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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant’s amendment, claim(s) 1 is/are amended. Claims 16-20 were previously withdrawn. Claims 21-23 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1-15 are now pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the amendment to include “wherein axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a first angular position provides an unlocked state and axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a second angular position provides a locked state” overcomes the previous rejection as written. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim now recites the lock ring is enacted upon by axial rotation relative to the shaft. Axial rotation can occur along any axis, as no axis is specified in the claim. As such, the indicated lock ring of DaSilva rotates upon its own axis in both a locked and unlocked state (DaSilva Paragraph 0068). Further, the term “relative to the shaft” implies the lock ring rotates in relation to the shaft, such that the rotation of the lock ring is independent from any rotation of the shaft. Based on the disclosure of DaSilva, the thumb lock is mounted on the shaft and rotation relative to the shaft, i.e., independent from rotation of the shaft, locks and unlocks the location of the colpotomizer assembly 104 including the colpotomy cup 146 (Paragraph 0068). The rotation of thumb lock 176 of DaSilva is not expressly disclosed as facilitating rotation of the shaft, as there is no rotation of the shaft in the disclosure. As such, the rejection is maintained.
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: operator interface feature in claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of a “operator interface feature”. The term “feature” is used as a substitute for “means” and is modified by functional language “operator interface”. There is no corresponding structure in the claim, therefore invoking 112(f). Based on the specification, the corresponding structure for “operator interface feature” is “bedside operator interface feature (652) may include robotic controls in addition to providing procedure information… a simplified interface with reduced control inputs and/or display components relative to console (650). Furthermore, bedside operator interface feature (652) may include a reduced size or footprint relative to console (650) for handheld use. Similarly, bedside operator interface feature (652) of some versions may be integrated into other components such as one or more robotic arms (600)” (Paragraph 00172); “Bedside operator interface feature (662) of the present example includes a connection post (664) and a control portion (666) oriented on one side of connection post (664)… Control portion (666) includes a multi-axis control pad (667), a plurality of control buttons (668), and a haptic feedback device (670)” (Paragraph 00176-77); “Operator interface feature (672) of the present example includes a first multi-axis control pad (674) and a second multi-axis control pad (676).” (Paragraph 00081); “Bedside operator interface feature (682) of the present example is generally configured as a wearable device (e.g., glove) that may be used to control movement of robotic arm (600) by use of an operator's hand or fingers. For instance, bedside operator interface feature (682) may include one or more finger sensors associated with the hand of an operator…. bedside operator interface feature (682) may include one or more buttons on a surface of bedside operator interface (682) for controlling one or more movements or operations of robotic arm (600).” (Paragraph 00183) or equivalents thereof.
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 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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traina (US 20200253676 A1) (previously of record) in view of DaSilva et al. (US 20190321079 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Traina discloses a system (1), comprising:
(a) a robotic platform (Figure 2), including:
(i) a base (Labeled in Annotated Figure 2) (Annotated Figure 2),
(ii) a plurality of robotic arms (2,3) (Figure 1; Paragraph 0031-32), and
(iii) a grounding structure (Labeled in Annotated Figure 2) configured to couple one or more of the robotic arms to the base (Annotated Figure 2); and
(b) a uterine manipulator (10) (Figure 2; Paragraph 0036; 0045-46), including:
(i) an interface (20) configured to couple with a first robotic arm (2) of the robotic platform (Figure 2; Paragraph 0036),
(ii) a shaft assembly (40+84) extending from the interface (Paragraph 0045 and fig. 2), and
(iii) a colpotomy cup (46) slidably attached along a length of the shaft assembly (Paragraph 0045-46), wherein the first robotic arm is configured to move the uterine manipulator relative to a patient.
Traina fails to disclose a lock ring concentric with the shaft and axially fixed with the colpotomy cup, wherein axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a first angular position provides an unlocked state and axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a second angular position provides a locked state.
DaSilva is directed to a uterine manipulator and teaches a lock ring (176) concentric with the shaft (102) and axially fixed with the colpotomy cup (146) (Figure 3-4; 13-16; Paragraph 0068; 0070), wherein axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a first angular position provides an unlocked state (Figure 3) and axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a second angular position (Figure 4) provides a locked state (Figure 13-16; Paragraph 0067-68) (when 176 is in a closed position, components 188 form an annular closure around the shaft. Further, the manipulation of jaws 188 is seen as axial rotation as the rotation is provided along its own axis and done relative to the shaft in that the shaft and lock ring are moved independently of one another).
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Traina with the teachings of DaSilva by incorporating a lock ring concentric with the shaft and axially fixed with the colpotomy cup, wherein axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a first angular position provides an unlocked state and axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a second angular position provides a locked state in order to provide the user with the ability to lock the colpotomizer assembly at various different positions along the shaft of the uterine manipulator (DaSilva Paragraph 0068). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Traina to include a lock ring concentric with the shaft and axially fixed with the colpotomy cup, wherein axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a first angular position provides an unlocked state and axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a second angular position provides a locked state, as taught by DaSilva, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to uterine manipulators.
PNG
media_image1.png
682
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-2, 6-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger et al. (US 20200078109 A1) in view of Traina and DaSilva.
Regarding claim 1, Steger discloses a system, comprising:
(a) a robotic platform (104) (Figure 2; Paragraph 0051), including:
(i) a base (120) (Figure 2; Paragraph 0051),
(ii) a plurality of robotic arms (124a-c) (Figure 2; Paragraph 0051), and
(iii) a grounding structure (122) configured to couple one or more of the robotic arms to the base (Figure 2; Paragraph 0051); and
(b) a uterine manipulator (570) (Figure 34; Paragraph 0106), including:
(i) an interface (140) configured to couple with a first robotic arm (124a) of the robotic platform (Figure 2, 4; Paragraph 0051),
(ii) a shaft assembly (572) extending from the interface (Figure 33-34; Paragraph 0106), and
(iii) a colpotomy cup (560) attached along a length of the shaft assembly, wherein the first robotic arm is configured to move the uterine manipulator relative to a patient (Figure 33-34; Paragraph 0106-109).
Steger fails to specifically disclose a colpotomy cup slidably attached along a length of the shaft assembly and a lock ring concentric with the shaft, wherein axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a first angular position provides an unlocked state and axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a second angular position provides a locked state.
However, Traina is directed to a surgical robot and teaches a system (1), comprising: a uterine manipulator (10) (Figure 2; Paragraph 0036; 0045-46), including: a shaft assembly (40+84) (Paragraph 0045), and a colpotomy cup (46) slidably attached along a length of the shaft assembly (Paragraph 0045-46).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Steger such that a colpotomy cup is slidably attached along a length of the shaft assembly, as taught by Traina, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical robots. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steger with the teachings of Traina by incorporating a colpotomy cup slidably attached along a length of the shaft assembly in order to properly position the cup in the uterus.
Steger, as modified by Traina, is silent regarding a lock ring concentric with the shaft and axially fixed with the colpotomy cup, wherein axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a first angular position provides an unlocked state and axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a second angular position provides a locked state.
DaSilva is directed to a uterine manipulator and teaches a lock ring (176) concentric with the shaft (102) and axially fixed with the colpotomy cup (146) (Figure 3-4; 13-16; Paragraph 0068; 0070), wherein axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a first angular position provides an unlocked state (Figure 3) and axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a second angular position (Figure 4) provides a locked state (Figure 13-16; Paragraph 0067-68) (when 176 is in a closed position, components 188 form an annular closure around the shaft. Further, the manipulation of jaws 188 is seen as axial rotation as the rotation is provided along its own axis and done relative to the shaft in that the shaft and lock ring are moved independently of one another).
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steger, as modified by Traina with the teachings of DaSilva by incorporating a lock ring concentric with the shaft and axially fixed with the colpotomy cup, wherein axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a first angular position provides an unlocked state and axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a second angular position provides a locked state in order to provide the user with the ability to lock the colpotomizer assembly at various different positions along the shaft of the uterine manipulator (DaSilva Paragraph 0068). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Steger, as modified by Traina to include a lock ring concentric with the shaft and axially fixed with the colpotomy cup, wherein axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a first angular position provides an unlocked state and axial rotation of the lock ring relative to the shaft to a second angular position provides a locked state, as taught by DaSilva, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to uterine manipulators.
Regarding claim 2, Steger further discloses a patient table (312), wherein the grounding structure is positioned proximate a side of the patient table (Figure 23; Paragraph 0090).
Regarding claim 6, Steger further discloses wherein the grounding structure is configured to move relative to the patient table (Paragraph 0051) (the support tower 122 is mounted on the base 120, which can be movable, as disclosed in Paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 7, Steger further discloses wherein the grounding structure is configured to support the plurality of robotic arms relative to a patient with the first robotic arm being positioned over a leg of the patient with the first robotic arm approaching the patient from a lateral side of the patient (Figure 22-23).
Regarding claim 8, Steger further discloses wherein the grounding structure is configured to support the plurality of robotic arms relative to a patient with the first robotic arm being positioned under a leg of the patient with the first robotic arm approaching the patient from a lateral side of the patient (Figure 22-23) (The grounding structure can support various positions of the robotic arm. If the patient is placed with their legs lifted, the grounding structure would support the robotic arm being positioned under a leg of the patient, thus the grounding structure of Steger is configured to “support the robotic arm relative to a patient with the robotic arm being positioned under a leg of the patient”).
Regarding claim 9, Steger further discloses wherein the robotic platform further includes a console (102) and an operator interface feature (108) (As indicated above, the limitation “operator interface feature” invokes 112(f). the corresponding structure in Steger is a control system, which is equivalent to a controller, as disclosed in the present disclosure.), wherein the operator interface feature is separate from the console (Figure 3; Paragraph 0048-50).
Regarding claim 15, Steger further discloses wherein the robotic platform further includes a second robotic arm (126), wherein the second robotic arm is configured to support one or more endoscopic or laparoscopic instruments (130) (Figure 2; Paragraph 0051).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traina in view of DaSilva, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cagle et al. (US 20180078439 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 3, Traina as modified by DaSilva discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the grounding structure includes an elongate rail, wherein the first robotic arm is slidably disposed on the elongate rail.
However, Cagle is directed to a surgical robot and teaches wherein the grounding structure (122) includes an elongate rail (126), wherein the first robotic arm (130) is slidably disposed on the elongate rail (Figure 1A-B, 3; Paragraph 0102; 0121).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Traina as modified by DaSilva such that the grounding structure includes an elongate rail, wherein the first robotic arm is slidably disposed on the elongate rail, as taught by Cagle, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical robots. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Traina as modified by DaSilva with the teachings of Cagle by incorporating the grounding structure includes an elongate rail, wherein the first robotic arm is slidably disposed on the elongate rail in order to move the arms throughout the operative field.
Regarding claim 4, Cagle further discloses wherein the grounding structure is configured to robotically move the first robotic arm along a length defined by the grounding structure (Paragraph 0104; 0121).
Regarding claim 5, Cagle further teaches wherein the grounding structure is configured to permit the first robotic arm to be moved manually along a length defined by the grounding structure (Paragraph 0121).
Claims 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger in view Traina and DaSilva, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Moll et al. (US 20080058836 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 10, Steger as modified by Traina and DaSilva discloses the system of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the operator interface feature includes one or more robotic control buttons configured to initiate movement of the first robotic arm.
However, Moll is directed to a surgical robot (100) and teaches a console (11704) and an operation interface feature (11602), wherein the operator interface feature is separate from the console (Figure 117, 119; Paragraph 0217-219); and wherein the operator interface feature includes one or more robotic control buttons (control buttons) configured to initiate movement of the first robotic arm (108) (Paragraph 0216-217). (As indicated above, the limitation “operator interface feature” invokes 112(f). The corresponding structure in Moll is a glove functioning as a controller, like the controller of Steger, which is equivalent to a controller, as disclosed in the present disclosure.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Steger as modified by Traina and DaSilva such that the operator interface feature includes one or more robotic control buttons configured to initiate movement of the first robotic arm, as taught by Moll, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical robots and Steger’s control system 108 effects servomechanical movement of surgical instruments coupled to the tele-operational slave manipulator 104 (Paragraph 0049). It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steger as modified by Traina and DaSilva with the teachings of Moll by incorporating wherein the operator interface feature includes one or more robotic control buttons configured to initiate movement of the first robotic arm in order to allow multiple users to easily control the device (Moll Paragraph 0215; 0220).
Regarding claim 12, Steger as modified by Traina and DaSilva discloses the system of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the operator interface feature includes a wearable robotic user interface.
However, Moll is directed to a surgical robot and teaches wherein the operator interface feature (11602) includes a wearable robotic user interface (glove) (Paragraph 0217).
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steger as modified by Traina and DaSilva with the teachings of Moll by incorporating the operator interface feature includes a wearable robotic user interface in order to allow multiple users to wirelessly control the device and further provide tactile sensing and fine-motion control in robotics and virtual reality (Moll Paragraph 0215; 0217).
Regarding claim 14, Steger as modified by Traina and DaSilva discloses the system of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the operator interface feature includes a haptic feedback device.
However, Moll teaches wherein the operator interface feature (11602) includes a haptic feedback device (Paragraph 0220; 0225).
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steger as modified by Traina and DaSilva with the teachings of Moll by incorporating wherein the operator interface feature includes a haptic feedback device in order to provide feedback to the operator that he has reached the limits of the pertinent instrument workspace or to provide feedback to the operator that he has reached the limits of the subject tissue workspace (Moll Paragraph 0227).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger in view of Traina and DaSilva, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hares et al. (US 20210161606 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 11, Steger, as modified by Traina and DaSilva, discloses the system of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the operator interface feature is incorporated into at least a portion of the first robotic arm.
However, Hares is directed to a surgical robot and teaches the operator interface feature (input device) is incorporated into at least a portion of the first robotic arm (Paragraph 0021; 0046; 0054). (As indicated above, the limitation “operator interface feature” invokes 112(f). The corresponding structure in Hares is a control system, like that of Steger, which is equivalent to a controller, as disclosed in the present disclosure.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Steger, as modified by Traina and DaSIlva, such that the operator interface feature is incorporated into at least a portion of the first robotic arm, as taught by Hares, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical robots. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steger, as modified by Traina and DaSilva, with the teachings of Hares by incorporating the operator interface feature is incorporated into at least a portion of the first robotic arm in order to be operated by a user near the bedside of the patient (Hares Paragraph 0054).
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger et al. in view of Traina and DaSilva, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Barakat et al. (WO 2020206297 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 13, Steger as modified by Traina and DaSilva discloses the system of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the operator interface feature includes one or more multi-axis control pads.
However, Barakat teaches the operator interface feature (800) includes one multi-axis control pad (802) (Figure 20A-B; Paragraph 0071). (As indicated above, the limitation “operator interface feature” invokes 112(f). the corresponding structure in Barakat is a control console, which is equivalent to a controller, as disclosed in the present disclosure.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Steger, as modified by Traina and DaSilva, such that the operator interface feature includes one multi-axis control pad, as taught by Barakat, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical robots. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steger, as modified by Traina and DaSilva with the teachings of Barakat by incorporating that the operator interface feature includes one multi-axis control pad in order to provide X,Y (up, down, left, right) and rotational (rotate counterclockwise, rotate clockwise) control (Barakat Paragraph 0071).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEHRA JAFFRI whose telephone number is (571)272-7738. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM-5:30 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, 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.
/Z.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771