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 . Claims 1, 4-8, and 10-31 are pending and examined below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments to the independent claims overcome the rejections of record (pages 11-15 & 17) and that the dependent claims rise and fall with the same arguments (pages 15-18). Applicant's arguments are moot due to the additional reference applied to the newly added limitations, as detailed in the rejection below.
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, 4, 6-8, 10, 20-21, 24-25, and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagesh et al. (US 20170056215 A1) hereinafter, Nagesh, in view of Thapliyal (US 20140330367 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nagesh teaches
an implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) for placement in a cardiac vessel (¶0065, Nagesh), the implant being able to be expanded from an un-deployed state (Fig. 22, Nagesh) to a fully expanded state (Fig. 20A, Nagesh) in which the implant has a larger outer diameter than in the un- deployed state (Figs. 20A & 22, Nagesh),
the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) having a main body (body of 600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) with first (612, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) and second ends (610, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) and a central portion (central portion of 600, see annotated Fig. 20A below, Nagesh) arranged between the first and second ends (612 and 610, respectively, Fig. 20A, Nagesh),
the central portion of the implant having a larger outer diameter than the first and second ends of the implant when the implant is in the fully expanded state (Fig. 20A, Nagesh), and
a diameter of the implant decreases between the first end and the central portion and between the second end and the central portion in the fully expanded state (Fig. 20A, Nagesh),
the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) further comprising:
- a replacement valve (620, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) arranged at the first end (612, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) of the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) for placement at an aortic valve (416, Fig. 21, Nagesh),
- a self-expandable aortic stent frame (606, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) arranged at the second end of the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) for placement at an ascending aorta (402, Fig. 27, Nagesh); and
- two or more internal branches (650, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) for connection to further vessels (420, Fig. 27, Nagesh), the two or more internal branches extending from the main body (Fig. 20A, Nagesh).
Nagesh does not teach the main body is completely covered with a material. However, Thapliyal teaches a personalized prosthetic valve for implantation at a native valve (abstract, Thapliyal)
wherein the main body is completely covered with a material, and wherein the material covers at least one of the two or more internal branches such that the complete implant is covered with one piece of the material (the entire mesh may be covered with a membrane covering such as a dip-coated polymer or otherwise applied polymer or fabric, therefore, it would be obvious to cover the branches as well, ¶0059, Thapliyal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagesh by incorporating a cover material as taught by Thapliyal in order to seal against the inside wall of the valve thus preventing the perivalvular leaks (¶0053, Thapliyal).
Regarding claim 4, Nagesh teaches
wherein respective first exits (660, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) of the two or more internal branches (650, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) have an opening (656, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) that opens into the central portion of the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) and respective second exits (654, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) of the two or more internal branches (650, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) have an opening (opening at 658, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) that opens into an area surrounding the implant (Fig. 20A, Nagesh).
Regarding claim 6, Nagesh teaches
wherein a respective anti-leakage skirt (380, Fig. 4B, Nagesh) surrounds the first and second ends (¶0045 & ¶0082, Nagesh).
Regarding claim 7, Nagesh teaches
wherein the replacement valve comprises between two and five leaflets (112, 114, & 116, Fig. 2, ¶0071, Nagesh).
Regarding claim 8, Nagesh teaches
wherein the first end (612, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) has an outer diameter that is smaller than an outer diameter of the second end (610, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) in the fully expanded state.
Regarding claim 10, Nagesh teaches
wherein an outer diameter of the main body reduces in size between the first end up to a first point of transition and then increases in size toward a part of the central portion having the largest outer diameter, with the outer diameter of the main body decreasing in size from the part of the central portion having the largest outer diameter up to a second point of transition, and with the outer diameter of the main body increasing in size between the second point of transition and the second end (see annotated Fig. 20A below, Nagesh).
Regarding claim 20, Nagesh teaches
wherein the first end (612, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) has an at least substantially cylindrical outer shape between an opening of the implant and a part of the main body reducing in size between the first end and the first point of transition (Fig. 20A, Nagesh).
Regarding claim 21, Nagesh teaches
wherein the first end (612, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) has an at least substantially cylindrical outer shape at an opening of the replacement valve (Fig. 20A, Nagesh).
Regarding claim 24, Nagesh teaches
a delivery device (700, ¶0073, Nagesh) for an implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh),
the implant being able to be expanded from an un-deployed state (Fig. 22, Nagesh) to a fully expanded state (Fig. 20A, Nagesh) in which the implant has a larger outer diameter than in the un-deployed state (Fig. 20A, Nagesh),
the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) having a main body with first and second ends and a central portion arranged between the first and second ends,
the central portion of the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) having a larger outer diameter than the first and second ends (612 and 610, respectively, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) of the implant when the implant is in the fully expanded state, and when viewed from the first end (612, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) toward the central portion (Fig. 20A, Nagesh),
a diameter of the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) first decreases before increasing at the central portion in the fully expanded state, and when viewed from the second end (610, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) toward the central portion, the diameter of the implant first decreases before increasing at the central portion in the fully expanded state (Fig. 20A, Nagesh),
the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) further comprising:
- a replacement valve (620, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) arranged at the first end of the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) for placement at an aortic valve (416, Fig. 21, Nagesh),
- a self-expandable aortic stent frame (606, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) arranged at the second end of the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) for placement at an ascending aorta (402, Fig. 27, Nagesh); and
- two or more internal branches (650, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) for connection to further vessels (420, Fig. 27, Nagesh), the two or more internal branches extending from the main body (Fig. 20A, Nagesh);
the delivery device (700, ¶0073, Nagesh) comprising;
a flush port (700 may be any suitable delivery system for delivering stents and/or stent grafts, therefore it can inherently have a flush port as that is a known part in the art, ¶0073, Nagesh);
a main body part (704, Fig. 23, Nagesh) for holding, inflating and/or releasing the implant (Fig. 22, Nagesh);
one or more guidewires (730, Fig. 25, Nagesh) for holding, inflating and/or releasing one or more internal branches of the implant (Fig. 25, Nagesh); and
an actuation mechanism for moving the implant to a delivery site (¶0073, Nagesh).
Nagesh does not teach the main body is completely covered with a material. However, Thapliyal teaches
wherein the main body is completely covered with a material, and wherein the material covers at least one of the two or more internal branches such that the complete implant is covered with one piece of the material (the entire mesh may be covered with a membrane covering such as a dip-coated polymer or otherwise applied polymer or fabric, therefore, it would be obvious to cover the branches as well, ¶0059, Thapliyal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagesh by incorporating a cover material as taught by Thapliyal in order to seal against the inside wall of the valve thus preventing the perivalvular leaks (¶0053, Thapliyal).
Regarding claim 25, Nagesh teaches
wherein the one or more guidewires can be retracted from the main body on pre- catheterization of the two or more internal branches at the delivery site (Fig. 24, ¶0075-0076, Nagesh).
Regarding claim 30, Nagesh teaches
a method (¶0072, Nagesh) of delivering an implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) for placement in a cardiac vessel (416, Fig. 21, Nagesh),
the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) being able to be expanded from an un-deployed state (Fig. 22, Nagesh) to a fully expanded state (Fig. 20A, Nagesh) in which the implant has a larger outer diameter than in the un-deployed state (Figs. 20A & 22, Nagesh),
the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) having a main body (body of 600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) with first and second ends (612 and 610, respectively, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) and a central portion (central portion of 600, see annotated Fig. 20A below, Nagesh) arranged between the first and second ends (612 and 610, respectively, Fig. 20A, Nagesh),
the central portion of the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) having a larger outer diameter than the first and second ends (612 and 610, respectively, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) of the implant when the implant is in the fully expanded state (Fig. 20A, Nagesh), and
a diameter of the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) decreases between the first end (612, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) and the central portion and between the second end (610, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) and the central portion in the fully expanded state (Fig. 20A, Nagesh),
the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) further comprising:
- a replacement valve (620, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) arranged at the first end (612, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) of the implant for placement at an aortic valve (416, Fig. 21, Nagesh),
- a self-expandable aortic stent frame (606, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) arranged at the second end (610, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) of the implant for placement at an ascending aorta (402, Fig. 27, Nagesh); and
- two or more internal branches (650, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) for connection to further vessels (420, Fig. 27, Nagesh),
the two or more internal branches (650, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) extending from the main body using a delivery device (700, ¶0073, Nagesh),
the delivery device (700, ¶0073, Nagesh) comprising;
a flush port (700 may be any suitable delivery system for delivering stents and/or stent grafts, therefore it can inherently have a flush port as that is a known part in the art, ¶0073, Nagesh);
a main body part (704, Fig. 23, Nagesh) for holding, inflating and/or releasing the implant (Fig. 22, Nagesh);
one or more guidewires (730, Fig. 25, Nagesh) for holding, inflating and/or releasing one or more internal branches of the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh); and
an actuation mechanism for moving the implant to a delivery site (¶0073, Nagesh), the method comprising the steps of:
- moving the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) to a delivery site (416, Fig. 21, Nagesh) using the delivery device (700, ¶0072-¶0073, Nagesh);
- pre-catheterizing the two or more internal branches of the implant at the delivery site (Fig. 24, ¶0075-0076, Nagesh);
- positioning the main body of the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) at the delivery site (416, Fig. 21, Nagesh); and
- deploying the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) at the delivery site (416, Fig. 21, Nagesh).
Nagesh does not teach the main body is completely covered with a material. However, Thapliyal teaches
wherein the main body is completely covered with a material, and wherein the material covers at least one of the two or more internal branches such that the complete implant is covered with one piece of the material (the entire mesh may be covered with a membrane covering such as a dip-coated polymer or otherwise applied polymer or fabric, therefore, it would be obvious to cover the branches as well, ¶0059, Thapliyal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagesh by incorporating a cover material as taught by Thapliyal in order to seal against the inside wall of the valve thus preventing the perivalvular leaks (¶0053, Thapliyal).
Regarding claim 31, Nagesh teaches
wherein the replacement valve (620, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) is arranged within the at least substantially cylindrical outer shape (Fig. 20A, Nagesh).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagesh in view of Thapliyal and further in view of Rowe et al. (US 20060287719 A1) hereinafter, Rowe.
Regarding claim 5, Nagesh does not teach the replacement valve is a dry tissue valve. However, Rowe teaches a two-stage or component-based valve prosthesis (abstract, Rowe)
wherein the replacement valve (230, Fig. 21, Rowe) is a dry tissue valve (¶0109, Rowe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagesh and Thapliya by incorporating the dry tissue valve as taught by Rowe in order to be stored together in the jar 236 so as to be ready for deployment (¶0109, Rowe).
Claim(s) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagesh in view of Thapliyal and further in view of Shahriari (US 20130144373 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Nagesh teaches
a first stent frame (606, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) having the replacement valve (620, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) attached therein,
the first stent frame (606, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) extending from the first end (612, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) to beyond a part of the central portion having the largest outer diameter (Fig. 20A, Nagesh).
Nagesh does not teach two stent frames. However, Shahriari teaches a device and method for endovascular repair of a patient's aorta (abstract, Shahriari)
wherein the main body comprises two stent frames (34 and 50, Fig. 3, Shahriari) and a second stent frame (50, Fig. 3, Shahriari) comprising the self-expandable aortic stent frame (112, Fig. 4, Shahriari).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagesh and Thapliyal by incorporating the teachings as taught above by Shahriari in order to be positioned in the aortic annulus, and the hour-glass shape of the component 12 provides a space for the native aortic valve leaflets such that the leaflets are not pressed against or over the openings of coronary arteries 182 (¶0077, Shahriari).
Regarding claim 12, Nagesh teaches
wherein the first stent frame (606, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) extends from the first end to a height of the implant corresponding to 55% to 75% of a length of the implant between an opening at the first end (612, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) of the implant and an opening at the second end (610, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) of the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh).
Regarding claim 13, Nagesh does not teach a second stent. However, Shahriari teaches
wherein the second stent frame (50, Fig. 3, Shahriari) extends from an opening at the second end (30, Fig. 3, Shahriari) to a second point of transition (72, Fig. 3, Shahriari).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagesh and Thapliyal by incorporating the teachings as taught above by Shahriari in order to be positioned in the aortic annulus, and the hour-glass shape of the component 12 provides a space for the native aortic valve leaflets such that the leaflets are not pressed against or over the openings of coronary arteries 182 (¶0077, Shahriari).
Regarding claim 14, Nagesh does not teach a second stent. However, Shahriari teaches
wherein a length (length 78, Fig. 3, Shahriari) of the second stent frame (frame 50, Fig. 3, Shahriari) corresponds to a length of 15 to 35% of a length of the implant (12, Fig. 3, Shahriari) between an opening (opening at 30, Fig. 3, Shahriari) at the second end (30, Fig. 3, Shahriari) and an opening (opening at 28, Fig. 4, Shahriari) at the first end (28, Fig. 3, Shahriari).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagesh and Thapliyal by incorporating the teachings as taught above by Shahriari in order to be positioned in the aortic annulus, and the hour-glass shape of the component 12 provides a space for the native aortic valve leaflets such that the leaflets are not pressed against or over the openings of coronary arteries 182 (¶0077, Shahriari).
Regarding claim 15, Nagesh does not teach a gap between the first stent frame and the second stent frame. However, Shahriari teaches
wherein a gap (section 62, Fig. 9, Shahriari) present between the first stent frame (34, Fig. 3, Shahriari) and the second stent frame (50, Fig. 3, Shahriari) has a width (76, Fig. 9, Shahriari) that corresponds to 2 to 30% of a length of the implant (12, Fig. 3, Shahriari) between an opening (opening at 30, Fig. 3, Shahriari) at the second end (30, Fig. 3, Shahriari) and an opening (opening at 28, Fig. 3, Shahriari) at the first end (28, Fig. 3, Shahriari).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagesh and Thapliyal by incorporating the teachings as taught above by Shahriari in order to be positioned in the aortic annulus, and the hour-glass shape of the component 12 provides a space for the native aortic valve leaflets such that the leaflets are not pressed against or over the openings of coronary arteries 182 (¶0077, Shahriari).
Regarding claim 16, Nagesh does not teach a gap between the first stent frame and the second stent frame. However, Shahriari teaches
wherein the gap (section 62, Fig. 9, Shahriari) between the first (34, Fig. 3, Shahriari) and second stent frames (50, Fig. 3, Shahriari) is bridged with material (84, ¶0062, Fig. 3, Shahriari).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagesh and Thapliyal by incorporating a cover material as taught by Shahriari in order to prevent fluid from passing through the surface of the frame (¶0062, Shahriari).
Regarding claim 17, Nagesh teaches
wherein respective first exits (660, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) of the two or more internal branches (650, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) have an opening (656, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) that opens into the central portion of the implant (600, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) and respective second exits (654, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) of the two or more internal branches (650, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) have an opening (opening at 658, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) that opens into an area surrounding the implant (Fig. 20A, Nagesh).
Nagesh does not teach the two or more internal branches between the first point of transition and the part of the central portion having the largest outer diameter. However, Shahriari teaches
wherein the first exits (160, Fig. 6, Shahriari) from the two or more internal branches open into the central portion of the implant (Fig. 6, Shahriari) between the first point of transition (134, Fig. 4, Shahriari) and the part of the central portion (central portion of 100, Fig. 4, Shahriari) having the largest outer diameter (proximal end 142, Fig. 4, Shahriari).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagesh and Thapliyal by incorporating the teachings as taught above by Shahriari in order to be positioned in the aortic annulus, and the hour-glass shape of the component 12 provides a space for the native aortic valve leaflets such that the leaflets are not pressed against or over the openings of coronary arteries 182 (¶0077, Shahriari).
Regarding claim 18, Nagesh teaches
wherein openings of the first exits (660, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) of the two or more internal branches (650, Fig. 20A, Nagesh) have a diameter which corresponds to 30% to 70% of a length of the implant between the part of the central portion having the largest outer diameter and the first point of transition (¶0066, Nagesh).
Regarding claim 19, Nagesh does not teach the two or more internal branches are arranged between the part of the central portion having the largest outer diameter and the first point of transition. However, Shahriari teaches
wherein openings (170, Fig. 6, Shahriari) of the first exit (160, Figs. 4 & 6, Shahriari) from the two or more internal branches (24, Figs. 4 & 7, Shahriari) are arranged between 20% to 80% of a length (lengths 136 & 146, Fig. 4, Shahriari) of the implant between the part of the central portion (central portion of 100, Fig. 4, Shahriari) having the largest outer diameter (142, Fig. 4, Shahriari) and the first point of transition (134, Fig. 4, Shahriari).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagesh and Thapliyal by incorporating the teachings as taught above by Shahriari in order to be positioned in the aortic annulus, and the hour-glass shape of the component 12 provides a space for the native aortic valve leaflets such that the leaflets are not pressed against or over the openings of coronary arteries 182 (¶0077, Shahriari).
Claim(s) 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagesh in view of Thapliyal and further in view of Arnault De La Menardiere (US 20190060096 A1) hereinafter, Arnault.
Regarding claim 26, Nagesh does not teach a torque control. However, Arnault teaches systems and methods for deploying implantable devices within the body (abstract, Arnault) wherein
wherein the actuation mechanism (36a and 36b, Fig. 2a, Arnault) has at least one of a torque control (480, Fig. 22, Arnault) and can rotate the implant about an axis of the main body (¶0108, Arnault) and
a knob (70a, Fig. 2A, Arnault) that can be rotated about an axis of rotation of the actuation mechanism (36a and 36b, Fig. 2a, Arnault).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagesh and Thapliyal with the above teachings of Arnault in order to control the amount of extension and foreshortening undergone by the main body of a stent operatively loaded within the delivery system (¶0132, Arnault).
Regarding claim 27, Nagesh teaches
wherein the one or more guidewires can be retracted from the main body (730, ¶0078, Nagesh) but does not teach two valved introducers installed at the delivery device. However, Arnault teaches
wherein the one or more guidewires (425, Fig. 17, Arnault) can be retracted from the main body via two valved introducers (412, Fig. 17, Arnault) installed at the delivery device (400, Fig. 17, Arnault).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagesh and Thapliyal with the above teachings of Arnault in order to direct and deploy the side branch lumens of a branched stent (¶0131, Arnault).
Regarding claim 28, Nagesh does not teach valved introducers are connected to the actuation mechanism. However, Arnault teaches
wherein the valved introducers (412, Fig. 17, Arnault) are connected to the actuation mechanism (436, Fig. 17, Arnault).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagesh and Thapliyal with the above teachings of Arnault in order to direct and deploy the side branch lumens of a branched stent (¶0131, Arnault).
Regarding claim 29, Nagesh does not specify a flush port. However, Arnault teaches
wherein the flush port (438, Fig. 17, Arnault) is arranged between the valved introducers (412, Fig. 17, Arnault) and the knob (70a, Fig. 2A, Arnault) of the actuation mechanism (36a and 36b, Fig. 2a, Arnault).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagesh and Thapliyal with the above teachings of Arnault in order to introduce radiographic dye in order to visualize blood flow through the side branch arteries (¶0135, Arnault).
PNG
media_image1.png
750
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIA XIONG WHITE whose telephone number is (703)756-4773. The examiner can normally be reached 0830-1630 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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached at (408) 918-7557. 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.
/K.X.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights