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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 7/12/2023. As directed by the Preliminary amendment, claims 3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18, 23, 25-29, and 31 were amended, and claims 4, 7, 9, 12-13,19-22, 24, and 30 were cancelled. Thus, claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 14-18, 23, 25-29, and 31 are currently pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 1 is a photograph, which is not ordinarily permitted unless it is the only practical medium for illustration (see MPEP 608.02(V)(b)(1)).
Figs. 3, 23 have improper shading (see MPEP 608.02(V)(m)).
Figs. 3-4 have illegible text, specifically with regards to the exponent numbers.
Fig. 23 contains unlabeled text box 240 which should be provided with a descriptive text label (e.g. box 240 could have the label --handle--) (see MPEP 608.02(d)(a)).
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.
Specification/Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites “The present disclosure concerns” in line 1 and “the present disclosure” in lines 4-5, which are phrases that can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 23, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the perturbed surface of the airway” in line 3, and is suggested to read --the perturbed airway surface-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 8 recites “the perturbed surface” in lines 2-3, and is suggested to read --the perturbed airway surface-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 8 recites “the surface of the airway” in lines 3-4, and is suggested to read --the airway surface-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 23 recites “the surface of the airway” in line 3, and is suggested to read --the airway surface-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 29 recites “and and” in lines 5-6, and is suggested to read --and-- in order to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 limitations are: “a device for perturbing” in claim 23 line 1, “an abrasive and/or expandable component for perturbing” in claim 26 line 2, and “a component for perturbing” in claim 29 line 3.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to the Applicant’s specification paras. [0063-0068], para. [0089], and para. [0095], both “a device for perturbing” in claim 23 line 1 and “a component for perturbing” in claim 29 line 3 are being interpreted as a loop, a cage, a brush, a suction device, a balloon, a sponge, a scraper, a gas, a fluid, a reagent, an enzyme, a laser light, heat, cold, or an equivalent thereof. According to the Applicant’s specification paras. [0062], para. [0089], paras. [0091-0092], “an abrasive and/or expandable component for perturbing” in claim 26 line 2 is being interpreted as a cage, a brush, a balloon, a loop, a stent, or an equivalent thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 14-18, 23, 25-29, and 31 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 1 recites the limitation "the respiratory system" in line 1 and “the airway surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the lungs, the bronchi, the bronchioles, the trachea, the pharynx, the nasal system, and the sinuses" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the integrity" in line 2, “the tight junction” in line 2, “the surface epithelial cells” in lines 2-3, and “the surface epithelium” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “a perturbative action” in line 8 is confusing, as it is unclear is to whether this limitation is meant to be the same as or different from “perturbing” in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “would benefit” in line 2 is confusing, as this seems to recite a definitive positive result for a subject, whereas not all subjects may have a positive result from this method due to differences between individuals. It is suggested to use claim language such as --to treat-- or --treatment-- in order to avoid such indefiniteness. Moreover, the limitation “an agent” in lines 2-3 is confusing, as it is unclear is to whether this limitation is meant to be the same as or different from “an agent” in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “an agent” recited twice in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear is to whether this limitation is meant to be the same as or different from “an agent” in claim 1.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the airway surface” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the respiratory system" in line 1, “the airway” in line 3, and “the vehicle” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Moreover, the limitation “an agent” in line 4 is confusing, as it is unclear is to whether this limitation is meant to be the same as or different from “an agent” in line 1.
Regarding claim 31, the limitations “an agent” in line 1 and “a device” in line 2 are confusing, as it is unclear is to whether these limitations are meant to be the same as or different from “an agent” and “a device” in claim 29, respectively.
Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Danek et al. (US 2006/0137698 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Danek discloses a non-surgical method of delivering an agent to the respiratory system of a subject (The Applicant’s specification para. [0049] defines “non-surgical” as an action on the body that does not involve cutting into the body. Danek does not cut into the body, but rather scrapes the walls of an airway of a patient before advancing a treatment device for depositing a substance on the scraped wall.) (Fig. 4; para. [0077]), the method comprising in vivo perturbing of the airway surface in one or more parts of the respiratory system in the subject and exposing the perturbed surface of the airway to the agent, thereby delivering the agent to the respiratory system of the subject (the surface of the patient’s airway is scraped so as to be exposed for substances to be deposited upon it) (Fig. 4; para. [0077]).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Danek discloses wherein the respiratory system comprises the lungs (airway is within the lung) (Fig. 4; para. [0077]).
Regarding claim 3, Danek discloses wherein the perturbing of the airway surface comprises perturbing one or more of airway cells and epithelial cells (airway is scraped of epithelial tissue/cells in the airway) (Fig. 4; para. [0077]).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Danek discloses wherein the perturbing of the airway surface comprises partial or substantially complete removal of the surface epithelium (airway is scraped of epithelial tissue in the airway surface) (Fig. 4; para. [0077]).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Danek discloses wherein the perturbing of the surface of the airway comprises one or more of mechanical perturbation, and use of a device to apply a perturbative action to the airway surface (airway is scraped, which is a mechanical action that would require a device to accomplish) (Fig. 4; para. [0077]).
Regarding claim 8, Danek discloses wherein; (i) the airway surface is perturbed and the agent is subsequently or simultaneously exposed to the perturbed surface (airway is scraped, and then a substance is applied to the scraped airway surface) (Fig. 4; para. [0077]).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Danek discloses wherein the subject is suffering from, or susceptible to, a disorder that would benefit from the delivery of an agent to the respiratory system (the method is for a patient with asthma, and involves treating their airway wall with substances) (abstract; para. [0077]).
Regarding claim 15, Danek discloses wherein the subject is suffering from, or susceptible to, a pulmonary disorder (the method is for a patient with asthma) (abstract).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Danek discloses wherein the method is used to improve delivery of an agent to a subject, for administration of an agent to a subject, to deliver therapeutic cells to the subject, or to treat a subject suffering from, or susceptible to, a disorder (this method is for treating a patient with asthma; treatment can include scraping the airway to help treat the airway walls more effectively with an applied substance such as epithelial tissue, collogen, or growth factors on the scraped airway surface) (Fig. 4; abstract; para. [0077]).
Claims 1, 10-11, 15-17, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Askew et al. (US 2009/0192505 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Askew discloses a non-surgical method of delivering an agent to the respiratory system of a subject (The Applicant’s specification para. [0049] defines “non-surgical” as an action on the body that does not involve cutting into the body. Askew does not cut into the body, but rather uses a device to apply a cryogenic spray therapy and drug delivery to the lung tissue of a patient.) (Figs. 1A-4; abstract; para. [0001]; para. [0011]), the method comprising in vivo perturbing of the airway surface in one or more parts of the respiratory system in the subject and exposing the perturbed surface of the airway to the agent, thereby delivering the agent to the respiratory system of the subject (delivery of an additive to cryotreated lung tissue) (Figs. 1A-4; para. [0156]; para. [0173]).
Regarding claim 10, Askew discloses wherein the agent comprises a nucleic acid, a virus, a viral vector, a nanoparticle, a gene-editing agent, a small molecule, a drug, a protein, a lipid, or a cell (agent administered can include naked or complexed nucleic acids, viruses, viral vectors, nanotechnology, gene therapy agents, aerosols, pharmaceuticals, protein molecules, lipids, stem cells, etc.) (para. [0080]; paras. [0156-0157]; para. [0166]).
Regarding claim 11, Askew discloses wherein; (i) the nucleic acid comprises naked RNA, naked DNA (substance delivered can be naked DNA, mRNA) (para. [0080]; para. [0156]); (ii) the virus or viral vector is selected from an adenovirus (virus/viral vector can include adenoviruses/adenoviral vectors) (para. [0080]; para. [0166]; para. [0176]); and (iii) the cell is a stem cell or a progenitor cell (therapeutic agent can be stem cells) (para. [0157]; para. [0166]).
Regarding claim 15, Askew discloses wherein the subject is suffering from, or susceptible to, a pulmonary disorder (asthma, neoplastic disease, COPD, and other patient conditions can be treated) (abstract; para. [0123]).
Regarding claim 16, Askew discloses wherein the pulmonary disorder is a genetic pulmonary disorder (COPD can be heredity) (para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 17, Askew discloses wherein the agent comprises a nucleic acid for expression and the method produces detectable expression from the nucleic acid in the respiratory system for at least 7 days (genes and gene delivery vehicles, such as viral vectors, can include naked or complexed nucleic acids such as DNA and mRNA; vector systems can express the desired genetic material for at least one week) (para. [0080]; para. [0157]; para. [0166]; para. [0179]).
Regarding claim 29, as best understood, Askew discloses a device for delivering of an agent to the respiratory system (bronchoscope 10 to apply a cryogenic spray therapy and drug delivery to the lung tissue of a patient) (Figs. 1A-4; abstract; para. [0001]; para. [0011]; para. [0130]), the device comprising: a component for perturbing a surface of the airway of the respiratory system (bronchoscope 10 has a catheter 20 coupled to a cryogen source to spray onto the targeted lung tissue, thereby perturbing the lung tissue surface with cold) (Figs. 1A-4; para. [0133]; para. [0140]; para. [0173]); and a port for introducing an agent into the device to deliver the agent to a perturbed surface (bronchoscope 10 has an additional lumen 22 for an additional catheter to deliver therapeutic agents to the cryotreated lung tissue; additional lumen 22 would have to have a port outside the patient with which to insert the additional catheter with the therapeutic agents) (Figs. 1A-4; para. [0130]; para. [0173]); and and an outlet to permit delivery of the agent in the vehicle to the perturbed surface of the airway (the additional lumen 22 for the additional catheter to deliver therapeutic agents to the cryotreated lung tissue has an outlet port inside the lung; either the additional catheter through which therapeutic substances are delivered or substances for gene delivery such as plasmids or adenoviral vectors can be considered the vehicle coming from the outlet) (Figs. 1A-4; para. [0130]; para. [0166]; para. [0173]).
Regarding claim 31, as best understood, Askew discloses a non-surgical method of delivering an agent in vivo to a subject (The Applicant’s specification para. [0049] defines “non-surgical” as an action on the body that does not involve cutting into the body. Askew does not cut into the body, but rather uses a device to apply a cryogenic spray therapy and drug delivery to the lung tissue of a patient.) (Figs. 1A-4; abstract; para. [0001]; para. [0011]), the method comprising using a device according to claim 29 (see rejection of claim 29 above) to perturb the surface of the airway in the subject and exposing the perturbed surface of the airway to the agent, thereby delivering the agent to the subject (delivery of an additive to cryotreated lung tissue) (Figs. 1A-4; para. [0156]; para. [0173]).
Claims 23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mathis (US 2022/0346828 A1).
Regarding claim 23, as best understood, Mathis discloses a device for perturbing the airway surface in vivo in a subject (system for abrading a patient lung airway wall via a bronchoscope) (abstract), wherein the device in use produces an uncontrolled or controlled abrasive, expansive and/or distensive perturbation to the surface of the airway in the subject (pulmonary treatment device 13 has an expandable balloon body 80 with abrasive grit 82, 95 used to abrade off the epithelium layer 83 of airway tissue; alternatively, pulmonary treatment device 13 can have an abrasive brush 270 for the abrasion of the airway tissue) (Figs. 6-7D, 16; para. [0228]; paras. [0304-0305]; para. [0334]).
Regarding claim 25, Mathis discloses wherein the device comprises a bronchoscope (pulmonary treatment device 13 in a bronchoscope 1) (Figs. 8A-8B; para. [0314]).
Regarding claim 26, as best understood, Mathis discloses wherein the device comprises an abrasive and/or an expandable component for perturbing the surface of the airway (pulmonary treatment device 13 has an expandable balloon body 80 with abrasive grit 82, 95 used to abrade off the epithelium layer 83 of airway tissue) (Figs. 6-7D; paras. [0304-0305]).
Regarding claim 27, Mathis discloses wherein the device comprises a brush configured for use in the respiratory system (pulmonary treatment device 13 can have an abrasive brush 270 for use on lung tissue) (Fig. 16; para. [0228]; para. [0334]).
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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathis as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Danek and Askew.
Regarding claim 28, Mathis discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose wherein the device comprises a port to permit introduction of an agent in a vehicle into the device, and an outlet to permit delivery of the agent in the vehicle to the perturbed surface of the airway.
However, Danek teaches a treatment device for an asthmatic lung (Danek; abstract) wherein an agent is delivered to the perturbed surface of the airway, wherein the perturbation is from scraping/abrading the airway (substance is deposited on a scraped epithelial wall of an airway) (Danek; para. [0077]). Moreover, Askew teaches a bronchoscope used to hold a catheter to perturb an airway surface and a catheter to apply a substance to the perturbed airway surface (bronchoscope 10 has a lumen 18 for the catheter 20 used to apply the cryogen to the respiratory tract and an additional lumen 22 for the additional catheter used to apply an additional substance) (Askew; Figs. 1A-4; para. [0130]; para. [0153]; para. [0173]) wherein the device comprises a port to permit introduction of an agent in a vehicle into the device (bronchoscope 10 has an additional lumen 22 for an additional catheter to deliver therapeutic agents to the cryotreated lung tissue; additional lumen 22 would have to have a port outside the patient with which to insert the additional catheter with the therapeutic agents; either the additional catheter through which therapeutic substances are delivered or substances for gene delivery such as plasmids or adenoviral vectors can be considered the vehicle) (Askew; Figs. 1A-4; para. [0130]; para. [0153]; para. [0166]; para. [0173]), and an outlet to permit delivery of the agent in the vehicle to the perturbed surface of the airway (the additional lumen 22 for the additional catheter to deliver therapeutic agents to the cryotreated lung tissue has an outlet port inside the lung; either the additional catheter through which therapeutic substances are delivered or substances for gene delivery such as plasmids or adenoviral vectors can be considered the vehicle coming from the outlet) (Askew; Figs. 1A-4; para. [0130]; para. [0166]; para. [0173]).
Therefore, 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 Mathis device to include delivering an agent, as taught by Danek, for the purpose of helping to promote healing, prevent infection, and/or assist in clearing mucus (Danek; para. [0077]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Mathis bronchoscope to include a port to permit introduction of an agent in a vehicle into the device, and an outlet to permit delivery of the agent in the vehicle to the perturbed surface of the airway, as taught by Askew, for the purpose of providing a specific mechanism with which to apply the agent using the bronchoscope (Askew; para. [0130]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2005/0244401 A1 by Ingenito is considered to be relevant as it discloses administering an agent to an airway of the patient non-surgically.
US 2006/0047291 A1 by Barry is considered to be relevant as it discloses a pulmonary bronchoscope with an abrasive member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:00.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785