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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on February 2nd 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II are sufficiently related to not impose a significant search burden. This is not found persuasive because Group I and Group II have different modes of operation, function, and effects and art applicable to one Group would not necessarily be applicable to the other. Group I is drawn to decreasing procedure time and Group II is drawn to reducing total procedure cost.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 2nd 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “cor85sts” should be corrected to “costs” in paragraph [0083].
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference 1111 and 1212, in [0085] and [0086], are not in the Figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference 12010 is not included in the written description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-4, “the least” should be corrected to “the at least” for claim language consistency.
Regarding claim 8, “at least one blood vessel adjacent a vascular tangle” should be corrected to “the at least one blood vessel adjacent the vascular tangle” and “embolization procedure time” should be corrected to “the embolization procedure time” for claim language consistency.
Regarding claims 2-7, all recitations of simply “first group” and “second group” should be corrected to “first group of human patients” and “second group of human patients” for claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that the Applicant has provided a definition for the term “approximately” in paragraph [0052] of the specification: “As used herein, the terms “about” or “approximately” for any numerical values or ranges indicate a suitable tolerance. More specifically, “about” or “approximately” can refer to the range of values ±20% of the recited value, e.g. “about 90%” can refer to the range of values from 71% to 99%.”
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 2-7 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. 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-7, the limitations of “…wherein the embolization procedure time is at least 30%/57%/53% lower for the first group versus the second group” and “…achieving…approximately 67%/81%/79% lower embolization procedure time…” 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(s) had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification contains description supporting the embolization procedure time to be decreased by at least 0.5 hours by delivering nBCA in paragraphs [0074]-[0075] but does not include support for the claimed percentages. Description of the claimed percentages is found in Fig. 9 and paragraph [0079]. However, the claimed percentages supported by Fig. 9 and paragraph [0079] appear to be drawn to a difference from nBCA regarding total per-procedure costs, not time.
For example, the embolization procedure cost appears to be at least 30% lower for the first group versus the second group, not the embolization procedure time. Further, the method appears to comprise achieving approximately 67% lower procedure cost, not embolization procedure time.
The remainder of the specification is silent to any details regarding procedure time being at least a specific percentage lower for the first group versus the second group. The claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result, considering comparison of procedure time between the first and second groups is not a positively recited method step but a result of delivering nBCA, but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the result of a lower procedure time at the claimed percentage is achieved.
An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved, see Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) and MPEP 2163.03(V).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “by delivering the n-BCA” renders the claim unclear. Based on the claim language, it is unclear if the first embolic agent is being delivered or only N-butyl cyanoacrylate is being delivered. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the first embolic agent, comprising N-butyl cyanoacrylate, to be delivered.
Further, the limitation of “in a first group of human patients” renders the claim unclear. The preamble of claim 1 introduces treating unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations in a human patient. Based on the claim language, the Examiner is unsure if a human patient is being treated or a group of human patients.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 6-7, the limitation of “a third catheter” and “a fourth catheter” renders the claim unclear. A second catheter is not introduced in claim 1 which make the descriptions of “third” and “fourth” unclear. The Examiner believes the Applicant is intending to simply limit the claim to include limitations directed toward the use of another, different catheter for the second group of patients.
Regarding claims 5-7, the limitation of “at least four blood vessels” renders the claim unclear. It is unclear if the four blood vessels are in reference to the “at least one blood vessel” of claim 1 or four other blood vessels in addition to the at least one blood vessel of claim 1. Based on the specification and drawings, the Examiner believes the “at least four blood vessels” are intended to further limit the “at least one blood vessel” to four or more vessels. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the claim limitation to limit the at least one blood vessel to being at least four blood vessels, not in addition to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velat (Velat GJ et al. Comparison of N-butyl cyanoacrylate and onyx for the embolization of intracranial arteriovenous malformations: analysis of fluoroscopy and procedure times. Neurosurgery. 2008 Jul;63(1 Suppl 1):ONS73-8 (12th NPL provided in IDS filed January 26th 2023), in view of Walzman (US 20200246584 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Velat discloses a method for treating unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations in a human patient with reduced procedure time (see “Objective” and “Results” on page 1), the method comprising: embolizing, by a first catheter, by delivering a first embolic agent comprising N-butyl cyanoacrylate (the "n-BCA") within at least one blood vessel adjacent a vascular tangle in a first group of human patients (a total of 122 embolizations using a first embolic agent, N-butyl cyanoacrylate (nBCA), were performed on a first group of patients, see abstract and “Per-patient Analysis” and “Per-procedure Analysis” and Table 1 and Table 2);
and decreasing embolization procedure time by at least 0.5 hours, by delivering the n-BCA, compared to a second group of human patients treated by delivering a second embolic agent within at least one blood vessel adjacent a vascular tangle (“Mean fluoroscopy and procedure times were significantly increased when using Onyx (57 min; 2.6 h) compared with nBCA (37 min; 2.1 h) on a per-procedure basis”, see “Per-procedure Analysis” and Table 2; a second group of patients were treated by delivering a second embolic agent, Onyx, see “Per-patient Analysis”; Procedure time using nBCA was 2.1 hours (h), which is 0.5 hours less than the procedure time using Onyx, which was 2.6 h).
Velat discuss the use of catheters, microcatheters, and catheter adherence (first paragraph of right column, page 576, third paragraph of right column, page 577, and page 579) but fails to explicitly disclose the method comprising embolizing, by a first catheter, by delivering a first embolic agent within at least one blood vessel adjacent a vascular tangle; and a second group of human patients treated by delivering a second embolic agent within at least one blood vessel adjacent a vascular tangle.
However, Walzman teaches that “’arteriovenous malformation’ (“AVM”)… refers to a tangle of abnormal and poorly formed blood vessels (e.g., arteries and veins)“ ([0114]-[0115] & Fig. 9-10 and 12) and that “Catheter embolization is a minimally invasive treatment that occludes or blocks one or more blood vessels or vascular channels of malformations (abnormalities). In a catheter embolization procedure, medications or synthetic materials (embolic agents) are placed through a catheter into a blood vessel to prevent blood flow to the area. Using image-guidance, a catheter is inserted through the skin to the treatment site... Next, a medication or an embolic agent is injected through the catheter... Uses of catheter include… to eliminate an arteriovenous malformation (AVM) or arteriovenous fistula (AVF) (abnormal connection or connections between arteries and veins)…” ([0269] & Fig. 9-10 and 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Velat with Walzman to include embolizing, by a catheter, by delivering an embolic agent within at least one blood vessel adjacent a vascular tangle, since Walzman teaches such to be an art effective process for delivering an embolic agent to unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations in a human patient for treatment ([0114]-[0115] and [0269] of Walzman). It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the second group of patients receiving the second embolic agent would follow the same catheterization process as taught by Walzman.
Regarding claims 2-4, Velat, as modified, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Velat further discloses the method wherein the second group of human patients is treated by embolizing, by a second catheter, by delivering the second embolic agent comprising ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer ("EVOH") within the least one blood vessel adjacent the vascular tangle (a total of 60 embolizations using a second embolic agent, Onyx, were performed on the second group of patients, see abstract and “Per-patient Analysis” and “Per-procedure Analysis” and Table 1 and Table 2; “Onyx is a liquid nonadhesive mixture of ethylene vinyl alcohol and metrizamide dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide. Upon contact with blood, dimethyl sulfoxide diffuses rapidly, thereby forming an ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer”, see right column, first paragraph of page 576), and
wherein the embolization procedure time is at least 30%, 57%, or 53% lower for the first group versus the second group (the first group of patients who received treatment with nBCA had a mean procedure time of 2.1 ± 0.9 h and the second group of patients who received treatment with Onyx had a mean procedure time of 2.6 ± 0.8 h, see “Per-procedure Analysis” and Table 2; therefore, the embolization procedure time using nBCA could be interpreted as 1.2 h and the embolization procedure time using Onyx could be interpreted as 3.4 h; therefore, an embolization procedure time could be at least 30%, 57%, or 53% lower for the first group versus the second group; the Examiner notes that the claim does not include limitations limiting the “procedure time” to be an average, the claim simply states “the embolization procedure time”).
However, Velat fails to explicitly disclose the method comprising embolizing by a second/third/fourth catheter. However, as cited above, Walzman teaches that treating brain arteriovenous malformations in a human patient requires the use of catheters to deliver embolic agents within at least one blood vessel adjacent a vascular tangle. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a second group of patients receiving a second embolic agent would receive the agent with a different, separate, second catheter, not the first catheter used on a first group of patients, to maintain patient safety and sterility.
Regarding claim 5, Velat, as modified, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Velat further discloses the method further comprising: achieving, by the n-BCA and the first catheter, approximately 67% lower embolization procedure time (the first group of patients who received treatment with nBCA had a mean procedure time of 2.1 ± 0.9 h and the second group of patients who received treatment with Onyx had a mean procedure time of 2.6 ± 0.8 h, see “Per-procedure Analysis” and Table 2; therefore, the embolization procedure time using nBCA could be interpreted as 1.2 h and the embolization procedure time using Onyx could be interpreted as 3.4 h; therefore, the embolization procedure time is about 64% lower, which can be interpreted as approximately 67% per Applicant’s definition of the term “approximately”, for the first group versus the second group; the Examiner notes that the claim does not include limitations limiting the “procedure time” to be an average, the claim simply states “the embolization procedure time”) for
treating at least two blood vessels adjacent a vascular tangle (“One or two pedicles were accessed during each procedure.”, see “PATIENT AND METHODS” left column, page 574; the number of pedicles embolized per patient when using nBCA was 1.7 ± 0.8 and the number of pedicles embolized per patient when using Onyx was 1.8 ± 0.8, see Table 1; the number of pedicles embolized per patient corresponds to the number of blood vessels accessed) versus the second group treated by the second embolic agent comprising ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer ("EVOH") (“Onyx is a liquid nonadhesive mixture of ethylene vinyl alcohol and metrizamide dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide. Upon contact with blood, dimethyl sulfoxide diffuses rapidly, thereby forming an ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer”, see right column, first paragraph of page 576).
However, Velat fails to explicitly disclose treating at least four blood vessels and a second catheter. However, as cited above, Walzman teaches that “Catheter embolization is a minimally invasive treatment that occludes or blocks one or more blood vessels or vascular channels of malformations (abnormalities).”, ([0269] & Fig. 9-10 and 12). Additionally, as cited above in claim 1, Walzman teaches that treating brain arteriovenous malformations in a human patient requires the use of catheters to deliver embolic agents within at least one blood vessel adjacent a vascular tangle. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a second group of patients receiving a second embolic agent would receive the agent with a different, separate, second catheter, not the first catheter used on a first group of patients, to maintain patient safety and sterility.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Velat with Walzman to include treating at least four blood vessels and a second catheter since such a modification would allow for the complete elimination of arteriovenous malformations of various size and vascular connection. ([0269] of Walzman). Walzman teaches that treating one or more vessels is necessary to eliminate arteriovenous malformations; therefore, depending on the nature of an arteriovenous malformation, treating at least four vessels may be necessary.
Regarding claims 6-7, Velat, as modified, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Velat further discloses the method further comprising: achieving, by the n-BCA and the first catheter, approximately 64% lower embolization procedure time (the first group of patients who received treatment with nBCA had a mean procedure time of 2.1 ± 0.9 h and the second group of patients who received treatment with Onyx had a mean procedure time of 2.6 ± 0.8 h, see “Per-procedure Analysis” and Table 2; therefore, the embolization procedure time using nBCA could be interpreted as 1.2 h and the embolization procedure time using Onyx could be interpreted as 3.4 h; therefore, the embolization procedure time is about 64% lower for the first group versus the second group; the Examiner notes that the claim does not include limitations limiting the “procedure time” to be an average, the claim simply states “the embolization procedure time”) for
treating at least two blood vessels adjacent a vascular tangle (“One or two pedicles were accessed during each procedure.”, see “PATIENT AND METHODS” left column, page 574; the number of pedicles embolized per patient when using nBCA was 1.7 ± 0.8 and the number of pedicles embolized per patient when using Onyx was 1.8 ± 0.8, see Table 1; the number of pedicles embolized per patient corresponds to the number of blood vessels accessed) versus the second group treated by the second embolic agent comprising ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer ("EVOH") (“Onyx is a liquid nonadhesive mixture of ethylene vinyl alcohol and metrizamide dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide. Upon contact with blood, dimethyl sulfoxide diffuses rapidly, thereby forming an ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer”, see right column, first paragraph of page 576).
However, Velat fails to explicitly disclose achieving, by the n-BCA and the first catheter, approximately 81% or 79% lower embolization procedure time for treating at least four blood vessels and a third/fourth catheter.
However, as cited above, Walzman teaches that “Catheter embolization is a minimally invasive treatment that occludes or blocks one or more blood vessels or vascular channels of malformations (abnormalities).”, ([0269] & Fig. 9-10 and 12). Additionally, as cited above in claim 1, Walzman teaches that treating brain arteriovenous malformations in a human patient requires the use of catheters to deliver embolic agents within at least one blood vessel adjacent a vascular tangle. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a second group of patients receiving a second embolic agent would receive the agent with a different, separate, second catheter, not the first catheter used on a first group of patients, to maintain patient safety and sterility.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Velat with Walzman to include treating at least four blood vessels and a second catheter since such a modification would allow for the complete elimination of arteriovenous malformations of various size and vascular connection ([0269] of Walzman). Walzman teaches that treating one or more vessels is necessary to eliminate arteriovenous malformations; therefore, depending on the nature of an arteriovenous malformation, treating at least four vessels may be necessary.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the method of Velat, as modified by Walzman, to achieve approximately 81% or 79% lower embolization procedure time since it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Velat, as modified, teaches that the method of embolizing by delivering nBCA using a catheter result in approximately 64% lower procedure time versus embolizing by delivering EVOH using a catheter. One of ordinary skill in the art could perform routine experimentation to continue to lower the procedure time using nBCA and would be motivated to do so to decrease total procedure length. Velat uses nBCA to treat arteriovenous malformations and already contemplates how nBCA shortens procedure time compared to EVOH.
Additionally, Velat discloses delivering nBCA to treat brain arteriovenous malformations by delivering nBCA. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process, In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and MPEP 2112.02(I). The positively claimed method step of delivering nBCA to treat brain arteriovenous malformations by delivering nBCA, as claimed and disclosed by Velat, would inherently achieve a lower embolization procedure time. The prior art device and method would necessarily perform the claimed method as decreasing/achieving a lower embolization time is simply a result of the known step.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velat (Velat GJ et al. Comparison of N-butyl cyanoacrylate and onyx for the embolization of intracranial arteriovenous malformations: analysis of fluoroscopy and procedure times. Neurosurgery. 2008 Jul;63(1 Suppl 1):ONS73-8) [12th NPL provided in IDS filed January 26th 2023], in view of Walzman (US 20200246584 A1), in view of Backeris (WO 2020160469 A1), and further in view of Beheshti (Beheshti, MV et al. Calculation of Operating Expenses for Conventional Transarterial Chemoembolization in an Academic Medical Center: A Step toward Defining the of Value of TACE) [2nd NPL provided in IDS filed January 26th 2023].
Regarding claim 8, Velat, as modified, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Velat further discloses that the mean total procedure time and mean embolization procedure time are both lower for the group of patients treated with nBCA (see Table 1 and Table 2).
However, Velat fails to explicitly disclose the method, further comprising calculating a cost adjustment ratio for embolizing at least one blood vessel adjacent a vascular tangle in the first group of human patients compared to the second group of human patients, wherein the cost adjusted ratio comprises conditions comprising at least one of: embolization procedure time,
units of first or second embolic agent,
concentration of first or second embolic agent per unit,
type of catheter,
number of catheters, and
angiography suite time; and identifying at least one condition in the cost adjusted ratio to achieve at least 18% reduced embolization cost of the first group compared to the second group, the cost adjustment ratio being determined by a Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model.
However, Backeris teaches a method for treating brain arteriovenous malformations in a human patient by delivering nBCA achieving a reduced embolization cost (“…improved time efficiency intra-procedurally and overall improvement in healthcare cost savings.”, page 16 all of second paragraph).
Further, Beheshti teaches a method comprising calculating an hourly rate to operate an angiography suite (see page 58 right column).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cost adjustment ratio conditions of embolization procedure time and angiography suite time to reduce embolization cost by at least 18% as claimed as Backeris and Beheshti teach that embolization procedure time is a result effective variable that directly affects healthcare costs, as taught by Backeris, and overall angiography suite cost is a result effective variable that is directly influenced by procedure time, as taught by Beheshti, and reducing either condition to have embolization cost reduced by at least the claimed percentage would have been a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105, USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce embolization cost by at least 18% to improve healthcare cost savings for patients.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN ADAM RADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/MARTIN A RADOMSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /EMILY L SCHMIDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783