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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/17/2022 was filed before the current action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 makes liberal use of commas and no usage of semicolons. It is suggested for clarity that the applicant use semicolons to denote separate passages, such as delineating the different modes. A suggested punctuation for claim 1 is listed as an example below, with added semicolons underlined for emphasis:
“An electrosurgical generator, comprising
at least two HF generator units and at least two output transformers, each having a primary winding and a secondary winding, of which one of the primary windings is in each case connected to one of the HF generator units and one of the secondary windings is in each case connected to two output terminals for connecting an electrosurgical instrument;
wherein one of the two output terminals is in each case provided for connecting a working electrode and the respective other one of the two output terminals is provided for connecting a neutral electrode;
wherein, together with the associated output transformer and the corresponding output terminals, one HF generator unit respectively forms an HF generator module;
wherein the HF generator modules are connected to a control unit, that is configured to at least provide the following operating modes:
a parallel mode in which the at least two output transformers are connected in parallel so that, via the output terminals, an electrosurgical instrument can be operated with a higher output current than the current that would be able to be provided by one HF generator module alone;
a series mode in which the at least two output transformers are connected in series so that, via the output terminals, an electrosurgical instrument can be operated with a higher output voltage than the voltage that would be able to be provided by one HF generator module alone; and
a multi instrument mode in which the output transformers are each connected independently of each other to output terminals for respectively one electrosurgical instrument.”
This is not considered an exhaustive list of clauses where clarity may be increased by judicious use of punctuation; applicant is encouraged to apply this process to other claims such as the multiple clauses of claim 3.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “in which an output terminal of a generator module is electrically connected to an output terminal (of) another generator module” in line 3-4 of the claim. It is recommended to place an article such as given by example above.
Claim 9 does not need quotation marks around "multi-electrode mode" in line 2 of the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the at least two HF generator modules 24.1 and 24.2” in line 4 pf the claim. The examiner believes that the reference numbers were meant to be crossed out or in parentheses.
Further Regarding Claims 2-13, the claim preambles all mention “An electrosurgical generator according to claim 1” in the first line of each claim. This should instead be “The electrosurgical generator according to claim 1” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a multi instrument mode in which the output transformers are each connected independently of each other to output terminals for respectively one electrosurgical instrument” in line 22-24 of the claim. It is interpreted for examination purposes that this means “a multi instrument mode in which respective output transformers are each connected independently to output terminals for respective electrosurgical instruments”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the maximum output voltage per generator module is 2,500 Vpeak” in line 3-4 of the claim. Vpeak is interpreted as the peak voltage value, which can be calculated as the root mean square voltage times the square root of two. However, since no value is given for Vpeak, the actual voltage value of 2,500 Vpeak is not clear. Thus for examination purposes 2,500 Vpeak is being reinterpreted as 2,500 Volts (2.5 kiloVolts).
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the maximum output current is 4.5 Arms” in line 3 of the claim. Arms is interpreted as the root mean square current value. However, since no value is given for Arms, the actual voltage value of 4.5 Arms is not clear. Thus for examination purposes 4.5 Arms is being reinterpreted as 4.5 Amperes.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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) is invoked.
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) 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) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“generator unit” in claims 1, 5, and 8 (interpreted for examination purposes as a unit capable of generating electricity); and
“control unit” in claim 1-2, 4-6, and 10 (interpreted for examination purposes as any manner of digital or analog unit capable of some manner of control).
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):
(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; in this case the term “unit”
(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”; in this case the modifier “generator” or “control” 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. In this case the Specification does not give clarifying structure for performing the claimed functions.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a multi instrument mode in which the output transformers are each connected independently of each other to output terminals for respectively one electrosurgical instrument” in line 22-24 of the claim. It is not clear what “each connected independently of each other to output terminals for respectively one electrosurgical instrument” means in this context, whether the output terminals are connected to the same output instrument or not, rendering the scope indefinite.
Claims 2-13 are similarly rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 1 without amending them.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the electrosurgical generator with its control unit is adapted to…” in line 2-3 of the claim. This should instead be “the electrosurgical generator and the control unit are configured to…” to establish clear antecedent basis with the previously established control unit defined in claim 1, unless applicant intends to define a new control unit.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the multi-electrode mode” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the term is defined in claim 2, which claim 9 does not depend from.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the maximum output voltage per generator module is 2,500 Vpeak” in line 3-4 of the claim. Since no value is given for Vpeak, the actual voltage value of 2,500 Vpeak is not clear. The claim is thus considered indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the maximum output current is 4.5 Arms” in line 3-4 of the claim. Since no value is given for Arms, the actual voltage value of 4.5 Arms is not clear. The claim is thus considered indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (US 20160074093 A1) in view of Sarnago (US 20190126037 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shimizu discloses
An electrosurgical generator (Shimizu Fig 1 (101) par [0017]), comprising
at least two HF generator units and at least two output transformers, each having a primary winding and a secondary winding (all electrical transformers have at least a primary winding and a secondary winding), of which one of the primary windings is in each case connected to one of the HF generator units and one of the secondary windings is in each case connected to two output terminals for connecting an electrosurgical instrument (Shimizu Fig 2 generator units (211A,211B) transformers (212A,212B) output terminals (11A,11B,12A,12B) par [0026]),
wherein one of the two output terminals is in each case provided for connecting a working electrode and the respective other one of the two output terminals is provided for connecting a neutral electrode (Shimizu Fig 1 working electrode (2A) neutral electrode (3A) par [0017]),
wherein, together with the associated output transformer and the corresponding output terminals, one HF generator unit respectively forms an HF generator module (Shimizu Fig 2 (21A,21B) par [0026]),
wherein the HF generator modules are connected to a control unit (Shimizu Fig 1 (26A,26B) par [0023]), that is configured to at least provide the following operating modes:
a multi instrument mode in which the output transformers are each connected independently of each other to output terminals for respectively one electrosurgical instrument (Shimizu Fig 7 par [0100]).
Shimizu fails to explicitly disclose
a parallel mode in which the at least two output transformers are connected in parallel so that, via the output terminals, an electrosurgical instrument can be operated with a higher output current than the current that would be able to be provided by one HF generator module alone,
a series mode in which the at least two output transformers are connected in series so that, via the output terminals, an electrosurgical instrument can be operated with a higher output voltage than the voltage that would be able to be provided by one HF generator module alone.
However, Sarnago discloses any connecting a plurality of electrosurgical multiple generators in series or parallel for higher voltage or higher current than otherwise possible (Sarnago Fig 1 par [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Shimizu with the disclosure of Sarnago in order to combine medical generator outputs to provide greater versatility and higher output voltage/current than possible with generic units (Sarnago par [0009,0011]; see also “Analysis of a modular generator for high-voltage, high-frequency pulsed applications” by Redondo et al.)
Regarding Claim 3, Shimizu in view of Sarnago discloses the electrosurgical generator of claim 1.
Shimizu further discloses for the multi-instrument mode that there is no electrical connection between the output terminals (Shimizu Fig 1).
Shimizu fails to explicitly disclose
wherein at least three switches, that are connected to the output terminals in such a way that, for the parallel mode, through the closing of two of the three switches, two output terminals of different generator modules for a working electrode and two output terminals of different generator modules for a neutral electrode can respectively be electrically connected to each other,
and further characterized in that, for the series mode, through the closing of the third switch, an output terminal for a working electrode of a generator module and an output terminal for a neutral electrode of another generator module can be electrically connected to each other.
However, in order for the generators to be connected in parallel, the two output terminals must be connected such that the two working electrodes and the two neutral electrodes are electrically connected; and to be connected in series, an output terminal for a working electrode of a generator module and an output terminal for a neutral electrode of another generator module must be electrically connected to each other, as this is how electrical connections in parallel and series work (Sarnago par [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Shimizu in view of Sarnago with switches to switch between series, parallel, and multi-instrument connection modes, as providing such a switching method allows for quickly changing the maximum current and voltage of the system for various needs (Sarnago par [0008]). This may be considered as combining known elements for predictable results (see MPEP 2143)
Regarding Claim 4, Shimizu in view of Sarnago discloses the electrosurgical generator of claim 3.
Shimizu further discloses
wherein the control unit is operatively connected to at least three switches in order to switch them (Shimizu Fig 2 switches (22A,22B,24A,24B) par [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Shimizu in view of Sarnago to allow a control system to control output connection switches of the modified device in accordance with the selected operating mode, as this provides a reliable manner of automating the switches (see MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 5, Shimizu in view of Sarnago discloses the electrosurgical generator of claim 1.
Shimizu further discloses
wherein the control unit for controlling the HF generator units is operatively connected to each of the at least two HF generator units (Shimizu Fig 2 control unit (26A,26B) communication cable (CC) par [0059]).
Regarding Claim 6, Shimizu in view of Sarnago discloses the electrosurgical generator of claim 1.
Shimizu further discloses
wherein the control unit is configured to provide two versions of the multi-instrument mode (Shimizu par [0047,0069] connecting or disconnecting the return electrodes), namely
a first version in which the output terminals for connecting a neutral electrode are not electrically connected to each other (Shimizu Fig 3 par [0071]), and
a second version in which the output terminals for connecting a neutral electrode are electrically connected to each other (Shimizu Fig 7 par [0101-0102]).
Regarding Claim 7, Shimizu in view of Sarnago discloses the electrosurgical generator of claim 1.
Shimizu further discloses
wherein at least two output terminals for connecting a neutral electrode are connected to each other (Shimizu Fig 7 neutral electrodes (3A,3B) electrically connected par [0101]).
Regarding Claim 11, Shimizu in view of Sarnago discloses the electrosurgical generator of claim 1.
Shimizu fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the HF generator modules are configured such that the maximum output voltage per generator module is 2,500 Volts.
However, Sarnago discloses a range of voltages including 2.5 kV for generator output (Sarnago par [0017] total series mode output of 5-7.5 kV is twice that of individual modules, so ~2.5-3.75 kV modules).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Shimizu to use commercially available generator modules such as disclosed by Sarnago, as this allows using a market-available generator module to reach much higher voltages (Sarnago par [0017]).
Claims 2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (US 20160074093 A1) in view of Sarnago (US 20190126037 A1) and further in view of Goble (US 20050113820 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Shimizu in view of Sarnago discloses the electrosurgical generator of claim 1.
Shimizu fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the electrosurgical generator with its control unit is adapted to additionally provide a multi-electrode mode, in which an output terminal of a generator module is electrically connected to an output terminal (of) another generator module, which results in a total of three output terminals to each of which an electrode of an electrosurgical instrument is connected.
However, Goble discloses an electrosurgical generator with two generator units (Goble Fig 10 generator units (60-1,60-2) par [0069]) wherein the electrosurgical generator with its control unit is adapted to provide a multi-electrode mode, in which an output terminal of a generator module is electrically connected to an output terminal (of) another generator module, which results in a total of three output terminals to each of which an electrode of an electrosurgical instrument is connected (Goble Fig 10 control unit (72) output terminals (48,49,50) par [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Shimizu in view of Sarnago with the disclosure of Goble to combine the output terminals of separate generators, as this allows for dual outputs to be used with a single electrosurgical instrument (Goble par [0069]).
Regarding Claim 8, Shimizu in view of Sarnago discloses the electrosurgical generator of claim 1.
Shimizu fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the output transformers are in each case on their primary side connected to one of the HF generator units in such a way that, together with the associated output transformer, the respective HF generator unit forms a respective resonant circuit, wherein a primary winding of the respective output transformer is part of the respective resonant circuit.
However, Goble discloses an electrosurgical generator wherein the output transformers are in each case on their primary side connected to one of the HF generator units in such a way that, together with the associated output transformer, the respective HF generator unit forms a respective resonant circuit, wherein a primary winding of the respective output transformer is part of the respective resonant circuit (Goble Fig 11 resonant circuits (82-1,82-2) par [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Shimizu in view of Sarnago to include resonant circuits, as this allows for tuning the circuits to work with specific generator frequencies such as for cutting or coagulation (Goble par [0072]).
Regarding Claim 9, Shimizu in view of Sarnago discloses the electrosurgical generator of claim 1.
Shimizu fails to explicitly disclose
wherein, in the "multi-electrode mode", the at least two output terminals for connecting a neutral electrode are electrically connected to each other, and
in that an electrode of an electrosurgical instrument is connected to the output terminals for connecting a neutral electrode.
However, Goble discloses an electrosurgical generator with two generator units (Goble Fig 9 generator units (74,74’) par [0067]) wherein, in the "multi-electrode mode", the at least two output terminals for connecting a neutral electrode are electrically connected to each other, and in that an electrode of an electrosurgical instrument is connected to the output terminals for connecting a neutral electrode (Goble Fig 9 output terminals (46,47,46’,47’) combine into (48,49,50) par [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Shimizu in view of Sarnago with the disclosure of Goble to combine the output terminals of separate generators, as this allows for dual outputs to be used with a single electrosurgical instrument (Goble par [0068]).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (US 20160074093 A1) in view of Sarnago (US 20190126037 A1) and further in view of Hosier (US 20090318915 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Shimizu in view of Sarnago discloses the electrosurgical generator of claim 1.
Shimizu fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the control unit is configured to control the phase position between the currents and/or voltages output by the at least two HF generator modules 24.1 and 24.2.
However, Hosier discloses an electrosurgical generator with multiple output stage transformers (Hosier Fig 3 transformer outputs (34-1,34-2,34-3) par [0050]) wherein the control unit is configured to control the phase position between the currents and/or voltages output by the at least two HF generator modules (Hosier Fig 3 control unit (65) par [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Shimizu in view of Sarnago with the disclosure of Hosier to implement phase control, as this allows for multipurpose cutting and coagulation with a single electrosurgical instrument (Hosier par [0007]).
Regarding Claim 13, Shimizu in view of Sarnago discloses the electrosurgical generator of claim 1.
Shimizu fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the HF generator modules are configured such that their frequency range comprises 40 kHz to 1 MHz.
However, Hosier discloses an electrosurgical generator with multiple output stage transformers (Hosier Fig 3 transformer outputs (34-1,34-2,34-3) par [0050]) wherein the HF generator modules are configured such that their frequency range comprises 40 kHz to 1 MHz (Hosier par [0044,0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Shimizu in view of Sarnago with the disclosure of Hosier to operate with a frequency range suitable for electrosurgery such as tissue coagulation (Hosier par [0044]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (US 20160074093 A1) in view of Sarnago (US 20190126037 A1) and further in view of Williamson (US 5817093 A).
Regarding Claim 12, Shimizu in view of Sarnago discloses the electrosurgical generator of claim 1.
Shimizu fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the HF generator modules are configured such that the maximum output current is 4.5 Amps.
However, Williamson discloses an electrosurgical generator with an output of about 4 Amps (Williamson col 11 line 58-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Shimizu in view of Sarnago to work with a module which can output 4.5 Amps, as this is a typical operating range for electrosurgical generators (Williamson col 11 line 58-59).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hosier (US 20090318915 A1) further discloses using switches between multiple output transformers driven by independent current sources to variably drive RF output electrodes (Hosier Fig 17 (51A,51B par [0077]).
Wiener (US 20170086910 A1) discloses using multiple generator transformer outputs together or separately (Wiener Fig 3, 5).
Eggers (US 20040087939 A1) discloses multiple independent current sources driving an electrosurgical instrument which may be connected in parallel or series configuration via switches to satisfy voltage and current requirements (Eggers Fig 1 col 5 line 55-64).
Bowers (US 4559943 A) discloses an electrosurgical generator comprising two pulse generators for use with separate or combined instruments.
Jayaram (WO 2011017802 A1) discloses connecting low-cost, low voltage/current capacity generators in series or parallel to create higher voltage and current output (Jayaram Fig 10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Becton whose telephone number is (571)272-9570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at (303) 297-4276. 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID BECTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights