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 .
Specification
The 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 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 it contains grammatical issues, contains 156 words, and includes the expression “The present invention relates generally to…” The abstract is recommended that the abstract be rewritten as follows:
The disclosed methods and systems are for an adjustable depth stop. The depth stop [[,]] has additional optional features of tissue retraction, visualization via transparent or semi-transparent material and/or window(s) on its [[size]] side, precise gradation of depth by the rotation indicated on the side of the device, and windows on the side for irrigation. The device can be used in settings of biopsy, coagulation, laser ablation, and other non-drill-related uses whereupon depth needs to be achieved, and going past-point would be problematic, in a device (such as, a [[an]] catheter, electrode, or needle, but not intended for a drill) which cannot be easily “overpowered” by typically applied forces (e.g. downward pressure by a typical user). This depth stop could have a nested, telescoping feature so that it may be increased in length to many-fold its original length. The device may be set manually or automatically (e.g. utilizing a robotic feature).
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 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:
“a tissue retraction feature” in claim 4.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 4: “the length” should be “a length”;
in claim 7, line 2: “a depth stop” should be “the depth stop”;
in claim 7, line 3: “a medical device” should be “the medical device”; and
in claim 7, line 4: “the length” should be “a length”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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 “an applied force of at least five pounds of pressure” in line 6, which is not clear since pounds is a unit for force not pressure. It is not clear if the recitation means “an applied force of at least five pounds” or “an applied pressure of at least five psi”? Clarification is required.
Claims 2-7 are rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 1.
Claim 7 recite “a medical device” in line 7, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “a medical device” in claim 7, line 1 and/or “a medical device” of claim 7, line 3. If they are all the same, “a medical device” in line 7 and “a medical device” in line 3 should be “the medical device”.
Claim 7 recites “said body tissue” in line 8 in which there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “an applied force of at least five pounds of pressure” in line 10, which is not clear since pounds is a unit for force not pressure. It is not clear if the recitation means “an applied force of at least five pounds” or “an applied pressure of at least five psi”? Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0280410 (Moos) in view of “Cadaver Testing to Validate Design Criteria of an Adult Intraosseous Infusion System” (Johnson).
With respect to claim 1, Moos teaches a depth stop for a medical device comprising:
a cylindrical member (the cylindrical nose 56 of the death stop 52 of Moos) having a channel (the passage 74 of Moos) adapted to receive a penetrating medical device (the needle 14 of Moos) therethrough; and
an adjusting insert (the threaded member 60 of Moos) adapted to interface with said cylindrical member to alter the length of said depth stop.
With respect to the feature of “wherein said depth stop is adapted to withstand an applied force of at least five pounds of pressure”, Moos teaches the penetration of cortical bone (paragraph 0022 of Moos). Johnson teaches the such penetration of bone ranges from 2.3 to 19.6 kg (5.07 to 43.21 pounds)(abstract of Johnson). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the depth stop of Moos withstand an applied force that ranges from 2.3 to 19.6 kg (5.07 to 43.21 pounds) since it permits the penetration of cortical bone, which is what Moos’s device is design to do and/or an operational range of penetration force is required and Johnson teaches such an operational range.
Alternatively, Johnson teaches an operational range of a kit that penetrate bone which suggests that the amount of force that a penetration kit can withstand is subject to optimization based on the factors of robustness and cost. As such, the operational range of the kit’s components for the penetration of bone is a results-effective variable that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the factors of robustness and cost. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the operational range of the kit’s components for the penetration of bone, using the range of Johnson as a starting point, so as to obtain the desired robustness and cost.
With respect to claim 2, the combination teaches or suggests that said adjusting insert interfaces with said cylindrical member via threadings (the threads 76 and 64 of Moos).
With respect to claim 4, the combination teaches or suggests a tissue retraction feature (the lip at the surface 58 and/or the end face at the hub 59 in FIG. 4 of Moos).
With respect to claim 6, the combination teaches or suggests manual, automatic or robotic-interfacing adjustment setting (the setting is manual; paragraphs 0026-0031 of Moos).
With respect to claim 7, Moos teaches a method for using a depth stop with a medical device comprising:
providing a depth stop comprising: a cylindrical member (the cylindrical nose 56 of the death stop 52 of Moos) having a channel (the passage 74 of Moos) adapted to receive a medical device therethrough; and an adjusting insert (the threaded member 60 of Moos) adapted to interface with said cylindrical member to alter the length of said depth stop;
adjusting said depth stop via said adjusting insert to set a desired insertion depth (the adjustment disclosed in paragraph 0028 of Moos);
inserting a medical device through said channel to insert into a penetration site until a portion of said medical device abuts against said depth stop (inserting the needle 14 through the passage 74 of Moos; paragraphs 0002, 0007-0008, and 0028 of Moos) and said depth stop abuts against a surface of said body tissue surrounding said penetration site to stop the insertion of said medical device (the use of the depth stop; paragraphs 0028 of Moos; paragraphs 0002, 0007-0008, and 0028 of Moos);
wherein said medical device comprises a non-drill device (the needle 14 of Moos).
With respect to the feature of “wherein said depth stop is adapted to withstand an applied force of at least five pounds of pressure”, Moos teaches the penetration of cortical bone (paragraph 0022 of Moos). Johnson teaches the such penetration of bone ranges from 2.3 to 19.6 kg (5.07 to 43.21 pounds)(abstract of Johnson). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the depth stop of Moos withstand an applied force that ranges from 2.3 to 19.6 kg (5.07 to 43.21 pounds) since it permits the penetration of cortical bone, which is what Moos’s device is design to do and/or an operational range of penetration force is required and Johnson teaches such an operational range.
Alternatively, Johnson teaches an operational range of a kit that penetrate bone which suggests that the amount of force that a penetration kit can withstand is subject to optimization based on the factors of robustness and cost. As such, the operational range of the kit’s components for the penetration of bone is a results-effective variable that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the factors of robustness and cost. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the operational range of the kit’s components for the penetration of bone, using the range of Johnson as a starting point, so as to obtain the desired robustness and cost.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moos, in view of “Forces and Torques During Robotic Needle Insertion to Human Vertebra” (Matsumiya).
With respect to claim 1, Moos teaches a depth stop for a medical device comprising:
a cylindrical member (the cylindrical nose 56 of the death stop 52 of Moos) having a channel (the passage 74 of Moos) adapted to receive a penetrating medical device therethrough; and
an adjusting insert (the threaded member 60 of Moos) adapted to interface with said cylindrical member to alter the length of said depth stop.
With respect to the feature of “wherein said depth stop is adapted to withstand an applied force of at least five pounds of pressure”, Moos teaches the penetration of cortical bone (paragraph 0022 of Moos). Matsumiya teaches the such penetration of bone ranges up to 25 N (5.62 pounds)(abstract of Matsumiya). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the depth stop of Moos withstand an applied force that ranges up to 25 N (5.62 pounds) since it permits the penetration of cortical bone, which is what Moos’s device is design to do and/or an operational range of penetration force is required and Matsumiya teaches such an operational range.
Alternatively, Matsumiya teaches an operational range of a kit that penetrate bone which suggests that the amount of force that a penetration kit can withstand is subject to optimization based on the factors of robustness and cost. As such, the operational range of the kit’s components for the penetration of bone is a results-effective variable that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the factors of robustness and cost. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the operational range of the kit’s components for the penetration of bone, using the range of Matsumiya as a starting point, so as to obtain the desired robustness and cost.
With respect to claim 2, the combination teaches or suggests that said adjusting insert interfaces with said cylindrical member via threadings (the threads 76 and 64 of Moos).
With respect to claim 4, the combination teaches or suggests a tissue retraction feature (the lip at the surface 58 and/or the end face at the hub 59 in FIG. 4 of Moos).
With respect to claim 6, the combination teaches or suggests manual, automatic or robotic-interfacing adjustment setting (the setting is manual; paragraphs 0026-0031 of Moos).
With respect to claim 7, Moos teaches a method for using a depth stop with a medical device comprising:
providing a depth stop comprising: a cylindrical member (the cylindrical nose 56 of the death stop 52 of Moos) having a channel (the passage 74 of Moos) adapted to receive a medical device therethrough; and an adjusting insert (the threaded member 60 of Moos) adapted to interface with said cylindrical member to alter the length of said depth stop;
adjusting said depth stop via said adjusting insert to set a desired insertion depth (the adjustment disclosed in paragraph 0028 of Moos);
inserting a medical device through said channel to insert into a penetration site until a portion of said medical device abuts against said depth stop (inserting the needle 14 through the passage 74 of Moos; paragraphs 0002, 0007-0008, and 0028 of Moos) and said depth stop abuts against a surface of said body tissue surrounding said penetration site to stop the insertion of said medical device (the use of the depth stop; paragraphs 0028 of Moos; paragraphs 0002, 0007-0008, and 0028 of Moos);
wherein said medical device comprises a non-drill device (the needle 14 of Moos).
With respect to the feature of “wherein said depth stop is adapted to withstand an applied force of at least five pounds of pressure”, Moos teaches the penetration of cortical bone (paragraph 0022 of Moos). Matsumiya teaches the such penetration of bone ranges up to 25 N (5.62 pounds). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the depth stop of Moos withstand an applied force that ranges up to 25 N (5.62 pounds) since it permits the penetration of cortical bone, which is what Moos’s device is design to do and/or an operational range of penetration force is required and Matsumiya teaches such an operational range.
Alternatively, Matsumiya teaches an operational range of a kit that penetrate bone which suggests that the amount of force that a penetration kit can withstand is subject to optimization based on the factors of robustness and cost. As such, the operational range of the kit’s components for the penetration of bone is a results-effective variable that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the factors of robustness and cost. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the operational range of the kit’s components for the penetration of bone, using the range of Matsumiya as a starting point, so as to obtain the desired robustness and cost.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moos, in view of Johnson, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,810,828 (Lightman).
With respect to claim 3, Moos teaches a depth stop for a medical device. Lightman teaches that such depth controlling device includes a sight window 36 to help visualize the proper position (col. 8, lines 45-56 of Lightman). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a sight window in the death stop 52 of Moos so as to help visualize the proper position. Thus, the combination teaches or suggests a visualization aperture (the sight window 36 in the depth stop 52 of Moos).
With respect to claim 5, Moos teaches a depth stop for a medical device. Lightman teaches that such depth controlling device may be adapted to have devices of different lengths (col. 6, line 45 to col. 7, line 15 and FIG. 2(b) of Lightman). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a variety of death stops 52 of Moos of different lengths so as to be able to accommodate much larger or shorter lengths of needles for different depth penetrations. Thus, the combination teaches or suggests at least one additional adjusting insert for increasing a range of depth settings of said depth stop (a longer depth stop 52 of Moos as suggested by Lightman).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moos, in view of Matsumiya, and further in view of Lightman.
With respect to claim 3, Moos teaches a depth stop for a medical device. Lightman teaches that such depth controlling device include a sight window 36 to help visualize the proper position (col. 8, lines 45-56 of Lightman). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a sight window in the death stop 52 of Moos so as to help visualize the proper position. Thus, the combination teaches or suggests a visualization aperture (the sight window 36 in the depth stop 52 of Moos).
With respect to claim 5, Moos teaches a depth stop for a medical device. Lightman teaches that such depth controlling device may be adapted to have devices of different lengths (col. 6, line 45 to col. 7, line 15 and FIG. 2(b) of Lightman). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a variety of 2death stops 52 of Moos of different lengths so as to be able to accommodate much larger or shorter lengths of needles for different depth penetrations. Thus, the combination teaches or suggests at least one additional adjusting insert for increasing a range of depth settings of said depth stop (a longer depth stop 52 of Moos as suggested by Lightman).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No. 18/264405 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 of the reference application has all the features of claim 1 of the present application.
Claim 2 of the reference application has all the features of claim 2 of the present application.
Claim 3 of the reference application has all the features of claim 3 of the present application.
Claim 4 of the reference application has all the features of claim 4 of the present application.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/264405 (reference application), in view of Lightman.
With respect to claim 5 of the present application, claim 1 of the reference application includes a depth stop for a medical device (a surgical drill). Lightman teaches that such depth controlling device may be adapted to have devices of different lengths (col. 6, line 45 to col. 7, line 15 and FIG. 2(b) of Lightman). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a variety of different adjusting inserts of different lengths so as to be able to accommodate much larger or shorter lengths of drills for different depth penetrations. Thus, the combination teaches or suggests at least one additional adjusting insert for increasing a range of depth settings of said depth stop (a longer insert as suggested by Lightman).
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/264405 (reference application), in view of Lightman.
With respect to claim 6 of the present application, claim 1 of the reference application includes a depth stop for a medical device (a surgical drill). Moos teaches that such depth controlling device are controlled manually (the setting is manual; paragraphs 0026-0031 of Moos). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the operational adjustment of the drill stop of claim 1 of the reference application be manual since a form of operational adjustment is required and Moos teaches one such operational adjustment. Thus, the combination teaches or suggests a manual, automatic or robotic-interfacing adjustment setting (the setting is manual; paragraphs 0026-0031 of Moos).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KREMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 6 pm; every other Friday off.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791