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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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, 6-8, 10, 11, 26, 29, and 32 have been amended;
Claims 9, 12-25, 28, and 31 have been and/or remain cancelled; and
Claim 38 has been added.
Thus, Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 26-30, and 32-38 are presently pending in this application, with Claims 26, 27, 29, and 30 having been previously withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant' s amendment to the drawings and Claim 32 are sufficient to overcome the objections from the previous Action and are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Reply have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under Sec. 112(b)
Applicant argues (Reply, pg. 11, beginning at the penultimate paragraph) that the clause in Claim 36, accused of making the scope of the claim unclear, is instead broad, not indefinite, asserting that a PHOSITA would find both alternatives immediately clear. But Applicant ignores the only portion of the underlying specification which provides support (35 U.S.C. § 112(a)) for the limitation, which informs the PHOSITA’s understanding of the accused clause, and reads:
Notably, the tubular body 116 of the stylet 104 can be formed of a polymer (e.g., a polyurethane), optionally, in a multilayered structure including an intervening reinforcement layer for higher pressures. While not shown, such an intervening reinforcement layer can be a braided tube of a metal or a same or different polymer than a remainder of the tubular body 116.
(Specification at [0060]). Read in context, the body 116 is a polymer, not a metal; however, Claim 36, which is read much more closely because it is a patent (application) claim, still makes unclear the “different from” feature for the previously stated reasons.
Rejection under Sec. 102
Claim 1 has been amended to include the subject matter of prior Claim 9, and some of prior Claim 8, which were also rejected under sec. 102 over Böse. That rejection is maintained in this Action. The Action is not made final because the rejection of newly added Claim 38 is a new grounds of rejection which was not relied upon to reject a claim in the immediately prior Action.
Applicant essentially argues (Reply, pg. 12, last full paragraph) that Böse’s device cannot be read on by Claim 1, because Böse does not name its device a “stylet” and/or that Böse does not describe its device being used as a stylet. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, there are not structural features of Böse’s device which prevent it from being used as a stylet; certainly, Applicant has identified none in the record evidence.
The Examiner has again reviewed all 124 instances of the word “stylet” in the Specification as filed, and finds no lexicography or disavowal of the scope of the term. Applicant cites to a general purpose dictionary, not a technical dictionary related to the subject matter(s) of this application, for a definition of the word “stylet;” Applicant’s reliance on a general purpose dictionary is misplaced, as technical dictionaries must be first consulted to evaluate how a patent application’s use of a term would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the term is afforded its ordinary and customary meaning, as it would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, for which the following definitions are informative (all retrieved 1 December 2025 from medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/stylet)
stylet. (n.d.) Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. (2003).
1. a wire run through a catheter or cannula to render it stiff or to remove debris from its lumen.
2. a slender probe.
stylet. (n.d.) Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary. (2012).
1. A flexible metallic rod inserted in the lumen of a flexible catheter to stiffen it and give it form during its passage.
2. A slender probe.
stylet. (n.d.) Medical Dictionary for the Dental Professions. (2012).
1. Flexible metallic rod inserted in lumen of flexible catheter to stiffen and give it form during its passage.
2. Slender probe.
[It. stilletto, a dagger; dim. of L. stilus or stylus, a stake, a pen]
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “stylet,” consistent with the original Disclosure, is “a slender probe” which can be used in medical procedures.
In this context, Applicant argues that the term “stylet” carries with it a limitation of its size, namely, that it be sized that it can be “run through” a (-n unclaimed, but for Claim 38) catheter. Applicant has, however, identified no record evidence that Böse’s device is sized that it is incapable of being inserted into any known catheter, and therefore that argument is not persuasive. When Claim 38 requires that cooperative sizing, the prior art demonstrates the combination to be obvious (see below).
The balance of Applicant’s arguments rely specifically on the foregoing, and are therefore equally unpersuasive.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 10, 11, and 35-37 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.
In Claim 36, lines 2-3, the clause, “a braided tube of metal or a polymer different than that of a remainder of the tubular body” renders the scope of the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if the term “different than that” refers only to the polymer, or also to the metal; for examination purposes, it has been treated as referring to the polymer only.
Claims 10, 11, and 35 depend from cancelled Claim 9, rendering their scopes profoundly unclear; they have been treated as each depending from Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0228274, by Böse et al. (“Böse”).
Böse describes a system as claimed by Applicant, as follows.
Claim 1: A system (Fig. 1), comprising:
an elongate medical device (2) including:
a tubular body (2);
a lumen along a side of the medical device offset from a central axis of the medical device (12a, 12b), the lumen terminating proximal of a distal end of the medical device (Fig. 2, showing closed distal ends of the lumens), the lumen configured to contain a fluid therein (lumens can contain fluid);
a signal-conducting means for conducting a signal along a length of the medical device (“separate signal line,” unlabeled, extending from the proximal end of the device to each of the sensors 15a-f, see [0027]), the signal-conducting means offset from the central axis of the medical device along an opposite side of the medical device from the lumen (id.); and
a fluid-pressurizing means for pressurizing the fluid and, thereby, inducing a curve in at least a distal portion of the medical device under control of a user for steering the medical device through an anatomical lumen or a network of anatomical lumens (5; [0023], [0025]), wherein the medical device is a stylet (see discussion above), the tubular body of the stylet configured to be disposed in a lumen of an intravenous catheter (device 2 is fully capable of being used as a stylet, e.g., having an interventional catheter mounted over it for insertion into a body cavity).
Claim 2: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the fluid-pressurizing means is also for depressurizing the fluid and, thereby, softening or reducing the curve in at least the distal portion of the medical device under the control of the user for the steering of the medical device through the anatomical lumen or the network of anatomical lumens ([0034], discussing depressurization).
Claim 3: (The system of claim 2,) wherein the fluid-pressurizing means is a pneumatic or hydraulic pump station including a pump configured to pressurize and depressurize the fluid ([0025], indicating that the fluid can be liquid or gas, and thus that the control device 5 is pneumatic or hydraulic).
Claim 4: (The system of claim 3,) wherein the pump station is configured with a processor, memory, and associated logic configured to pressurize the fluid along a continuum for a corresponding continuum of curvature in at least the distal portion of the medical device under the control of the user ([0031]-[0033], discussing recording, and thus a memory; ‘assigning’ a section of the catheter, thus indicating a processor to do the assigning and logic upon which the processor bases the assignment; ‘determining,’ indicating the same).
Claim 6: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the fluid is a gas selected from nitrogen, argon, and compressed air ([0025]).
Claim 7: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the fluid is a liquid selected from water and saline (id.).
Claim 8: (The system of claim 1,) wherein the lumen being offset from the central axis of the medical device allows tension along the side of the medical device including the lumen and compression along an opposite side of the medical device from the lumen when the fluid is pressurized for inducing the curve in at least the distal portion of the medical device (see Fig. 3, showing lumena 12a-f offset from the center of lumen 14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Böse as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,909,787, granted to Danforth (“Danforth”).
Böse describes a device substantially as claimed by Applicant; see above. It does not, however, expressly describe the exact nature of the subcomponent that provides the pressure to the fluid in its lumena 12a-f, and thus does not disclose that its fluid-pressurizing means is a syringe or bulb configured to pressurize and depressurize the fluid.
Danforth relates to catheters which can be steered by the application of fluid pressure to a closed offset lumen and is therefore from an art which is the same as, or very closely analogous to, those of Applicant’s claims. Danforth teaches that the fluid-pressurizing means of such a device can be a syringe (47) configured to pressurize and depressurize the fluid, which a person of ordinary skill in the art understands is a simple, cost-effective, commonly commercially available option for applying fluid pressure to a lumen of a catheter.
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 Böse‘s device such that its fluid-pressurizing means is a syringe or bulb configured to pressurize and depressurize the fluid, because Danforth teaches doing so in closely related device, which a person of ordinary skill in the art understands is a simple, cost-effective, commonly commercially available option for applying fluid pressure to a lumen of a catheter.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Böse.
Böse describes a device substantially as claimed by Applicant; see above. Claim 10 further requires that the signal-conducting means is a wire configured to conduct electrical signals. Böse does not specify the exact nature of its signal conductors for its bending sensors 15a-f; however, because it describes the controller 5 operating on signals from those sensors, including the aforementioned assigning and determining functions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that of the several types of sensors that are permitted to be used in interventional medical devices (i.e., FDA approvable), those that conduct electricity through a wire are an industry accepted, inexpensive, and very old and commonplace form for the sensor, and its conductor, to take. Thus, it appears that Böse inherently discloses wire conductors.
Alternatively, 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 make the signal-conducting means of Böse’s device to be a wire configured to conduct electrical signals, because such is a well-known, FDA approvable, and industry accepted form of a signal conductor in interventional medical devices.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Böse as applied to Claim 1 (see treatment, above) above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0268233, by Bogusky et al. (“Bogusky”).
Böse describes a device substantially as claimed by Applicant; see above. It does not, however, describe that:
its signal-conducting means is a wire configured to conduct electrocardiography ("ECG") signals (Claim 10); or
the signal-conducting means is an optical fiber configured to conduct optical signals through fiber Bragg gratings ("FBGs") in the optical fiber (Claim 11).
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 the signal conductor for the bend sensors of such a device can be constructed with an optical fiber configured to conduct optical signals through fiber Bragg gratings ("FBGs") in the optical fiber (Abstract: “a shape sensor (222, 314, 426) in the form of an optical fiber;” [0062]), and that the sensor system can be constructed as EM sensors with conductive coils, i.e., wires ([0063]), which are fully capable of conducting ECG signals in the same way Applicant’s do, 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 Böse such that signal-conducting means is a wire configured to conduct electrical signals or optical fiber configured to conduct optical signals, because Bogusky teaches that such a device can be constructed with either of these element 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.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Böse as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0187163, by Uihlein (“Uihlein”).
Böse describes a device substantially as claimed by Applicant; see above. It does not, however, describe that:
the stylet includes a Luer connector around the tubular body of the stylet, the Luer connector configured to insert or screw into a complementary Luer connector of the catheter (Claim 32); or
the Luer connector is slidably disposed around the tubular body of the stylet for adjusting a length of the stylet disposed in the catheter (Claim 33).
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 (17) around the tubular body of the stylet (Fig. 13, left end), the Luer connector configured to insert or screw into a complementary Luer connector of the catheter (catheter is not claimed; tapered end of 17 around the lead line for element 20 is fully capable of being inserted into a tapered luer fitting of an unclaimed catheter); and
the Luer connector is slidably disposed around the tubular body of the stylet for adjusting a length of the stylet 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 Böse’s device to further include the foregoing features of Claims 32 and 33, 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.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Böse and Uihlein as applied to Claim 32 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0018802, by Zvuloni et al. (“Zvuloni”).
Böse and Uihlein together describe a device substantially as claimed by Applicant; see above. It does not, however, expressly describe the further inclusion of a handle around the tubular body of the stylet but proximal of an insertable portion of the tubular body, the handle for handling the stylet thereby.
The Examiner first notes that the inclusion of a handle on the proximal end of an interventional medical device is ubiquitous in the medical devices arts; for example, see search term L171 (see attached Search Results), which returned well over 1,000,000 hits for the search phrase “(A61M$/$ OR A61B$/$) AND handle,” the first two terms of which include many, but not all, interventional medical devices’ classifications.
Zvuloni 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. Zvuloni teaches that the proximal end of such devices can be provided with a handle (340, 640; Claim 40) around the tubular body of the stylet but proximal of an insertable portion of the tubular body, the handle for handling the stylet thereby, in order to enable the practitioner to better manipulate the device.
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 of Böse-Uihlein device with a handle around the tubular body of the stylet but proximal of an insertable portion of the tubular body, the handle for handling the stylet thereby, because the use of handles on the proximal ends of interventional medical devices is ubiquitous in the arts, and/or because Zvuloni specifically teaches doing so for a fluid pressure stiffenable catheter, in order to enable the practitioner to better manipulate the device.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Böse as applied to Claim 1 (see treatment, above) above, alone, optionally further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0043306, by Olson (“Olson”).
Böse describes a device substantially as claimed by Applicant; see above. It does not, however, describe that the lumen is a single lumen. The Examiner treats Claim 35 as effectively reciting a negative limitation, excluding from Claim 35 to presence of any other fluid pressure lumens from the entire device.
It has been held that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); M.P.E.P. § 2144.04(II).
Olson 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. Olson teaches (Figs. 1A, 1B, and 3, and accompanying text) that such a device can be formed with only a single fluid pressure lumen 30, 60 instead of plural fluid pressure lumens 42a, 42b, and 42c (Fig. 2), which a person of ordinary skill in the art understands would simplify construction of the device while retaining the stiffening function of the device.
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 Böse’s device so that the lumen is a single lumen, both because it has been held that that omission of an element and its function (in this case, one of Böse’s stiffening lumens) is obvious if the function of the element is not desired, and because Olson teaches doing so in a closely related device, which would retain the function of the device while reducing its manufacturing costs. The Examiner notes that Böse’s device would still function as required, because the practitioner need merely rotate the device about its longitudinal axis to steer it in the opposite direction, where the absent stiffening lumen would have been.
Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Böse as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20240157094, by von Weymarn et al. (previously of record; “von Weymarn”).
Böse describes a device substantially as claimed by Applicant; see above. It does not, however, describe that the tubular body of the stylet is a multilayered structure including an intervening reinforcement layer of a braided tube of metal or a polymer different than that of a remainder of the tubular body (Claim 36; see treatment above), or that the remainder of the tubular body is polyurethane (Claim 37).
Von Weymarn 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. Von Weymarn teaches that such devices can be constructed as a multilayered structure (layers 2, 4 in Fig. 2) including an intervening reinforcement layer of a braided tube of metal (18), so that the device as a whole can better resist the fluid pressure used to stiffen the device when repeatedly used ([0216]), and to provide improved torsional rigidity ([0214]). Concerning Claim 37, its additional subject matter only further limits the version of Claim 36 in which the intervening reinforcement layer is a polymer, and therefore Claim 37 does not change the scope of Claim 36 when the intervening reinforcement layer is a metal, as relied upon above. Thus, Claim 37 stands or falls with Claim 36.
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 Böse’s stylet’s tubular body as a multilayered structure including an intervening reinforcement layer of a braided tube of metal or a polymer different than that of a remainder of the tubular body, because Von Weymarn teaches doing so in a closely related fluid pressure stiffenable interventional medical devices, so that the device as a whole can better resist the fluid pressure used to stiffen the device when repeatedly used, and to provide improved torsional rigidity.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Böse as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,498,239, by Galel et al. (previously of record; “Galel”).
Böse describes a device substantially as claimed by Applicant; see above. It does not, however, specifically describe that it is used with a catheter in which the tubular body of its stylet is configured to be disposed.
Galel relates to fluid pressure steerable, by the use of fluid pressure in an internal lumen or cavity, interventional medical devices and is therefore from an art which is the same as, or very closely analogous to, those of Applicant’s claims. Galel is representative of a large number of fluid pressure steerable, by the use of fluid pressure in an internal lumen or cavity, interventional medical devices which are used with a catheter in which the tubular body of the steerable medical device is configured to be disposed; a sample of those disclosures are already of record, and include:
U.S. Patent App. Pub. Nos. 2004/0039371 (see Figs. 8-11),
U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0149097 (see Figs. 3, #68 placed within 44, 50)
U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0100235 (see [0047]),
U.S. Patent No. 5,599,305 (see Fig. 11A, 14 within 16),
U.S. Patent No. 6,146,339 (Fig. 12)
Galel teaches that fluid pressure steerable interventional medical devices can be used with a catheter, in which the tubular body of the steerable medical device is configured to be disposed, so that the practitioner can steer the catheter to the site of interest without the need to provide the catheter per se with steering capabilities, thus reducing complexity of the catheter itself and, thus, its cost.
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 use Böse’s stylet with a catheter in which the tubular body of its stylet is configured to be disposed, because the record establishes that this is a common practice in the art of steerable interventional medical devices, of which Galel is specifically representative and teaches doing so.
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