DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a Response to Applicant’s Arguments and Amendment submitted 10/14/2025.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has overcome the 112(d) rejection of claim 34 for failing to further limit the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8, 20-22, 32, 34, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,429,136 to Milo et al. (hereinafter “Milo”) in view of US 5,284,148 to Dias et al. (hereinafter “Dias”) and US 2002/0177800 A1 to Bagaoisan et al. (hereinafter “Bagaoisan”) (all references previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Milo discloses (see abstract; Figs. 1-23; and Col. 1, line 11 - Col. 20, line 32) a method of removing foreign material from the vascular system (see at least Col. 5, line 62 - Col. 6, line 7 & Col. 8, line 44 - Col. 10, line 11), comprising the steps of: positioning a distal tip (14) of a catheter (12) in proximity to a target foreign material (see Col. 5, lines 62-65 & Col. 8, lines 43-57); propagating a signal from the catheter (see Col. 5, lines 46-59 & 65-68 & Col. 8, lines 28-41 & 58-65); receiving a return signal (see Col. 5, lines 46-59 & Col. 8, lines 2-41 and 65-68), wherein the return signal enables differentiation between the target foreign material and vessel wall (see Col. 5, lines 46-59 & Col. 8, lines 2-41 and 65-68) and capturing and removing at least a portion of the target foreign material (see Col. 6, lines 1-7 & Col. 9, line 66 - Col. 10, line 3) when the return signal is indicative of a target foreign material being located within a capture zone (see Col. 5, lines 46-59 & Col. 8, lines 2-41 and 65-68).
Milo further discloses (claim 3) further comprising introducing a clot capture catheter to accomplish the capturing and removing steps (see Col. 6, lines 1-7 & Col. 9, line 66 - Col. 10, line 3; see also Col. 6, line 10+, this embodiment has the cutter catheter separate from the transducer sensing catheter; the cutter catheter is fully capable of "capturing clots" since it only has to remove foreign material in general); (claim 7) wherein the foreign material is a pulmonary embolism (see [0099], a pulmonary embolism is at once envisaged as a particular location of blood clot locations in the large and small vasculature); (claim 8) wherein the return signal enables characterization of tissue within the capture zone (see Col. 5, lines 46-59 & Col. 8, lines 2-41 and 65-68); (claim 20) wherein the differentiation is accomplished by a clinician, observing an image generated by the return signal (see Col. 5, lines 46-59 & Col. 8, lines 2-41 and 65-68); (claim 21) wherein the differentiation is accomplished by a processor configured to differentiate between return signals indicative of either a foreign material or a vessel wall (see Col. 5, lines 32-59 & Col. 8, lines 2-41 and 65-68); and (claim 22) wherein the processor is further configured to generate an indicium in response to the differentiation between a foreign material and a vessel wall (see Col. 5, lines 32-59 & Col. 8, lines 2-41 and 65-68).
With respect to claim 1, Milo fails to disclose wherein the sensing catheter is an aspiration catheter, wherein capturing and removing at least a portion of the target foreign material comprises applying aspiration at a distal end of the aspiration catheter through a distally facing opening to aspirate at least a portion of the target material into a lumen of the aspiration catheter, wherein the step of propagating a signal involves propagating the signal beyond a distal end of the aspiration catheter. Rather, Milo propagates the signal in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the catheter (Col. 8, lines 28-31).
Dias discloses (see abstract and Col. 2, line 43 – Col. 4, line 5) a method of removing a lesion in a blood vessel (see Col. 2, lines 52-61 and Col. 4, lines 4-5) comprising positioning a distal tip of a sensing catheter in proximity to a target foreign material (See Col. 2, lines 52-61); propagating a signal distally from the sensing catheter (Col. 2, lines 49-59), receiving a return signal enabling differentiation between the target foreign material and the vessel wall such that the return signal is indicative of the vessel wall being located within a capture zone beyond a distal end of the sensing catheter (see Col. 2, lines 58-66; Col. 3, line 26 – Col. 4, line 5), and capturing and removing the target foreign material when the return signal is indicative of the target foreign material being located within the capture zone (see Col. 3, line 63 – Col. 4, line 5) in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of, in addition to propagating the signal next to the distal end of the diagnostic probe so that the performance of operations besides the probe can be inspected, to also propagate the signal distally ahead of the distal end of the diagnostic probe, which is valuable for probes that cut plaque arteries because it allows the user to look at lesions ahead of the probe. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Milo’s method with the step of propagating the signal additionally in the distal direction in order to in addition to propagating the signal next to the distal end of the diagnostic probe so that the performance of operations besides the probe can be inspected, to also propagate the signal distally ahead of the distal end of the diagnostic probe, which is valuable for probes that cut plaque arteries because it allows the user to look at lesions ahead of the probe.
Bagaoisan discloses (see abstract; Figs. 21/21A/26; and [0114]-[0141]), in the same field of endeavor, a method of removing foreign material from the vascular system (see [0138]-[0140]), comprising a catheter (500) which can propagate a signal from the catheter and receive a return signal (see [0141]), wherein the catheter is an aspiration catheter (see [0114]), wherein capturing and removing at least a portion of the target foreign material comprises applying aspiration at a distal end (e.g., portion shown in Fig. 26) of the aspiration catheter through a distally facing opening (522) to aspirate at least a portion of the target material into a lumen (544) of the aspiration catheter (see [0125]/[0139]) for the purpose of providing an aspiration mechanism to aspirate tissue and other unwanted materials at the distal end of the catheter during the procedure (see [0125]/[0139]) through an oblique distally facing opening which improves flow or evacuation rate efficiency, facilitates aspiration of larger particles, and further facilitates navigation of the catheter through tortuous blood vessel networks (see [0125]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Milo’s method (as modified by Dias above) with the aspiration mechanism taught by Bagaoisan in order to provide an aspiration mechanism to aspirate tissue and other unwanted materials at the distal end of the catheter during the procedure through an oblique distally facing opening which improves flow or evacuation rate efficiency, facilitates aspiration of larger particles, and further facilitates navigation of the catheter through tortuous blood vessel networks. In making the proposed combination, the addition of the aspiration to the modified catheter of Milo would make it an “aspiration catheter”.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Milo, Dias, and Bagaoisan disclose the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above, further, Dias would disclose wherein the return signal travels in generally proximal direction with respect to the distal end of the sensing catheter (see Col. 3, line 63 – Col. 4, line 5, when looking at lesions ahead of the probe.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Milo, Dias, and Bagaoisan disclose the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above, further, would disclose wherein the propagating and receiving steps are accomplished by a sensing catheter positioned within the lumen of the aspiration catheter since Milo discloses a sensing catheter (e.g., spindle mounted transducer shown in Fig. 5 and discussed at Col. 10, line 57 – Col. 11, line 8) positioned within a lumen of an outer catheter (14), which would be the aspiration catheter when modified by Bagaoisan as set forth above.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Milo, Dias, and Bagaoisan disclose the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above, further, by making Milo’s catheter an “aspiration catheter” as taught by Bagaoisan, Milo would teach wherein the propagating step is accomplished by at least one signal transmitting surface and the receiving step is accomplished by at least one signal receiving surface positioned on the aspiration catheter (see Col 8, line 28-41; transducer 16 has a surface which can emit ultrasonic energy outward and a surface which can act as an energy receiver).
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 10-12, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0063413 A1 to Volz (hereinafter “Volz”) in view of Dias and Bagaoisan (Volz is previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Volz discloses (see abstract and [0032]-[0121]) a method of removing foreign material from the vascular system (see at least [0090]-[0096]), comprising the steps of: positioning a distal tip of a catheter (10) in proximity to a target foreign material (see [0090]-[0091]); propagating a signal from the catheter (see [0097]-[0121]); receiving a return signal (see [0097]-[0121]), wherein the return signal enables differentiation between target foreign material and vessel wall (see [0113]-[0121]); and capturing and removing at least a portion of the target foreign material (see [0093]-[0094]) when the return signal is indicative of a target foreign material located within a capture zone (see [0097]-[0121]).
Volz further discloses (claim 4) wherein the foreign material is a clot (see [0090]); (claim 5) wherein the clot is located in the venous system (see [0006]/ [0090]); (claim 6) wherein the foreign material is a deep vein thrombosis (see [0006]/ [0090]); (claim 8) wherein the return signal enables characterization of tissue within the capture zone (see [0113]-[0121]); (claim 10) wherein the propagating a signal step comprises propagating an ultrasound signal (see [0116]); (claims 11-12) wherein the propagating a signal step comprises propagating an electromagnetic signal in the UV-visible range (see [0120], the broad disclosure of electromagnetic flow sensors is at once envisaged to include both UV-visible and non-UV-visible ranges); (claim 15) wherein the propagating a signal step comprises propagating visible light through the catheter and beyond the distal tip (see [0114]-[0115]); (claim 16) further comprising receiving the return signal using a sensor carried by the catheter (see [0114]-[0115]); (claim 17) further comprising the step of creating a visible light pathway through blood between the distal tip and the target foreign material (see [0114]-[0115]); (claim 18) wherein the step of creating a visible light pathway through blood between the distal tip and the target foreign material comprises infusing an optically transparent medium (e.g., therapeutic compound) to displace blood from the pathway (see [0114]-[0115]).
With respect to claim 1, Volz fails to disclose wherein the sensing catheter is an aspiration catheter, wherein capturing and removing at least a portion of the target foreign material comprises applying aspiration at a distal end of the aspiration catheter through a distally facing opening to aspirate at least a portion of the target material into a lumen of the aspiration catheter, wherein the step of propagating a signal involves propagating the signal beyond a distal end of the aspiration catheter. Rather, Volz appears to propagate the signal in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the catheter ([0093]), although it is noted that Volz discloses that the propagated signal can, when applied towards the bloodstream, flow downstream through the patient’s vasculature (and thus in a distal direction) (see [0105]).
Dias discloses (see abstract and Col. 2, line 43 – Col. 4, line 5) a method of removing a lesion in a blood vessel (see Col. 2, lines 52-61 and Col. 4, lines 4-5) comprising positioning a distal tip of a sensing catheter in proximity to a target foreign material (See Col. 2, lines 52-61); propagating a signal distally from the sensing catheter (Col. 2, lines 49-59), receiving a return signal enabling differentiation between the target foreign material and the vessel wall such that the return signal is indicative of the vessel wall being located within a capture zone beyond a distal end of the sensing catheter (see Col. 2, lines 58-66; Col. 3, line 26 – Col. 4, line 5), and capturing and removing the target foreign material when the return signal is indicative of the target foreign material being located within the capture zone (see Col. 3, line 63 – Col. 4, line 5) in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of, in addition to propagating the signal next to the distal end of the diagnostic probe so that the performance of operations besides the probe can be inspected, to also propagate the signal distally ahead of the distal end of the diagnostic probe, which is valuable for probes that cut plaque arteries because it allows the user to look at lesions ahead of the probe. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Milo’s method with the step of propagating the signal additionally in the distal direction in order to in addition to propagating the signal next to the distal end of the diagnostic probe so that the performance of operations besides the probe can be inspected, to also propagate the signal distally ahead of the distal end of the diagnostic probe, which is valuable for probes that cut plaque arteries because it allows the user to look at lesions ahead of the probe.
Bagaoisan discloses (see abstract; Figs. 21/21A/26; and [0114]-[0141]), in the same field of endeavor, a method of removing foreign material from the vascular system (see [0138]-[0140]), comprising a catheter (500) which can propagate a signal from the catheter and receive a return signal (see [0141]), wherein the catheter is an aspiration catheter (see [0114]), wherein capturing and removing at least a portion of the target foreign material comprises applying aspiration at a distal end (e.g., portion shown in Fig. 26) of the aspiration catheter through a distally facing opening (522) to aspirate at least a portion of the target material into a lumen (544) of the aspiration catheter (see [0125]/[0139]) for the purpose of providing an aspiration mechanism to aspirate tissue and other unwanted materials at the distal end of the catheter during the procedure (see [0125]/[0139]) through an oblique distally facing opening which improves flow or evacuation rate efficiency, facilitates aspiration of larger particles, and further facilitates navigation of the catheter through tortuous blood vessel networks (see [0125]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Volz’s method (as modified by Dias above) with the aspiration mechanism taught by Bagaoisan in order to provide an aspiration mechanism to aspirate tissue and other unwanted materials at the distal end of the catheter during the procedure through an oblique distally facing opening which improves flow or evacuation rate efficiency, facilitates aspiration of larger particles, and further facilitates navigation of the catheter through tortuous blood vessel networks. In making the proposed combination, the addition of the aspiration to the modified catheter of Volz would make it an “aspiration catheter”.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volz in view of Dias, and Bagaoisan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2008/0300493 to Gatto (hereinafter “Gatto”) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Volz, Dias, and Bagaoisan discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above, however, Volz fails to specifically disclose wherein the electromagnetic signal comprises multiple wavelengths. Gatto discloses, in the same field of endeavor, a blood clot detector (see abstract), wherein the detector is capable of outputting an electromagnetic signal having a range of wavelengths because a blood clot absorbs a range of wavelengths different than other anatomical structures (this is an inherent property of a blood clot) (see [0007]-[0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Volz's device to emit electromagnetic signals in multiple wavelengths, since Gatto discloses that a blood clot absorbs a range of wavelengths and the range helps to differentiate blood clots from other anatomical structures.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volz in view of Dias, and Bagaoisan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0336149 A1 to Yang et al. (hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Volz, Dias, and Bagaoisan discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above, however, the combination fails to specifically disclose wherein capturing and removing at least a portion of the target foreign material further comprises: advancing a thrombus engagement tool through the lumen of the aspiration catheter such that a distal tip of the thrombus engagement tool is in contact with the foreign material; and rotating the thrombus engagement tool to capture at least a portion of the target material within a thread of the distal tip of the thrombus engagement tool to ingest the foreign material into the lumen of the aspiration catheter.
Yang discloses (see abstract; Figs. 24A-H; and [0019]/[0187]-[0212]), in the same field of endeavor, a method of removing foreign material from the vascular system (see [0019]) comprising positioning a distal tip of an aspiration catheter ([0210]) in proximity to a target foreign material ([0210])
wherein capturing and removing at least a portion of the target foreign material further comprises: advancing a thrombus engagement tool (2401) through the lumen of the aspiration catheter (see [0200]/[0210]/[0211]) such that a distal tip of the thrombus engagement tool is in contact with the foreign material (see [0210]/[0211]; and rotating the thrombus engagement tool to capture at least a portion of the target material within a thread of the distal tip of the thrombus engagement tool (see [0203]-[0205] & [0210]-[0211]) to ingest the foreign material into the lumen of the aspiration catheter (see [0203]/[0211]) for the purpose of engaging and capturing embolic material but not shearing it between a sharp edge and the inside wall of the catheter and by also drawing the aspiration catheter distally over the clot to ensconce the clot to facilitate removal (see [0203]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination’s device with the thrombus engagement tool taught by Yang in order to engage and capture embolic material but not shearing it between a sharp edge and the inside wall of the catheter and by also drawing the aspiration catheter distally over the clot to ensconce the clot to facilitate removal.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volz, Dias and Bagaoisan, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US 2006/0184048 A1 to Saadat (hereinafter “Saadat”).
The combination of Volz, Dias, and Bagaoisan discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above, however, with respect to claim 19, the combination fails to specifically disclose the step of deploying a self-expanding barrier to temporarily contain at least a portion of the optically transparent medium within the pathway. Saadat discloses, in the same field of endeavor of tissue visualization catheters, the step of deploying a self-expanding barrier (hood 12, see [0072]) to temporarily contain at least a portion of an optically transparent medium (translucent/transparent fluid such as saline, see abstract) within a pathway adjacent the distal end of the catheter (see Fig. 1B) for the prupsoe of allowing a translucent/transparent fluid to be pumped into the imaging hood until the fluid displaces opaque blood to thereby leave a clear region of tissue to be imaged via the catheter imaging element (see abstract) by the self-expanding hood providing for abutment against the tissue region of interest (see [0073]) so that flow of clear fluid may be maintained to inhibit significant backflow of blood (see [0077]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination’s method with the step of deploying a self-expanding barrier as taught by Saadat in order to allow a translucent/transparent fluid to be pumped into the imaging hood until the fluid displaces opaque blood to thereby leave a clear region of tissue to be imaged via the catheter imaging element by the self-expanding hood providing for abutment against the tissue region of interest so that flow of clear fluid may be maintained to inhibit significant backflow of blood.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, as amended, and claims dependent therefrom, have been considered but are not persuasive.
First, it is noted that Applicant appears to allege that the modification of Milo or Volz, such as with Dias, would be impermissible, but the combination of Milo or Volz with Dias was first set forth in an Office Action dated 05/22/2024, and Applicant provided Remarks on 08/22/2024 and 02/18/2025 that did not address any alleged deficiency in Milo or Volz and Dias until the current Remarks filed 10/14/2025. That is, Applicant is raising for the first time an issue with the modification of Milo or Volz, such as with Dias, that would allegedly make the proposed combination fail to make a prima facie case of obviousness yet Applicant did not address this supposed failure in the previous Remarks listed above.
Second, in response to applicant's argument that the combination of Milo or Volz with Dias would fail to suggest propagating a signal distally because such modification would require reconstruction of the Milo/Volz devices which would be infeasible or would render those references inoperable, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Third, Applicant appears to cite various portions of Milo or Volz and then provides merely conclusory statements as to why these features of Milo or Volz would prevent the proposed combination. Applicant’s arguments though do not provide any factual assertion as to how the specific portions of Milo or Volz would prevent one of ordinary skill from making the proposed combination.
For example, Applicant cites to Milo’s statement about the general state of the art in prior art catheters, and talks about PZT ceramic and how a phenomenon called “ringing” can occur. Applicant than generally concludes that modifying Milo would require “substantial reconstruction and redesign”, and would increase the risk of unusable imaging due to ringing and echo interference. Applicant provides no factual evidence or technical reasoning as to why this would be the case. Applicant further generally concludes that modifying Milo to propagate signals deeply would require modification of the transducer and/or cutting edge, which could increase the risk of accidental tissue removal and/or induced emboli; and that changing the position/orientation of the transducer would prevent Milo from satisfactorily identifying and/or removing plaques. Again, Applicant provides no factual evidence or technical reasoning as to why this would be the case. Nothing in Applicant’s Remarks explains why “ringing” would become an unsolvable issue presented by propagating the signal distally, and nothing in Applicant’s Remarks explains how the distal signal propagation feature would require such substantial redesign of the transducer position/orientation or the cutting edge as to increase the risk of accidental tissue removal. Finally, Applicant alleges that the modification of Milo with Dias would make Milo change from a lateral-emitting device to a multidirectional-emitting device, which would change the principle of operation of Volz [sic] (presumed to read as Milo). Changing the principle of operation would mean that Milo is no longer able to propagate a signal laterally – providing the capability to propagate in the distal direction is an additional feature with motivation as set forth in the rejection which would not prevent the signal from propagating laterally as well – thus the principle of operation is not changed.
With respect to Volz, Applicant makes similar merely conclusory statements without any factual evidence or technical reasoning to support the conclusion. Applicant merely concludes that modifying Volz would require redesigning the energy delivery section, repositioning/reorienting the transducers, or alteration of the energy delivery section (such as changing materials). Yet again, Applicant provides no factual evidence or technical reasoning as to why this would be the case. Just like Milo above, changing the principle of operation would mean that Volz is no longer able to propagate a signal laterally – providing the capability to propagate in the distal direction is an additional feature with motivation as set forth in the rejection which would not prevent the signal from propagating laterally as well. Thus, the proposed modification would not change the principle of operation.
Applicant’s arguments are thus not persuasive.
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 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 SHAUN L DAVID whose telephone number is (571)270-5263. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached on 571-272-4695. 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.
/SHAUN L DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771