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 .
Response to Arguments
The previous objection to the drawing as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments to the specification made 4/01/2026.
The previous objection of claims 1 and 3 due to minor informalities has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments made 4/01/2026.
The previous rejection of claim(s) 2 and 16-17 over 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite has been overcome in light of canceling claim 16 and the amendments made to claim(s) 2 and 17 on 4/01/2026.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 13, 16-19 and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koichi et al. (JP 2017-192596) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment made 4/01/2026. Specifically, Koichi does not teach a cutting wire, wherein the cutting wire is partially accommodated in the channel of the sheath tube, and a portion of the cutting wire located at the distal end of the sheath tube extends out of the sheath tube from a side of the sheath tube.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/01/2026 with respect to Ducharme (US 2010/0057077 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Ducharme does not remedy the deficiencies of Koichi with respect to amended claim 1 because the loop tip wire guide 190 of Ducharme and the snare wire 40 of Koichi are completely different components which cannot be deemed equivalent, nor can both correspond to the protruding portion of claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For example, the combination of Koichi in view of Ducharme is not suggesting that both the loop tip wire guide 190 and the snare 40 are the claimed protruding portion. Instead, the claimed protruding portion is interpreted as the snare wire 40 of Koichi and the loop tip wire guide 190 of Ducharme was merely pointed out to show that the sheath tube (tubular member 130) of Ducharme includes a channel that may fit a protruding portion, similar to that of Koichi, so that the cutting wire 160 and conductor wire 200 of Ducharme may be added to the sheath tube of Koichi without interfering with the operation of the snare 40.
In response to applicant's argument that Ducharme fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the protruding portion being able to “open or tighten”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, there is no reason why the loop tip wire guide 190 would not be found equivalent to the claimed “protruding portion” of claim 1. Furthermore, the loop tip wire guide 190 is located on a distal side of the tubular member 130 relative to the portion of the cutting wire 160 that extends out of the sheath tube as shown in Fig. 3 of Ducharme. The same would be true for modified Koichi because the snare 40 of modified Koichi extends out of an opening on the distal face of the tubular sheath 20 while the cutting wire 160 of modified Koichi would extend out of the sheath tube at a position proximal from the distal face of the tubular sheath as shown in Figs. 1-4 of Ducharme. Thus, both Ducharme and modified Koichi disclose the protruding portion is located on a distal side of the sheath tube relative to the portion of the cutting wire that extends out of the sheath tube as claimed.
For at least the reasons discussed above, the application is not found in condition for allowance at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 31 recites “wherein a change rate of radial sizes of the protruding portion from a distal end of the protruding portion to a proximal end of the protruding portion is within 5%”. While applicant has support for this limitation, it applies directly to the embodiment of Fig. 4o in which the protruding portion 41 is spiral-shaped ([0064]). Claim 31 depends from claim 30 which recites “wherein the protruding portion includes a rod member and a body portion connected to a distal end of the rod member, the rod member is sleeved with a sliding member capable of sliding axially relative to the rod member, the sliding member is connected to the body portion through a plurality of connecting members…”. While applicant has support for this limitation, it applies directly to the embodiment of Fig. 4n in which the protruding portion 41 is a mesh structure ([0066]). The two embodiments are mutually exclusive i.e., the protruding portion cannot be both mesh shaped and spiral shaped. Accordingly, applicant does not have possession of both the protruding portion including a rod member and a change rate as claimed, as required by claim 31. Claim 32 is rejected based on its dependency to rejected claim 31.
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 28-32 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 28 recites the limitation "the proximal port" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 29-32 are rejected based on their dependency to rejected claim 28.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 17 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koichi et al. (JP 2017-192596) in view of Ducharme (US 2010/0057077 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koichi discloses an endoscopic incision device (endoscopic snare 10; Fig. 1), comprising: a sheath tube (tubular sheath 20), wherein the sheath tube (20) has a proximal end (sheath proximal end 20a) and a distal end (sheath distal end 20b; Fig. 1), the sheath tube is provided with a channel (lumen through 20; Fig. 4) extending along an axial direction (Fig. 4), and the channel is able to accommodate a pulling portion (operation wire 30 and snare wire 40); wherein the pulling portion includes a pulling wire (operation wire 30) and a protruding portion (snare wire 40) disposed at a distal end of the pulling wire (Figs. 1-4), and the pulling wire (30) moves axially within the channel to cause the protruding portion to switch between a first state (when the snare wire 40 is housed in the sheath 20) and a second state (when the snare wire 40 is exposed from the sheath 20); wherein when the protruding portion is in the first state, the protruding portion is accommodated within the channel (page 3, paragraph 2 of the attached English translation); and when the protruding portion is in the second state, the protruding portion protrudes out of a distal end of the channel (page 3, paragraph 2 of the attached English translation).
Koichi fails to disclose a cutting wire, wherein the cutting wire is partially accommodated in the channel of the sheath tube, and a portion of the cutting wire located at the distal end of the sheath tube extends out of the sheath tube from a side of the sheath tube, wherein the protruding portion is located on a distal side of the sheath tube relative to the portion of the cutting wire that extends out of the sheath tube.
However, Ducharme teaches an endoscopic incision device (sphincterotome 100; Fig. 1) comprising: a sheath tube (tubular member 130) provided with a channel (Fig. 2) extending along an axial direction (Figs. 1-2), and the channel is able to accommodate a pulling portion (wire guide 190; Fig. 1); a cutting wire (cutting wire 160 and conductor wire 200), wherein the cutting wire is partially accommodated in the channel of the sheath tube (at 200; Fig. 2), and a portion of the cutting wire (160) located at the distal end of the sheath tube (130) extends out of the sheath tube from a side of the sheath tube (Figs. 1, 3-4), wherein the pulling portion includes a pulling wire (axial length of 190) and a protruding portion (distal loop tip 191) disposed at a distal end of the pulling portion (Fig. 1), the protruding portion (191) is located on a distal side of the sheath tube (130) relative to the portion of the cutting wire (160) that extends out of the sheath tube (as the distal loop tip 191 extends out of an opening at the distal end face of the tubular member 130 while the cutting wire 160 is positioned proximal to the distal end face of the tubular member 130; Figs. 1-4). The cutting wire allows the device to partially cut open the duodenum at the papilla to access the common bile duct and remove bile duct stones which form an obstruction therewithin; [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sheath tube of modified Koichi to further include a cutting wire proximal the distal end face of the sheath tube and a channel therethrough for the cutting wire to extend as taught by Ducharme in order to allow the sheath to partially cut open the duodenum at the papilla to access the common bile duct and to remove file duct stones which form an obstruction therewithin.
Regarding claim 2, Koichi modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Koichi further discloses wherein when the protruding portion (40) is in the second state (exposed from sheath 20; Figs. 1, 3, 4), the protruding portion forms a joint portion (portion extending from the distal end of the snare 40 to the distal end of the sheath 20) with the distal end of the sheath tube (Figs. 2, 4), and a radial size of the joint portion (radial width of snare 40; L32; Fig. 2) is greater than a diameter of duodenal papilla (as L32 can be 5 to 15 mm; page 5, paragraph 4 of the English translation; and applicant’s protruding portion 41 is larger than the diameter of the duodenal papilla and is 2 to 10 mm; [0070]); and a radial size of the protruding portion is a first size (radial width of snare 40), and a radial size from a most distal end of the protruding portion in a first radial direction to a most distal end of the sheath tube in a second radial direction is a second size (as the second size differs depending on the view of the device, see annotated Figs. 2 and 1 below); wherein when the first size is greater than the second size (Fig. 2), the radial size of the joint portion is the first size (see annotated Fig. 2 below); and when the second size is greater than the first size (as L31 is greater than L32; Figs. 1-2), the radial size of the joint portion is the second size (see annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
629
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
704
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Koichi modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Koichi further discloses wherein a radial size of the protruding portion (40) in the second state (when the snare wire 40 is exposed from the sheath 20) is larger than the radial size of the protruding portion (40) in the first state (when the snare wire 40 is housed within the sheath 20 as the diameter of the sheath is smaller than the exposed radial diameter of the snare; Fig. 2); the radial size of the protruding portion in the first state is less than or equal to a radial size of the distal end of the sheath tube (as 40 is housed within 20; page 3, paragraph 2 of the English translation); and the radial size of the protruding portion in the second state is greater than the radial size of the distal end of the sheath tube (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Koichi modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Koichi further discloses a control portion (operation part 50), wherein the control portion includes a pulling handle (slide part 56; Fig. 1), the pulling handle push-pulls axially or rotates to control the pulling wire (30) to move axially within the channel, causing the protruding portion (40) to switch between the first state and the second state (page 3, paragraph 2 of the English translation).
Regarding claim 23, Koichi modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Koichi further discloses an endoscope (endoscope; page 2, paragraph 3 of the English translation), comprising the endoscopic incision device of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 24, Koichi modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Koichi further discloses wherein the protruding portion (40) is configured to pull duodenal papilla fold tissue (as the snare 40 may be used in the duodenal papilla; page 5, paragraph 7 of the English translation).
Regarding claim 25, Koichi modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Koichi further discloses wherein when switching from the first state (when 40 is housed in 20) to the second state (when 40 is exposed from 20), the protruding portion deflects away from an axis (axis of sheath 20; Figs. 1-4) and/or undergoes radial elastic opening.
Claim(s) 5 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koichi et al. (JP 2017-192596) in view of Ducharme (US 2010/0057077 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fischer (US 2011/0004056 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Koichi modified fails to disclose wherein the channel includes a first channel configured to accommodate a guidewire and a second channel configured to accommodate the pulling portion.
However, Fischer teaches an endoscopic device (device 1; Fig. 1), comprising: a sheath tube (tube 2) provided with a channel (Fig. 3) extending along an axial direction, and the channel able to accommodate a pulling portion (cable 9 and basket 16), the pulling portion including a pulling wire (9) and a protruding portion (16), wherein the channel includes a first channel (second lumen 19) configured to accommodate a guidewire (guide wire 5) and a second channel (first lumen 8) configured to accommodate the pulling portion (9; Figs 3-4) for the purpose of preventing obstruction of rotary movement and outward movement of the protruding portion (basket 16; [0005]-[0006]).
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 channel of modified Koichi to include a first channel configured to accommodate a guidewire and a second channel configured to accommodate the pulling portion as taught by Fischer in order to allow the protruding portion to rotate and translate freely without obstruction from the guidewire.
Regarding claim 9, modified Koichi discloses the channel further includes a third channel (lumen 170 of Ducharme through which the cutting wire 160, 200 extends of modified Koichi), the second channel (first lumen 8 of Fischer) accommodates the pulling portion (9 of Fischer) and the third channel (170 of Ducharme) configured to accommodate the cutting wire (at 200 of Ducharme; Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 10-11, modified Koichi discloses the first channel (second lumen 19 of Fischer) accommodates the guidewire (guide wire 5 of Fischer), the second channel (first lumen 8 of Fischer) accommodates the pulling portion (9 of Fischer), the third channel (lumen 170 of Ducharme) accommodates the cutting wire (200 of Ducharme) but fails to disclose wherein the second channel or the third channel is an injection channel and/or wherein the channel further includes a fourth channel and the fourth channel is an injection channel.
However, Ducharme teaches wherein the second channel (lumen 210) that accommodates the pulling portion (190; Fig. 2) may be an injection channel for the passage of fluids or contrast therethrough ([0023]) and/or wherein additional channels may be dedicated for the passage of fluids or contrast fluid therethrough ([0022]).
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 device of modified Koichi wherein the second channel or the third channel is an injection channel and/or wherein the channel further includes a fourth channel and the fourth channel is an injection channel in light of the teachings of Ducharme in order to irrigate the treatment site and/or pass contrast fluid to the treatment site to improve visualization.
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koichi et al. (JP 2017-192596) in view of Ducharme (US 2010/0057077 A1), as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Fischer (US 2011/0004056 A1) in view of DeVries et al. (US 2019/0380565 A1).
Regarding claim 26, modified Koichi fails to disclose wherein the channel includes a first channel configured to accommodate a guidewire and a second channel configured to accommodate the pulling portion, a cross-section of the first channel is a C-shaped cross-section, the first channel includes a guidewire accommodating portion and a slit portion, and a width of the slit portion is smaller than a diameter of the guidewire.
However, Fischer teaches an endoscopic device (device 1; Fig. 1), comprising: a sheath tube (tube 2) provided with a channel (Fig. 3) extending along an axial direction, and the channel able to accommodate a pulling portion (cable 9 and basket 16), the pulling portion including a pulling wire (9) and a protruding portion (16), wherein the channel includes a first channel (second lumen 19) configured to accommodate a guidewire (guide wire 5) and a second channel (first lumen 8) configured to accommodate the pulling portion (9; Figs 3-4) for the purpose of preventing obstruction of rotary movement and outward movement of the protruding portion (basket 16; [0005]-[0006]).
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 channel of modified Koichi to include a first channel configured to accommodate a guidewire and a second channel configured to accommodate the pulling portion as taught by Fischer in order to allow the protruding portion to rotate and translate freely without obstruction from the guidewire.
Modified Koichi fails to disclose wherein a cross-section of the first channel is a C-shaped cross-section, and the first channel includes a guidewire accommodating portion and a slit portion, and a width of the slit portion is smaller than a diameter of the guidewire.
However, DeVries teaches an endoscopic incision device (Fig. 2A) comprising a sheath tube (elongate tube 202) comprising a first channel (channel 212; Fig. 2B) with a C-shaped cross-section (Fig. 2B), and the first channel (212) includes a guidewire accommodating portion (circular portion surrounding guidewire 230; Fig. 2B) and a slit portion (slit portion open to the outer surface of the elongate tube 202; Fig. 2B) for the purpose of removably holding the guidewire ([0034]), and a width of the slit portion is smaller than a diameter of the guidewire (Fig. 2B).
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 first channel of modified Koichi to have a C-shaped cross-section with a guidewire accommodating portion and a slit portion claimed as taught by DeVries in order to quickly and easily remove the guidewire from the sheath tube.
Regarding claim 27, Koichi modified discloses wherein the sheath tube includes an intermediate port (any portion of opening of slit of channel 212 of DeVries between the distal and proximal openings of the channel 212) disposed between the distal end and the proximal end of the sheath tube, and a distal end of the guidewire (230 of DeVries) is inserted into the intermediate port (230 of DeVries may be inserted into 212 at any portion along the slit), passing through the first channel (212 of DeVries), and exposing from the distal end of the sheath tube (as 212 of DeVries opens at a distal end).
Regarding claim 28, Koichi modified discloses wherein the slit portion (slit of channel 212 of DeVries) is disposed in a portion of the first channel (212) between a proximal port (proximal opening of 212) and the intermediate port (any portion of opening of slit of channel 212 of DeVries between the distal and proximal openings of the channel 212).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koichi et al. (JP 2017-192596) in view of Ducharme (US 2010/0057077 A1) in view of Fischer (US 2011/0004056 A1) in view of DeVries et al. (US 2019/0380565 A1), as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0388144 A1).
Regarding claim 29, modified Koichi fails to disclose wherein the channel of the sheath tube includes a negative pressure channel, and negative pressure is generated within the negative pressure channel.
However, Ducharme teaches wherein additional channels may be dedicated for the passage of fluids or contrast fluid therethrough ([0022]) and Zhang teaches an endoscopic device (Fig. 2) that may provide several options for working channels such as suction ([0052]).
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 channel of the sheath tube of modified Koichi to include a negative pressure channel and negative pressure within the negative pressure channel in light of the teachings of Ducharme and Zhang in order to suction tissue cut by the cutting wire away from the treatment site.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koichi et al. (JP 2017-192596) in view of Ducharme (US 2010/0057077 A1) in view of Fischer (US 2011/0004056 A1) in view of DeVries et al. (US 2019/0380565 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0388144 A1), as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of McCorkle, Jr. (US 4,471,777).
Regarding claim 30, Koichi modified fails to disclose wherein the protruding portion includes a rod member and a body portion connected to a distal end of the rod member, the rod member is sleeved with a sliding member capable of sliding axially relative to the rod member, the sliding member is connected to the body portion through a plurality of connecting members, when the sliding member slides toward the distal end of the rod member, the sliding member is able to drive the body portion to open through the plurality of connecting members, and when the sliding member slides toward a proximal end of the rod member, the sliding member is able to drive the body portion to close through the plurality of connecting members.
However, McCorkle teaches a protruding portion (Figs. 15A-15C) including a rod member (at least a portion of control stylet 91) and a body portion (bracket 87) connected to a distal end of the rod member (Figs. 15A-15C), the rod member (91) is sleeved with a sliding member (catheter 93) capable of sliding axially relative to the rod member (Figs. 15A-15C), the sliding member (93) is connected to the body portion (87) through a plurality of connecting members (spring elements 89), when the sliding member (93) slides toward the distal end of the rod member (Fig. 15B), the sliding member is able to drive the body portion (87) to open through the plurality of connecting members (Figs. 15A-15B), and when the sliding member (93) slides toward a proximal end of the rod member, the sliding member is able to drive the body portion to close through the plurality of connecting members (Figs. 15A-15C). In other words, McCorkle teaches a rod member and sliding member are known elements used to open and close a protruding portion.
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 protruding portion of modified Koichi to open and close via a rod member and sliding member as claimed in light of the teachings of McCorkle. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of opening and closing the protruding portion of modified Koichi. Further, the rod member and sliding member would allow for manual user control over opening an closing of the protruding portion outside of the sheath tube, giving the user more precise control of expansion of the protruding portion.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at (571)272-7134. 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.
/SARAH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights