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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 10/13/2023 and 03/28/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 12/13/2024. As directed by the preliminary amendments, claims 2-3, 7-8, 11, 15-17, 20-21, 79-83 and 101-102 have been amended and claims 4-6, 9-10, 12-14, 18-29, 22-77, 84-99 and 103-115 have been cancelled. As such, claims 1-3, 7-8, 11, 15-17, 20-21, 78-83 and 100-102 are being examined in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings do not have a reference number or convey where the vertebrae have a substantially flat peak, a substantially flat valley and a vertebrate interface angle from 10 to 20 degrees (claims 79-81). 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 Objections
Claim(s) 1, 78 and 100-102 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7, recites “…medial location on of the stylet” but should recite “…medial location
Claim 78, line 8, recites “…medial location on of the stylet” but should recite “…medial location
Claim 100, line 8, recites “…at least 180 degree…” but should recite “…at least 180 degrees.”
Claim 101, line 2, recites “…at least 270 of the…” but should recite “…at least 270 degrees of the…”
Claim 102, line 2, recites “…at least 360 of the…” but should recite “…at least 360 degrees of the…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 15-17, 20-21, 78, and 82-83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Runnels (US 20180110950 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Runnels teaches an intubation tool for assisting in placement of an endotracheal tube (tracheal intubation system 100, see Fig. 1 and [0096]), the intubation tool comprising:
a) a stylet (articulating stylet 104/800 see Figs. 1, 3 and 19) having a proximal end, a distal end, and a medial location (articulating stylet 104/800 has a proximal end, a distal end and a medial location as seen in Figs. 1 and 19), the stylet:
i) configured for receiving an endotracheal tube (endotracheal tube 106 is mounted on the articulating stylet 104/800 as seen in Fig. 1 and [0096], [0101] and [0186]), and
ii) having an articulating distal tip (tip 138/808 see Fig. 3), the articulating distal tip being configured to articulate between more than one shape (Page 13, lines 31-33 of applicant’s specification recites “The stylet 102 includes a steering control 108 that can slide forward and backward so as to change the shape of articulating tip 114.” Tip 138 can pivot to more than three physical positions due to the tip control mechanism 132, wherein the tip control mechanism 132 can be a wheel, trigger or lever as seen in [0116]-[0117]. Similarly, tip 808 is to articulate in the corresponding direction of the tip control lever 802 which is to be actuated in more than one direction as seen in [0185]. As Runnels teaches a similar control mechanism to control the tip as the applicant, Runnels also teaches tip 138/808 to articulate between more than one shape); and
b) a removable handle secured to a medial location on of the stylet (Runnels teaches a removable handle 1200 secured to a medial location of articulating stylet 800 as seen in Figs. 48-49 and [0237] and [0239]-[0241]).
Regarding claim 2, Runnels teaches the intubation tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein articulation of the distal tip of the stylet can be accomplished with a single hand that holds the removable handle and articulates the distal end (Runnels teaches the handle to be shaped to comfortably fit in the hand of a caregiver as seen in Fig. 3 and 49 [0114] and [0238]. Furthermore, Runnels teaches the tip control mechanism 132/802 to be manipulated by a thumb or a finger of a caregiver as seen in [0115] and [0185]. Therefore, a user/caregiver can articulate the tip 132/802 with a single hand that holds the removable handle and manipulate the tip control mechanism).
Regarding claim 3, Runnels teaches the intubation tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein articulation of the distal tip of the stylet can be accomplished with a single finger manipulating a steering control mounted on the stylet (Runnels teaches the tip control mechanism 132/802 to be manipulated by a thumb or a finger of a caregiver as seen in Fig. 3 and 48 and [0115] and [0185]).
Regarding claim 15, Runnels teaches the intubation tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein upon removal of the handle from the medial portion of the stylet, the medial portion of the stylet has a diameter no greater than 120 percent of the remainder of the stylet (articulating stylet 104/800 has the same diameter throughout the articulating stylet as seen in Figs. 3 and 24, as such when removable handle 1200 is removed from the medial portion, the medial portion of articulating stylet 104/800 has a diameter no greater than 120 percent of the remainder of the stylet).
Regarding claim 16, Runnels teaches the intubation tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the widest portion of the stylet after removal of the handle is less than the diameter of the interior of the lumen of an endotracheal tube to be installed on the stylet (Runnels teaches removable handle 1200 is removably coupled to the articulating stylet 800 and the caregiver can then remove the removable handle 1200 as necessary to remove or insert an endotracheal tube 106 over the tip control lever 802 of the articulating stylet 800 as seen in Figs. 46 and 49 and [0241]. As such, the widest portion of the articulating stylet 800 after removal of handle 1200 is less than the diameter of the interior of the lumen of endotracheal tube 106 to be installed).
Regarding claim 17, Runnels teaches the intubation tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein handle and stylet provide a clear sight line of angle α of 20 degrees along a dorsal elevation LD of 1 cm (Runnels teaches wherein removable handle 1200 and articulating stylet 800 provide a clear sight line of angle α of 20 degrees along a dorsal elevation LD of 1 cm as seen in Fig. 49 as there is nothing blocking the view above a dorsal elevation LD of 1 cm (similar to applicant’s Fig. 12)).
Regarding claim 20, Runnels teaches the intubation tool of claim 1, and further teaches
wherein the handle and stylet provide a clear sight line of angle α of 90 degrees along a dorsal elevation LD of 1 cm (Runnels teaches wherein removable handle 1200 and articulating stylet 800 provide a clear sight line of angle α of 90 degrees along a dorsal elevation LD of 1 cm as seen in Fig. 49 as there is nothing blocking the view above a dorsal elevation LD of 1 cm (similar to applicant’s Fig. 12)).
Regarding claim 21, Runnels teaches the intubation tool of claim 1, and further teaches
wherein the handle and stylet provide a clear sight line of angle α of 180 degrees along a dorsal elevation LD of 3 cm (Runnels teaches wherein removable handle 1200 and articulating stylet 800 provide a clear sight line of angle α of 180 degrees along a dorsal elevation LD of 1 cm as seen in Fig. 49 as there is nothing blocking the view above a dorsal elevation LD of 3 cm (similar to applicant’s Fig. 12)).
Regarding claim 78, Runnels teaches an intubation tool for assisting in placement of an endotracheal tube (tracheal intubation system 100, see Fig. 1 and [0096]), the intubation tool comprising:
a) a stylet (articulating stylet 104/800 see Figs. 1, 3 and 19) having a proximal end, a distal end, and a medial location (articulating stylet 104/800 has a proximal end, a distal end and a medial location as seen in Figs. 1 and 19), the stylet:
i) configured for receiving an endotracheal tube (endotracheal tube 106 is mounted on the articulating stylet 104/800 as seen in Fig. 1 and [0096], [0101] and [0186]), and
ii) having an articulating distal tip (tip 138/808 see Fig. 3), the articulating distal tip being configured to articulate between more than one shape (Page 13, lines 31-33 of applicant’s specification recites “The stylet 102 includes a steering control 108 that can slide forward and backward so as to change the shape of articulating tip 114.” Tip 138 can pivot to more than three physical positions due to the tip control mechanism 132, wherein the tip control mechanism 132 can be a wheel, trigger or lever as seen in [0116]-[0117]. Similarly, tip 808 is to articulate in the corresponding direction of the tip control lever 802 which is to be actuated in more than one direction as seen in [0185]. As Runnels teaches a similar control mechanism to control the tip as the applicant, Runnels also teaches tip 138/808 to articulate between more than one shape), and the articulating distal tip comprises a plurality of free vertebrate (articulating discs 818, see Fig. 24; Runnels teaches tip 808 to include a plurality of articulating discs 818 as seen in [0192]-[0193]): and
b) a removable handle secured to a medial location on of the stylet (Runnels teaches a removable handle 1200 secured to a medial location of articulating stylet 800 as seen in Figs. 48-49 and [0237] and [0239]-[0241]).
Regarding claim 82, Runnels teaches the intubation tool of claim 78, and further teaches wherein handle and stylet provide a substantially clear sight line of at least 90 degrees along a dorsal line of the handle and stylet combination, within 1 cm of the central axis of the stylet (Runnels teaches wherein removable handle 1200 and articulating stylet 800 provide a substantially clear sight line of angle of at least 90 degrees along a dorsal line of the removable handle 1200 and articulating stylet 800 within 1 cm of the central axis of the articulating stylet as seen in Fig. 49 as there is nothing blocking the view (similar to applicant’s Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 83, Runnels teaches the intubation tool of claim 78, and Runnels further teaches wherein the handle and stylet provide a substantially clear sight-line along the length of the stylet when the stylet is in a non-articulated mode (Runnels teaches wherein removable handle 1200 and articulating stylet 800 provide a substantially clear sight-line along the length of articulating stylet 800 when the articulating stylet 800 is in a non-articulated mode as the stylet is straight and has the same diameter throughout as seen in Fig. 24 and [0119]).
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 35 U.S.C. 103 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 negatived 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Runnels (US 20180110950 A1) in view of Schneider (US 20070225641 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Runnels teaches the intubation tool of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the articulating distal tip can be articulated with a force of 4 to 9 Newton.
However, Schneider teaches requiring 2-10 pounds of thumb force (8.896 Newton to 44.482 Newton) from the operator on the actuation handle to deflect the distal end in a desired direction as seen in [0097].
Runnels teaches the tip control mechanism 132/802 to be manipulated by a thumb or a finger of a caregiver as seen in Fig. 3 and 48 and [0115] and [0185]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tool taught by Runnels the articulating distal tip can be articulated with a force of 2-10 pounds as taught by Schneider as a known thumb force used to operate the actuation handle.
However, Runnels in view of Schneider does not explicitly disclose the articulating distal tip can be articulated with a force of 4 to 9 Newton.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the force of articulation for the articulating distal tip to be from 2-10 pounds of thumb force to 2-2.2 (8.896 Newton to 9.786 Newton) pounds of thumb force as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see page 2, lines 13-14 and lines 27-28 indicating force of articulation for the articulating distal tip "can be" within the claimed range) and since it has been held that "[i]n the case where the claimed ranges 'overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists". In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Runnels (US 20180110950 A1) in view of Six (US 5058577 A).
Regarding claim 8, Runnels teaches the intubation tool of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the articulating distal tip is deformable upon contact with an obstruction.
However, Six teaches wherein the articulating distal tip is deformable upon contact with an obstruction (“The tip 18 is preferably constructed from a plastic material which is capable of being permanently deformed into its special preformed shape and yet flexible enough to be straightened and then return to its preformed shape.” See Col 3, lines 29-33).
Runnels teaches shaft 134 to be a flexible material that is to adapt to the shape of the airway of the patient as seen in Fig. 3 and [0120] and further teaches tip 138 to minimize trauma as it moves through the nose or mouth into the upper airway and advances into the trachea of the patient as seen in [0122]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tool taught by Runnels to have the tip be made from a plastic material as taught by Six to have minimal damage done to the vocal cords and larynx because the tip can easily fit in (see Col. 3, lines 34-43).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Runnels (US 20180110950 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Runnels teaches the intubation tool of claim 1, and teaches tip control mechanism 132 to be a potentiometer (and behaves like a joystick) and depending on the magnitude of actuation of the potentiometer, the tip 138 may pivot to a greater or lesser degree as seen in [0117].
But does not teach wherein translation movement of a steering control by a distance D results in bending articulation of the distal tip by a distance of at least 150 percent of D.
However, Runnels does not expressly disclose wherein translation movement of a steering control by a distance D results in bending articulation of the distal tip by a distance of at least 150 percent of D as required by the claim.
With respect to Claim 11, Runnels does not explicitly teach wherein translation movement of a steering control by a distance D results in bending articulation of the distal tip by a distance of at least 150 percent of D. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the relationship between the steering control movement and distance D results in bending articulation can either be distance moved by the steering control movement is the same as the distance D, distance moved by the steering control movement results in a greater distance D and distance moved by the steering control movement results in a lesser distance D. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the intubation tool of Runnels by making the translation movement of a steering control by a distance D results in bending articulation of the distal tip by a distance of at least 150 percent of D as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 79-80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Runnels (US 20180110950 A1) in view of Li (US 20120073572 A1).
Regarding claim 79, Runnels teaches the intubation tool of claim 78, but does not teach wherein the vertebrate have a substantially flat peak.
However, Li teaches wherein the vertebrate (segment 40, 42, 44 and 46, see Fig. 4) have a substantially flat peak (segment 40, 42, 44 and 46 has a substantially flat peak shown on the top of the segments towards reference numeral 50 (top) as seen in Fig. 4 and [0030]-[0031]).
Runnels teaches the pluralities of articulating discs 818 to be pyramidal shape, round shape or other shapes as seen in [0193]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tool taught by Runnels to have the vertebrate be trapezoid shape as taught by Li as an alternative known shape used in a flexible tip for intubation (see [0030]).
Regarding claim 80, Runnels teaches the intubation tool of claim 78, but does not teach wherein the vertebrate have a substantially flat valley.
However, Li teaches wherein the vertebrate (segment 40, 42, 44 and 46, see Fig. 4) have a substantially flat valley (segment 40, 42, 44 and 46 has a substantially flat valley shown on the bottom of the segments towards reference numeral 50 (bottom) as seen in Fig. 4 and [0030]-[0031]).
Runnels teaches the pluralities of articulating discs 818 to be pyramidal shape, round shape or other shapes as seen in [0193]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tool taught by Runnels to have the vertebrate be trapezoid shape as taught by Li as an alternative known shape used in a flexible tip for intubation (see [0030]).
Claim(s) 81 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Runnels (US 20180110950 A1) in view of Barrish (US 20170157361 A1).
Regarding claim 81, Runnels teaches the intubation tool of claim 78, but does not teach wherein the vertebrate interface angle is from 10 to 20 degrees.
However, Barrish teaches wherein the vertebrate interface angle is from 1 to 15 degrees (Barrish teaches elongate ring-frame skeletons 690’ with ring frames 692, wherein each frame interface is between 1 and 15 degrees of axial bend angle as seen in Fig. 23F and [0153]-[0154]).
Barrish teaches an improved articulation system and methods for users to direct and control articulation of flexible medical structures such as catheters, guidewires, and the like as seen in [0010]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tool taught by Runnels to have the vertebrate interface angle is from 1 to 15 degrees as taught by Barrish for an advantage in flexibility for providing large numbers of degrees of freedom (see [0010] and [0157]).
However, Runnels in view of Barrish does not explicitly disclose wherein the vertebrate interface angle is from 10 to 20 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vertebrate interface angle to be from between 1 and 15 degrees to 10 and 15 degrees as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (applicant only states “In an embodiment, the vertebrate interface angle is from 10 to 20 degrees.” on page 26, line 18 with no further details or support) and since it has been held that "[i]n the case where the claimed ranges 'overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists". In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 100-102 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Runnels (US 20180110950 A1) in view of Melsheimer (US 10894145 B2).
Regarding claim 100, Runnels teaches an intubation tool for assisting in placement of an endotracheal tube (tracheal intubation system 100, see Fig. 1 and [0096]), the intubation tool comprising:
a stylet (articulating stylet 104/800 see Figs. 1, 3 and 19) having a proximal end, a distal end, and a medial location (articulating stylet 104/800 has a proximal end, a distal end and a medial location as seen in Figs. 1 and 19), the stylet:
i) configured for receiving an endotracheal tube (endotracheal tube 106 is mounted on the articulating stylet 104/800 as seen in Fig. 1 and [0096], [0101] and [0186]);
ii) having an articulating distal tip (tip 138/808 see Fig. 3), the articulating distal tip being configured to articulate between more than one shape (Page 13, lines 31-33 of applicant’s specification recites “The stylet 102 includes a steering control 108 that can slide forward and backward so as to change the shape of articulating tip 114.” Tip 138 can pivot to more than three physical positions due to the tip control mechanism 132, wherein the tip control mechanism 132 can be a wheel, trigger or lever as seen in [0116]-[0117]. Similarly, tip 808 is to articulate in the corresponding direction of the tip control lever 802 which is to be actuated in more than one direction as seen in [0185]. As Runnels teaches a similar control mechanism to control the tip as the applicant, Runnels also teaches tip 138/808 to articulate between more than one shape); and
iii) a slidable actuator articulating the distal tip (Runnels teaches the tip control mechanism 132/802 can be a wheel as seen in [0116]-[0117])
But does not teach the slidable actuator being engageable around at least 180 degree of the central axis of the stylet.
However, Melsheimer teaches the slidable actuator (inner member 44, see Fig. 9 and Col. 6, line 59 to Col. 7, line 5) being engageable around at least 180 degree of the central axis of the catheter (inner member 44 is engageable around 360 degrees of the central axis of the catheter 12 as seen in Fig. 9 as the rotation of outer member 42 causes inner member 44 to translate axially over post 46 along the rails 50 as seen in Col. 9, lines 5-9 and Col. 11, lines 43-48).
Runnels teaches the tip control mechanism to be a wheel, trigger or lever and further teaches other embodiments of tip control mechanism is possible as seen in [0117]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the actuator taught by Runnels with the hub taught by Melsheimer as an alternative actuator/tip control mechanism which performs a similar function of orienting/moving a distal tip (see Col. 6, line 59 to Col. 7, line 5). Furthermore, Melsheimer teaches an actuator that can more easily control the distal end of the tool (see Col. 4, lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 101, Runnels in view of Melsheimer teaches the intubation tool of claim 100, and further teaches wherein the slidable actuator is engageable around at least 270 of the central axis of the stylet (Runnels in view of Melsheimer teaches inner member 44 is engageable around 360 degrees of the central axis of stylet 104/800 of Runnels as seen in Fig. 9 of Melsheimer as the rotation of outer member 42 causes inner member 44 to translate axially over post 46 along the rails 50 as seen in Col. 9, lines 5-9 and Col. 11, lines 43-48 of Melsheimer).
Regarding claim 102, Runnels in view of Melsheimer teaches the intubation tool of claim 100, and further teaches wherein the slidable actuator is engageable around at 360 of the central axis of the stylet (Runnels in view of Melsheimer teaches inner member 44 is engageable around 360 degrees of the central axis of stylet 104/800 of Runnels as seen in Fig. 9 of Melsheimer as the rotation of outer member 42 causes inner member 44 to translate axially over post 46 along the rails 50 as seen in Col. 9, lines 5-9 and Col. 11, lines 43-48 of Melsheimer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liberatore (US 20150119923 A1) teaches a gripping system with a flexible distal portion and further teaches the line of sight of approximately 180 degrees.
Bowden (US 5611777 A) teaches a steerable electrode catheter and further teaches selectable distance D is determined by the user's positioning of the slide actuator 26 on the control handle 20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tina Zhang whose telephone number is (571)272-6956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/TINA ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785