DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on February 19, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 3, and 7-10 have been amended, no claims have been added, claims 6 have been canceled. Thus claims 1-5 and 7-17 are presently pending in this application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification/Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 19, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed February 19, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart, does not disclose the amended limitation of a hemostasis valve positioned along the first branch. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, and the rejections of claims 2-5 and 7-17 are also withdrawn due to their dependency on claim 1. However, upon further consideration, in light of the amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) 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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “guide extension advancement mechanism” in claim 1 and “non-contact mechanism” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For examining purposes, “guide extension advancement mechanism” in claim 1 is given the broadest reasonable interpretation of: “The guide extension advancement mechanism can comprise a slider mechanism. The guide extension advancement mechanism can comprise a spool mechanism. The guide extension advancement mechanism can comprise a contact wheel mechanism. The guide extension advancement mechanism can comprise a screw mechanism. The guide extension advancement mechanism can comprise a rack and pinion mechanism. The guide extension advancement mechanism can comprise a non-contact mechanism.” or equivalents thereof, as described in [0003] of the instant specification.
For examining purposes, “non-contact mechanism” in claim 16 is given the broadest reasonable interpretation of: “the non-contact advancement mechanism can use magnets” or equivalents thereof, as described in [0074] of the instant specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5, 7-11, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo-Chu et al. (US 20180110968), hereinafter Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart et al. (US 20020111666), hereinafter Hart and Elkins et al. (US 20050245892), hereinafter Elkins.
Regarding claim 1, Ngo-Chu discloses a catheter control system (Fig. 5, instrument 1200), the system comprising: a guide catheter (Fig. 5, guide catheter 230) comprising a distal end (Fig. 5, distal end 232) and a proximal end (Fig. 5, proximal end 234); a guide extension catheter (Fig. 5, catheter 220) positioned within the guide catheter and configured to extend from the distal end of the guide catheter (Figs. 5-6, catheter 220 is positioned within the guide catheter 230); and a catheter control center at the proximal end of the guide catheter (Fig. 5, handle 202 with movement assemblies 260 and 270 is positioned at the proximal end 234 of guide catheter 230), the catheter control center comprising: a guide extension advancement mechanism (Fig. 5, movement assemblies 260 and 270 ), wherein the guide extension advancement mechanism is in communication with the guide extension catheter and is configured to move the guide extension catheter within the guide catheter and extend the guide extension catheter from the distal end of the guide catheter (Fig. 5, 6B and [0070], catheter movement assembly 270 is in communication with the catheter 220 and is configured to advance the catheter 220 within the guide catheter 230 such that it may extend from the distal end 232 of guide catheter 230).
Ngo-Chu fails to disclose wherein the distal end is configured to be positioned within an artery; the catheter control center comprising: a first branch; a second branch; the guide extension advancement mechanism positioned along the second branch; and a valve positioned along the first branch and configured to allow passage of wires and/or devices between the valve and the guide catheter. However, Hart discloses wherein the distal end is configured to be positioned within an artery ([0002, 0005], delivery/positioning device is for delivery of catheters to an artery to be treated, therefore the distal end of the guide catheter 18 is configured for positioning in the artery to be treated); the catheter control center comprising: a first branch; a second branch (Fig. 1-2, hub assembly unit 10, similar to handle with advancement assemblies of Ngo-Chu, comprises two branches due to its y-adaptor portion of tubular section 20; y-adaptor portion 22 is first branch and channel formed by longitudinal portion of hub assembly 10 (extending from first tubular section 20 to valve 28 of second tubular section 26) is second channel);and a valve positioned along the first branch and configured to allow passage of wires and/or devices between the valve and the guide catheter (Figs. 1-2 and [0025], the proximal end of y-adapter portion 22 comprises a port for allowing the passage of additional medical apparatuses from the y-adaptor port into the lumen of guide catheter 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ngo-Chu to incorporate the disclosures of Hart and modify the guide catheter such that its distal end is configured to be positioned within an artery; and modify the handle to be y-shaped and have a first branch, a second branch, the guide extension advancement mechanism positioned along the second branch, and a hemostasis valve positioned along the first branch and configured to allow passage of wires and/or devices between the hemostasis valve and the guide catheter. Doing so would allow for the device to be used for gaining access to an artery for a procedure such as percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and would also allow the device to permit access for additional medical apparatus into the lumen of the guide catheter (Hart, [0002 and 0025]).
Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart, fails to disclose wherein the valve is a hemostasis valve. However, Elkins discloses wherein the valve is a hemostasis valve (Fig. 8 and [0071], branch 50 may have a hemostasis valve 84 positioned on it).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart, to incorporate the disclosures of Elkins and modify the valve to be a hemostasis valve. Doing so would allow for sealable introduction of guide wires, catheters, and other intervention devices into the instrument (Elkins, [0068, 0071]).
Regarding claim 2 and Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, Ngo-Chu further discloses ---the system of Claim 1, wherein the guide extension catheter comprises a distal end that comprises a tube (Fig. 5, distal end of the catheter 220 comprises the tubular shaft 224) and a proximal end that comprises a guide extension catheter wire (Fig. 5, proximal end of catheter 220 comprises a slot in shaft 225 that the guidewire 250 which extends through to be inserted within the catheter).
Regarding claim 3, Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, discloses the--- system of Claim 2, as explained above. Ngo-Chu and Elkins are silent to wherein the catheter control center comprises multiple compartments, wherein the multiple compartments comprise: a guide extension catheter wire compartment configured to store the guide extension catheter wire; and a main valve compartment configured to allow passage of wires and devices between the hemostasis valve and the guide catheter. However, Hart further discloses wherein the catheter control center comprises multiple compartments (Fig. 1-2, hub assembly unit 10, similar to handle of Ngo-Chu, comprises two compartments due to its y-adaptor portion of tubular section 20 ), wherein the multiple compartments comprise: a guide extension catheter wire compartment configured to store the guide extension catheter wire (Figs. 1-2 and [0027], compartment formed by lumen of longitudinal portion of hub assembly 10 (extending from first tubular section 20 to valve 28 of second tubular section 26), which is similar to the movement assemblies of Ngo-Chu device, is configured to store at least a portion of catheter 30 (similar to catheter 120 of Ngo-Chu, which also comprises its guidewire 150 within it), therefore the compartment is configured to store at least a portion of the catheter wire); and a main valve compartment configured to allow passage of wires and devices between the hemostasis valve and the guide catheter (Fig. 1-2 and [0025], y-adaptor portion 22 has a lumen which forms a compartment that allows passage of other medical apparatuses from the port to the lumen of guide catheter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, to further incorporate the disclosures of Hart and modify the handle to be y-shaped such that the handle has multiple compartments, wherein the multiple compartments comprise: a guide extension catheter wire compartment configured to store the guide extension catheter wire; and a main valve compartment configured to allow passage of wires and devices between the valve and the guide catheter. Doing so would configure the device to be used for finely controlling the advancement of a catheter through the guide catheter for positioning within a desired place in the vasculature, while also allowing the device to permit access for additional medical apparatus into the lumen of the guide catheter (Hart, [0025-0029]).
Regarding claim 4 and Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, Ngo-Chu further discloses ---the system of Claim 1, wherein the guide extension advancement mechanism is configured to deliver equipment through the guide extension catheter (Fig. 6 and [0089], the guidewire movement mechanism 260 is configured to deliver a guidewire through a lumen of catheter 220).
Regarding claim 5 and Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, Ngo-Chu further discloses ---the system of Claim 1, wherein the guide catheter comprises a rail or channel that the guide extension catheter moves along within the guide catheter (Fig. 5 and [0074, 0076], guide catheter 230 has an inner lumen/passage which the catheter 220 is positioned in and moves along).
Regarding claim 7 and Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, Ngo-Chu further discloses ---the system of Claim 2, wherein the guide extension catheter wire is in communication with the guide extension catheter and the guide extension catheter moves in coordination with the guide extension catheter wire (Fig. 6A-B and [0070], the guidewire 250 is in communication with catheter 220 as it is disposed within its lumen, and the movement assemblies 260 and 270 are configured to be coupled together to unitarily translate the catheter 220 and guidewire 250 together).
Regarding claim 8, Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, discloses the--- system of Claim 2, as explained above. As noted above, Ngo-Chu fails to disclose the branched valve and is thus silent to wherein the guide extension catheter wire is in communication with the first branch. However, Hart further discloses wherein the guide extension catheter wire is in communication with the first branch (Fig. 2 and [0025], y-adaptor portion 22 lumen is in communication with the lumen of guide catheter 18 (which is similar to guide catheter 230 of Ngo-Chu, which the guidewire 250 may extend through the lumen of/be in communication with said lumen, see [00076]), therefore the guidewire can be in communication with lumen of y-adaptor portion 22 via the lumen of guide catheter 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, to further incorporate the disclosures of Hart and modify the guide extension catheter wire to be in communication with the first branch. Doing so would configure the device to be used for finely controlling the advancement of a catheter through the guide catheter for positioning within a desired place in the vasculature, while also allowing the device to permit access for additional medical apparatus into the lumen of the guide catheter (Hart, [0025-0029]).
Regarding claim 9, Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, discloses the--- system of Claim 2, as explained above. As noted above, Ngo-Chu fails to disclose the branched valve and is thus silent to wherein the guide extension catheter wire is in communication with the second branch. However, Hart further discloses wherein the guide extension catheter wire is in communication with the second branch (Fig. 2 and [0025], lumen of longitudinal portion of hub assembly 10 contains the catheter 30 (which is similar to catheter 220 of Ngo-Chu, which the guidewire 250 may extend through the lumen of), therefore the guidewire is disposed within and in communication with lumen of longitudinal portion of hub assembly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, to further incorporate the disclosures of Hart and modify the guide extension catheter wire to be in communication with the second branch. Doing so would configure the device to be used for finely controlling the advancement of a catheter through the guide catheter for positioning within a desired place in the vasculature, while also allowing the device to permit access for additional medical apparatus into the lumen of the guide catheter (Hart, [0025-0029]).
Regarding claim 10 and Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, Ngo-Chu further discloses ---the system of Claim 2, wherein the guide extension advancement mechanism is configured to move the guide extension catheter wire and/or the guide extension catheter within the guide catheter (Fig. 6A-C and [0076], catheter movement assembly 270 is configured to advance the catheter 220 within the guide catheter 230 and guidewire movement assembly 260 is configured to advance the guidewire 250 within the guide catheter 230).
Regarding claim 11 and Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, Ngo-Chu further discloses ---the system of Claim 1, wherein the guide extension advancement mechanism comprises a slider mechanism (Figs. 6A-C and [0071], movement assemblies 260 and 270 engage with slots 204 and 206, respectively, to form a slider mechanism for advancement of the guidewire/catheter).
Regarding claim 14, Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, discloses the--- system of Claim 1, as explained above. Ngo-Chu and Elkins are silent to wherein the guide extension advancement mechanism comprises a screw mechanism. However, Hart further discloses wherein the guide extension advancement mechanism comprises a screw mechanism (Figs. 1-2 and [0033, 0036-0039], catheter advancement/control mechanism 40 may comprise a threaded tubular screw and threaded nut components which interact to advance or retract catheter 30 within the lumen of guide catheter 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, to further incorporate the disclosures of Hart and modify the guide extension advancement mechanism to be a screw mechanism. Doing so would further configure the advancement mechanism for finely controlling the advancement of a catheter through the guide catheter for positioning within a desired place in the vasculature (Hart, [0026-0029,0039]).
Regarding claim 15, Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, discloses the--- system of Claim 1, as explained above. Ngo-Chu and Elkins are silent to wherein the guide extension advancement mechanism comprises a rack and pinion mechanism. However, Hart further discloses wherein the guide extension advancement mechanism comprises a rack and pinion mechanism (Fig. 7 and [0054], catheter advancement/control mechanism may alternatively be a rack and pinion mechanism 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, to further incorporate the disclosures of Hart and modify the guide extension advancement mechanism to be a rack and pinion mechanism. Doing so would further configure the advancement mechanism for finely controlling the advancement of a catheter through the guide catheter, without backlash which is commonly associated with coarse manual adjustments, for positioning within a desired place in the vasculature (Hart, [0054-0056]).
Regarding claim 17, Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, discloses the--- system of Claim 1, as explained above. As noted above, Ngo-Chu fails to disclose the distal end is configured to be positioned within an artery and is thus silent to wherein the guide catheter is configured to be placed into arteries for cardiological or vascular procedures. However, Hart further discloses wherein the guide catheter is configured to be placed into arteries for cardiological or vascular procedures ([0002, 0005], catheter system is for placing guide catheters in targeted arteries for vascular procedures such as percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PCTA)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, to further incorporate the disclosures of Hart and modify the guide catheter such that its distal end is configured to be positioned within an artery for cardiological or vascular procedures. Doing so would allow for the device to be used for gaining access to an artery for a procedure such as percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, (Hart, [0002]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo-Chu (US 20180110968), in view of Hart (US 20020111666) and Elkins (US 20050245892), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spataro et al. (US 20190321595), hereinafter Spataro.
Regarding claim 12, Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, discloses the--- system of Claim 1.
Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, fails to disclose wherein the guide extension advancement mechanism comprises a spool mechanism. However, Spataro discloses wherein the guide extension advancement mechanism comprises a spool mechanism (Fig. 2A-F, and [0032], delivery device 22 comprises a rotary element 28, which is a spool system for advancing/delivering the instrument 42 through the device and out the distal end of catheter tubing 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, to incorporate the disclosures of Spataro and modify the guide extension advancement mechanism to be a spool mechanism. Doing so would provide an instrument delivery/advancement mechanism which may contain and support the entirety of the instrument within its housing and also provide a reliable advancement mechanism which supports the instrument and decreases the risk of kinking of the instrument during advancement (Spataro, [0006-0009]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo-Chu (US 20180110968), in view of Hart (US 20020111666) and Elkins (US 20050245892), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akifumi (US 20120165680).
Regarding claim 13, Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, discloses the--- system of Claim 1.
Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, fails to disclose wherein the guide extension advancement mechanism comprises a contact wheel mechanism. However, Akifumi discloses wherein the guide extension advancement mechanism comprises a contact wheel mechanism (Fig. 9, and [0058], tube steering unit 34 comprises an operation dial 38 which interacts with rotation members 36 to move the tube 4 axially when the operation dial is rotated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, to incorporate the disclosures of Akifumi and modify the guide extension advancement mechanism to be a contact wheel mechanism. Doing so would provide an instrument delivery/advancement mechanism which allows for manual advancement of the tube member via the rotational member, which helps to improve work performance (Akifumi [0009, 0058]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo-Chu (US 20180110968), in view of Hart (US 20020111666) and Elkins (US 20050245892), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ha et al. (US 20160082233), hereinafter Ha.
Regarding claim 16, Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, discloses the--- system of Claim 1.
Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, fails to disclose wherein the guide extension advancement mechanism comprises a non-contact mechanism. However, Ha discloses wherein the guide extension advancement mechanism comprises a non-contact mechanism (Fig. 55-60 and [0184-0187], guidewire movement mechanism 860 and catheter movement actuator 870 utilize a magnetic connection to elongated magnet 854 of handle 850 in order to interact with the handle in a magnetically sliding configuration to form catheter/guidewire advancing mechanism).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ngo-Chu, in view of Hart and Elkins, to incorporate the disclosures of Akifumi and modify the guide extension advancement mechanism to be a non-contact mechanism. Doing so would provide an instrument delivery/advancement mechanism which is configured to permit and guide the catheter/guidewire in longitudinal movement, while ensuring that transversal movement of the catheter/guidewire at the advancement mechanism is prevented (Ha [0186-0187]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH D GRASMEDER whose telephone number is (571)272-0258. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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 at (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.
/SARAH DYMPNA GRASMEDER/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/LAURA A BOUCHELLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights