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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/302025 has been entered.
Amendments of Claims 86, 90, 91, and 99 to 103 are acknowledged.
Cancelation of Claims 98 and 138-141 is acknowledged.
New Claims 142 to 144 are acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
New Claims 142 to 144 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
On 11/07/20223 a Restriction/Election Requirement was mailed indicating that a Restriction to one of the following inventions was required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 86 to 103 drawn to a Surgical stapler with a screen display mounted on the shaft, classified in A61B90/37.
Il. Claim 104, drawn to a surgical stapler with a grasper, classified in A61B201 7/00353.
Ill. Claim 125, drawn to a method for performing a surgical procedure within a patient's body using a surgical stapler with a grasper, classified in A61B8/488.
Note that the Election of Group I, corresponding to a surgical stapler including an imagining sleeve, described on embodiments described on Figures 11 to 18H was made without traverse on response received on 01/08/2024.
The new Claims 142 to 144, filed on 12/302025 are directed to a Surgical Stapler with a grasper, classified in A61B2017/00353, in particular the embodiments described on Figures 19A to 22B of the Application, corresponding to Group II of the Restriction/Election Requirement mailed on 11/07/2023, while the original Claims were directed to a Surgical Stapler with an imaging sleeve supporting cameras and a display, classified in A61B90/37, in particular the embodiments described on Figures 11 to 18H.
Even though surely a surgical stapler can surely have an imaging sleeve and a grasper, both elements are different inventions since they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and the specification shows that they are separately usable.
As stated on the Restriction/Election Requirement mailed on 11/07/2023, the examination of all the groups and the associated divergent subject matter, as identified above, would require an undue burden on search and examination.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally elected invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 142 to 144 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 86 to 93, 96 and 99 to 102 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 6221007) in view of Zemlok (US 2015/0122870) and Irion (US 2002/0049367), and in the alternative of Shahinian (US 2015/0257629) or Saadat (US 2017/0231474).
Regarding Claim 86:
Green discloses an apparatus for performing a medical procedure, comprising: a shaft comprising a proximal end, a distal end sized for introduction into a patient's body, and a longitudinal axis extending between the proximal and distal ends (Figure 10, laparoscopic surgery instruments, shaft 100, end effector 380 at the distal end and handle 275 at the proximal end); first and second jaws mounted on the distal end of the shaft that are movable relative to one another between open and closed positions, thereby directing first and contact surfaces of the first and second jaws away from and towards one another (Figure 10, end effector 380 has not numbered jaws that open and close), a handle on the proximal end of the shaft comprising a first actuator for selectively moving the jaws between the open and closed positions (Figure 10, handle 275 has an actuator to open and close the jaws),
an imaging sleeve mounted around the shaft comprising a hub adjacent the proximal end of the shaft and an imager adjacent the distal end of the shaft; and a display mounted to the hub (Figure 8 shows a not numbered video endoscope device that will be considered an imaging sleeve comprising an insertion tube 190 mounted around the shaft, distal end 400 of the endoscope 175 will be considered the imager adjacent to the distal end of the shaft, the section of the device proximal to stop ring 405 will be considered the hub and display 178 is mounted on the hub).
Green discloses first and second jaws, but does not disclose one or more staples deployable from the first contact surface or a second actuator for deploying the staples.
Zemlok teaches a surgical stapler comprising a first jaw carrying one or more staples deployable from the first contact surface and a second actuator for deploying one or more staples from the first jaw into tissue between the first and second contact surfaces and toward the second jaw to deform the one or more staples but also an imaging system including a screen disposed on the handle to display video images received from the surgical site via cameras disposed on the surgical site (Paragraph 0069, Figure 17 cartridge assembly 164 to apply linear rows of staples deformed against anvil 162; Paragraphs 0022 and 0192).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Green the teachings of Zemlok and replace the jaws of the end effector Green the stapler for the jaws of Zemlok so the jaws can be used to apply staples.
Green does not disclose the imager comprising a housing rotatably mounted on the distal end of the imaging sleeve, the housing rotatable relative to the distal end of the imaging sleeve; an arm extending radially from the housing; and an imaging element carried on the arm, wherein rotation of the housing causes the imaging element to travel around the longitudinal axis.
Irion teaches a surgical instrument comprising an imaging sleeve comprising an arm extendable radially from a housing adjacent the distal end of the imaging sleeve and an imaging element carried on the arm.
PNG
media_image1.png
595
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Figure 1, guide shaft 14 will be considered the imaging sleeve mounted around the shaft of surgical working instrument 24, video sensor 20 will be considered the imaging element being carried by a not numbered pivot, that will be considered the arm, to holder 21, that will be considered the housing, the holder 21 is rotatable relative to the distal end of the imaging sleeve and if holder 21 is rotated with the sleeve around the longitudinal axis will cause the imaging element to travel around the axis); the imaging element providing a field of view (Figure 1, working area 36) from the side of the end effector instead of from behind the end effector as the imaging element of Green provides. Also; note that the claim requires the “imaging element to travel around the longitudinal axis”, not “rotation of the imaging element around the longitudinal axis”, the claim can be surely interpreted as the imaging element just changing positions in the proximity of the longitudinal axis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Green the teachings of Irion and place the imaging element in an arm pivoting from the housing to provide a field of view from the side of the end effector.
Alternatively, rejections in view of Shahinian (US 2015/0257629) or Saadat (US 2017/0231474) can be made if the limitation is to be read as “imager comprising a housing rotatably mounted on the distal end of the shaft; an arm extending radially from the housing; and an imaging element carried on the arm, wherein rotation of the housing causes the imaging element to travel around the longitudinal axis”, where the imager rotation is around the longitudinal axis.
Shahinian teaches an imager mounted at the distal end of an imaging sleeve (Figures 1 to 3, control cable 138 of tool 108 will be considered the shaft, camera 110 will be considered the imager, mounted on support portion 105 that include a channel 109 will be considered a sleeve), the imager can rotate relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft up to 180 degrees to provide a field of view on both sides of the jaws (Figures 8 to 10, paragraphs 0058 to 0060, the rotational movement of the camera 810 may be controlled by rotational movement of the end portion controller 820 about a longitudinal axis La of the body 802, as shown by arrow 876), a housing rotatably mounted on the distal end of the imaging sleeve, the housing rotatable relative to the distal end of the imaging sleeve; an arm extending radially from the housing; and an imaging element carried on the arm (Figures 10 and 11, hollow cylinder 880 will be considered the housing, with a not numbered arm extending radially carrying the imaging element 810), wherein rotation of the housing causes the imaging element to travel around the longitudinal axis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Green the teachings of Shahinian and place the imaging element on an arm attached to a hollow cylinder rotatable around the longitudinal axis of the shaft to provide a field of view of up to 180 degrees around the jaws of the apparatus.
Saadat teaches an imager mounted at the distal end of an imaging sleeve mounted around the shaft of a surgical tool, the imager adjacent the distal end of the shaft allowing for a field of view adjustable to 360 degrees (Figures 14A, B, imaging sleeve includes imaging assembly 1404, that will be considered the imaging element of the imager, and is mounted adjacent to the distal end of the shaft of therapeutic element 1410, a surgical tool, which is inserted on cannula 1408, that will be considered a sleeve, as can be seen on Figures 11 C, D and paragraph 0080); wherein the imager comprises: a housing rotatably mounted on the distal end of the imaging sleeve, the housing rotatable relative to the distal end of the imaging sleeve; an arm extending radially from the housing; and an imaging element carried on the arm (Figures 14A to 14D, paragraphs 0098, 0099, Coupler 1406 will be considered the Housing and it has a friction fittings that allow relative movement between working cannula 1408 and imaging cannula 1402, that is external to the canula 1408, in particular rotation in the R direction shown on Figure 14B, and Figures 14C and D show additional rotation, the articulating region 1403 will be considered the arm extending radially from the housing), wherein rotation of the housing causes the imaging element to travel around the longitudinal axis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Green the teachings of Saadat and have the imager as an imaging cannula attached to the exterior of the sleeve of Green by friction fittings as a way to obtain a field of view adjustable to 360 degrees.
Regarding Claim 87:
Green discloses that the display is mounted to the hub by an adjustable mount (Figure 8, mounting assembly 270 for holding the video display in a position above the handle 275 of the instrument with adjustable orientation).
Regarding Claim 88:
Green discloses that the mount comprises one or more ball and socket joints between the hub and the display (Figures 11 and 12, post 330 with attached metal ball 335 and an adjustable ball-retainer 340, attached to the display).
Regarding Claim 89:
Green discloses that the mount comprises a hinged joint between the hub and the display (Figures 36a and 37, spherical joint 1115 is adjustably clamped between the two opposed securing elements 1122, 1122' and can be considered a hinged joint).
Regarding Claim 90:
Green discloses that during operation within the patient's body, the shaft is rotatable about the longitudinal axis relative to the imaging sleeve such that the end effector may be rotated relative to a field of view of the imager (Column 14, lines 41 to 48, With reference to FIGS. 23 and 24, a means is provided by which the embodiments of FIG. 8 and 22 can be combined in a single system, the mode of operation being selectable by the operator. The object is to provide for rotation about the instrument axis 220 of the insertion tube, endoscope, and camera as a single unit while maintaining the display in the upright position, so the shaft would be rotating about the longitudinal axis relative to at least part of the imaging sleeve; also, (Column 15, lines 45 to 55, It is also within the scope of this invention to operate in a manner in which the endoscope, video camera, and display are fixed at a selected degree of insertion and the instrument, with the instrument latch disengaged or absent, is advanced and withdrawn independently. Without the latch rotation is also allowed and can be adjusted and fixed for rotation and insertion by using the thumbwheel/cam 840 of FIG. 27).
Regarding Claim 91:
Green discloses that during operation within the patient's body, the shaft is movable axially along the longitudinal axis relative to the imaging sleeve such that the imager may be directed closer to and further from the end effector to adjust the field of view of the imager (Column 15, lines 45 to 55, It is also within the scope of this invention to operate in a manner in which the endoscope, video camera, and display are fixed at a selected degree of insertion and the instrument, with the instrument latch disengaged or absent, is advanced and withdrawn independently. Without the latch rotation is also allowed and can be adjusted and fixed for rotation and insertion by using the thumbwheel/cam 840 of FIG. 27).
Regarding Claim 92:
As disclosed for Claim 91 Green discloses that the shaft is movable axially, and the movement closer to the distal tip 175 of the endoscope 495 would result on and adjustment of zoom of the jaws 555).
Regarding Claim 93:
Green discloses that the shaft is movable between proximal and distal positions (Figure 8 show the distal positions with the latch 395 secured onto retainer ring 385 respectively, Figure 10, retainer ring 385 can be used to prevent excessive penetration and any position before the retainer ring 385 reaches the latch 395 can be considered a proximal position).
Regarding Claim 96:
As discussed for Claim 86 above, the modified invention of Green discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Green does not specifically disclose a cutting element between the jaws or an actuator to advance it.
Zemlok teaches a surgical stapler a cutting element between the jaws, the handle comprising a third actuator for advancing the cutting element to sever tissue between the jaws to sever the tissue between the staple lines (Paragraph 0074, Figure 4, the switch 114a is configured to activate the drive motor 200 in a first direction to advance firing rod 220, paragraph 0101, the firing rod 220 may also be configured to actuate a knife to sever tissue).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Green the teachings of Zemlok and include a cutting element to cut the tissue between the staple lines.
Regarding Claim 99:
As discussed for Claim 86 above, the modified invention of Green discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Green does not disclose a third actuator coupled to the housing for controlling rotation of the housing.
Irion teaches that the housing is operated by a multi-axis articulation mechanism 22, which has two articulation axes (Figure 2, paragraphs 94 and 100 to 102) and can be considered a third actuator, controlling the rotation of holder 21.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Green the teachings of Irion and include a third actuator for controlling the rotation of the housing.
Regarding Claim 100:
As discussed for Claim 86 above, the modified invention of Green discloses the invention as claimed including that the imaging element is rotatably mounted to the arm.
The modified invention of Green does not disclose an actuator coupled to the imaging element to rotate the imaging element in a direction opposite the direction the housing is rotated to maintain a desired orientation of images acquired by the imaging element presented on the display.
Irion teaches that an actuator operates articulation mechanism 22 so, from a resting position on Figure 3, the imaging element is rotated counter clockwise while the housing is rotated clockwise to direct the imaging element towards the working area 36 as can be seen on Figure 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Green the teachings of Irion and have the actuator coupled to the imaging element to rotate the imaging element in a direction opposite the direction the housing is rotated to maintain a desired orientation of images acquired by the imaging element presented on the display.
Regarding Claim 101:
The modified invention of Green discloses the housing is movable axially relative to the distal end of the shaft, since the housing is attached to the imaging sleeve, so axial movement of the shaft would result in the housing moving relative to the distal end of the shaft.
Regarding Claim 102:
The modified invention of Green discloses a processor for receiving signals from the imaging element for presentation on the display (Figure 17, Camera and Display electronics 515) but does not specifically disclose a processor configured to modify the images to allow for zooming or retracting the field of view of the imaging element.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the processor configured to modify the images to allow for zooming or retracting the field of view of the imaging element since the use of touchscreens that allow for zooming or retracting imagens is very common in the art.
Claims 94 and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 6221007) in view of Zemlok (US 2015/0122870) and Irion (US 2002/0049367), and in the alternative of Shahinian (US 2015/0257629) or Saadat (US 2017/0231474) as applied to Claim 86 above, and further in view of Meade (US 5499992).
Regarding Claims 94 and 95:
As discussed for Claim 86 above, the modified invention of Green discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Green does not disclose using slots in the hub or pins to allow rotational movement of the shaft while preventing axial motion. Green uses latch 395, Figure 8, to allow rotational movement of the shaft while preventing axial motion.
Meade teaches a sleeve around a rotating shaft using a pin receivable into a guide comprising a circumferential slot, the pin slidable circumferentially within the slot to allow rotational movement of the shaft while preventing axial motion (Figure 1, Section of of handle 14 including port 17 where shaft 12 is inserted will be considered the sleeve, tapered end 63 of knob 60 will be considered the pin going into retention groove 62 to allow rotational movement of the shaft 12 while preventing axial motion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Green the teachings of Meade and replace the latch for a slot and pin as claimed as an alternative way to allow rotational movement of the shaft while preventing axial motion.
The modified invention of Green does not disclose a plurality of slots spaced axially from one another.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of slots spaced axially from one another since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claim 97 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 6221007) in view of Zemlok (US 2015/0122870) and Irion (US 2002/0049367), and in the alternative of Shahinian (US 2015/0257629) or Saadat (US 2017/0231474), as applied to Claim 86 above, and further in view of Zand (US 2009/0054908), An (US 2015/0066000), Shelton (US 2019/0200863) and Brenner (US 2012/0059394).
Regarding Claim 97:
As discussed for Claim 86 above, the modified invention of Green discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Green does not disclose Doppler sensors or thermal elements.
Zand teaches an elongate Doppler sensor on one of the first or second contact surfaces processor coupled to the Doppler sensor for receiving signals from the Doppler sensor to identify blood flow in tissue contacting the Doppler sensor, and an output device coupled to the processor for providing an output indicating whether blood is flowing in the tissue (Figure 3c, sensing elements 346 integrated into the stapler cartridge, that can be doppler sensors to detect blood flow and the set of sensors 346 will be considered an elongated sensor of the same length of the staple line and a processor, Paragraph 0055, processor 124, is coupled to both the input and output datasets and compares the information to determine characteristics of the tissue, Paragraph 0058, the results being presented on Output device 134) and the Doppler sensor is located between the slot and one or more of the axial rows of receptacles when the first and second jaws are closed (Paragraph 64, sensing elements 346 are placed such that they are in line with or integrated between the staples or clips 343, 344, Figure 3c shows sensors between 2 lines of staples so they are between the slot and one row of staples.
Additionally, An also teaches using Doppler sensors to detect and reduce the reduce the risk of intraoperative bleeding during a surgical procedure involving an energy application tool capable of dissecting or ligating tissue, such as the one described by Zand (Paragraph 0031) and Shelton also teaches using Doppler sensors for staple line visualization to evaluate the integrity of staple line seals by monitoring bleeding of a vessel after a firing of a surgical stapler.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Green the teachings of Zand, An and Shelton and include Doppler sensors forming an elongated Doppler sensor in the cartridge, generally opposite to the thermal element to detect blood flow on the tissue and to detect and reduce the reduce the risk of intraoperative bleeding during a surgical procedure involving an energy application tool capable of dissecting or ligating tissue and also provide visualization to evaluate the integrity of staple line seals by monitoring bleeding of a vessel after a firing of a surgical stapler.
The modified invention of Shelton does not specifically disclose an actuator to activate the Doppler sensor. The sensor is connected to multiple devices that should be activating it, but none in particular specifically mentions “activating it”.
Brenner teaches a surgical stapler including a Doppler sensor and an ablation catheter including a have a Doppler control, such as a switch to turn the Doppler sensor on and off if so desired (Paragraph 97, The handle can have a Doppler control, such as a switch to turn the Doppler sensor on and off when the Doppler sensor no longer detects blood flow through the artery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Shelton the teachings of Brenner and Include a Doppler control in the handle, such as a switch to turn the Doppler sensor on and off if (Paragraph 0097, The handle can have a Doppler control, such as a switch to turn the Doppler sensor on and off when the Doppler sensor no longer detects blood flow through the artery).
Claim 103 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 6221007) in view of Zemlok (US 2015/0122870) and Irion (US 2002/0049367), and in the alternative of Shahinian (US 2015/0257629) or Saadat (US 2017/0231474), as applied to Claim 86 above, and further in view of Sablak (US 2005/0185058) and Manohara (US 9549667).
Regarding Claim 103
As discussed for Claim 98 above, the modified invention of Green discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Green does not disclose a processor for receiving signals from the imaging element for presentation on the display, the processor configured to modify the images to maintain a stable field of view to compensate for the circular motion of the imaging element.
Sablak teaches using a video camera stabilization system that counteracts unwanted and irregular image motion (paragraphs 0002, 0016) and it allows for the stabilization of images acquired while the camera is in motion. Thus, the present invention can compensate for unintentional movement of a pan, tilt, zoom camera, such as that caused by support arm vibration or the effect of wind on the camera housing, even while the camera is actively and purposefully changing its field of view.
Manohara teaches actually including a video camera stabilization system to an endoscope camera (Paragraph 134).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Green the teachings of Sablak and Manohara and have the processor include a video camera stabilization system as described to maintain a stable field of view to compensate for the circular motion of the imaging element since the use of such systems is well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In general, the applicant argues that neither the Green reference nor the secondary references in proper combination discloses, teaches, or suggests an apparatus including such as the claimed imager but does not indicate why they reach such conclusion. The claims were amended by just placing the limitations of Claim 98, rejected on the last office action, into independent claim 86, so the same rejection applies. The amendments of Claims 90, 91, and 99-103 involve subject matter already discussed and rejected as indicated in the Examiners Answer to Appeal Brief mailed on 10/30/2026.
The Applicant also mentions that the combination of references does not disclose an imager as shown on Figures 18B and 18C of the Application, and with that the Examiner agrees completely; but the claims do not include the features of those Figures, described on paragraphs 0143 and 0144 of the PGPub. As mentioned in the phone interview on 12/12/2025, a proper description of the housing 384a′ of the imager 384′, as shown in detail on Figures 18g and 18H with the features mentioned on paragraphs 0143 and 0144 would surely overcome any reference on the record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular Shahinian (US 2015/0257629) and Saadat (US 2017/0231474) could have been used as base reference for a proper rejection on the independent claim. Also, Yoon (US 10448812) teach the use of imaging elements mounted on sleeves having rotation around the longitudinal axis of the shaft of a surgical instrument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO R FERRERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-7:00.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/EDUARDO R FERRERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731