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 .
Claim Objections
Following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 line 2 “a human or animal body” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – the [[a]] human or animal patient body – or -- the body of the human or animal patient-- in light of its antecedent in claim 1 lines 2-3 “a body of a human or animal patient”.
Claim 19 line 3 “an anatomical conduit” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – [[an]] the anatomical conduit—in light of its antecedent “an anatomical conduit “ in claim 18 line 3.
Each of claims 1,4, 7, 9-10, 13, 18, 19 recite “so as to” and/or “in order to” encompassing intended result/functional limitations which need to be corrected to avoid intended result/functional limitation interpretation (see MPEP 2111.04) which would raise question as to whether the limitation proceeding “so as to”, “in order to” is even required or not required is replace “so as to” and “in order to” with --in a manner as to-- instead. For example, amend claim 1 lines 9-10 “an actuator arranged inside the casing and mechanically coupled to the fluid reservoir in order to selectively vary the volume of fluid in said reservoir “, lines 11-2 “a control unit configured to control the actuator so as to transfer the fluid between the reservoir and the inflatable element” and lines 20-21 “determine a command to be issued to the actuator so as to control the pressure of fluid in the fluid circuit” to -- an actuator arranged inside the casing and mechanically coupled to the fluid reservoir in [[order]] a manner as to selectively vary the volume of fluid in said reservoir --, -- a control unit configured to control the actuator [[so]]in a manner as to transfer the fluid between the reservoir and the inflatable element—and -- determine a command to be issued to the actuator [[so]] in a manner as to control the pressure of fluid in the fluid circuit—respectively. Similar amendments are suggested for each of claims 9-10.
Each of claim 2, 4-5, 7 recite “if” encompassing conditional/contingent limitations which need to be corrected to avoid conditional/contingent limitation recitation which would raise question as to what occurs when the condition is not met. A suggested correction for example with respect to claim 2 “wherein the control unit is configured to, if the value relating to the altitude of the patient is greater than a first reference value, control the actuator to reduce the volume of fluid in the inflatable element” is --wherein the control unit is configured to, [[if]] based on the value relating to the altitude of the patient [[is]] being greater than a first reference value, control the actuator to reduce the volume of fluid in the inflatable element--. Other suggested terms are “while”, “based upon”, “as long as”. Similar amendments are suggested for each of claim 4-5 and 7.
Claim 7 include reference characters “A4” which are enclosed within parentheses. The use of reference characters is considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims. Since the reference characters are not afforded patentable weight, the reference characters enclosed within parentheses should be deleted from the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 in line 18 recites “a value relating to an altitude of the patient” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether Claim 1 line 18 “a value relating to an altitude of the patient” is the same as, different than or in addition to that recited in claim 1 line 15 and if different in what way the two differ.
Each of claim 2 line 2, claim 3 in line 3 and line 4, claim 4 line 2, claim 5 line 3, claim 6 line 3 and line 4, claim 7 in line 2-3 and claim 8 in line 3 and claim 20 in line 3 recite “the value relating to the altitude of the patient’ which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether “the value relating to the altitude of the patient “ in each of these claims is referencing claim 1 line 15 “a value relating to an altitude of the patient” and/or claim1 line 18 “a value relating to an altitude of the patient”.
Each of clam 12 in line 3 and claim 13 in lines 5-6 recite “a value relating to the altitude of the patient” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether each of clam 12 line 3 and claim 13 lines 5-6 “a value relating to the altitude of the patient” is the same as, different than or in addition to claim 1 line 15 “a value relating to an altitude of the patient” and/or claim1 line 18 “a value relating to an altitude of the patient”.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention for the following reasons. First, claim 1 in lines 13-15 recites “at least one sensor suitable for measuring an absolute pressure of the fluid in the fluid circuit, a force exerted on the reservoir, a gas pressure inside the casing, an atmospheric pressure or a value relating to an altitude of the patient”. Claim 1 subsequently in lines 16-19 provides further limitations to “a value relating to an altitude of the patient” recited in claim 1 in an optional manner in lines 13-15. However, these limitations render the claims indefinite as the claim 1 never positively recites “at least one sensor suitable for measuring … a value relating to an altitude of the patient”. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Dependent claims 2-11, 14-20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the additional recited limitations fail to cure the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue in their respective base claims. Consequently, dependent claims 2-11, 14-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their direct/indirect dependency on their respective base claims.
Each of claim 14 in line 5, claim 15 in line 3 and line 5 recite “said force sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 in line 2 recites the limitation "said reduced volume of fluid". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 in line 6 recites “said…pressure sensor” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether claim 14 line 6 “said…pressure sensor” is referencing claim 14 line 3 “atmospheric pressure sensor” and/or claim 10 “said at least one sensor … arranged so as to measure at least one of a tensile force and a compressive force”.
Claim 14 in line 6 recites “pressure sensor” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether claim 14 line 6 “pressure sensor” is the same as, different than or in addition to claim 14 line 2 “gas sensor”.
Claim 1 in lines 16-19 recites “control unit being further configured to: on the basis of a measurement from said sensor … detect a differential between a value relating to an altitude of the patient and a reference value” which renders this claim unclear in light of claim 1 lines 13-15 “at least one sensor suitable for measuring an absolute pressure of the fluid in the fluid circuit, a force exerted on the reservoir, a gas pressure inside the casing, an atmospheric pressure or a value relating to an altitude of the patient”. More specifically, a broad yet reasonable interpretation of claim 1 lines 13-15 “at least one sensor suitable for measuring an absolute pressure of the fluid in the fluid circuit, a force exerted on the reservoir, a gas pressure inside the casing, an atmospheric pressure or a value relating to an altitude of the patient” would encompass the interpretations :[a] at least one sensor suitable for measuring …a force exerted on the reservoir, OR [b] at least one sensor suitable for measuring … a gas pressure inside the casing. It is unclear as to how and in what way the control unit on the basis of a measurement from said sensor in [a] or [b] can detect a differential between a value relating to an altitude of the patient which is recited in an optional manner using the term “or” and a reference value. Dependent claims 2-11, 14-20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the additional recited limitations fail to cure the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue in their respective base claims. Consequently, dependent claims 2-11, 14-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their direct/indirect dependency on their respective base claims.
Claim 15 recites “from a first sensor among said force sensor, pressure sensor and the altimeter” which renders this claim unclear. In the context used, what is meant by “first sensor”, how is a sensor qualified/determined/predetermined to be “first sensor”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “…detect the altitude differential at regular intervals of between 1 and 300 minutes, preferably between 5 and 60 minutes, more preferably between 5 and minutes..." The use of the word preferably in the claim language renders the claim indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention since it raises a "range within a range" or "broader limitation followed by narrow limitation" indefiniteness type issue. At lines 3-4 of claim 17, it is not clear whether you have to have any value within the specified range to meet the claim or whether you have to have the specific value that follows the word "preferably."
Dependent claims 2-20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the additional recited limitations fail to cure the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue in their respective base claims. Consequently, dependent claims 2-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their direct/indirect dependency on their respective base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention for the following reasons:
First, please note, USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process."). Consequently, a broad yet reasonable interpretation of claim 10 recitation “wherein said at least one sensor comprises a sensor arranged in the casing, mechanically connected to the actuator and/or to the movable portion of the reservoir” would encompass the limitation -- wherein said at least one sensor comprises a sensor arranged in the casing, mechanically connected to the actuator and to the movable portion of the reservoir--. However, the specification while disclosing said at least one sensor comprises a sensor arranged in the casing, mechanically connected to the actuator or to the movable portion of the reservoir does not disclose wherein said at least one sensor comprises a sensor arranged in the casing, mechanically connected to the actuator and to the movable portion of the reservoir features as currently recited. Thus, claim 10 when broadly yet reasonably interpreted contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 14-15 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 112 first paragraph because the additional recited limitations fail to cure the 35 U.S.C. 112 first paragraph issue in their respective base claims. Consequently, dependent claims 14-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 first paragraph based in their direct/indirect dependency on their respective base claims.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C 112 (f)
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of the cuff” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Interpretation
Claims terms where relevant are being interpreted in light of definitions enumerated in instant application specification as-filed page 4.
Please note that USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.").
Contingently Allowable Subject-Matter
As per independent claim 1, independent claim 1 would be contingently allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action in addition to overcoming any other rejections/objections enumerated above.
As per dependent claims 2-20, dependent claims 2-20 would be contingently allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and by further including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims in addition to overcoming any other rejections/objections enumerated above.
As per dependent claims 2-20, dependent claims 2-20 each is being objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims in addition to overcoming any other rejections/objections enumerated above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per independent Claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a medical device comprising… an inflatable element, suitable for being implanted in the body of the patient, outside of a sealed casing containing a gas, a fluid circuit comprising a fluid reservoir having a variable fluid volume and arranged inside the casing with a tube ensuring a fluid connection between said reservoir and said inflatable element, an actuator arranged inside the casing and mechanically coupled to the fluid reservoir … a control unit configured to control the actuator…transfer the fluid between the reservoir and the inflatable element, at least one sensor suitable for measuring an absolute pressure of the fluid in the fluid circuit… a value relating to an altitude of the patient, the control unit being further configured to: on the basis of a measurement from said sensor while the actuator is inactive, detect a differential between a value relating to an altitude of the patient and a reference value, and as a function of said differential, determine a command to be issued to the actuator so as to control the pressure of fluid in the fluid circuit including all the other features, structures, specific arrangement and combination of features and structures in independent Claim 1.
Prior art US 20170325926 A1 to Lamraoui Hamid discloses an occlusion system implantable in a human or animal body, including a fluidic circuit including an inflatable occlusive sleeve, a reservoir with variable volume filled with a fluid, said reservoir comprising a fixed portion and a movable portion, an actuator mechanically coupled with the movable portion of the reservoir so as to linearly displace said movable portion relatively to the fixed portion for adjusting the volume of the reservoir, the actuator and the reservoir with variable volume being laid out in a sealed casing containing a gas, a sensor mechanically bound to the actuator and/or to the movable portion of the reservoir, measuring a traction and/or compressive force in the direction of displacement of the movable portion of the reservoir, a device for measuring the fluid pressure in the fluidic circuit taking into account at least the force measured by said sensor, the effective pressure surface area of the movable portion of the reservoir, and the force exerted on the movable portion of the reservoir with variable volume related to the pressure of the gas in the casing. However, Lamraoui does not disclose the control unit being further configured to: on the basis of a measurement from said sensor while the actuator is inactive, detect a differential between a value relating to an altitude of the patient and a reference value, and as a function of said differential, determine a command to be issued to the actuator… to control the pressure of fluid in the fluid circuit including all the other features, structures, specific arrangement and combination of features and structures in independent Claim 1.
Prior art US 20150374288 A1 to Lamraoui Hamid discloses system for detecting an endo-urethral device for an artificial urinary sphincter implantable in the body of a patient, the artificial urinary sphincter including an occlusive cuff adapted to compress the urethra, respectively the bladder neck or the prostate of the patient, an activation device of the cuff for adjusting the compression exerted by the cuff and a control unit adapted to control the activation device, the system including compression sensor adapted to measure a compression parameter of the urethra, respectively of the bladder neck or of the prostate, a posture sensor adapted to measure a posture parameter of the patient, and a processing unit configured to receive measurement data from the compression and posture sensors, determine from the measurement data of the compression parameter of the urethra, respectively of the bladder neck: (i) if the compression parameter of the urethra, respectively of the bladder neck, exceeds a predetermined detection threshold, during a predetermined period, without an order of said control unit being sent to the activation device to reduce the compression exerted by the cuff, determine from the measurement data of the posture parameter of the patient: (ii) if the patient is in a recumbent position, if the conditions (i) and (ii) are fulfilled, send to the activation device of the artificial urinary sphincter, an immediate reduction order of the compression exerted by the occlusive cuff on the urethra, respectively on the bladder neck or the prostate.
Prior art US 20160123835 A1 to Lamraoui Hamid discloses a hydraulic occlusive system implantable in an animal or human body to occlude a natural conduit, the occlusive system including a hydraulic circuit including an inflatable occlusive cuff containing a variable volume of fluid, surrounding a part of the natural conduit to be occluded, a reservoir containing fluid, and a fluidic connection between the cuff and the reservoir, an activation device coupled to a mobile element of said hydraulic circuit and adapted to move said mobile element to transfer a determined volume of fluid from the reservoir to the cuff or from the cuff to the reservoir to vary the compression exerted by said cuff on said conduit, a control unit adapted to urge the activation device to exert determined compression on the conduit, said device for detection comprising: a sensor adapted to measure the pressure in the hydraulic circuit, a sensor adapted to measure strain applied to the activation device, said determined strain being a position of the mobile element defining a determined volume of transferred fluid, a processing unit adapted to: from measuring data of said sensors, measure the evolution of the pressure in the hydraulic circuit for a determined strain of the activation device.
Prior art US 20090204132 A1 to Ortiz et al. discloses devices and methods for forming a restriction in a patient with the restriction system including an implantable restriction device, an implantable port in fluid communication with the implantable restriction device, and an implantable pump in fluid communication with the restriction device, Ortiz’s implantable restriction device is adjustable and configured to form a restriction in a patient, and the implantable port is configured to receive fluid from a fluid source external to the patient. The implantable pump has a plurality of actuators configured to change shape upon the application of energy thereto such that sequential activation of the plurality of actuators is effective to create pumping action to move fluid through the pump.
However, patentable subject-matter as in independent device claim 1 has neither been disclosed nor is rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Additionally, as per dependent claims 2-20, dependent claims 2-20 would be contingently allowable based on their direct/indirect dependency on contingently allowable respective base claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and/or the claims.
Prior art US 20120157759 A1 to Wirbisky et al. discloses an inflatable cuff including artificial urinary sphincter system activated by a remote control similar to that disclosed. More specifically, Wirbisky discloses an artificial sphincter employing an easily controlled electro-mechanical pump system. The artificial sphincter includes an inflatable cuff, a control pump fluidly coupled to the inflatable cuff, and an electro-mechanical pump system. The inflatable cuff is adapted to surround a urethra or rectum of the patient to facilitate continence. An inflation element or balloon is included to further control pressure to the cuff.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNITA REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-5151. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thu 10-4 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHARLES A MARMOR II can be reached on (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
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) Form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SUNITA REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791