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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/14/26 has been entered.
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 .
Notice of Amendment
This communication is responsive to the argument(s) filed 4/14/26 with the RCE. The Examiner respectfully notes that no claim amendments appeared present with entry of the RCE. The following reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth hereinbelow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 10-11, 18 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Igal (WO 2013168166 A1).
For claim 1, Igal discloses a biopsy assembly (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25), comprising inter alia:
a biopsy tube (200) defining a lumen (hollow interior of 200) (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25);
a tissue penetrator (100) having a distal tip (distal tip 135 of 100) shaped to penetrate through tissue (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25), wherein said tissue penetrator is positioned within said lumen (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25) and comprising inter alia:
an elongated flexible body (100) shaped and sized to move within said biopsy tube lumen (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25); and
a collapsible distal cutting portion (120) coupled to said body and extending out from said lumen in an expanded state in front of said biopsy tube (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25) (Fig 10C clearly shows advancement of the distal cutting portion in front of an exterior opening of the biopsy tube), and configured to collapse to a width smaller than an inner width of said lumen in a collapsed state (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25),
wherein said collapsible distal cutting portion comprises a distal sharp cutting edge (edge of 120) (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25), configured to perform a thin cut through said tissue (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25),
wherein in an expanded state a maximal width of said collapsible distal cutting portion is larger than an inner width or an inner diameter of said biopsy tube lumen (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25), and
wherein said collapsible distal cutting portion is coupled to a distal end of said elongated flexible body (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25); and
wherein said distal tip is an integral part of said collapsible distal cutting portion (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25).
For claim 2, Igal discloses the biopsy assembly according to claim 1, wherein said collapsible distal cutting portion is in a form of a thin and flexible layer (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25).
For claim 6, Igal discloses the biopsy assembly according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of said distally facing sharp cutting edge is smaller than 0.1 mm (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25).
For claim 7, Igal discloses the biopsy assembly according to claim 1, wherein a surface of said distally facing sharp cutting edge facing tissue is at least partly angled or at least partly curved (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25).
For claim 10, Igal discloses the biopsy assembly according to claim 1, wherein a cross-section of a circumference of said collapsible distal cutting portion facing tissue, in an expanded state, is a continuous arc (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25).
For claim 11, Igal discloses the biopsy assembly according to claim 10, wherein said arc subtends an angle of at least 30 degrees (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25).
For claim 18, Igal discloses the biopsy assembly according to claim 2, wherein said thin and flexible layer is configured to furl at least partly around said elongated flexible body (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25), to a width smaller than an inner width of said lumen (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25).
For claim 22, Igal discloses the biopsy assembly according to claim 1, wherein a minimal thickness of a wall of said biopsy tube surrounding said lumen is at least 10% of the inner diameter of the biopsy tube (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25).
For claim 23, Igal discloses the biopsy assembly according to claim 1, wherein a minimal thickness of a wall of said biopsy tube is 0.05 mm (Figs 1, 6, 9E-9I) (Pgs 10-15, 19-25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the following:
Igal does not disclose the claimed distal cutting portion configuration where “These structural relationships define a collapsible distal cutting element located at the distal end of the penetrator and forming the distal tip of the device.”
“1. The collapsible distal cutting portion is coupled to the distal end of the body
“Claim 1 requires that the collapsible distal cutting portion is coupled to the distal end of the elongated flexible body. In contrast, in Igal apparently the expandable elements are located along the sides of the needle shaft, rather than being a distal structure. The spines in Igal extend laterally from the body of the needle and are distributed along the shaft. Thus, the expandable elements are not a distal cutting portion coupled to the distal end of the body, as required by claim 1.
“2. The distal tip is an integral part of the collapsible distal cutting portion
Claim 1 further requires that: "the distal tip is an integral part of the collapsible distal cutting portion." In the present invention, the distal cutting portion itself forms the distal penetrating tip of the device. In contrast, in Igal: the needle includes a separate distal penetrating tip; the expandable spines are located behind that tip and do not form the distal end of the device. Accordingly, the distal penetrating tip in Igal is not part of the expandable structure, and therefore the claimed relationship is absent.
“3. The collapsible distal cutting portion performs a thin cutting action
“Claim 1 further requires a distal sharp cutting edge configured to perform a thin cut through tissue. The claimed device therefore performs a thin incision or cut through tissue during advancement. By contrast, Igal's expandable structures are apparently tissue-grasping spines or teeth that trap tissue during withdrawal rather than cutting tissue during penetration. Igal apparently describes that the teeth are configured to catch and hold tissue samples rather than create a thin cut in tissue. Thus, the expandable elements of Igal apparently perform a holding or trapping function, not the claimed cutting function. Claim 1 has been amended to recite exactly what is claimed in the granted European sister patent EP4175559. Igal is the same cited reference (D4) brought by the European examiner in the, now granted, European sister patent EP4175559. Respectfully, the applicant requests for claim 1 to be found novel and inventive over Igal, because Igal apparently does not teach all the features of currently amended claim 1. The applicant would like to mention that the European also evaluated the claims in view of D1-US20180140289A1, D2-US10441254, D3-US20150272556A1 and D5-W02016010735A1, and found the claims novel and inventive.
“4. Lack of a Cutting Edge Configured to Perform a Thin Cut
“Claim 1 recites a distal sharp cutting edge configured to perform a "thin cut" through tissue. While Igal apparently discloses spines or teeth, these elements are described as engaging, trapping, or retaining tissue during use, rather than forming an incision. For example, Igal apparently explains that such elements are used to capture tissue samples when the needle is retracted. Accordingly, Igal apparently does not disclose a structure configured to form a thin cut as recited in the claims.
“5. Lack of Disclosure of a "Thin Cut"
“The claims require forming a "thin cut." Igal apparently does not explicitly disclose forming such a cut. Nor does Igal apparently describe any cut having the geometry required by the present claims, such as a cut having a small thickness relative to its length or width. In contrast, the present specification consistently describes a "thin cut" as a controlled incision having a defined thickness and aspect ratio. The interaction between the spines and tissue in Igal-namely, engagement and retention-does not correspond to forming such a thin cut.
“6. Lack of a "Thin and Flexible Layer"
“The claims recite that the collapsible distal cutting portion is in the form of a "thin and flexible layer." Igal apparently discloses multiple expandable elements (e.g., spines) that extend laterally from the device. These elements are discrete structural members and do not form a continuous layer. In contrast, the claimed cutting portion is a continuous thin structure that is flexible and capable of bending or furling as a unit. Thus, the structure of Igal is fundamentally different from the claimed "thin and flexible layer."
“7. Inherency
“The Office Action appears to rely on the assumption that the elements of Igal inherently perform a "thin cut." However, inherency requires that a feature be necessarily present, not merely possible. Igal apparently does not disclose that its structure necessarily results in a thin cut as recited. To the contrary, the described function of the spines-engaging and holding tissue-suggests interaction mechanisms such as grasping or tearing, rather than forming a controlled thin incision. Accordingly, inherency cannot supply the missing limitation.
“8. Arrangement of Elements
“Even if certain individual features could be identified in Igal, the reference does not disclose these features arranged as required by the claims. In particular, the claims require a distal cutting portion configured to perform a thin cut during advancement and subsequently collapse into the lumen. The present specification describes this sequence as part of a coordinated operation of cutting followed by collapsing and retraction into the biopsy tube lumen. Igal does not disclose such a functional arrangement.
“9. Structural Differences
“Finally, the claimed structure, which includes a thin flexible layer configured to collapse into the lumen, differs structurally from the expandable elements of Igal, which are described as multiple elements extending from the device body. The claimed configuration requires a continuous, thin, flexible cutting structure that both forms a thin cut and collapses into the lumen, which is not disclosed or suggested by Igal.
“10. Lack of a Continuous Arc
“Additionally, certain dependent claims require that the cutting portion defines a continuous arc in cross-section. Igal apparently does not disclose such a configuration. The expandable elements in Igal are spaced apart and do not form a continuous arc- shaped cutting portion. Rather, any apparent curvature results from the relative positioning of separate elements, not from a single continuous structure defining a continuous cutting edge.”
In response the Examiner respectfully notes the following:
As set forth and cited hereinabove, Igal anticipates the claimed collapsible distal cutting element located at the distal end of the penetrator and forming the distal tip of the device. Figs 1-2, reproduced hereinbelow, evidentiarily demonstrate the collapsed and expanded states of the distal cutting portion, including relationships with the elongate body and distal tip, wherein during extension of the distal cutting portion beyond the sheath 200 the disal portion 105 expand beyond the width of the sheath 200 to catch, cut, tear, and capture thin slices of tissue that are pulled back into the sheath as samples.
Igal states (Pgs 2-3): “In some embodiments a needle in a sheath and in what is called herein a "closed configuration" is advanced towards a sampling site, and then a distal portion of the needle is extended from the sheath into body tissues. Advancing the expandable portion of the needle beyond a distal end of the sheath causes the expandable portion to expand, putting the needle into what is called herein an "open configuration." When the distal portion of the needle is then retracted into the sheath (and/or when the sheath is advanced over that distal portion), forcing the needle back into closed configuration, body tissue may be captured between the spines and/or between the teeth of the needle. With the needle again in closed configuration within the sheath, captured tissue is held and protected both by interior surfaces of the spines and surfaces of the teeth and by the sheath. The needle and sheath (or only the needle) can then be extracted from the body and the captured tissue garnered for pathological or other examination.”
PNG
media_image1.png
1017
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1028
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding (1), the Examiner respectfully notes Igal’s Figure 1 shows the cited collapsible distal cutting portion (120) coupled to the distal end of an elongated flexible body (100). Not only are the two structures coupled, but they are integrally attached/coupled to function in collecting tissue after the distal teeth catch, cut, tear, and capture tissue amongst the closed-open-closed positions they assume. Distal teeth 120 are disposed on distal spline 110 part of the laterally expandable distal portion 105 that is distal to and distinct from the flexible body 100 alone. The mere fact that teeth 120 extend inwards or are on the sides of spines 110 in Figure 1 does not preclude them from being distal to elongate flexible body 100. Further, the claim does not require, for example at least, that the distal cutting portion is the distalmost extension of the tissue penetrator. As cited above, Igal meets these limitations as broadly as structurally claimed.
Igal states (Pgs 12-13): “The present invention, in at least some embodiments thereof, comprises tissue sampling devices (referred to as "biopsy needles 100" or "needles 100" herein) which having a distal portion (called "laterally expandable portion 105" or "expandable portion 105" herein) which comprises a plurality of longitudinal elements (called "spines 110" herein), which spines are laterally expandable or moveable away from each other. A needle 100 whose spines are laterally distanced from each other is said to be in "open" configuration, as shown in Figure 2. A needle 100 whose spines are positioned near each other is said to be in "closed" configuration, as shown in Figure 1. According to the specific embodiment, lateral distancing is symmetrical or asymmetrical, and occurs in any lateral direction.
“In some embodiments spines 110 comprise what we will refer to as "teeth 120". Teeth 120 are similar in purpose and may be similar in form to "notches 16" and "recesses 16" as described in PCT '080: they are any structural elements which serve to catch and/or cut and/or tear and/or capture portions of tissue, which may then be extracted from a body and subjected to pathological or other examinations.
“In some embodiments teeth 120 are designed so as to be active in catching/cutting/tearing and/or otherwise capturing tissue particularly when needle 100 is being withdraw from tissue into which it has been inserted. Teeth so designed are shown in various figures discussed in detail below, but it is noted that the invention is not limited to this construction and that teeth in any orientation are contemplated.
“In some embodiments, teeth 120 are positioned and/or oriented so as to point generally towards the interior of needle 100. Such positions and orientations may be compared to the positions and orientations of notches 16 of PCT '080: in that application notches 16 are shown in the figures to be positioned on outer surfaces of blade 10 and oriented to face outwards (i.e. away from the central axis of blade 10. In some embodiments of the present invention at least some of spines 110 present relatively smooth outer surfaces, and support teeth 120 pointing at least roughly inwards, i.e. towards (or nearly towards) a central longitudinal axis of needle 100 and/or towards other spines or teeth of needle 100 and/or towards an inner space 140 bordered by the spines and teeth. Teeth so oriented are referred to as "inward-pointing teeth", herein.”
Regarding (2), the Examiner respectfully notes Igal’s Figure 1 shows the cited distal tip (135) being the distalmost leading edge tip piercing portion of the needle 100. The cited distal tip is integrated with and an integral part of the cited elongated body and collapsible distal cutting portions as shown in Figure 1. The claimed invention does not require the distal tip to be included in the collapsed or expanded states. Conversely, the distal tip is merely shaped to penetrate tissue, is coupled to the distal end of the elongate flexible body, and is an integral part of the collapsible distal cutting portion. As cited above, Igal meets these limitations as broadly as structurally claimed.
Igal states (Pg 15): “Optionally, leading edge 135 of needle 100 is sharp so as to facilitate advancing needle 100 into body tissue. Leading edge 135 may also be a relatively flat surface, which may facilitate keeping needle 100 in a same plane as it advances into tissue.”
Further regarding (2) and in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the distal penetrating tip is part of the expandable structure”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding (3), the Examiner respectfully notes Igal discloses, as referenced hereinabove, catching, cutting, tearing, and capturing tissue using a “flat” needle. The tissue is retracted back into the sheath and may be considered at least “thin”, particularly absent any special definition in the instant Specification upon which Applicant does not appear to rely and also absent any claimed structural distinction to the contrary. As cited above, Igal meets these limitations as broadly as structurally claimed.
Igal states (Pgs 22-23): “For example, in an exemplary embodiment shown in Figure 9I, the laterally expandable portion of needle 100 may be between 3 and 80 mm long, 20.649 mm being the size of a particular embodiment whose description was the source of this figure. Spine width (back to front) may be between 0.05 mm and 3 mm, teeth height between 0.05 and 5mm. The closed-configuration side-to-side width of the expandable portion of these embodiments (which is may be similar or equal to the width of non-expandable portions of the needle) is between 0.05mm and 3mm. Note also that in some embodiments, the expandability of the expandable portion is between 2% and 25%. In some embodiments it is between 5% and 20%. In some embodiments using nitinol, metal thickness of between 0.08 mm and 2 mm is used.”
Further regarding (3), the Examiner notes that prosecution of and/or patent granting of related subject matter in a sister application in front of another patent office has no bearing on the patentability of the instant US Application, particularly given distinction(s) in patent laws and rules therebetween.
Regarding (4), the Examiner respectfully notes Igal’s cited flat needle has a thickness of 2mm that controls the thickness of the cut and captured tissue and which may more than fairly and reasonably be considered “a thin cut”, particularly absent any special definition in the instant Specification upon which Applicant does not appear to rely and also absent any claimed structural distinction to the contrary. As cited above, Igal meets these limitations as broadly as structurally claimed.
Further regarding (4) and in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “forming an incision”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding (5), beyond the related notes hereinabove, the Examiner notes in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “cut having the geometry required”, and/or “a cut having a small thickness relative to its length or width”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding (5), the Examiner respectfully encourages Applicant to positively recite “a "thin cut" as a controlled incision having a defined thickness and aspect ratio” since it does not appear to be a special definition and is not recited in the claims. Relatedly, however, the Examiner notes Igal’s width may be 2mm and length may be 80mm, as cited above.
Regarding (6), the Examiner respectfully references portions of Igal reproduced hereinabove, where the cited collapsible distal cutting portion may be considered at least a thin and flexible layer, especially when 2mm in thickness and comprised of flexible nitinol.
Further regarding (6) and in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a continuous layer”, and/or “a continuous thin structure that is flexible and capable of bending or furling as a unit”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding (7), the Examiner respectfully notes that inherency is not being relied upon. The resultant biopsy specimen produced by using Igal’s device is a thin cut”, particularly absent any special definition in the instant Specification upon which Applicant does not appear to rely and also absent any claimed structural distinction to the contrary. As cited above, Igal meets these limitations as broadly as structurally claimed.
Further regarding (7) and in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “forming a controlled thin incision”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding (8), the Examiner respectfully notes cited portion of Igal hereinabove meet the claimed distal cutting portion configured to perform a thin cut during advancement and subsequently collapse into the lumen, particularly absent any special definition in the instant Specification upon which Applicant does not appear to rely and also absent any claimed structural distinction to the contrary. As cited above, Igal meets these limitations as broadly as structurally and/or functionally claimed. Igal not only meets the claimed functionality and intended use, but could also be considered to be more than fully capable of meeting the functional and/or intended use limitations.
Further regarding (8) and in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “coordinated operation of cutting”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding (9), the Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the same distinctions elaborated upon hereinabove with respect to the thin cut configuration(s).
Further regarding (9) and in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “claimed configuration requires a continuous, thin, flexible cutting structure that both forms a thin cut and collapses into the lumen”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding (10), the Examiner respectfully notes a hypothetical cross section of the expandable portion 105 in the expanded or open configuration includes at least a “continuous arc” that “subtends an angle of at least 30 degrees”, particularly absent any special definition in the instant Specification upon which Applicant does not appear to rely and also absent any claimed structural distinction to the contrary. Igal is explicitly concerned with pre-bent distal portions of flat needles. As cited above, Igal meets these limitations as broadly as structurally claimed.
Igal states (Pg 22): “Flat needles 100 or 102 such as those shown in Figures 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9A- may optionally be made to be bendable and/or to have at least a bendable distal portion. Such bendable embodiments may be passed through a sheath head 201 or similar structure and thereby be directed in a direction which is lateral with respect to the direction of insertion and/or advance of a sheath 200 which contains them, according to methods taught in PCT Ό80. Needles 100 may also be constructed with a pre-bent construction (optionally using the nitinol shape memory function), and be formed so as to bend when advanced beyond a distal end of sheath 200.”
Further regarding (10) and in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a single continuous structure defining a continuous cutting edge”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Jeffrey G. Hoekstra whose telephone number is (571)272-7232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 5am-3pm 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, Charles A. Marmor II can be reached at (571)272-4730. 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.
Jeffrey G. Hoekstra
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JEFFREY G. HOEKSTRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights