DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 June 2026 has been entered.
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 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:
-Claim 1 recites “occlusion device” (“device” being a generic placeholder). There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to prevent flow of the liquid in the anatomic lumen. According to the specification the occlusion device includes expandable devices [0049] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 1 recites “control system” (“system” being a generic placeholder). There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to actuate the robot-assisted manipulator to translate the catheter as liquid is released from the distal portion into the anatomic lumen. According to the specification the control system includes at least one memory and at least one computer processor for effecting control [0103] and 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 27 recites almost identical subject matter to that of lines 8-10 in claim 1 with the only difference being “the liquid” and “a temperature less than the vaporization temperature” in comparison to “the liquid released from a distal portion” and “a temperature below a vaporization temperature.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 27-30, 33, 36-40, 45 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitzner (U.S. 7955316) in view of Caplan (U.S. 20150148738) and in further view of McClurken (U.S. 8038670).
Regarding Claim 1, Weitzner teaches a system comprising:
a liquid source from which a liquid is delivered [Abstract; “a source of fluid”];
a catheter coupled to the liquid source [Abstract; “a fluid line configured for coupling the source of fluid to the catheter”], the catheter including a distal portion [Fig. 12, element 1306],
an occlusion device coupled to the catheter and configured to prevent flow of the liquid in the anatomic lumen proximally of the occlusion device [Fig. 4, element 94 (balloon control)];
a computer processor [Fig. 3, element 76 (input device/user interface)]—the input device in relation to the controller (a microprocessor) is interpreted to function as a computer processor;
a robot-assisted manipulator coupled to the catheter [Abstract; “A robotic medical system for use with an intravascular catheter”]; and
a control system coupled to the computer processor [Fig. 3, element 72 (controller)].
Weitzner is silent on wherein the catheter is configured to release the liquid from the distal portion into an anatomic lumen to ablate tissue; wherein the control system is configured to actuate the robot-assisted manipulator. Caplan teaches wherein the catheter is configured to release the liquid from the distal portion into an anatomic lumen to ablate tissue [0110], [Fig. 2, element 331 (ablative fluid being delivered), 145’ (distal end/nozzle)] and [0126]; wherein the control system is configured to actuate the robot-assisted manipulator [0178] and [0190]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for translation and liquid release to ablate tissue as taught by Caplan using the catheter system as taught by Weitzner, for the purpose of continuous treatment of tissue portions.
Weitzner and Caplan are silent on a heating device configured to heat the liquid to a temperature such that the liquid released from the distal portion is at a temperature below a vaporization temperature of the liquid. McClurken teaches a heating device configured to heat the liquid to a temperature such that the liquid released from the distal portion is at a temperature below a vaporization temperature of the liquid [Col 38, lines 18-30]—reference to heating saline to a predetermined level below boiling (interpreted to be a more specific type of vaporization) by controlling the temperature of the conductive fluid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for temperature control of the released fluid through the heating device as taught by McClurken in combination with the catheter system as taught by Weitzner and as modified by Caplan for the purpose of controlling fluid temperature to avoid thermal damage during application.
Regarding Claim 27, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on wherein the heating device is configured to heat the liquid to a temperature less than the vaporization temperature of the liquid. McClurken teaches wherein the heating device is configured to heat the liquid to a temperature less than the vaporization temperature of the liquid. [Col 38, lines 18-30]—reference to heating saline to a predetermined level below boiling (interpreted to be a more specific type of vaporization) by controlling the temperature of the conductive fluid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow control of the temperature of the fluid released through use of a heating device as taught by McClurken in a catheter system similar to that as taught by Weitzner and as modified by Caplan, for the purpose of controlling fluid temperature to avoid thermal damage during application.
Regarding Claim 28, Weitzner and McClurken are silent on wherein the heating device is positioned within a lumen of the catheter. Caplan teaches wherein the heating device is positioned within a lumen of the catheter [0037]—within the elongate shaft of the catheter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider placement of the heating device in reference to the structure of the catheter as taught by Caplan and incorporated in a catheter similar to that as taught by Weitzner and as modified by McClurken for the purpose of allowing heating capabilities for elements contained within the catheter.
Regarding Claim 29, Weitzner is silent on wherein the heating device includes a resistive coil, a resistive wire, an RF device, a microwave device, an ultrasound device, a high intensity focused ultrasound device, or an RF wire mesh. Caplan teaches wherein the heating device includes a resistive coil, a resistive wire, an RF device [0125], [0154] and [0050]—referencing the energy delivering element configured to heat the ablative fluid, a microwave device [0154], an ultrasound device [0154], a high intensity focused ultrasound device, or an RF wire mesh. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a resistive coil, a resistive wire, an RF device, a microwave device, an ultrasound device, a high intensity focused ultrasound device, or an RF wire mesh as taught by Caplan in a catheter system such as that as taught by Weitzner and as modified by McClurken, for the purpose of applying heat to tissue.
Regarding Claim 30, Weitzner is silent on wherein the heating device includes an optical fiber optically coupled to a light source, the optical fiber extending within the catheter. Caplan teaches wherein the heating device includes an optical fiber optically coupled to a light source, the optical fiber extending within the catheter [0126]—with specific reference to optical fibers and laser diodes as well as the RF or other energy delivered from these between the ADU 330 and functional element 138 which would require optical fiber connection extending within the catheter according to Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include light sources and fiber optic connections as taught by Caplan in a catheter system such as that as taught by Weitzner and as modified by McClurken, for the purpose of transfer of data and energy.
Regarding Claim 33, Weitzner further teaches wherein the control system is configured to at least partially collapse the occlusion device to allow for translation of the catheter within the anatomic lumen [Col 6, lines 35-40].
Regarding Claim 36, Weitzner is silent on wherein the liquid includes a radiopaque material or an antimicrobial material. Caplan teaches wherein the liquid includes a radiopaque material or an antimicrobial material [0033]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate radiopaque materials as taught by Caplan in a catheter system such as that as taught by Weitzner and as modified by McClurken, for the purpose of assessing the status of tissue ablation based on visualization with these materials.
Regarding Claim 37, Weitzner further teaches further comprising a suction source configured to remove the liquid from the anatomic lumen [Col 4, lines 33-35].
Regarding Claim 38, Weitzner further teaches further comprising a flush reservoir coupled to the catheter and configured to deliver a flushing medium to the occlusion device [Col 4, lines 33-38] and [Col 5, lines 35-50].
Regarding Claim 39, Weitzner is silent on further comprising a heating coil to heat the liquid, wherein the heating coil extends within a length of the catheter proximal to the distal portion. Caplan teaches further comprising a heating coil to heat the liquid, wherein the heating coil extends within a length of the catheter proximal to the distal portion [0037]—with specific reference to heating coil and positioning within the elongate shaft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for control of the released fluid through a heating coil as taught by Caplan in a catheter system such as that as taught by Weitzner and as modified by McClurken, for the purpose of controlling thermal heating of the fluid released from the distal end of the catheter.
Regarding Claim 40, Weitzner is silent on further comprising a visualization system including a fiber optic cable and lens to visualize a placement of the occlusion device. Caplan teaches further comprising a visualization system including a fiber optic cable and lens to visualize a placement of the occlusion device [0036], [0126] and [0138]—reference to optical fiber used for transfer of data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include light sources and fiber optic connections as taught by Caplan in a catheter system such as that as taught by Weitzner and as modified by McClurken, for the purpose of data and energy transfer to transmit information regarding the visualization.
Regarding Claim 45, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on wherein the control system is configured to receive information about a size or a volume of the anatomic lumen and control a volume of the liquid released from the distal portion based on the received information about the size or volume of the anatomic lumen. McClurken teaches wherein the control system is configured to receive information about a size or a volume of the anatomic lumen [Col 15, Table referencing “V = Volume of treated tissue], and control a volume of the liquid released from the distal portion based on the received information about the size or volume of the anatomic lumen [Equation (6)] and [Col 15, lines 29-34]—describing flow rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to collect information related to size or volume of the anatomic lumen as taught by McClurken in a catheter system such as that as taught by Weitzner and as modified by Caplan for the purpose of adjusting device parameters based on anatomic feedback.
Regarding Claim 48, Weitzner is silent on wherein the heating device is near the distal portion of the catheter. Caplan teaches wherein the heating device is near the distal portion of the catheter [0037]—reference to proximate the at least one fluid delivery element which is interpreted to be on the distal end of the catheter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the heating device in the distal end of the catheter as taught by Caplan in a catheter system such as that as taught by Weitzner and as modified by McClurken, for the purpose of controlling temperature of the fluid released from the distal end of the catheter.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitzner (U.S. 7955316) in view of Caplan (U.S. 20150148738) and McClurken (U.S. 8038670), as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Wilkening (U.S. 20130184571).
Regarding Claim 31, Weitzner and Caplan and McClurken are silent on wherein the heating device includes a magnetic field generator configured to excite a plurality of magnetic particles in the liquid. Wilkening teaches wherein the heating device includes a magnetic field generator configured to excite a plurality of magnetic particles in the liquid [0035]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a magnetic field generator as a heating element to excite a plurality of magnetic particles in the liquid as taught by Wilkening in a catheter system such as that as taught by Weitzner, and as modified by Caplan and McClurken, for the purpose of guiding movement of particles to allow for repositioning while the device is within a patient for imaging purposes.
Claim(s) 34, 46, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitzner (U.S. 7955316) in view of Caplan (U.S. 20150148738) and McClurken (U.S. 8038670), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olson (U.S. 20200383688).
Regarding Claim 34, Weitzner, Caplan and McClurken are silent on further comprising: an outer catheter, wherein the catheter is an inner catheter received within the outer catheter, and wherein the occlusion device is fixed to the outer catheter such that the control system is configured to translate the inner catheter relative to the occlusion device as the liquid is released. Olson teaches a catheter system including an outer catheter, an inner catheter received within the outer catheter, and the occlusion device is fixed to the outer catheter such that the control system is configured to translate the inner catheter relative to the occlusion device as the liquid is released [0014]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate translatable inner and outer catheter elements connected to the occlusion device as taught by Olson in a catheter system such as that as taught by Weitzner, and as modified by Caplan and McClurken for the purpose of controlling movement of the catheter portions and diametric expansion and collapse of the occlusion element.
Regarding Claim 46, Weitzner, Caplan and McClurken are silent on further comprising: an outer catheter, wherein the catheter is an inner catheter received within the outer catheter, and wherein the occlusion device is mounted to the inner catheter such that the control system is configured to translate both the inner catheter and the occlusion device as the liquid is released. Olson teaches a catheter system including an outer catheter, an inner catheter received within the outer catheter, and the occlusion device is mounted to the inner catheter such that the control system is configured to translate both the inner catheter and the occlusion device as the liquid is released [0014]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate translatable inner and outer catheter elements connected to the occlusion device as taught by Olson in a catheter system such as that as taught by Weitzner, and as modified by Caplan and McClurken for the purpose of controlling movement of the catheter portions and diametric expansion and collapse of the occlusion element.
Regarding Claim 47, Weitzner further teaches wherein the control system is further configured to increase a diameter of the occlusion device as the inner catheter and the occlusion device are moved proximally into larger diameter passageways [Col 9, lines 50-55]—describes the balloons as the occlusion device, expanding to a fixed position in a blood vessel and [Col 9, lines 58-61]—includes disclosure of the surgeon remotely operating this mechanism from a master station.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitzner (U.S. 7955316) in view of Caplan (U.S. 20150148738) and McClurken (U.S. 8038670), as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Lupotti (U.S. 20160317844).
Regarding Claim 41, Weitzner, Caplan and McClurken are silent on wherein an outer surface of the catheter includes a groove sized to receive the fiber optic cable, wherein the fiber optic cable is housed within a second catheter. Lupotti teaches wherein an outer surface of the catheter includes a groove sized to receive the fiber optic cable, wherein the fiber optic cable is housed within a second catheter. [0027]—includes an optical fiber inserted through a port of a catheter, interpreted to be the groove receiving the cable, and the configuration of placing the optic fiber within the shaft of the second catheter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an outer surface of the catheter with a groove sized to receive fiber optic imaging cable and the cable housed within a second catheter as taught by Lupotti in a catheter system such as that as taught by Weitzner and as modified by Caplan and McClurken, for the purpose of assessing the effect of ablation therapy on tissue in a body.
Claim(s) 42, 43, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitzner (U.S. 7955316) in view of Caplan (U.S. 20150148738) and McClurken (U.S. 8038670), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dacey (U.S. 20100234793).
Regarding Claim 42, Weitzner, Caplan and McClurken are silent on wherein the computer processor is configured to receive information including a diseased state of the anatomic lumen. Dacey teaches wherein the computer processor is configured to receive information including a diseased state of the anatomic lumen [0171]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize information collected during the procedure related to the diseased state of the lumen as taught by Dacey to effect change in the parameters and settings of the catheter system such as that as taught by Weitzner and as modified by Caplan and McClurken, for the purpose of detection, treatment or prevention of an infection.
Regarding Claim 43, Weitzner, Caplan and McClurken are silent on wherein the computer processor is further configured to adjust at least one parameter based on the information. Dacey teaches wherein the computer processor is further configured to adjust at least one parameter based on the information [0397]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to collect information on the diseased state of the anatomic lumen via a computer processor to impart a prophylaxis as taught by Dacey to control and adjust the catheter system such as that as taught by Weitzner and as modified by Caplan and McClurken, for the purpose of treating the diseased area of the anatomic lumen.
Regarding Claim 44, Weitzner, Caplan and McClurken are silent on wherein the at least one parameter includes temperature of the liquid, rate of release of the liquid, volume of released liquid, duration of liquid release, or pressure of the released liquid. Dacey teaches wherein the at least one parameter includes temperature of the liquid, rate of release of the liquid, volume of released liquid, duration of liquid release, or pressure of the released liquid [Fig. 26B, element 2632 (“parameter…one of a temperature”)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize information collected during the procedure such as temperature, rate, volume or duration as taught by Dacey to control the catheter system such as that as taught by Weitzner and as modified by Caplan and McClurken, for the purpose of monitoring temperature conditions in the tissue area during the procedure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 June 2026 with respect to the rejection of
claims 1, 27-31, 33-34, 36-48 under 35 U.S.C.103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, however, new rejections are presented above in light of the amendments.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant contends that Weitzner and Caplan are silent on “further comprising: a heating device near the distal portion of the catheter, the heating device configured to heat the liquid to a temperature less than a vaporization temperature for the liquid.” Applicant also contends that Panescu fails to teach the abovementioned limitation as well as “release the liquid from the distal portion into an anatomic lumen to ablate tissue.” The examiner agrees with these assertions in regards to the amended limitations and has presented the following new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Claims 1, 27-30, 33, 36-40, 45 and 48 citing Weitzner in view of Caplan and in further view of McClurken,
Claim 31 citing Weitzner in view of Caplan and McClurken, and further in view of Wilkening,
Claims 34, 46 and 47 citing Weitzner in view of Caplan and McClurken, and further in view of Olson
Claim 41 citing Weitzner in view of Caplan and McClurken, and further in view of Lupotti, and
Claims 42-44 citing Weitzner in view of Caplan and McClurken, and further in view of Dacey.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Brunell (U.S. 7758537)—discusses controlling vaporization temperatures
-Johnston (U.S. 7025762)—includes discussion on delivery of liquid nitrogen and subsequent freezing of the esophagus
-Todd (CA 2805553)—references vaporizing substances
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
