DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Reissue Applications
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which US Pat. No. 9,889,273 (“the ‘273”) patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations and litigations.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Maintenance Fees
Review of the file indicates that applicant’s window for the 7.5 year maintenance fee without surcharge opened 13 February 2025 and will close 13 August 2025. Payment of the maintenance fee with surcharge begins 14 August 2025 and will close 13 February 2026. If the last day for paying a maintenance fee with or without surcharge falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the fee plus surcharge if applicable may be paid on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or federal holiday. Applicant is encouraged to ensure all payments are current and proper. See 37 CFR §1.362(d) and (e).
As per MPEP §2504(I)(B),
Effective January 16, 2018, the original patent requires a separate maintenance fee payment if at least one reissue application based on the original patent is pending on the maintenance fee due date (i.e., the 3½, 7½, or 11½ year date) even if a maintenance fee payment is made in reissue patent(s) that have issued from the same original patent.
35 U.S.C. 251 permits reissue only for "the unexpired part of the term of the original patent." An original patent is not surrendered under 35 U.S.C. 252 until a reissue application, based on the original patent, issues as a reissue patent and no other reissue application, based on the same original patent, is still pending. Because it is the granting of the reissue patent – and not the filing of the reissue application - that effectuates surrender of the original patent under 35 U.S.C. 252, maintenance fees remain due in the original patent whenever an application for reissue of the original patent is pending on the maintenance fee due date. Specifically, when one or more reissue patents have issued and at least one application for reissue of the same original patent remains pending, the original patent is not surrendered and maintenance fees remain due in the original patent until the last remaining reissue application issues as a reissue patent or becomes abandoned. In other words, while there is an application for reissue pending in a reissue patent family, maintenance fee payments will be required in both the original patent and the corresponding reissue patent(s). (emphasis added).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant is reminded that maintenance fees are required in both the original ‘273 patent and reissue patent #(s) RE49,557.
Election/Restrictions
It is noted that in US application 13/326,093, the parent application to US Application 14/294,008 (“the ‘008 application”) which resulted in the ‘273 patent, a requirement for an election of species was established in the office action mailed 4/2/13. Applicant elected the species of Figs. 16-17; however, the ‘093 application was abandoned. In the subsequent ‘008 application resulting in the ‘273 patent, applicant presented claims to species D of Figs. Figs. 10a-b.
As per MPEP 1412.01 I.,
Where a restriction (or an election of species) requirement was made in an application and applicant permitted the elected invention to issue as a patent without filing a continuing application on the non-elected invention(s) or on non-claimed subject matter distinct from the elected invention, the non-elected invention(s) and non-claimed, distinct subject matter cannot be recovered by filing a reissue application. A reissue applicant’s failure to timely file a continuing application is not considered to be error causing a patent granted on the elected claims to be partially inoperative by reason of claiming less than the applicant had a right to claim. Accordingly, this is not correctable by reissue of the original patent under 35 U.S.C. 251. See In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 14 USPQ2d 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Weiler, 790 F.2d 1576, 229 USPQ 673 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Orita, 550 F.2d 1277, 1280, 193 USPQ 145, 148 (CCPA 1977); see also In re Mead, 581 F.2d 251, 198 USPQ 412 (CCPA 1978). In this situation, the reissue claims should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for lack of any defect in the original patent and lack of any error in obtaining the original patent. Compare with In re Doyle, 293 F.3d 1355, 63 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2002) where the court permitted the patentee to file a reissue application to present a so-called linking claim, a claim broad enough to read on or link the invention elected (and patented) together with the invention not elected. The non-elected invention(s) were inadvertently not filed as a divisional application. (emphasis added)
Therefore, applicant is barred from pursuing claims in a reissue application or a divisional of a reissue application directed to other species than those encompassed by the ‘273 patented claims. See MPEP 1412.01. See also Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/11/2022, pp. 3-4 in Reissue Application # 16/790,551.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Thermal Activation, Figs. 8a-b,
Axial Compression, Figs. 16 and 17,
Radial Compression with body segments, Figs. 9, 12 and 13,
Radial Compression with interstitial component, Figs. 10a-b,
Radial Compression with multiple discrete air chambers, Fig. 11,
Torsional Activation,
Solidifying Material/Membrane, Figs. 14 and 15, and
Memory Metal.
The species are independent or distinct because each embodiment has a distinct mechanism for increasing the stiffness metric of the catheter. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: each of these structural mechanisms have applications in divergent fields including toys, optic fiber conduits, and automated manufacturing.
Newly submitted claims 13-25 and 30-34 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 13-19 are directed to an invention that is a combination of embodiments C and D which is not supported by the ‘273 patent specification and is also distinct from the invention originally claimed. The originally claimed invention did not include a plurality of non-collapsible body segments where at least one non-collapsible body segment being an interposed body segment adjacently interposed between two of the plurality of collapsible pressure chambers. This new limitation seems to be combining the feature of a body segment 904 from the embodiment of Figs. 12 and 13 with the interstitial components / non-collapsible body segments / layers 1002.
Claims 21-25 are directed to an invention distinct from the invention original claimed since claims 21-25 are directed to embodiment C of Figs. 9, 12 and 13. This embodiment was a non-elected invention during the original prosecution of the ‘273 patent and therefore applicant is barred from pursuing claims in a reissue application or a divisional of a reissue application directed to other species than those encompassed by the ‘273 patented claims.
Claims 30-34 are directed to an invention that is a combination of embodiments C and D which is not supported by the ‘273 patent specification and is also distinct from the invention originally claimed. The originally claimed invention did not include “non-collapsible body segments each distributed between the plurality of pressue chambers to cause a change in a stiffness metric.” This new limitation seems to be combining the feature of a body segment 904 from the embodiment of Figs. 12 and 13 with the interstitial components / non-collapsible body segments / layers 1002.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 13-25 and 30-34 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
35 U.S.C. 251
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is a copy from reissue application #16/790,551 (“the ‘551 reissue application”) and is improper because it fails to identify an error being corrected by this continuation reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414 II (D)(1). The error statement must be a new error statement supporting a continuation reissue since the original error from the ‘551 reissue application is considered to have been corrected in the issuance of the previous reissue application.
As set forth in MPEP § 1414 II (D)(1),
Where a continuation reissue application is filed with a copy of the reissue oath/declaration from the parent reissue application, and the parent reissue application is not to be abandoned, the reissue oath/declaration should be accepted by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) without further evaluation, because it is an oath/declaration, albeit improper under 35 U.S.C. 251. The examiner should, however, reject the claims of the continuation reissue application under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based on an oath/declaration that does not identify an error being corrected by the continuation reissue application, and should require a new oath/declaration that identifies a new error or a statement explaining compliance with 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2) if appropriate. If the same error corrected in the parent is also being corrected in the continuation reissue application, but the error is being corrected in a different way, a statement is needed to explain compliance with 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2) for a reissue application filed on or after September 16, 2012. For these applications, a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 is not needed. For a reissue application filed before September 16, 2012, a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 will be needed to waive pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.175(e) in order to rely on the same error identified in the parent but being corrected in a different way. See 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2) for reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.175(e) for reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012. One of form paragraphs 14.01.01, 14.01.02, or 14.01.03 may be used.
Claims 26-29 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175. Applicant must provide a new signed Declaration with new error statement or a statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2) explaining how the error is being corrected in a different way. Applicant is also reminded that the error cannot be based on surrendered subject matter from the original patent application. See Recapture below.
Recapture
Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
As stated in M.P.E.P. § 1412.02,
In Clement, 131 F.3d at 1468-70, 45 USPQ2d at 1164-65, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set forth a three step test for recapture analysis. In North American Container, 415 F.3d at 1349, 75 USPQ2d at 1556, the court restated this test as follows:
We apply the recapture rule as a three-step process:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
In North American Container, the court cited Pannu, 258 F.3d at 1371, 59 USPQ2d at 1600; Hester, 142 F.3d at 1482-83, 46 USPQ2d at 1649-50; and Clement, 131 F.3d at 1468, 45 USPQ2d at 1164-65 as cases that lead to, and explain the language in, the North American Container recapture test.
Step 1: Claims 26-29 are broader than original patent claims 1-4 or 5-12. Independent new claims 25, 49 and 64 do not include the claim limitation of “a first layer of wrapped tape and a second layer of wrapped tape” and “first and second layers of wrapped tape extending along an entire length of the pressure-response chamber” which was part of both original patent claim sets 1-4 and 5-12.
Therefore step 1 of the three-step test is met for claims 26-29.
Step 2: In the prosecution of the ‘008 application, applicant relied upon the limitations of “layers including a first cylindrical layer of wrapped tape and a second cylindrical layer of wrapped tape coaxial with the first cylindrical layer of wrapped tape, the first and second cylindrical layers extending along an entire length of the pressure-responsive chamber” (claim 1) and “a first layer of wrapped tape and a second layer of wrapped tape, the first and second layers of wrapped tape extending along an entire length of the pressure-response chamber” (claim 5) in order to gain allowance of the claims; this limitation is not included or partially included in the amended or new claims submitted for reissue.
In this case, Applicant indicated that the prior art of record to Garcia (US 2009/0030282) only disclosed a single layer rather than first and second layers (see response filed 03/14/17, p. 8). Additionally, in the response filed 07/05/17 page 7, applicant stated that “Garcia’s construction does not and cannot result in two layers that each extend along the length of Garcia’s intermediate volume. In short, if each strip is coupled to the inner tube, then for the first strip [], there cannot be another strip between the first strip and the inner tube that extends along an entire length of Garcia’s inner tube.”
The claim language missing from claims 26-29 which resulted in the broadening of claims 26-29 is the exact claim language or related claim language of the surrendered subject matter by applicant.
Therefore, step 2 of the three-step test is met for claims 26-29.
Step 3: It is impermissible recapture for a reissue claim to be as broad as, or broader in scope than any claim that was canceled or amended in the original prosecution to define over the art. Claim scope that was canceled or amended is deemed surrendered and therefore barred from reissue. Clement, 131 F.3d at 1470, 45 USPQ2d at 1165. It must be determined whether the reissue claim omits or broadens any limitation that was added or argued during the original prosecution to overcome an art rejection. Such an omission in a reissue claim, even if it is accompanied by other limitations making the reissue claim narrower than the patent claim in other aspects, is impermissible recapture. Pannu, 258 F.3d at 1371-72, 59 USPQ2d at 1600. In any broadening reissue application, the examiner will determine, on a claim-by-claim basis, whether the broadening in the reissue application claim(s) relates to subject matter that was surrendered during the examination of the patent for which reissue is requested) by an amendment narrowing claim scope in order to overcome a rejection and/or argument relying on a claim limitation in order to overcome a rejection.
Claims 26-29 entirely eliminate the surrendered subject matter with no accompanying limitation narrowing in other aspects the surrendered subject matter.
During the prosecution of the ‘273 patent, the Applicant specifically argued that the prior art did not disclose “a first layer of wrapped tape and a second layer of wrapped tape” and “first and second layers of wrapped tape extending along an entire length of the pressure-response chamber”. Therefore, Applicant is not permitted to remove this limitation without invoking impermissible recapture.
Therefore, step 3 of the three-step test is met for claims 26-29.
The omission of ““a first layer of wrapped tape and a second layer of wrapped tape” and “first and second layers of wrapped tape extending along an entire length of the pressure-response chamber”” from new claims 26-29 invokes impermissible recapture of surrendered subject matter as detailed above by the three step test. Therefore, claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as indicated above.
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 26-29 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.
Independent claim 26 includes the limitation of “an irregular surface of deformed body layer along the axial length of the respective body layer.” The ‘273 patent specification, including the figures, does not provide support for this limitations. As shown in figs. 10a-b, there are no irregular surfaces along the axial length of the body layer. Additionally, the ‘273 specification is silent with respect to any irregular surface. According to the specification, irregular surfaces along the axial length of the body layer is disclosed as being included in the embodiment of figs. 12-13 which is a non-elected distinct invention for the originally patent ‘273 claims. Therefore, applicant is attempting to combine embodiments and the combination of embodiments lacks support in the specification.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 26-29 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
US 2009/0030282 to Garcia et al (“Garcia”).
Regarding claim 26, Garcia teaches, a catheter (tubular conduit 100 for insertion into the body) comprising: a catheter body defining a catheter axis (see Figs. 6A-6B) and having an outer body layer (104) and an inner body layer (102) disposed within the outer body layer to define a pressure chamber (108/630) between the inner and outer body layers, at least one of the inner body layer and the outer body layer comprising a flexible polymeric material such that the pressure chamber is configured to collapse upon the application of a reduced pressure within the pressure chamber (see paras. [0036-0039], “Inner tube 102 may be regarded as a deformable structure in that inner tube 102 is flexible in at least a longitudinal direction along the length of the inner tube. More specifically, in various embodiments, inner tube 102 is able to longitudinally contract or elongate but is constrained from expanding radially. Inner tube 102 may be formed from a number of different materials. By way of example, inner tube 102 may be formed from silicone, polyurethane, as well as a variety of other suitable elastic materials;” “Outer tube 104 is also formed from a material that is preferably able to expand and contract longitudinally along the length of the outer tube. By way of example, a number of elastic materials such as polyurethane may be suitable for use in forming outer tube 104. Generally, it is desirable that outer tube 104 be formed of a material that is biocompatible with human or other animal tissues with which outer tube 104 may come into contact with during use of endoscopic device 100.”), the catheter having a first state in which the air chamber is in a non-collapsed orientation prior to the application of the reduced pressure and having a second state in which the air chamber is in a collapsed orientation after the application of the reduced pressure (see paras. [0036-0039]), the inner and outer body layers in the first state each having a smooth surface along an axial length of the respective body layer defining a slideable operation of the catheter in the first state (see para. [0038], “In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, an outer tube 104 is arranged around inner tube 102 such that inner tube 102 and outer tube 104 may be roughly concentric in certain equilibrium and/or nonequilibrium states.”); and an interstitial component (106) including at least one non-collapsible component (scale) disposed within the air chamber between the inner and outer body layers, the non-collapsible component having a smooth surface and opposing edges along an axial length of the non-collapsible component further defining the slideable operation (see para. [0045-0046]) of the catheter in the first state (see Figs. 5A-5B), wherein in the second state at least one of the inner and outer body layers at least in part deforms radially inward with the application of the reduced pressure and further deforms to conform to the smooth surface and opposing edges of the non-collapsible component to present an irregular surface of deformed body layer along the axial length of the respective body layer defining a rigid non-slideable operation of the catheter in the second state (see para. [0049], “Since the overlapping scale-like strips 106 are fixed with the inner tube 102, the flexible inner tube 102 is also effectively rigidized. In the illustrated embodiment, such a reduction of pressure in the entire intermediate volume 108 would have the effect of rigidizing the entire endoscopic device 100. Moreover, device 100 may be rigidized in virtually any shape or configuration. More specifically, endoscopic device 100 may be bent at one or more regions along the length of the device and subsequently rigidized such that device 100 maintains the bent form the device was in prior to rigidization. Such a rigidizing ability is useful in a wide assortment of applications. By way of example, upon advancement through a colon or abdomen, endoscopic device 100 can be rigidized such that tools or other instruments can be guided and passed through device 100 without damaging delicate tissues or minimizing the level of discomfort for the patient.”).
Regarding the limitation of a “catheter,” Garcia teaches an endoscope which is considered a type of surgical cannula. An endoscope is typically larger than a catheter and not used within the patient’s vasculature. However, endoscopes and catheters are both surgical cannulas and the main structural difference between an endoscope and a catheter is size. Additionally, many prior art systems for navigating within a patient’s body generically disclose surgical cannulas and then specifically list endoscopes, catheters, trocars, etc. Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to make the cannula (endoscope) of Garcia as a catheter since the modification would have been merely a change in size and would have been motivated by increasing the application of the medical device to the vasculature. Additionally, changes in relative size or proportion have been found unpatentable. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Regarding claim 27, Garcia teaches wherein the catheter defines a body thickness between the inner and outer layers of the catheter body and the body thickness varies along a length of the catheter body upon collapse. See paras. [0039] which discloses “ Like inner tube 102, the thickness of the wall of the outer tube 104 may vary widely according to the needs of a particular application as well as according to the material and geometry of the outer tube;” [0050-0051] which discloses selectively rigidizing channels 630 along the axis of the conduit which would result in a body thickness that varies long a length of the body.
Regarding claim 28, Garcia teaches wherein the pressure chamber is configured to collapse in response to negative pressure. See para. [0047], “More particularly, in one embodiment, a vacuum source is used to draw vacuum to reduce the pressure (e.g. air pressure) within intermediate volume 108 below that of the surrounding environment. The reduction in pressure within intermediate volume 108 has the effect of radially contracting outer tube 104.”
Regarding claim 29, Garcia teaches the accessory lumen extending from the pressure chamber to a hub configured to originate a pressure change to collapse the pressure chamber. See para. [0050], “Each channel 630 may be connected with its own associated vacuum line. In this way, the pressure in only one or more selected channels 630 may be reduced so as to rigidize the scale-like strips 106 in only the selected channel(s), and thereby only the portion of the inner tube 102 adjacent the selected channel(s);” and see claim 7 for disclosure of vacuum source.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2007/0270648; US 2008/0091170; and US 2006/0192465.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE SERKE WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-4970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday core hours 8am-4pm ET.
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, Patricia L Engle can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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.
/CATHERINE S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3993