DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-26 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24: On line 11, “the wall the forming the tube” is grammatically incorrect and should recite “the wall forming the tube”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 22 is 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. There is no support in the specification for the arrangement of the lumens as detailed in Claim 22. Specifically, “the third sub-lumen communicates with a first opening on an outer peripheral surface of the tube located between the first balloon and the third balloon and with a second opening on the outer peripheral surface of the tube located between third ballon and the second balloon, wherein the fourth sub-lumen communicates with a pump for delivering the liquid medicine into the closed space between the first closure and the second closure”. Paragraphs 0013 and 0030 describe that a third sub-lumen can couple to both the openings or that each opening can have its respective sub-lumen, but two sub-lumens to openings is not described.
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 21-23 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the fourth sub-lumen” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of examination, the list of lumens that the tube includes will be interpreted as reciting “a fourth sub-lumen”.
Claim 22 recites “the fourth sub-lumen communicates with a pump for delivering the liquid medicine into the closed space between the first closure and the second closure”. It appears that both the third sub-lumen and the fourth sub-lumen are coupled to the first and second openings since that is where the delivering of the liquid occurs according to the spec (Para 0013, 0030). Thus, it is unclear how this is intended to operate. For the sake of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that the third sub-lumen communicated with a first opening and the fourth sub-lumen communicates with a second opening.
Claim 23 is rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-12, 14-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig (US 2020/0254225) in view of Hunter (US 2005/0277577).
Regarding Claim 1, Craig discloses a treatment method (Para 0002), comprising: inserting a first closure (11, Fig 1) and a second closure (12, Fig 1) into a tubular organ (20, Fig 1), wherein the tubular organ includes a plurality of affected site (Para 0017); forming a closed space between the first closure and the second closure by contacting an inner wall of the tubular organ with the first closure and the second closure so that the plurality of affected sites (21, Fig 1) are located in the closed space between the first closure and the second closure; with the tubular organ closed by the first closure and the second closure, suctioning a gas located in the closed space between the first closure and the second closure; and delivering a liquid medicine into the closed space between the first closure and the second closure (Para 0035); wherein delivering the liquid medicine into the closed space between the first closure and the second closure includes injecting the liquid medicine into the closed space until the affected sites are filled with the liquid medicine (no air bubble in the closed space between the first and second closures 11, 12 -Para 0019).
Craig is silent regarding the affected sites are colonic diverticula.
Hunter teaches infiltrating a colonic diverticulum with a hemostatic agent and/or a fibrosis-inducing agent to treat a diverticulum (Para 0832).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Craig to include treating a colonic diverticulum by infiltrate the site with a hemostatic agent and/or a fibrosis-inducing agent as taught by Hunter in order to have a method that treats colonic diverticulum (Para 0832 -Hunter) while ensuring that the entirety of the affected sites are treated while limiting the liquid medicine from affecting tissue not intended to be treated (Para 0020, 0035 -Craig). Further, Craig teaches that the device and method can be used to treat other disease other than cancer (Para 0002).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses delivering the liquid medicine into the closed space between the first closure and the second closure occurs after suctioning the gas (Para 0035 -Craig; “pump 67 may provide a partial vacuum, a.k.a. negative pressure to the egress lumen and egress port to help evacuate the treatment chamber in preparation for administering drug solution 30 at the beginning of a treatment session”)
Regarding Claim 6, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses the first closure is a first balloon and the second closure is a second balloon (Para 0030 -Craig), wherein the first balloon and the second balloon are attached to a tube (10, Fig 1 -Craig), wherein the tube includes: a first lumen (17, Fig 6 -Craig) communicating with the first balloon, a second lumen (18, Fig 6 -Craig) communicating with the second balloon (Para 0030 -Craig), an opening (13, Fig 1 -Craig) located between the first balloon and the second balloon, and a third lumen communicating with the opening, and wherein the liquid medicine is delivered from the opening via the third lumen (Para 0017 -Craig).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses the liquid medicine exerts a hemostatic effect (Para 00832 -Hunter).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses after delivering the liquid medicine into the closed space between the first closure and the second closure, the treatment method further comprises removing at least a portion of the liquid medicine from the closed space between the first closure and the second closure (Para 0035; “clearing the treatment chamber of drug solution 30 at the end of a treatment session”).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses the plurality of colonic diverticulum have a concave portion (“outpouchings”, Para 0817 -Hunter).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses suctioning the gas suctions gas from inside the concave portion (Para 0035 -Craig).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses delivering the liquid medicine into the closed space between the first closure and the second closure delivers the liquid medicine into the concave portion (Para 0020, Para 0035 -Craig).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses delivering the liquid medicine into the closed space between the first closure and the second closure suppress bleeding in the plurality of colonic diverticulum (Para 0832 -Hunter).
Regarding Claim 14, Craig discloses a treatment method (Para 0002), comprising: inserting a tube including a first closure (11, Fig 1) and a second closure (12, Fig 1) into a tubular organ (Para 0017) including a plurality of affected sites (21, Fig 1); in a state in which the plurality of affected sites are located between the first closure and the second closure, contacting an inner wall of the tubular organ with the first closure and the second closure to form a closed space between the first closure and the second closure in which the plurality of affected sites are located; suctioning a gas located in the affected sites and the closed space to place the closed space under a negative pressure; and delivering a liquid medicine into the closed space (Para 0035); wherein delivering the liquid medicine into the closed space between the first closure and the second closure includes injecting the liquid medicine into the closed space until the affected sites are filled with the liquid medicine (no air bubble in the closed space between the first and second closures 11, 12 -Para 0019).
Craig is silent regarding the affected sites colonic diverticula and the liquid medicine suppressing bleeding in the diverticulum.
Hunter teaches infiltrating a colonic diverticulum with a hemostatic agent and/or a fibrosis-inducing agent to treat a diverticulum (Para 0832).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Craig to include treating a colonic diverticulum to infiltrate the site with a hemostatic agent and/or a fibrosis-inducing agent as taught by Hunter in order to have a method that treats colonic diverticulum (Para 0832 -Hunter) while ensuring that the entirety of the affected sites are treated while limiting the liquid medicine from affecting tissue not intended to be treated (Para 0020, 0035 -Craig). Further, Craig teaches that the device and method can be used to treat other disease other than cancer (Para 0002).
Regarding Claim 15, Craig discloses a treatment method (Para 0002), comprising: inserting a catheter including a first closure (11’, Fig 5) and an overtube (50, Fig 5) including a second closure (12’, Fig 5) into a tubular organ including a plurality of affected sites (21, Fig 1); forming a closed space between the first closure and the second closure by contacting an inner wall of the tubular organ with the first closure and the second closure so that the plurality of affected sites are located in the closed space between the first closure and the second closure; with the tubular organ closed by the first closure and the second closure (Para 0032, 0017), suctioning a gas located in the closed space between the first closure and the second closure; and delivering a liquid medicine into the closed space between the first closure and the second closure (Para 0035), wherein delivering the liquid medicine into the closed space between the first closure and the second closure includes injecting the liquid medicine into the closed space until the affected sites are filled with the liquid medicine (no air bubble in the closed space between the first and second closures 11, 12 -Para 0019).
Craig is silent regarding the affected sites are colonic diverticula.
Hunter teaches infiltrating a colonic diverticulum with a hemostatic agent and/or a fibrosis-inducing agent to treat a diverticulum (Para 0832).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Craig to include treating a colonic diverticulum by infiltrate the site with a hemostatic agent and/or a fibrosis-inducing agent as taught by Hunter in order to have a method that treats colonic diverticulum (Para 0832 -Hunter) while ensuring that the entirety of the affected sites are treated while limiting the liquid medicine from affecting tissue not intended to be treated (Para 0020, 0035 -Craig). Further, Craig teaches that the device and method can be used to treat other disease other than cancer (Para 0002).
Regarding Claim 16, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses retracting and advancing the catheter relative to the overtube to adjust a position of the first closure relative to the second closure (Para 0032 -Craig).
Regarding Claim 17, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses pulling the catheter proximally relative to the overtube to move the first closure proximally relative to the second closure (Para 0032 -Craig).
Regarding Claim 20, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses at least one of the plurality of colonic diverticulum is bleeding internally (Para 0832 -Hunter), and the bleeding is stopped by filling all of the plurality of colonic diverticulum with the liquid medicine (Para 0020, Para 0035 -Craig; Para 0832 -Hunter).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig (US 2020/0254225) in view of Hunter (US 2005/0277577) and further in view of Gerrans (US 2011/0218494).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses all of the elements of the invention as discussed above, however, is silent regarding the tube has a third balloon between the first closure and the second closure, and wherein delivering the liquid medicine into the closed space occurs with the third balloon inflated.
Gerrans teaches an analogous method of isolating a region of a hollow organ using first and second closures to deliver treatment; wherein a tube has a third balloon between the first closure and the second closure, and wherein delivering the liquid medicine into the closed space occurs with the third balloon inflated (Para 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube to include a third balloon and delivering the liquid medicine into the tubular organ occurs with the third balloon inflated as taught by Gerrans in order to facilitate extravasation of the agent into the tissue (Para 0025).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig (US 2020/0254225) in view of Hunter (US 2005/0277577) and further in view of Shadduck (US 2022/0233249).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses wherein the tube includes a membrane structure (piezoelectric member of pressure sensor 45. Fig 2) deformable according to a pressure inside the closed space (Para 0031), and stopping delivering the liquid medicine when the membrane structure is deformed (Para 0031).
Craig is silent regarding observing the membrane structure with an endoscope.
Shadduck teaches an analogous method of isolating a region of a hollow organ using first and second closures to deliver treatment (Para 0192), and including observing the tube with an endoscope (Para 0192, lines 1-5; the tube is observable at least before inflation of the balloons).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to include observing the tube (which in the modified invention would include the sensor/membrane structure) with an endoscope in order to facilitate placement of the balloons at the treatment site (Para 0191).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig (US 2020/0254225) in view of Hunter (US 2005/0277577) and further in view of Gencheff (US 5,256,141) and further in view of Shadduck (US 2022/0233249).
Regarding Claim 19, Regarding Claim 18, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses wherein the tube includes a membrane structure (piezoelectric member of pressure sensor 45. Fig 2) deformable according to a pressure inside the closed space (Para 0031), and stopping delivering the liquid medicine when a desired pressure is reached (Para 0031).
Craig is silent regarding the tube includes a valve that releases when a pressure in the closed space exceeds a predetermined pressure inside the closed space and observing the valve with an endoscope.
Gencheff teaches an analogous method of isolating a region of a hollow organ using first and second closures to deliver treatment (Col 7, lines 11-23), and the tube includes a valve that releases when a pressure in the closed space exceeds a predetermined pressure inside the closed space (Col 8, lines 50-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube to include a valve as taught by Gencheff in order to release pressure within the lumen segment to prevent damage due to inadvertent overpressurization of the lumen (Col 8, lines 50-58).
The modified invention of Craig and Gencheff discloses all of the elements of the invention as discussed above, however, are silent regarding observing the valve with an endoscope.
Shadduck teaches an analogous method of isolating a region of a hollow organ using first and second closures to deliver treatment (Para 0192), and including observing the tube with an endoscope (Para 0192, lines 1-5; the tube is observable at least before inflation of the balloons).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to include observing the tube (which in the modified invention would include the valve) with an endoscope in order to facilitate placement of the balloons at the treatment site (Para 0191).
Claim 21, 23, 24, 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig (US 2020/0254225) in view of Hunter (US 2005/0277577) and further in view of Ravikumar (US 2005/0283181).
Regarding Claim 21, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses the first closure is a first balloon and the second closure is a second balloon (Para 0030 -Craig), wherein the first balloon and the second balloon are attached to a tube (10, Fig 1 -Craig), wherein the tube includes: a first sub-lumen (“respective lumens”, Para 0017 -Craig), a second sub-lumen (“respective lumens”, Para 0017 -Craig), a third sub-lumen (“inflation lumen 17”, Para 0030 -Craig), and a fourth lumen (“inflation lumen 18” Para 0030 -Craig), however, is silent regarding a main lumen defined by an interior surface of a wall forming the tube, wherein the first sub-lumen, the second sub-lumen, and the third sub-lumen, are located inside the wall the forming the tube, and wherein a cross-sectional area of the main lumen is larger than a cross-sectional area of any of the first sub-lumen, the second sub-lumen, the third sub-lumen, and the fourth sub-lumen.
Ravikumar teaches an analogous balloon catheter (100, Fig 2A) comprising a first balloon (105) and a second balloon (104A, Fig 100) attached to a tube, wherein the tube includes a main lumen (112, Fig 2B) defined by an interior surface of a wall forming the tube, a first sub-lumen (114A, Fig 2B), a second sub-lumen (114B, Fig 2B), a third sub-lumen (114C, Fig 2B), and a fourth lumen (114D, Fig 2B), wherein the first sub-lumen, the second sub-lumen, and the third sub-lumen, are located inside the wall the forming the tube (See Fig 2B), and wherein a cross-sectional area of the main lumen is larger than a cross-sectional area of any of the first sub-lumen, the second sub-lumen, the third sub-lumen, and the fourth sub-lumen (See Fig 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube disclosed by Craig and Hunter to include a main lumen that is larger than any of the sub-lumen and have the sub-lumen located inside the wall the forming the tube as taught by Ravikumar in order to have device that allows for a wide variety of surgical devices to pass into the patient (Para 0030).
Regarding Claim 23, the modified invention of Craig, Hunter, and Ravikumar discloses the cross-sectional area of the main lumen is configured for insertion of a treatment instrument or an endoscope (Para 0030 - Ravikumar).
Regarding Claim 24, the modified invention of Craig and Hunter discloses the first closure is a first balloon and the second closure is a second balloon (Para 0030 -Craig), wherein the first balloon and the second balloon are attached to a tube (10, Fig 1 -Craig), wherein the tube includes: a first sub-lumen (“respective lumens”, Para 0017 -Craig), a second sub-lumen (“respective lumens”, Para 0017 -Craig), a third sub-lumen (“inflation lumen 17”, Para 0030 -Craig), and a fourth lumen (“inflation lumen 18” Para 0030 -Craig), however, is silent regarding a main lumen defined by an interior surface of a wall forming the tube, wherein the first sub-lumen, the second sub-lumen, and the third sub-lumen, are located inside the wall the forming the tube, and wherein a cross-sectional area of the main lumen is larger than a cross-sectional area of any of the first sub-lumen, the second sub-lumen, the third sub-lumen, and the fourth sub-lumen.
Ravikumar teaches an analogous balloon catheter (100, Fig 2A) comprising a first balloon (105) and a second balloon (104A, Fig 100) attached to a tube, wherein the tube includes a main lumen (112, Fig 2B) defined by an interior surface of a wall forming the tube, a first sub-lumen (114A, Fig 2B), a second sub-lumen (114B, Fig 2B), a third sub-lumen (114C, Fig 2B), and a fourth lumen (114D, Fig 2B), wherein the first sub-lumen, the second sub-lumen, and the third sub-lumen, are located inside the wall the forming the tube (See Fig 2B), and wherein a cross-sectional area of the main lumen is larger than a cross-sectional area of any of the first sub-lumen, the second sub-lumen, the third sub-lumen, and the fourth sub-lumen (See Fig 2B).
Regarding Claim 26, the modified invention of Craig, Hunter, and Ravikumar discloses the cross-sectional area of the main lumen is configured for insertion of a treatment instrument or an endoscope (Para 0030 - Ravikumar).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig (US 2020/0254225) in view of Hunter (US 2005/0277577) and further in view of Ravikumar (US 2005/0283181) and further in view of Gerrans (US 2011/0218494).
Regarding Claim 22, the modified invention of Craig, Hunter, and Ravikumar discloses the first sub-lumen communicates with the first balloon and the second balloon (Para 0030 -Craig; “In the case of expandable members 11, 12 having two balloons, the balloons may be inflated together or separately, to the same or different diameters, and via common or separate inflation lumens 17, 18”), and wherein the third sub-lumen communicates with a first opening on an outer peripheral surface of the tube (Para 0034-0035 -Craig), wherein the fourth sub-lumen communicates with second opening on the outer peripheral surface of the tube a pump for delivering the liquid medicine into the closed space between the first closure and the second closure (Para 0034-0035 -Craig), however, is silent regarding a third balloon located between the first ballon and the second balloon.
Gerrans teaches an analogous method of isolating a region of a hollow organ using first and second closures to deliver treatment; wherein a tube has a third balloon (36, Fig 1) between the first closure and the second closure, and wherein a second sub-lumen (35, Fig 2) communicates with the third balloon located between the first ballon and the second balloon (Para 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube to include a third balloon and a sub-lumen in communication with the balloon as taught by Gerrans in order to facilitate extravasation of the agent into the tissue (Para 0025).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig (US 2020/0254225) in view of Hunter (US 2005/0277577) and further in view of Ravikumar (US 2005/0283181) and further in view of Genin (US 2023/0047991)
Regarding Claim 25, the modified invention of Craig, Hunter, and Ravikumar discloses the first sub-lumen (17, Fig 6 -Craig) communicates with the first balloon, wherein the second sub-lumen (18, Fig 6 -Craig) communicates with the second balloon (Para 0030 -Craig; “In the case of expandable members 11, 12 having two balloons, the balloons may be inflated together or separately, to the same or different diameters, and via common or separate inflation lumens 17, 18”), wherein the third sub-lumen (lumen associated with connector 15, Fig 6) communicates with an aspiration pump for suctioning the gas located in the closed space between the first closure and the second closure wherein the fourth sub-lumen (lumen associated with connector 16, Fig 6) communicates with the pump for delivering the liquid medicine into the closed space between the first closure and the second closure (Para 0035 -Craig), however, is not clear regarding a separate aspiration pump and delivery pump.
Genin teaches an analogous pump that comprises a suction pump and infusion pump to automatically delivery and remove fluid from a treatment site (Para 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify pump to include a suction pump and infusion pump as taught by Genin in order to automatically adjust the fluid in and out of the treatment site (Para 0011, 0017).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/16/2025, on pages 11-17, regarding Craig, Kashintsev, and Shadduck failing to teach the amended limitations of the independent claims have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the current rejection that no longer relies on Kashintsev and Shadduck and instead relies on Hunter to teach the limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTARIUS S DANIEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am to 4:30pm 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, 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.
/ANTARIUS S DANIEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KEVIN C SIRMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783