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 of invention I and species A (Fig. 7B, a rigid capturing portion with a curved portion) in the reply filed on 04/08/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/08/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein a lead angle at which the base threaded portion is cooperating with the drive portion is less than a friction angle” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: one or more features in claim 6.
The claim limitation “one or more features configured to disengage the fixing device” invokes 112(f) because the term “features” is a generic placeholder with no structural meaning modified by the functional language “configured to disengage the fixing device” and is not further modified by sufficient structure. For the purpose of prior art examination this limitation will be interpreted as “grasping end” or “actuator rod distal end” see [0076] of applicant’s specification “the actuator rod includes an actuator rod distal end or grasping end”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3, 8-10, and 13 is 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.
In claim 3, the claim limitation “the two closure clamping portions” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if this refers to the “the closure clamping portions” in claims 2 and 1, or different clamping portions. For the purpose of prior art examination this limitation will be interpreted as “the closure clamping portions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is rejected as being dependent on claim 3.
In claim 8, the claim limitation “a delivery device” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if this refers to the “the delivery control device” in claim 1, or a different delivery device. For the purpose of prior art examination this limitation will be interpreted as “the delivery control device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the base clutching end" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art examination this will be interpreted as “base end”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the drive portion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art examination this will be interpreted as “the threaded portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al (CN 112656546 A), herein referenced to “Li”, (machine translation attached to the office action).
Claim 1
Li discloses: A system valve clamping system having 100 (see Figs. 1-4 and 6-23b, [0058]) for clamping a tissue (see [0058], valve clamp), comprising: a fixing device 100 (see Figs. 1-4 and 6-23b, [0058]) comprising a clamp mechanism 10 (see Figs. 1-4 and 6-23b, [0062]) for closing a tissue valve (see Figs. 22 and 23a, [0058]), and a support mechanism 22 (see Figs. 1-4 and 6-23b, [0053] and [0073]) carrying the clamp mechanism 10 (see Figs. 1-4, 22 carries 10), the support mechanism 22 comprising a drive assembly 12 (see Figs. 1-4 and 6-23b, [0051] and [0080]) for driving the clamp mechanism 10 to open and close (see [0080], 12 which is connected to 13 drives first clamp 11 which is part of 10 to open, and the reverse motion causes closing); a delivery control device 400 (see Figs 20a-23b, [0056] and [0095]) comprising a shaft 400 is a shaft (see Figs. 20a-23b, [0095]) for introducing the fixing device 100 to a target location (see Figs. 20a-23b, [0095], control the overall movement of 100) and a grasping mechanism 200 (see Figs. 1-4 and 6-23b, [0055] and [0095]) for enabling the shaft 400 and the fixing device 100 to be separably connected (see [0078] and [0095], allows 100 to be detached from 400); and the clamp mechanism 10 comprises a pair of closure members 11 (see Figs. 1-4 and 6-23b, [0051] and [0060] 11 is a pair of closure members/clamping arms, as there are at least two), a guide slot 111 (see Fig. 13, [0051] and [0084]) comprising at least a nonlinear segment 111 is curved hence it has a nonlinear segment (see Fig. 13) in each of the pair of closure members 11, the support mechanism 22 comprising pins 133 (see Fig. 12-14, [0051] and [0084]), each of which is at least partially located in one of the guide slots 111 (see Fig. 14) and is slidable (see [0084], 133 slides in cooperation with 111) in the one of the guide slots 111, so as to drive closure clamping portions the distal portion of 11 (see Figs. 1-4 and 6-23b) of the clamp mechanism 10 to move towards or away from each other (see Figs. 1-4 and 6-23b).
Claim 2
Li discloses: The system according to claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Li further discloses: wherein the clamp mechanism 10 comprises the pair of closure members 11 and a pair of capture members 223 (see Figs. 1-4 and 6-23b, [0060]), each capture member 223 in one-to-one correspondence (see [0060], correspond one-to-one) with a respective one of the closure members 11; the pair of closure members 11 comprising closure connecting portions proximal portions of 11 where 111 is (see Figs. 1-14) with the closure clamping portions the distal portion of 11 in cooperation with the pair of capture members 223 to clamp the tissue (see Figs. 21a-23a); and the guide slot 111 formed in the closure connecting portions proximal portions of 11 where 111 is.
Claim 3
Li discloses: The system according to claim 2, see 102 rejection above. Li further discloses: wherein the support mechanism 22 comprises a fixed connecting assembly 13 (see Figs. 1-4 and 6-23b, [0051] and [0080]), the pins 133 provided on the fixed connecting assembly 13 (see Figs. 4 and 12-14), and wherein the drive assembly 12 is connected to the two closure clamping portions the distal portion of 11 (see 112b rejection, interpreted as “the closure clamping portions”) and is arranged to allow each of the pins 133 to slide in the respective one (see Figs. 6-7, as 12 + 13 move distally, this causes pins 133 to move within 111 to move the closure clamping portions, the distal portions of 11) of guide slots 111 when the drive assembly 12 moves relative to the fixed connecting assembly 13.
Claim 4
Li discloses: The system according to claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Li further discloses: wherein: each of the guide slots 111 comprises at least first and second slot regions (see annotated Fig. 6 below) in communication with each other, and a radian of the first slot region (see annotated Fig. 6 below, the radian of the first slot is greater than the radian of the second slot region, which is the curved “elbow” portion of the slot) is greater than a radian (see annotated Fig. 6 below) of the second slot region.
PNG
media_image1.png
754
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5
Li discloses: The system according to claim 4, see 102 rejection above. Li further discloses: wherein each of the guide slots 111 further comprises a third slot region (see annotated Fig. 6 below claim 4) in communication with the second slot region (see annotated Fig. 6 below claim 4) and having a radian (see annotated Fig. 6 below claim 4, the radian of third slot area is greater than the radian of the second slot area, but smaller than that of the first slot area) greater than the radian of the second slot region, and wherein the second slot region (see annotated Fig. 6 below claim 4, the second slot region is between the first and third slot regions) is located between the first slot region and the third slot region.
Claim 6
Li discloses: The system according to claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Li further discloses: wherein the grasping mechanism 200 comprises an actuator rod 31 (see Figs. 3-4, [0067]) connected to the drive assembly 12 in a non-rotatable and axially separable manner (see [0066], 31 can be separated from 100 to implant 100) such that rotation of the actuator rod (see [0062]-[0064], the movement of 31 can alter the sizing of 10) directs the drive assembly to move axially (see [0062], 31 can drive 10 to move relatively to 20) ; and the actuator rod 31 comprises one or more features distal end of 31 attached to 12 (see Fig. 3, meets 112(f) interpretation as actuator rod distal end) configured to disengage the fixing device 100 from the shaft 31 when the actuator rod is moved proximally (see Fig. 23b, 31 is moved proximally to disengage from 11, [0062]-[0064]).
Claim 7
Li discloses: The system according to claim 6, see 102 rejection above. Li further discloses: wherein: the support mechanism 22 comprises a fixed connecting assembly 13 (see Figs. 1-4 and 6-23b, [0051] and [0080]) and the drive assembly 12 is moveable relative (see Figs. 4 and 6-7, 12 is movable relative to 13 to open and close 11) to the fixed connecting assembly 13, and wherein the fixed connecting assembly 13 comprises a base end 131 (see Fig. 12, [0051] and [0083]); the grasping mechanism 200 comprises a coupling seat 200 + 21 (see Figs. 3 and 8-9, [0053], which can selectively lock 31 to 10 + 11 + 12 + 13) separably connected to the base end 131 and an engagement member 211 (see Figs. 8-9, [0067]) releasably connecting the base end 131 and the coupling seat 21, and the actuator rod 31 provides a driving force (see [0062]-[0065]) for the drive assembly 12; and the actuator rod 31 comprises a distal end the distal end of 31 connected to 12 (see Fig. 3) connected to the drive assembly 12 in an axially separable and non-rotatable manner (see [0066], 31 can be separated from 100 to implant 100), the actuator rod 31 configured to be moved distally relative to the engagement member 214 between a first position separation position (see [0065]) and a second position engagement position (see [0065]), and when the actuator rod 31 is moved proximally from the second position engagement position, an actuator rod supporting portion 32 (see Figs. 1-4 and 6-23b, [0104], 32 unlocks 21) drives the engagement member 211 to move proximally as well (see [0104]-[0105], 32 can be removed to separate 31 from 100), such that the coupling seat 21 is separated from the base end 131.
Claim 8
Li discloses: The system according to claim 7, see 102 rejection above. Li further discloses: wherein the coupling seat 21 comprises a coupling seat connecting end 214 (see Figs. 8-9, [0053] and [0067]), a coupling seat distal end 2133 + 2132 (see Figs. 8-9, [0072]), and a coupling seat inner cavity the inner cavity of 21 (see Figs. 8-9) defined through the coupling seat 21, the engagement member 211 is provided in the coupling seat inner cavity (see Figs. 8-9, 211 is within 21), the coupling seat distal end 2133 + 2132 is connected to the base end 131 via the engagement member 211 (211 locks 21 to 131), and the coupling seat connecting end 214 is connected to a delivery device 400 (see Figs. 1-9, 21 is connected to 400 via 31, 112b rejection above, interpreted as “the delivery control device”).
Claim 9
Li discloses: The system according to claim 8, see 102 rejection above. Li further discloses: wherein the delivery control device 400 further comprises a manipulation wire 34 (see Figs. 1 and 22a-22b and annotated Fig. 21b below, [0054], [0076], and [0091] shows a manipulating wire extending through apertures/grooves in 200 to attach to both 223) for controlling capture members of the clamp mechanism to open and close (see [0076] and [0091]), and the coupling seat comprises a manipulation wire limiting groove the apertures of 200 that 34 extends through (see Fig. 17 and annotated Fig. 21b below) for restricting separation of the manipulation wire when the coupling seat is connected to the base clutching end 131 (see 112b rejection, interpreted as “the base end”).
PNG
media_image2.png
606
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The language, “for restricting separation of the manipulation wire when the coupling seat is connected to the base clutching end,” constitutes functional claim language, indicating that the claimed device need only be capable of being used in such a manner. The claim, however, is an apparatus claim, and is to be limited by structural limitations. The Office submits that the device of Li meets the structural limitations of the claim, and is capable of the aperture of 200 which 34 extends through to prevent 34 from separate while the coupling seat is connected, as the edge prevents 34 from disengaging from the distal edge.
Furthermore, wherein in product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claim 11
Li discloses: The system according to claim 2, see 102 rejection above. Li further discloses: wherein: each of the guide slots 111 comprises at least first and second slot regions (see annotated Fig. 6 below) in communication with each other, and a radian of the first slot region (see annotated Fig. 6 below, the radian of the first slot is greater than the radian of the second slot region, which is the curved “elbow” portion of the slot) is greater than a radian (see annotated Fig. 6 below) of the second slot region.
PNG
media_image1.png
754
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 12
Li discloses: The system according to claim 11, see 102 rejection above. Li further discloses: wherein each of the guide slots 111 further comprises a third slot region (see annotated Fig. 6 below claim 11) in communication with the second slot region (see annotated Fig. 6 below claim 11) and having a radian (see annotated Fig. 6 below claim 11, the radian of third slot area is greater than the radian of the second slot area, but smaller than that of the first slot area) greater than the radian of the second slot region, and wherein the second slot region (see annotated Fig. 6 below claim 11, the second slot region is between the first and third slot regions) is located between the first slot region and the third slot region.
Claim 13
Li discloses: The system according to claim 3, see 102 rejection above. Li further discloses: wherein: each of the guide slots 111 comprises at least first and second slot regions (see annotated Fig. 6 below) in communication with each other, and a radian of the first slot region (see annotated Fig. 6 below, the radian of the first slot is greater than the radian of the second slot region, which is the curved “elbow” portion of the slot) is greater than a radian (see annotated Fig. 6 below) of the second slot region.
PNG
media_image1.png
754
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 14
Li discloses: The system according to claim 3, see 102 rejection above. Li further discloses: wherein each of the guide slots 111 further comprises a third slot region (see annotated Fig. 6 below claim 13) in communication with the second slot region (see annotated Fig. 6 below claim 13) and having a radian (see annotated Fig. 6 below claim 13, the radian of third slot area is greater than the radian of the second slot area, but smaller than that of the first slot area) greater than the radian of the second slot region, and wherein the second slot region (see annotated Fig. 6 below claim 13, the second slot region is between the first and third slot regions) is located between the first slot region and the third slot region.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Delgado et al (US 20190015199 A1), herein referenced to as “Delgado”.
Claim 10
Li discloses: The system according to claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Li further discloses: wherein the fixed connecting assembly 13 comprises a base housing the housing of 131 with the aperture that forms the inner cavity (see Fig. 12) with a base inner cavity the cavity of 131 formed by the aperture (see Fig. 12) formed therein.
Li does not explicitly disclose: a base threaded portion in the base inner cavity, the drive assembly comprising a drive shaft, the drive shaft comprising a threaded portion cooperating with the base threaded portion, and wherein a lead angle at which the base threaded portion is cooperating with the drive portion is less than a friction angle.
However, Delgado in a similar field of invention teaches a system for clamping a tissue (see Figs. 144-146) with a base 514 (see Figs. 145-146) with a base housing the housing of 514 with a base inner cavity the cavity of 514 including 516A (see Figs. 145-146), a drive assembly 512 (see Figs. 145-146) and a clamp mechanism 520 (see Figs. 144-146). Delgado further teaches: a base threaded portion 516A (see Figs. 145-146, [0405], internal threads) in the base inner cavity the cavity of 514 including 516A, the drive assembly 512 comprising a drive shaft 512 (see Fig. 145, [0405]), the drive shaft 512 comprising a threaded portion 512b (see Figs. 145-146, [0405]) cooperating with the base threaded portion 516A (see Figs. 145-146, [0405]), and wherein a lead angle at which the base threaded portion 516A is cooperating with the drive portion 512b (see 112b rejection above, interpreted as “the threaded portion”) is less than a friction angle (see Figs. 145-146, [0092], the friction angle would be 180 degrees as it axially along the shaft, while the thread angle is at 90 degrees from the axial direction of the shaft, hence the lead angle of the thread is less than a friction angle).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spring piece connection between the base and the drive assembly of Li to incorporate the teachings of Delgado and teach a system for clamping a tissue with a base threaded portion in the base inner cavity, the drive assembly comprising a drive shaft, the drive shaft comprising a threaded portion cooperating with the base threaded portion, and wherein a lead angle at which the base threaded portion is cooperating with the drive portion is less than a friction angle. Motivation for such can be found in Delgado as this allows for self-locking function with a thread instead of using a spring piece (see [0092]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAIHAN R KHANDKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
RAIHAN R. KHANDKER
Examiner
Art Unit 3771
/RAIHAN R KHANDKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights