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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 (“RCE”), 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 March 2026 (“Reply”) has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Action is responsive to the RCE and Reply. As directed in the Reply:
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, and 11 have been amended;
Claims 9 and 14-27 have been and/or remain cancelled; and
Claims 28-42 have been added.
Thus, Claims 1-8, 10-13, and 28-42 are presently pending in this application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings (in part; see below) and Specification are sufficient to overcome the objections from the previous Action and are therefore withdrawn.
The Reply is not fully responsive (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b), (c)) to the prior Action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): it does not address the alleged patentability of new claims 28-42.
As a courtesy to Applicant, the Reply has been treated on the merits without requiring a supplemental reply to remedy the foregoing deficiency; this treatment does not, however, relieve Applicant of this or any other requirement of Title 37, C.F.R., for any future papers filed in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10-13, and 28-42 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are again objected to because of the following informalities: in the Drawings filed 16 March 2026, “Fig. 5B” has been used twice - one should be “Fig. 5A.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a “nonce” term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim terms invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
“signal conducting means” (Claim 1), corresponding to wire 132 or optical fiber 134;
“fluid-pressurizing means” (Claims 40, 42), corresponding to pump 112.
Claims 1, 40, and 42 recite the term “coextrusion” which is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation and has been treated as indicated in M.P.E.P. § 2113, to wit, that the signal-conducting means is at least partially embedded in the tubular body.
Claim 28 recites “the braided tube formed of . . . a same or different polymer than that of the remainder of the tubular body,” which means the braided tube is formed of a polymer regardless of what the tubular body is formed of.
Claim Objections
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 1, “is” is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 42 is 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.
In Claim 42, lines 5-6, the clause “metal or a polymer different than that of the tubular body” renders the scope of the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if the word “different” applies only to the polymer (thus requiring the tubular body to be formed of a polymer), or to both the metal and the polymer (thus the tubular body is formed of a metal or a polymer) (treated as the former).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10, 12, 13, 28-30, 32-37, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0157094, by von Weymarn et al., (“von Weymarn”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0228274, by Böse et al. (of record; “Böse”).
Von Weymarn discloses a system and device substantially as claimed by Applicant, as follows.
Claim 1: A system, comprising:
an elongate medical device (101) including:
a tubular body (2); and
a lumen (1) terminating proximal of a distal end of the medical device (at 15, fig. 12), the lumen configured to contain a fluid therein; and
a fluid-pressurizing means ([0231], “pressure device”) for pressurizing the fluid and, thereby, stiffening at least a distal portion of the medical device under control of a user (id.).
It does not, however, describe a signal-conducting means for conducting a signal along a length of the medical device, the signal-conducting means integrated into the elongated medical device via coextrusion of the tubular body (see treatment above).
Böse relates to catheters having fluid pressurized, sealed lumina which stiffen portions of the catheter shaft and is therefore from an art which is the same as, or very closely analogous to, those of Applicant' s claims. Böse teaches that such stiffenable catheters can be provided with a signal-conducting means (see treatment above) (sensors 15a-f and their “separate signal line” of each, [0027]) for conducting a signal along a length of the medical device (id.), the signal-conducting means integrated into the elongated medical device via coextrusion of the tubular body (see treatment above) (the wires are embedded in the catheter’s wall, see Fig. 3), so that the status of the catheter can be determined, e.g., if the catheter has bent in response to the pressurization of any of the fluid lumina.
It 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, to further include, in the catheter described by von Weymarn, a signal-conducting means for conducting a signal along a length of the medical device, the signal-conducting means integrated into the elongated medical device via coextrusion of the tubular body, because Böse teaches doing so in a closely related catheter, so that the status of the catheter when it is pressurized can be determined when in use.
Claim 2: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the fluid-pressurizing means is also for depressurizing the fluid and, thereby, softening at least the distal portion of the medical device under control of the user (id.).
Claim 6: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the fluid is a gas selected from nitrogen, argon, and compressed air (von Weymarn at [0103], “gas”; Böse at [0025], “water, saline solution, air or nitrogen,” and thus it would have been obvious to use air or nitrogen as the “gas” because these are readily available medical gases).
Claim 7: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the fluid is a liquid selected from water and saline (von Weymarn at [0103], “water or salt water”).
Claim 8: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the lumen is aligned with a central axis of the medical device (lumen 1 is in the center of the device, Fig. 9) to allow substantially even pressurization when the fluid is pressurized for stiffening at least the distal portion of the medical device (Fig. 9).
Claim 10: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the signal-conducting means is a wire configured to conduct electrocardiography (“ECG”) signals (same; Böse’s wires per se are fully capable of conducting ECG signals, which themselves are not claimed).
Claim 12: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the medical device is a stylet (see discussion above; device in von Weymarn can be a guide wire, a type of stylet), the tubular body of the stylet configured to be disposed in a lumen of another elongate medical device ([0033]).
Claim 13: (The system of claim 12,) wherein the other elongate medical device is an intravenous catheter ([0071], [0151]).
Claim 28: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the tubular body is a multilayered structure including a braided tube for an intervening reinforcement layer of the tubular body (von Weymarn, Fig. 3, layers 2, 3, 4), the braided tube formed of a metal (braid 3 is formed of a metal) or a same or different polymer than that of a remainder of the tubular body.
Claim 29: (The system of claim 28,) wherein the braided tube is formed of a metal (id.).
Claim 30: (The system of claim 29,) wherein the signal-conducting means is a wire configured to conduct electrocardiography ("ECG") signals (see Claim 10 above).
Claim 32: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the signal-conducting means is integrated into a luminal wall (Böse’s Fig. 3 shows the wires integrated into the catheter walls in which the lumena are formed) or abluminal wall of the tubular body.
Claim 33: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the signal-conducting means is integrated into a septum of the tubular body (Böse’s Fig. 3 shows the wires integrated into the walls between lumena 12a-f, which are thus the septa).
Alternatively, concerning Claim 33, von Weymarn and Böse together disclose the invention essentially as claimed; see above. While Böse also discloses that its wires leading to sensors 15a-f are embedded in the catheter wall, a person of ordinary skill in the art may not interpret their position, as illustrated in Fig. 3, as being “in the septum.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the device of von Weymarn and Böse to have Böse’s wires moved slightly radially inwardly so that they would be considered to be in the septa of the catheter, since it has been held that the mere rearrangement of parts, without changing the basic functionality or operation of a device, is an unpatentable design choice. In the instant case, Applicant identifies no functional or operational differences between the placement of the signal carriers in the catheter wall versus the septum (see [0058]: “Such a signal- conducting means, when present, can be freely disposed in the lumen 118 of the stylet 104, integrated (e.g., coextruded) into a luminal or abluminal wall of the stylet 104, integrated (e.g., coextruded) into a partial septum (e.g., a septum short of a luminal wall opposite that from which the septum originates), or integrated (e.g., coextruded) into a perforated but otherwise complete septum 136 as shown in FIG. 3.”), and Böse’s wires would conduct signals equally well in any position. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim 34: (The system of claim 33,) wherein the septum is short of a luminal wall opposite that from which the septum originates (Böse, Fig. 3, each of lumena 12a-f are “short”).
Claim 35: (The system of claim 33,) wherein the septum is perforated with perforations for fluid flow across the septum, thereby allowing substantially even pressurization when the fluid is pressurized for stiffening at least the distal portion of the medical device (Böse, Fig. 4, each of lumena 12a-f are shown to be broken and thus include perforations in the septa).
Claim 36: (The system of claim 1,) the medical device further including a handle (von Weymarn, Fig. 15, unlabeled, at the right end of the catheter adjacent to the threads 13 from Fig. 12) around the tubular body but proximal of an insertable portion of the tubular body (see Fig. 15), the handle configured for handling the medical device thereby (the handle is fully capable of being handled as claimed).
Claim 37: (The system of claim 1,) the medical device further including a Luer connector (von Weymarn, Fig. 12, thread 13) around the tubular body (see Fig. 12), the Luer connector configured to insert or screw onto a complementary Luer connector of a catheter (von Weymarn’s threads 13 are fully capable of connect as claimed).
Claim 40: A system, comprising:
a stylet (von Weymarn, 101) including:
a tubular body (von Weymarn, 2) having an insertable portion configured to be disposed in a catheter lumen of an intravenous catheter (von Weymarn, top end in Fig. 12, near end 15, is fully capable of being “disposed” as claimed in an unclaimed catheter lumen), the tubular body being a multilayered structure (von Weymarn, Fig. 3, including layers 2, 3, 4) including a braided tube (von Weymarn, 3) formed of metal (von Weymarn, [0053], [0054]) for an intervening reinforcement layer of the tubular body (braid is a “stabilizing” element, id.);
a body lumen (von Weymarn, 1) terminating proximal of a distal end of the stylet (von Weymarn, at 15 in Fig. 12), the body lumen configured to contain a fluid therein (von Weymarn, [0200]); and
a wire integrated (Böse: sensors 15a-f and their “separate signal line” of each, [0027]; the wires are embedded in the catheter’s wall, see Fig. 3) into the stylet via coextrusion (see treatment above) of the tubular body for conducting electrocardiography ("ECG") signals along a length of the stylet (Böse: each of its wires is fully capable of conducting ECG signals, they not being claims); and
a fluid-pressurizing means (von Weymarn, [0231], “pressure device”) for pressurizing or depressurizing the fluid and, thereby stiffening or softening at least a distal portion of the stylet under control of a user (von Weymarn, [0200]).
Claim 41: (The system of claim 40,) wherein the wire integrated into a septum of the tubular body (see Claim 33 above, the analyses applying equally to Claim 41).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Weymarn and Böse as applied to Claim 37, above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0187163, by Uihlein (previously of record; “Uihlein”).
Von Weymarn and Böse together describe a device substantially as claimed by Applicant; see above. They do not, however, describe that the Luer connector is slidably disposed around the tubular body for adjusting a length of an insertable portion of the tubular body disposed in the catheter.
Uihlein relates to fluid pressure stiffenable interventional medical devices and is therefore from an art which is the same as, or very closely analogous to, those of Applicant’s claims. Uihlein teaches ([0051]-[0053] and Fig. 13) that the proximal end of such devices can be constructed to include, in order to permit releasable connection to a source of fluid pressure and to enable release of the interventional medical device per se from the inflation apparatus (id.), a Luer connector slidably disposed around the tubular body for adjusting an insertable portion of the tubular body disposed in the catheter ([0053], last sentence, stating that the entire hub 17 can be slid off of the interventional medical device per se.
It 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, to construct von Weymarn - Böse’s device such that the Luer connector is slidably disposed around the tubular body for adjusting a length of an insertable portion of the tubular body disposed in the catheter, because Uihlein teaches doing so in a closely related fluid pressure stiffenable interventional medical device, in order to permit releasable connection to a source of fluid pressure and to enable release of the interventional medical device per se from the inflation apparatus.
Claims 1-7, 12, 13, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious, and therefore unpatentable, over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0209811 by Friend et al. (“Friend”) in view of Böse.
Friend discloses a system and device substantially as claimed by Applicant, as follows.
Claim 1: A system, comprising:
an elongate medical device (100) including:
a tubular body (110); and
a lumen terminating proximal of a distal end of the medical device (120a-c), the lumen configured to contain a fluid therein (lumens are capable of containing fluids); and
a fluid-pressurizing means for pressurizing the fluid (200, 210-c) and, thereby, stiffening at least a distal portion of the medical device under control of a user ([0059]-[0062]; increase in fluid pressure causes any of lumens 120a-c to stiffen).
It does not, however, describe a signal-conducting means for conducting a signal along a length of the medical device, the signal-conducting means integrated into the elongated medical device via coextrusion of the tubular body (see treatment above).
Böse relates to catheters having fluid pressurized, sealed lumina which stiffen portions of the catheter shaft and is therefore from an art which is the same as, or very closely analogous to, those of Applicant' s claims. Böse teaches that such stiffenable catheters can be provided with a signal-conducting means (see treatment above) (sensors 15a-f and their “separate signal line” of each, [0027]) for conducting a signal along a length of the medical device (id.), the signal-conducting means integrated into the elongated medical device via coextrusion of the tubular body (see treatment above) (the wires are embedded in the catheter’s wall, see Fig. 3), so that the status of the catheter can be determined, e.g., if the catheter has bent in response to the pressurization of any of the fluid lumina.
It 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, to further include, in the catheter described by Friend, a signal-conducting means for conducting a signal along a length of the medical device, the signal-conducting means integrated into the elongated medical device via coextrusion of the tubular body, because Böse teaches doing so in a closely related catheter, so that the status of the catheter when it is pressurized can be determined when in use.
Claim 2: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the fluid-pressurizing means is also for depressurizing the fluid and, thereby, softening at least the distal portion of the medical device under control of the user ([0038], stating that the channel can “distend and/or contract lengthwise” upon change in pressure, indicating depressurization).
Claim 3: (The system of claim 2,) wherein the fluid-pressurizing means is a pneumatic or hydraulic pump station (200) including a pump configured to pressurize and depressurize the fluid (200, 210a-c).
Claim 4: (The system of claim 3,) wherein the pump station is configured with a processor (610), memory (620), and associated logic ([0077], “instructions for execution”) configured to pressurize the fluid along a continuum for a corresponding continuum of stiffness in at least the distal portion of the medical device under the control of the user (as the change in pressure is not instantaneous, it changes along a continuum).
Claim 5: (The system of claim 2,) wherein the fluid-pressurizing means is a syringe or bulb (210a-c are blub-shaped) configured to pressurize and depressurize the fluid.
Claim 6: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the fluid is a gas selected from nitrogen, argon, and compressed air (Friend at [0036], “fluid . . . gas . . . air”; Böse at [0025], “water, saline solution, air or nitrogen,” and thus it would have been obvious to use air or nitrogen as the “gas” because these are readily available medical gases).
Claim 7: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the fluid is a liquid selected from water and saline (Böse at [0025], “water, saline solution, air or nitrogen,” and thus it would have been obvious to use water or saline as the “fluid” because these are readily available medical liquids).
Claim 12: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the medical device is a stylet (see discussion above; device in Friend can be a guide wire, a type of stylet), the tubular body of the stylet configured to be disposed in a lumen of another elongate medical device ([0033]).
Claim 13: (The system of claim 12,) wherein the other elongate medical device is an intravenous catheter (id.).
Claim 39: (The system of claim 3,) wherein the fluid-pressurizing means includes a reservoir fluidly connected to the pump (Friend at [0060], Figs. 2, reservoirs 210A-C).
Claims 11 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Weymarn and Böse as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0268233, by Bogusky et al. (“Bogusky”).
Von Weymarn and Böse together describe a device substantially as claimed by Applicant; see above. They do not, however, describe the further inclusion in its device and system of an optical fiber configured to conduct optical signals through fiber Bragg gratings ("FBGs") in the optical fiber.
Bogusky relates to interventional medical devices the stiffness of which can be changed using fluid pressure and is therefore from an art which is the same as, or very closely analogous to, those of Applicant’s claims. Bogusky teaches that such a device can be constructed with an optical fiber configured to conduct optical signals (Abstract: “a shape sensor (222, 314, 426) in the form of an optical fiber”) through fiber Bragg gratings ("FBGs") in the optical fiber ([0062]), so that the device can also be used to feed back to the user the shape of the distal end of the device when in use.
It 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, to construct the device and system of Von Weymarn - Böse to further include an optical fiber configured to conduct optical signals through fiber Bragg gratings ("FBGs") in the optical fiber, because Bogusky teaches that such a device can be constructed with an optical fiber configured to conduct optical signals so that the device can also be used to feed back to the user the shape of the distal end of the device when in use.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Weymarn in view of Bogusky.
Von Weymarn describes a device substantially as claimed by Applicant, as follows.
Claim 42: A system, comprising:
a stylet (von Weymarn, 101) including:
a tubular body (von Weymarn, 2) having an insertable portion configured to be disposed in a catheter lumen of an intravenous catheter (von Weymarn, top end in Fig. 12, near end 15, is fully capable of being “disposed” as claimed in an unclaimed catheter lumen), the tubular body being a multilayered structure (von Weymarn, Fig. 3, including layers 2, 3, 4) including a braided tube (von Weymarn, 3) formed of metal (von Weymarn, [0053], [0054]) or a polymer different than that of the tubular body (see treatment above) for an intervening reinforcement layer of the tubular body (braid is a “stabilizing” element, id.);
a body lumen (von Weymarn, 1) terminating proximal of a distal end of the stylet (von Weymarn, at 15 in Fig. 12), the body lumen configured to contain a fluid therein (von Weymarn, [0200]); and
a fluid-pressurizing means (von Weymarn, [0231], “pressure device”) for pressurizing or depressurizing the fluid and, thereby stiffening or softening at least a distal portion of the stylet under control of a user (von Weymarn, [0200]).
Von Weymarn does not, however, describe the further inclusion of an optical fiber integrated into the stylet via coextrusion of the tubular body for conducting optical signals through fiber Bragg gratings ("FBGs") in the optical fiber along a length of the stylet.
See above concerning Bogusky.
It 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, to construct the device and system of Von Weymarn to further include an optical fiber configured to conduct optical signals through fiber Bragg gratings ("FBGs") in the optical fiber, because Bogusky teaches that such a device can be constructed with an optical fiber configured to conduct optical signals so that the device can also be used to feed back to the user the shape of the distal end of the device when in use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Adam J. Cermak whose telephone number is 571.272.0135. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 Eastern Time.
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, Bhisma Mehta, can be reached on 571.272.3383. 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 J. CERMAK/
Assistant Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3783
/BHISMA MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights