DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed 6/8/26.
Claims 1, 3-17 are finally rejected.
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 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.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 16-17, the claim recites a “partially expanded state” and a “fully expanded state,” wherein the partially expanded state is defined in part by “at least some of the plurality of electrodes contact[ing] the wall” and the fully expanded state is defined by “the intermediate section assum[ing] the flattened shape upon contacting the wall” and “all of the plurality of electrodes simultaneously contact[ing] the wall”. These structural states of the claimed apparatus are impermissibly defined relative to variable external environmental conditions (i.e., the geometry, diameter, and contour of an unmeasured patient blood vessel wall), rather than intrinsic physical characteristics of the catheter itself. Because blood vessel geometries vary significantly from patient to patient and along the length of a single lumen, the boundary between what constitutes a “partially expanded state” and a “fully expanded state” is rendered ambiguous. Therefore, the claim is indefinite since POSITA cannot determine whether a physical configuration of the catheter falls within the scope of the claim without reference to an external, non-claimed structure.
Further regarding claims 16, the claimed “partially expanded state” and “fully expanded state” lack mutual exclusivity, rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, if an expandable basket is flattened by contacting a blood vessel wall, as is required by the claim to be defined as in the “fully expanded state,” it necessarily is only “partially expanded outwardly” and therefore could also be characterized as in the “partially expanded state”, as defined by the claim. Therefore, since the claim fails to define a clear, mutually exclusive, distinction between the “fully expanded state” and the “partially expanded state,” the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-10 and 14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haverkost (US 20120029510) in view of Zarins et al. (US 20080255642, “Zarins”).
Regarding claim 1, Haverkost teaches an apparatus for intravascular thermal neuromodulation (Abstract, “A catheter includes a flexible shaft having a distal end dimensioned for deployment within a patient's renal artery”; par. 2, “Various embodiments of the disclosure are directed to apparatuses and methods for ablating perivascular renal nerves, such as for treatment of hypertension.”), comprising: a control unit (Fig. 16, RF generator 320); a catheter in communication with the control unit (Fig. 16, catheter 100 in communication with electrode activation circuitry 320), wherein the catheter comprises: an elongate body configured to be inserted into a blood vessel (Fig. 16, elongated catheter 100 is inserted into renal artery 12), wherein the elongate body includes a proximal portion and a distal portion (Par. 3, “A catheter comprises a flexible shaft having a proximal end, a distal end, and a length, the length of the shaft sufficient to access the target vessel relative to the percutaneous access location.”), and wherein the distal portion includes a distal tip (Fig. 16, distal tip of flexible shaft 104); and an expandable structure (Par. 75, ‘The resilient members 131 of a wire segment arrangement 127 can be arranged to form expandable curves or loops. ’) comprising a plurality of support arms (Fig. 12, resilient members 131), wherein each of the plurality of support arms comprises a proximal section (Fig. 12, proximal-most portions of resilient members 131 between the shaft 104 and the proximal-most electrode) , an intermediate section (Fig. 12, intermediate portion of resilient members 131 which contains electrodes 120), and a distal section (Fig. 12, distal-most portion of resilient members 131 between the distal-most electrode and the shaft 104), wherein the intermediate section is an elongated section (Fig, 12, the intermediate section which contains various electrodes has a length and is therefore ‘elongate’) configured to contact a wall of the blood vessel along a length of the intermediate section (Par. 24, “Deployment of the wire segments places the RF electrodes in good contact with the vessel wall.”), and wherein the proximal section and the distal section each slope from the intermediate section toward a longitudinal axis of the catheter (Fig. 12, showing that wire members 131 slope from the proximal-most/distal-most electrodes towards shaft 103 which can be considered the ‘longitudinal axis’ of the catheter); and an actuator (Par. 90, ‘ According to some embodiments, a control wire 133 is attached to the distal end of the resilient member 131 and actuatable by a clinician at the proximal end of the catheter 100, such as in the manner described previously with regard to FIGS. 5 and 6. In other embodiments, a control wire 133 is not used, and the retraction and expansion mechanism discussed above operates automatically in response to application and removal of compressive force to and from the resilient member 131 during use.’) configured to deploy the expandable structure (Abstract, ‘The elongated resilient members are collapsible when encompassed within a lumen of an outer sheath and extensible radially outward from the shaft at the regions defined between the longitudinally spaced-apart engagement locations when the catheter and the resilient members are axially extended beyond the distal tip of the sheath.’), wherein the intermediate section of a support arm of the plurality of support arms comprises a plurality of electrodes longitudinally spaced from one another along the intermediate section (Fig. 12, each resilient member 131 contains a plurality of spaced electrodes 120 along its central portion) and configured to deliver energy to a wall (Abstract, ‘RF energy is delivered to the electrodes for ablating perivascular renal nerves.’), wherein the control unit is configured to selectively control the plurality of electrodes to deliver the energy to: a length of the wall spanning the entire intermediate section via all of the plurality of electrodes, wherein opposite ends of the length are longitudinally spaced from one another; or a spot of the wall spanning only a portion of the intermediate section via only a subset of the plurality of electrodes (Par. 74, ‘In such embodiments, all or at least some of the electrodes 120 supported by individual resilient members 131 are individually controllable, allowing for selective activation and deactivation of electrodes 120 of the basket or mesh arrangements 127.’).
Haverkost fails to teach that the control unit comprises a processor; of that the intermediate portion is configured to assume a flattened shape upon contacting the wall.
Regarding the control unit aspect, Zarins teaches an analogous apparatus for intravascular thermal neuromodulation (Abstract, ‘Methods and system are provided for thermally-induced renal neuromodulation.’), comprising: a control unit comprising is a processor (Fig. 3A, processor 114); and a catheter (Fig. 3A, probe 104; par. 54, ‘The probe 104 can be […] an intravascular catheter’) in communication with the processor (Par. 53, ‘The processor 114 is in communication with the field generator 110 to control the power output of the field generator 110 for providing the desired amount of energy to the target neural structures’).
Therefore, in view of Zarins, it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was made to modify Haverkost by providing the control unit with a processor in order to configure the control unit to be programmable, as taught by Zarins.
Regarding the ‘flattened shape’ aspect, Zarins further teaches an expandable structure (Fig. 5c, expandable basket 304) comprising a plurality of support arms (Fig. 5c, struts of expandable basket 304), wherein each of the plurality of support arms comprises a proximal section (Fig. 5c, struts 304 have proximal sections which extend from catheter 302 to the wall of the renal artery), and intermediate section (Fig. 5c, struts 304 have intermediate sections which extend along and parallel to the renal artery), and a distal section (Fig. 5c, struts 304 have distal sections which extend from the wall of the renal artery back to catheter 302), wherein the intermediate section comprises a shape configured for contact with the wall (Fig. 5c, showing the intermediate sections of struts 304 in contact with the wall of the renal artery), wherein the intermediate section is an elongated section configured to contact a wall of the blood vessel along a length of the intermediate section (Fig. 5c, the intermediate section of expandable basket 304 contacting the renal artery has a length and therefore can be considered ‘elongate’) and to assume a flattened shape upon contacting the wall (Fig. 5c, showing the intermediate section assuming a flattened shape against the wall of the artery), and wherein the proximal section and the distal section each slope from the intermediate section toward a longitudinal axis of the catheter (Fig. 5c, showing the proximal/distal section of expandable basket 304 extending from catheter 302 towards the intermediate section which is contacting the wall of the renal artery)
Therefore, in view of Zarins it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was made to modify Haverkost by configuring the intermediate portion containing the electrodes to assume a flattened shape upon contacting the artery wall, in order to increase the surface contact area, and provide predictable electrical/thermal transfer across the artery wall (desirable properties explicitly discussed by Haverkost; see Haverkost, pars. 22-24, “If contact is variable, the tissue temperatures are not well controlled, and an ablative temperature may not be achieved in the target tissue, while temperature in other areas, such as portions of the artery wall, may deviate enough to cause unwanted arterial tissue injury.”).
Regarding claim 4, Haverkost, as modified, further teaches wherein the spot of the wall is located between the opposite ends of the length (Par. 74, which teaches that the system is configured to selectively activate electrodes in contact with the wall which are inherently located between opposite ends of the intermediate section contacting the wall).
Regarding claim 5, Haverkost, as modified, further teaches wherein the support arm of the plurality of support arms comprises a plurality of sensors different than the plurality of electrodes (Par. 32, ‘One or more temperature sensors, such as thermocouples, can be provided at the site of the electrodes to measure the temperature of the electrodes. In some embodiments, a temperature sensor is positioned near or at the site of each electrode, allowing for precision temperature measurements at individual electrode locations of the ablation electrode arrangement.’).
Regarding claim 6, Haverkost, as modified, further teaches wherein the plurality of sensors are longitudinally spaced from one another along the intermediate section (Par. 32, ‘One or more temperature sensors, such as thermocouples, can be provided at the site of the electrodes to measure the temperature of the electrodes. In some embodiments, a temperature sensor is positioned near or at the site of each electrode, allowing for precision temperature measurements at individual electrode locations of the ablation electrode arrangement.’).
Regarding claim 7, Haverkost, as modified, further teaches wherein the plurality of sensors are interleaved with the plurality of electrodes along the intermediate section (Par. 32, ‘One or more temperature sensors, such as thermocouples, can be provided at the site of the electrodes to measure the temperature of the electrodes. In some embodiments, a temperature sensor is positioned near or at the site of each electrode, allowing for precision temperature measurements at individual electrode locations of the ablation electrode arrangement.’; for instance, the embodiment in which the temperature sensors are placed near the electrodes they can be considered to be ‘interleaved’ with the electrodes) such that the plurality of electrodes are longitudinally spaced from one another along the intermediate section by the plurality of sensors (Fig. 12, showing electrodes 120 spaced apart from each other along resilient members 131).
Regarding claim 8, Haverkost, as modified, further teaches wherein the plurality of sensors comprises at least one of an ultrasonic sensor, a flow sensor, a thermal sensor, a blood temperature sensor, an electrical contact sensor, a conductivity sensor, an impedance sensor, an electromagnetic detector, a pressure sensor, a chemical or hormonal sensor, a pH sensor, an infrared sensor, or a contact pressure sensor configured to detect a pressure applied by an electrode of the plurality of electrodes at the wall (Par. 32, ‘One or more temperature sensors, such as thermocouples, can be provided at the site of the electrodes to measure the temperature of the electrodes.’).
Regarding claim 9, Haverkost, as modified, further teaches wherein the plurality of sensors is configured to: obtain sensor data representative of the blood vessel (Par. 99, ‘In some embodiments, temperature sensors are situated at the treatment element 101 and provide for continuous monitoring of renal artery tissue temperatures’); and transmit the sensor data to the processor (Par. 93, ‘The external electrode activation circuitry 320, which includes an RF generator, is coupled to temperature measuring circuitry 328 […]’; further, the control unit has previously been modified in view of Zarins to comprise a processor; see Zarins, fig. 3a, processor 114).
Regarding claim 10, Haverkost, as modified, further teaches wherein the processor (The control unit has previously been modified in view of Zarins to comprise a processor; see Zarins, fig. 3a, processor 114) is further configured to selectively control the plurality of electrodes to deliver the energy based on the sensor data (Par. 99, ‘RF generator power is automatically adjusted so that the target temperatures are achieved and maintained.’).
Regarding claim 14, Haverkost, as modified, further teaches wherein the plurality of electrodes is configured to deliver the energy through the wall to a renal nerve (Par. 2, ‘Various embodiments of the disclosure are directed to apparatuses and methods for ablating perivascular renal nerves, such as for treatment of hypertension.’).
Claims 11 and 15-17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haverkost in view of Zarins, as applied to claims 1, 4-10 and 14 above, and further in view of Walker et al. (US 20040176699, “Walker”).
Regarding claim 11, Haverkost, as modified, fails to teach wherein the elongate body further comprises an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging apparatus configured to obtain images of the wall.
Walker teaches an analogous intravascular device (Abstract, “A flexible thermography catheter which includes an elongated body having a proximal end, a distal end, and a distal section, an expandable body”) comprising: a catheter comprising an elongate body configured to be inserted into a blood vessel (Figs. 5-6 and 11, Elongate Body 14 having a sleeve 36). Walker further teaches wherein the elongate body further comprises an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging apparatus configured to obtain images of the wall to allow for precise positioning of the catheter within the blood vessel (Par. 92, ‘The thermography catheter 10 may include IVUS or other imaging devices thereon, thereby permitting the user to precisely position the thermography catheter 10 within the blood vessel.’).
Therefore, in view of Walker, it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was made to further modify Haverkost, as modified, by providing the catheter with an IVUS imaging device in order to facilitate precise positioning of the catheter within the blood vessel, as taught by Walker.
Regarding claim 15, Haverkost, as modified, teaches wherein the actuator is configured to deploy the expandable structure through a plurality of expansion states, the plurality of expansion states comprising a first expansion state (Abstract, the first expansion state can be mapped to the collapsed configuration) and a second expansion state (Abstract, the second expansion state can be mapped to the expanded configuration), but fails to teach that the first expansion state comprises a state in which the distal portion and the distal tip are in contact with each other, and the expandable structure is disposed within the distal portion; and that the second expansion state comprises a state in which the distal portion and the distal tip are spaced apart from each other.
Walker, however, further teaches wherein the elongate body includes a proximal portion (Figs. 1-3, proximal portion adjacent to the elongated body receiver 22) and a distal portion (Figs. 1-2, distal section 18), and wherein the distal portion includes a distal tip (Figs. 4 and 12, distal tip 44); an expandable structure (Fig. 2, expandable body 16) comprising a plurality of support arms (Fig. 12, support arms 50), wherein each of the plurality of support arms comprises a proximal section and a distal section (Fig. 12, the proximal section can be considered a section proximal to the distal end of the of the support arm and the distal section can be considered a section distal to the proximal end of the support arm); and an actuator configured to deploy the expandable structure through a plurality of expansion states with different arrangements of the expandable structure, the elongate body, and the distal tip (Fig. 2 and par. 67, ‘The outer sleeve 36 may be in communication with or attached to the elongated body actuator 28 positioned within the actuator recess 30 located on the handle body 20 of the handle 12 (see. FIG. 3). The rearward movement of the elongated body actuator 28 within the actuator recess 30 results in the outer sleeve 36 retracting rearwardly from the distal tip 44 (see FIG. 4), thereby permitting the expandable body 16 to expand radially.’), wherein the plurality of expansion states comprises: a first expansion state in which the distal portion and the distal tip are in contact with each other and the expandable structure is disposed within the distal portion ( Figs. 4 and 6, in a first unexpanded state distal tip 44 is in contact with distal section 18 of elongated body 14 and expandable body 16 is located within elongated body 14; par. 64); and a second expansion state in which the distal portion and the distal tip are spaced apart from each other, and the plurality of support arms are radially expanded outwards (Fig. 12, in a second expanded condition distal tip 44 is spaced apart from distal section 18 of elongated body 14).
Therefore, in view of Walker, it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was made to further modify Haverkost, as modified, by implementing the basket deployment configuration disclosed by Walker in which the basket is provided in an unexpanded configuration within the body of the catheter while the catheter is being advanced through the vascular system to the target location and deployed in an expanded configuration outside of the catheter body at the treatment location, in order to facilitate introduction of the catheter to the treatment location, as taught by Walker.
Regarding claim 16, Haverkost, as modified, teaches wherein the second expansion state comprises a fully expanded state, wherein, in the fully expanded state: the intermediate section assumes the flattened shape upon contacting the wall (Haverkost has previously been modified in view of Zarins to configure the expandable member to assume a flattened shape upon contact the wall; see Zarins, fig. 5c, showing the intermediate section assuming a flattened shape against the wall of the artery); and the processor is configured to selectively control the plurality of electrodes to deliver the energy to the length of the wall or the spot of the wall (Par. 74, “In such embodiments, all or at least some of the electrodes 120 supported by individual resilient members 131 are individually controllable, allowing for selective activation and deactivation of electrodes 120 of the basket or mesh arrangements 127.”), but fails to teach that the second expansion state comprises a partially expanded state, wherein, in the partially expanded state: the support arms have partially expanded outwardly from the longitudinal axis and at least some of the plurality of electrodes contact the wall; and the processor is configured to selectively control the plurality of electrodes to deliver the energy to the spot of the wall.
Regarding the partially expanded state, the examiner notes that while Haverkost does not explicitly teach a partially expanded state, the examiner maintains that deploying an expandable basket from a constrained sheath would inherently involve an intermediate, continuous transition from the fully unexpanded state through partial expansion states until reaching the fully expanded state. Furthermore, Haverkost explicitly recognizes that target blood vessels (e.g. renal arteries) frequently exhibit tortuous curves, diseased sections, and irregular luminal geometries (Par. 22). POSTIA would therefore recognize that when deploying the expandable member of Haverkost, as modified, within a tortuous or constricted vessel that in certain cases local anatomical constrains will naturally prevent the expandable member from reaching an unconstrained, fully expanded configuration. Consequently, the operational end-state during treatment in irregular vessels in certain cases will inherently be a partial expansion state where only a subset of the support arms/electrodes contact the luminal wall. Further, it would have been obvious to POSITA, in these cases, to deliver energy only to the subset of electrodes which contact the wall within these partial expansion end-states (Par. 74, “In such embodiments, all or at least some of the electrodes 120 supported by individual resilient members 131 are individually controllable, allowing for selective activation and deactivation of electrodes 120 of the basket or mesh arrangements 127.”) in order to prevent unintended damage to non-target tissues.
Regarding claim 17, Haverkost, as modified, fully teaches wherein, in the fully expanded state, all of the plurality of electrodes simultaneously contact the wall (Par. 29, “Some or all electrodes can be energized simultaneously, or individual electrodes or subsets of the electrodes can be energized to ablate one or more regions of the perivascular nerves.”; the fact that Haverkost contemplates end-states in which ‘all’ electrodes are activated implies that all electrodes are in contact with the luminal wall).
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Haverkost in view of Zarins and Walker, as applied to claims 11 and 15-17, above, and further view of Cespedes (US 20090024040).
Regarding claim 12, Haverkost, as modified, fails to teach wherein the IVUS imaging apparatus is positioned within the expandable structure.
Cespedes, however, teaches an analogous IVUS device which is located within an analogous expandable member of an intravascular catheter system (Fig. 2 and par. 49, ‘FIG. 2 shows an embodiment similar to that shown in FIG. 1 but further including a radially viewing IVUS element 220 centrally disposed on central shaft within the basket section of the catheter.’).
Therefore, since both Haverkost, as modified, and Cespedes teach different locations configurations for an IVUS element in relation to an expandable element of an intravascular catheter, it would have been obvious to POSITA, at the time that the invention was made, to substitute one known IVUS location configuration for the other in order to arrive at the predictable result of a location configuration for an IVUS element in the context on intravascular catheter. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Haverkost in view of Zarins, as applied to claims 1, 4-10 and 14, above, and further view of Steinke (US 20050096647).
Regarding claim 13, Haverkost, as modified, fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to register the plurality of electrodes at a circumferential position of the expandable structure with a corresponding circumferential location of the blood vessel based on an intravascular image.
Steinke teaches an analogous device for delivering radiofrequency energy to intravascular tissue which comprises: a processor (Fig. 2a, processor 49); a catheter in communication with the processor (Fig. 2a, catheter 12), wherein the catheter comprises: an elongate body including a proximal portion and a distal portion (Fig. 2a, catheter 12 has proximal end 16 and distal end 18), the distal portion including a distal tip (Fig. 2, distal tip 30), the elongate body configured to have an unexpanded condition (Fig. 10a) and an expanded condition (Fig. 10b); an expandable structure configured to have an expanded condition and an unexpanded condition (Fig. 10b, expandable structure 26), the expandable structure including a plurality of support arms (Fig. 9, struts 54); a plurality of electrodes positioned on the plurality of support arms at different circumferential positions of the expandable structure (Fig. 9, electrodes 50), wherein the plurality of electrodes is configured to deliver energy to a target tissue (Abstract, ‘An atherosclerotic material detector near the distal end of the catheter body may measure circumferential atherosclerotic material distribution, and a power source selectively energizes the electrodes to eccentrically remodel the measured atherosclerotic material’); and wherein the processor is configured to register the plurality of electrodes at a circumferential position of the expandable structure with a corresponding circumferential location of the blood vessel based on an intravascular image. (Par. 107, ‘In controller 92a, a simple dial 96 is turned to point to a desired electrode pair to be energized. A "key" electrode may be registered with the intravascular imaging system, either electronically or by providing an electrode, electrode support member, or attached marker which presents a distinct image on the intravascular imaging display. This simplifies selection of one or more eccentric electrode pair along atheroma.’).
Therefore, in view of Steinke, it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was made to further modify Haverkost, as modified, by configuring the processor to register the different electrodes using an imaging system, as taught by Steinke, in order to simplify the selection of electrode sets for treating the desired tissue locations, as taught by Steinke.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
Haverkost, Zarins, and Walker, alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest “wherein the intermediate section is an elongated section configured to contact a wall of the blood vessel along a length of the intermediate section and to assume a flattened shape upon contacting the wall” and “wherein the proximal section and the distal section each slope from the intermediate section toward a longitudinal axis of the catheter”, in combination with the other recited features of claim 1.
The examiner disagrees and maintains that Haverkost in combination with Zarins teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1, as discussed, above.
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 ADAM JOSEPH AVIGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
ADAM JOSEPH. AVIGAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3739
/ADAM J AVIGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights