DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11DEC2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the drape of Maaskamp not being open to atmosphere are not persuasive. While Maaskamp teaches attachment of the drape to the skin of the patient, as cited by Applicant, Maaskamp does not teach a seal of any kind and the drape is therefore considered open to atmosphere. Additionally, the cited passage dictates the desire to minimize spillage and lost fluid, while a seal would eliminate these issues.
Amended Claims 21, 32, and 40 state “wherein the surgical drape being open to atmosphere causes variation in suction applied to the surgical drape” which is merely a statement intended use which describes any system where the surgical drape is open to atmosphere. The amendment further requires a vacuum source being configured to adjust suction between the surgical drape and the surgical instrument during operation to account for the variation in suction applied to the surgical drape. Maaskamp teaches that suction through the drape is altered based on fluid removal volumes and the ability of the system to regulate suction via differing impedance lines, ensuring suction flow to the instrument is not reduced (Col. 2: ll. 36-50). Therefore since the first portion of the claims dictates a state created by being open to atmosphere and the second portion requiring adjusting of suction to account for said state, Maaskamp is considered to teach this limitation by teaching a system which automatically adjusts suction based on conditions in the drape. Disclosure of a system where the operator is capable of controlling vacuum would similarly be considered to teach the amended claim requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21, 26, 28, 32, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6149633 A (Maaskamp) in view of US 7204821 B1 (Clare et al.) and US 20130144227 A1 (Locke et al.).
Regarding claim 21, Maaskamp teaches a fluid collection system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a surgical instrument (14);
a vacuum source (40);
a first collection vessel (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1);
a first fluid outflow line (57) connected between the surgical instrument and the first collection vessel, the first fluid outflow line configured to provide an outflow path for fluid from the surgical instrument to the first collection vessel (Col. 3: ll. 47-57);
a first suction (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1) line connected between the vacuum source and the first collection vessel, the first suction line configured to provide suction to draw fluid from the surgical instrument to the first collection vessel;
a surgical drape (46) configured to collect liquid, the surgical drape being open to atmosphere (there being no teachings of a seal, merely attachment, as previously discussed);
a second collection vessel (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1);
a second fluid outflow line (52) connected between the surgical drape and the second collection vessel, the second fluid outflow line configured to provide an outflow path for fluid from the surgical drape to the second collection vessel (Col. 3: ll. 47-57), wherein the second fluid outflow line is independent of the first fluid outflow line (the lines being separate and therefore independent);
a second suction line (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1) connected with the second collection vessel, the second suction line configured to provide suction to draw fluid from the surgical drape to the second collection vessel, wherein the second suction line includes a third suction line (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1) connected with the vacuum source and a fourth suction line (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1) connected with the vacuum source;
a flow restrictor (80) in communication with the third suction line (Col. 5: ll. 18-19); and
wherein the vacuum source is configured to adjust suction between the surgical drape and the surgical instrument during operation to account for the variation in suction applied to the surgical drape (Col. 2: ll. 36-50).
“[W]herein the surgical drape being open to atmosphere causes variation in suction applied to the surgical drape” is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Maaskamp fails to teach a valve in communication with the fourth suction line, wherein the valve is configured to be opened to increase a level of suction provided to the surgical drape or wherein the first fluid outflow line from the surgical drape to the second collection cannister, and wherein the first fluid outflow line is independent of the second fluid outflow line from the surgical instrument to the first collection vessel.
PNG
media_image1.png
1076
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1
Clare teaches a fluid collection system (Abstract) comprising separate suction lines connecting a surgical instrument, namely the resectoscope (Fig. 15), and a drape (Fig. 15) to a suction source, namely wall vacuum (Fig. 15). As seen in Fig. 16, individual valves (50) and (44) provide control over suction on the lines (Col. 3: ll. 54-64).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maaskamp with the valve of Clare to allow for controlling suction to control the vacuum applied to the drape (Col. 3: ll. 54-64).
The combined device is therefore considered to teach a valve in communication with the fourth suction line, wherein the valve is configured to be opened to increase a level of suction provided to the surgical drape.
Locke teaches a fluid collection system (200) (Fig. 3) wherein individual collection sources (214) are connected via an independent fluid outflow line (226) to a collection cannister (256), the cannister possessing a second fluid outflow line at the outlet which connects to a vacuum source (266).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device of Maaskamp in view of Clare with the independent suction lines leading to individual collection cannisters of Locke to allow for applying different levels of suction to individual sources with a single vacuum source [Locke 0102].
Combining the teachings of Locke into the combined device results in a first suction line connected between the vacuum source and the first collection vessel (Locke 226 to 256) and similarly a second fluid outflow line connected between the surgical drape and the second collection vessel. Additionally, the third and fourth suction lines would lead from individual collection cannisters to the vacuum source. The combined device is therefore considered to teach the suction lines as claimed as well as wherein the second fluid outflow line is independent of the first fluid outflow line from the surgical drape to the second collection cannister, and wherein the first fluid outflow line is independent of the second fluid outflow line from the surgical instrument to the first collection vessel.
Regarding claim 26, Maaskamp teaches a fluid collection system of claim 21.
Maaskamp further teaches the first suction line is coupled to the second suction line (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 28, Maaskamp teaches a fluid collection system of claim 21.
Maaskamp further teaches a first end of the second fluid outflow line (52) is connected with a bottom of the surgical drape (46), and a second end of the second fluid outflow line is connected with a top of the second collection vessel via tube (44) (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 32, Maaskamp teaches a fluid collection system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a vacuum source (40);
a collection vessel (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1);
a surgical drape (46) configured to collect liquid, the surgical drape being open to atmosphere (there being no teachings of a seal, merely attachment, as previously discussed);
a fluid outflow line (57) connected between the surgical drape and the collection vessel, the fluid outflow line configured to provide an outflow path for fluid to the collection vessel (Col. 3: ll. 47-57);
a suction line connected with the collection vessel (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1 “second suction line”), the suction line configured to provide suction to draw fluid through the fluid outflow line to the collection vessel, wherein the suction line includes a first suction line (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1 “third suction line”) connected with the vacuum source and a second suction line (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1 “first suction line”) connected with the vacuum source;
a flow restrictor (80) in communication with the first suction line (Col. 5: ll. 18-19); and
wherein the vacuum source is configured to adjust suction between the surgical drape and the surgical instrument during operation to account for the variation in suction applied to the surgical drape (Col. 2: ll. 36-50).
“[W]herein the surgical drape being open to atmosphere causes variation in suction applied to the surgical drape” is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Maaskamp fails to teach a valve in communication with the fourth suction line, wherein the valve is configured to be opened to increase a level of suction provided to the surgical drape or wherein the first and second suction lines are independent.
It would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use individual suction lines for each container, this resulting in improved reliability through offering a redundant path. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Clare teaches a fluid collection system (Abstract) comprising separate suction lines connecting a surgical instrument, namely the resectoscope (Fig. 15), and a drape (Fig. 15) to a suction source, namely wall vacuum (Fig. 15). As seen in Fig. 16, individual valves (50) and (44) provide control over suction on the lines (Col. 3: ll. 54-64).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maaskamp with the valve of Clare to allow for controlling suction to control the vacuum applied to the drape (Col. 3: ll. 54-64).
The combined device is therefore considered to teach a valve in communication with the fourth suction line, wherein the valve is configured to be opened to increase a level of suction provided to the surgical drape.
Locke teaches a fluid collection system (200) (Fig. 3) wherein individual collection sources (214) are connected via an independent fluid outflow line (226) to a collection cannister (256), the cannister possessing a second fluid outflow line at the outlet which connects to a vacuum source (266).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device of Maaskamp in view of Clare with the independent suction lines leading to individual collection cannisters of Locke to allow for applying different levels of suction to individual sources with a single vacuum source [Locke 0102].
Combining the teachings of Locke into the combined device results in a first suction line connected between the vacuum source and the first collection vessel (Locke 226 to 256) and similarly a second fluid outflow line connected between the surgical drape and the second collection vessel. Additionally, the third and fourth suction lines would lead from individual collection cannisters to the vacuum source. The combined device is therefore considered to teach the suction lines being arranged as claimed.
Regarding claim 37, Maaskamp teaches a fluid collection system of claim 32.
Maaskamp further teaches a first end of the fluid outflow line (52) is connected with a bottom of the surgical drape (46), and a second end of the second fluid outflow line is connected with a top of the collection vessel via tube (44) (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 22, 24, 25, 27, 33, 35, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke, and further in view of US 20110060300 A1 (Weig et al.).
Regarding claim 22, Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke teaches a fluid collection system of claim 21.
Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke fails to teach a sensor connected with the third suction line and the valve, the sensor configured to detect a presence of fluid in the surgical drape, and the sensor configured to open the valve to suction fluid from the surgical drape to the second collection vessel.
Weig teaches a fluid collection system for removing liquid discharged by the human body (Abstract) wherein a sensor (13) detects the presence of fluid and opens a valve (9) to suction fluid away to a collection vessel (7) [0030].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke to incorporate the sensor-operated valve of Weig to provide automatic suction when liquid is detected [Weig 0030].
Regarding claim 24, Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke fails to teach that opening or closing of the valve is configured to maintain at least some suction at the surgical instrument when fluid is present in the surgical drape.
Weig teaches a fluid collection system for removing liquid discharged by the human body (Abstract) wherein a sensor (13) detects the presence of fluid and opens a valve (9). Weig further teaches opening or closing of the valve is configured to maintain at least some suction at the surgical instrument when fluid is present in the surgical drape [0026].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke to incorporate the sensor-operated valve of Weig to provide automatic suction when liquid is detected [Weig 0030], as liquid at the surgical instrument will necessarily result in liquid being deposited in the drape.
Regarding claim 25, Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke fails to teach the valve remains closed when fluid is absent from the surgical drape.
Weig teaches a fluid collection system for removing liquid discharged by the human body (Abstract) wherein a sensor (13) detects the presence of fluid and opens a valve (9), wherein the valve remains closed when fluid is absent [0026].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke with the sensor-operated valve of Weig wherein the valve remain closed when fluid is absent in order to allow user control of vacuum and drainage [Weig 0026].
Regarding claim 27, Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke fails to teach the amount of suction provided to the surgical drape when fluid is present in the surgical drape is less than a maximum suction level that can be provided by the vacuum source.
Weig teaches the amount of suction provided to the surgical drape when fluid is present in the surgical drape is less than a maximum suction level that can be provided by the vacuum source [0026].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke with the sensor-based control of Weig to provide a lower base level of suction that allows finesse of control of suction for the user [Weig 0026], thereby allowing the amount of suction provided to the surgical drape when fluid is present in the surgical drape is less than a maximum suction level that can be provided by the vacuum source.
Regarding claims 33, 35, and 36, Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke teaches a fluid collection system of claim 32.
Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke fails to teach a sensor connected with the first suction line and the valve, the sensor configured to detect a presence of fluid in the surgical drape, and the sensor configured to open the valve to suction fluid from the surgical drape to the collection vessel.
Weig teaches a fluid collection system for removing liquid discharged by the human body (Abstract) wherein a sensor (13) detects the presence of fluid and opens a valve (9) to suction fluid away to a collection vessel (7) [0030]. Weig further teaches opening or closing of the valve is configured to maintain at least some suction at the surgical instrument when fluid is present in the surgical drape [0026] as well as the valve remains closed when fluid is absent [0026]. Weig teaches the amount of suction provided to the surgical drape when fluid is present in the surgical drape is less than a maximum suction level that can be provided by the vacuum source [0026].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke with the sensor-operated drain valve actuation of Weig to provide automatic removal of fluids when present [Weig 0030].
Claim(s) 23 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke, and further in view of US 20160317725 A1 (Berry et al.)
Regarding claim 23, Maaskamp teaches a fluid collection system of claim 22.
Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke fails to teach the sensor detects the presence of fluid in the surgical drape based on an increase in pressure in the third suction line.
Berry teaches a system for medical vacuum control (Abstract) wherein a sensor (115) detects fluid based on a change in pressure in the suction line [0014].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke with the flow detection sensor of Berry to provide almost instantaneous suction without creating too much demand on the vacuum system [Berry 0016], thereby detecting the presence of fluid in the surgical drape based on an increase in pressure in the third suction line.
Regarding claim 34, Maaskamp teaches a fluid collection system of claim 33.
Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke fails to teach the sensor detects the presence of fluid in the surgical drape based on an increase in pressure in the first suction line.
Berry teaches a system for medical vacuum control (Abstract) wherein a sensor (115) detects fluid based on a change in pressure in the suction line [0014].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke with the flow detection of Berry to provide almost instantaneous suction without creating too much demand on the vacuum system [Berry 0016], resulting in the sensor detecting the presence of fluid in the surgical drape based on an increase in pressure in the first suction line.
Claim(s) 29 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke, and further in view of US 20060065274 A1 (Mathis et al.).
Regarding claim 29, Maaskamp teaches a fluid collection system of claim 28.
Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke fails to teach the second fluid outflow line is configured to suction fluid against a force of gravity from the surgical drape to the second collection vessel.
Mathis teaches a surgical drape system (Abstract) wherein the fluid removal may be either gravity dependent or vacuum assisted against gravity [0014].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke with the teachings of Mathis to allow for gravity assisted drainage or drainage against gravity [Mathis 0014], thereby allowing for use of the system in varied operating conditions.
Regarding claim 38, Maaskamp teaches a fluid collection system of claim 37.
Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke fails to teach the fluid outflow line is configured to suction fluid against a force of gravity from the surgical drape to the collection vessel.
Mathis teaches a surgical drape system (Abstract) wherein the fluid removal may be either gravity dependent or vacuum assisted against gravity [0014].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke with the teachings of Mathis to allow for gravity assisted drainage or drainage against gravity [Mathis 0014], thereby allowing for use of the system in varied operating conditions.
Claim(s) 30, 31, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke, and further in view of US 20210259884 A1 (Heeren et al.).
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Maaskamp teaches a fluid collection system of claim 21.
Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke fails to teach an operating console including a display configured to operate the vacuum source.
Heeren teaches a surgical fluid management system (Abstract) wherein an operating console (115) comprises a display (130) [0031].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke to incorporate the console system with display of Heeren to allow the user to view system conditions and operate the system [Heeren 0034].
Regarding claim 39, Maaskamp teaches a fluid collection system of claim 32.
Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke fails to teach an operating console configured to operate the vacuum source.
Heeren teaches a surgical fluid management system (Abstract) wherein an operating console (115) is configured to operate the vacuum source [0031].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maaskamp in view of Clare and Locke to incorporate the console system for operating the vacuum source of Heeren to allow the user to view system conditions and operate the system [Heeren 0034].
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maaskamp in view of Locke.
Regarding claim 40, Maaskamp teaches a fluid collection system, comprising:
a surgical instrument (14);
a vacuum source (40);
a first collection vessel (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1);
a first fluid outflow line (57) connected between the surgical instrument and the first collection vessel, the first fluid outflow line configured to provide an outflow path for fluid from the surgical instrument to the first collection vessel (Col. 3: ll. 47-57);
a first suction (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1) line connected between the vacuum source and the first collection vessel, the first suction line configured to provide suction to draw fluid from the surgical instrument to the first collection vessel;
a surgical drape (46) configured to collect liquid, the surgical drape being open to atmosphere (there being no teachings of a seal, merely attachment, as previously discussed);
a second collection vessel (Maaskamp Annotated Fig. 1);
a second fluid outflow line (44) connected between the surgical drape and the second collection vessel, the second fluid outflow line configured to provide an outflow path for fluid from the surgical drape to the second collection vessel (Col. 3: ll. 47-57), wherein the second fluid outflow line is independent of the first fluid outflow line (the lines being separate and therefore independent);
a second suction line (52) connected with the second collection vessel, the second suction line configured to provide suction to draw fluid from the surgical drape to the second collection vessel; and
a flow restrictor (80) disposed along a third suction line, wherein the flow restrictor is configured to provide a resistance to airflow through the second suction line (Col. 5: ll. 18-19), and
wherein the vacuum source is configured to adjust suction between the surgical drape and the surgical instrument during operation to account for the variation in suction applied to the surgical drape (Col. 2: ll. 36-50).
“[W]herein the surgical drape being open to atmosphere causes variation in suction applied to the surgical drape” is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Locke teaches a fluid collection system (200) (Fig. 3) wherein individual collection sources (214) are connected via an independent fluid outflow line (226) to a collection cannister (256), the cannister possessing a second fluid outflow line at the outlet which connects to a vacuum source (266).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device of Maaskamp with the independent suction lines leading to individual collection cannisters of Locke to allow for applying different levels of suction to individual sources with a single vacuum source [Locke 0102].
Combining the teachings of Locke into the combined device results in a first suction line connected between the vacuum source and the first collection vessel (Locke 226 to 256) and similarly a second fluid outflow line connected between the surgical drape and the second collection vessel. Additionally, the third and fourth suction lines would lead from individual collection cannisters to the vacuum source. The combined device is therefore considered to teach the suction lines being arranged as claimed as well as wherein the second fluid outflow line is independent of the first fluid outflow line from the surgical drape to the second collection cannister, and wherein the first fluid outflow line is independent of the second fluid outflow line from the surgical instrument to the first collection vessel.
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 HANS KALIHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:00-05:00 MT.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached on (571) 272-7159. 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.
/HANS KALIHER/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights