAMELA F. WU
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
July 24, 2026
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights