DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species III in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-14 & 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/12/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 should read --A catheter construction comprising:
a catheter shaft having an axial length, the catheter shaft comprising an inner liner, a reinforcement structure that is exterior to the inner liner, and a tubular outer layer extending over the reinforcement structure; and
the inner liner comprises at least one spiral slot pattern comprised of a plurality of slots between a plurality of interruptions where a wall of the inner liner remains intact, wherein each slot of the plurality of slots has a length measured between each adjacent interruption of the plurality of interruptions, and wherein a pitch of the at least one spiral slot pattern varies over an axial length of the inner liner.--
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 2, 4-7 & 9-10 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.
As to Claim 2, the limitation “a first pattern of slots each having a first length and a second pattern of slots each having a second length”, is indefinite. Claim 1 defines “at least one spiral pattern”. As such, it is not clear if the first pattern of slots or the second pattern of slots in Claim 2 is part of the at least one spiral pattern, or if the first and second patterns of slots are in addition to the at least one spiral pattern, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the first and second patterns of slots will be interpreted as part of the at least one spiral pattern, where the at least one spiral pattern is comprised of a first pattern of slots and a second pattern of slots.
Additionally, it is not clear which structure is being referred to with each iteration of the term “each” in the limitation. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the at least one spiral pattern is comprised of a first pattern of slots having a first length and a second pattern of slots having a second length.
As to Claim 4, the limitation “the number of slots in the first-end region is greater than the number of slots in each of a remainder of the plurality of regions such that the first-end region comprises a first stiffness, wherein the number of slots in the second-end region is less than the number of slots in each of the remainder of the plurality of regions such that the second-end region comprises a second stiffness, wherein the first stiffness less than the second stiffness”, in Lines 10-15, is indefinite. It is not clear how the number of slots within a particular region solely defines the stiffness, as the limitation is attempting to do. The limitation is attempting to define stiffness merely by the number of slots, where the more slots a region has, the less stiff the region is. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude a first region having a length of one foot with two slots, is less stiff than a second region having a length of two feet with three slots. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the number of slots within a region does not dictate the stiffness of the respective region. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude multiple factors determine the stiffness of a respective region, one of which is the number of slots in addition to the other factors. As such, the limitation is indefinite. For the purpose or examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the first-end region has a number of slots, the second-end region has a number of slots, the first-end region has a first stiffness, the second-end region has a second stiffness, and the first stiffness is less than the second stiffness.
Additionally, the phrase “the remainder of the plurality of regions”, in Lines 13-14, lacks antecedent basis. Although the phrase was used previously in Line 11, it does not appear the two respective remainders are the same remainder. The remainder in Line 11 includes the second-end region. The remainder in Lines 13-14 does not. As such, the two remainders are not the same, and require different nomenclature.
The limitation “a pitch of the number of slots in the first-end region increases in a direction away from the second-end region, such that the first stiffness of the first-end region decreases as a pitch decreases”, in Lines 16-18, is indefinite, in light of the specification. When referencing instant application Figures 4A/4B –which embodies the elected species—one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the pitch increase in a direction towards the second-end region 66, not the pitch increases away from the from the second-end region 66, rendering the claim indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a pitch of the number of slots in the first-end region increases in a direction away from the first-end region, such that the first stiffness of the first-end region decreases as the pitch of the number of slots in the first-end region decreases.
The limitation “the first stiffness less than the second stiffness”, in Lines 14-15, should read --the first stiffness is less than the second stiffness.
As to Claim 5, the claim cites structure which has been previously cited in Claim 4 in a manner which is considered to be introducing new structure. As such, it is not clear if each structure introduced in Claim 5 is the same structure as introduced in Claim 4, or if new structure is being introduced. For the purpose of examination, the structure of Claim 5 will be interpreted as the structure of Claim 4.
The limitation “the number of slots in the first-end region is greater than the number of slots in each of a remainder of the plurality of regions such that the first-end region comprises a first stiffness, wherein the number of slots in the second-end region is less than the number of slots in each of the remainder of the plurality of regions such that the second-end region comprises a second stiffness, wherein the first stiffness less than the second stiffness”, in Lines 6-11, is indefinite. It is not clear how the number of slots within a particular region solely defines the stiffness, as the limitation is attempting to do. The limitation is attempting to define stiffness merely by the number of slots, where the more slots a region has, the less stiff the region is. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude a first region having a length of one foot with two slots, is less stiff than a second region having a length of two feet with three slots. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the number of slots within a region does not dictate the stiffness of the respective region. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude multiple factors determine the stiffness of a respective region, one of which is the number of slots in addition to the other factors. As such, the limitation is indefinite. For the purpose or examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the first-end region has a number of slots, the second-end region has a number of slots, the first-end region has a first stiffness, the second-end region has a second stiffness, and the first stiffness is less than the second stiffness.
Additionally, the phrase “the remainder of the plurality of regions”, in Lines 9-10, lacks antecedent basis. Although the phrase was used previously in Line 7, it does not appear the two respective remainders are the same remainder. The remainder in Line 7 includes the second-end region. The remainder in Lines 9-10 does not. As such, the two remainders are not the same, and require different nomenclature.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 restates each of the limitation of Claim 4, Lines 5-15. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (U.S. PGPub 2020/0391009), in view of Mitelberg (U.S. PGPub 2008/0097398).
As to Claim 1, Martin teaches a catheter construction (10; Figure 1A) comprising:
a catheter shaft (at least 14/20/22/24/26) having an axial length (left to right, as viewed in Figure 1A; although the right end of catheter 10 in Figure 1A is cutoff, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the shaft has an axial length extending from a proximal end to a distal end of the catheter; Paragraph 0005), the catheter shaft (at least 14/20/22/24/26) comprising an inner liner (14), a reinforcement structure (20) that is exterior to (as shown in Figure 1A; Paragraph 0004) the inner liner (14), and a tubular outer layer (22/24/26) extending over (Paragraph 0006) the reinforcement structure (20).
Martin is silent on the structure of the inner layer, so does not teach the inner liner comprises at least one spiral slot pattern comprised of a plurality of slots between a plurality of interruptions where a wall of the inner liner remains intact, wherein each slot of the plurality of slots has a length measured between each adjacent interruption and wherein a pitch of the at least one spiral slot pattern varies over an axial length of the inner liner.
Mitelberg describes a tubular portion –liner—for use with a catheter (Paragraph 0013), and teaches the inner liner (10a; Figures 5/6) comprises at least one spiral slot pattern (the pattern comprised of slots 18, shown in Figures 5/6) comprised of a plurality of (as shown in Figures 5/6) slots (18) between (as shown in Figures 5/6) a plurality (as shown in Figures 5/6) of interruptions (the uncut portion of 10a between ends of adjacent slots 18, in Figures 5/6, caused by 16a) where a wall (the wall through which slots 18 are cut through, as shown in Figures 5/6) of the inner liner (10a) remains intact (as shown in Figures 5/6), wherein each slot (18) of the plurality of slots (18) has a length (the length between the respective ends of each slot 18, as shown in Figures 5/6) measured between each adjacent interruption (the uncut portion of 10a between ends of adjacent slots 18, in Figures 5/6, caused by 16a) and wherein a pitch (P1/P2/P3/P4) of the at least one spiral slot pattern (the pattern comprised of slots 18, shown in Figures 5/6) varies over an axial length (the length from right to left, as viewed in Figures 5/6) of the inner liner (10a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the tubular portion, as taught by Mitelberg, as the inner liner, as taught by Martin, “to provide a component that is more rigid at a proximal portion, to improve column strength and pushability, and more flexible at a distal portion, to improve trackability and provide a relatively atraumatic distal tip (Paragraph 0032).”
As to Claim 2, Martin, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the plurality of slots (Mitelberg 18) comprises a first pattern of slots (Mitelberg 24) each having a first length (the axial length of Mitelberg region 24, shown in Mitelberg Figure 5) and a second pattern of slots (Mitelberg 25) each having a second length (the axial length of Mitelberg region 25, shown in Mitelberg Figure 5), where the first length (the axial length of Mitelberg region 24, shown in Mitelberg Figure 5) and second length (the axial length of Mitelberg region 25, shown in Mitelberg Figure 5) are different (as shown in Mitelberg Figure 5).
Claims 4-7 & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, in view of Mitelberg, as evidenced by wikipedia.org (see attached Stiffness – Wikipedia pdf from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffness).
As to Claim 4, Martin teaches a catheter construction (10; Figure 1A) comprising:
a catheter shaft (at least 14/20/22/24/26) having an axial length (left to right, as viewed in Figure 1A; although the right end of catheter 10 in Figure 1A is cutoff, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the shaft has an axial length extending from a proximal end to a distal end of the catheter; Paragraph 0005), the catheter shaft (at least 14/20/22/24/26) comprising an inner liner (14), a reinforcement structure (20) that is exterior to (as shown in Figure 1A; Paragraph 0004) the inner liner (14), and a tubular outer layer (22/24/26) extending over (Paragraph 0006) the reinforcement structure (20).
Martin is silent on the structure of the inner layer, so does not teach the inner liner comprises a plurality of regions extending sequentially lengthwise along the inner liner having a plurality of slots, each of the plurality of regions having a number of slots of the plurality of slots extending spirally about the inner liner;
the plurality of regions including at least a first-end region and a second-end region on opposite ends of the plurality of regions, wherein the number of slots in the first-end region is greater than the number of slots in each of a remainder of the plurality of regions such that the first-end region comprises a first stiffness, wherein the number of slots in the second-end region is less than the number of slots in each of the remainder of the plurality of regions such that the second-end region comprises a second stiffness, wherein the first stiffness less than the second stiffness, and
a pitch of the number of slots in the first-end region increases in a direction away from the second-end region, such that the first stiffness of the first-end region decreases as a pitch decreases.
Mitelberg describes a tubular portion –liner—for use with a catheter (Paragraph 0013), and teaches the inner liner (10a; Figures 5/6) comprises a plurality of regions (see Figure 6 below) extending sequentially lengthwise along (as shown in Figure 6) the inner liner (10a) having a plurality (as shown in Figures 5/6) of slots (18), each of the plurality of regions (see Figure 6 below) having a number (the number of slots 18 respectively within each region, as shown in Figure 6) of slots (18) of the plurality of slots (18) extending spirally about (as shown in Figure 5) the inner liner (10a);
the plurality of regions (see Figure 6 below) including at least a first-end region (see Figure 6 below) and a second-end region (see Figure 6 below) on opposite ends (as shown in Figure 6) of the plurality of regions (see Figure 6 below), wherein the number (the number of slots 18 respectively within the first end region shown in Figure 6 below; 19 total) of slots (18) in the first-end region (see Figure 6 below) is greater than (as shown in Figure 6 below) the number (the number of slots 18 respectively within each of the second-end region –3 slots total--, the first intermediate region –6 slots total--, and the second intermediate region –6 slots total--, as shown in Figure 6 below) of slots (18) in each of a remainder of the plurality of regions (the second-end region, the first intermediate region, and the second intermediate region, as shown in Figure 6 below) such that the first-end region (see Figure 6 below) comprises a first stiffness (the stiffness –the flexible region-- described in Paragraph 0033, where stiffness is the inverse of flexibility, as evidenced by wikipedia.com), wherein the number (the number of slots 18 respectively within the second end region shown in Figure 6 below; 3 total) of slots (18) in the second-end region (see Figure 6 below) is less than (as shown in Figure 6 below) the number (the number of slots 18 respectively within each of the first intermediate region –6 slots total--, and the second intermediate region –6 slots total--, as shown in Figure 6 below) of slots (18) in each of the remainder of the plurality of regions (the first intermediate region, and the second intermediate region, as shown in Figure 6 below) such that the second-end region (see Figure 6 below) comprises a second stiffness (the stiffness of the second-end region –the rigid region-- described in Paragraph 0033, where stiffness is the inverse of flexibility, as evidenced by wikipedia.com), wherein the first stiffness (the stiffness –the flexible region-- described in Paragraph 0033, where stiffness is the inverse of flexibility, as evidenced by wikipedia.com) less than (as described in Paragraph 0033) the second stiffness (the stiffness described in Paragraph 0033, where stiffness is the inverse of flexibility, as evidenced by wikipedia.com), and
a pitch (P3/P4) of the number (the number of slots 18 respectively within the first end region shown in Figure 6 below; 19 total) of slots (18) in the first-end region (see Figure 6 below) increases (as shown in Figure 6) in a direction away from (to the left, as viewed in Figure 6) the first-end region (see Figure 6 below), such that the first stiffness (the stiffness –the flexible region-- described in Paragraph 0033, where stiffness is the inverse of flexibility, as evidenced by wikipedia.com) of the first-end region (see Figure 6 below) decreases (as shown in Figure 6) as a pitch (P3/P4) decreases (from right to left, as viewed in Figure 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
415
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mitelberg Figure 6, Modified by Examiner
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the tubular portion, as taught by Mitelberg, as the inner liner, as taught by Martin, “to provide a component that is more rigid at a proximal portion, to improve column strength and pushability, and more flexible at a distal portion, to improve trackability and provide a relatively atraumatic distal tip (Paragraph 0032).”
As to Claim 5, Martin, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 4, and continues to teach the inner liner (Mitelberg 10a; Mitelberg Figures 5/6) comprises a plurality of regions (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) extending sequentially lengthwise along (as shown in Mitelberg Figure 6) the inner liner (Mitelberg 10a) having a plurality (as shown in Mitelberg Figures 5/6) of slots (Mitelberg 18), each of the plurality of regions (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) having a number (the number of Mitelberg slots 18 respectively within each region, as shown in Mitelberg Figure 6) of slots (Mitelberg 18) from the plurality of slots (Mitelberg 18) extending spirally about (as shown in Mitelberg Figure 5) the inner liner (Mitelberg 10a);
the plurality of regions (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) including at least a first-end region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) and a second-end region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) on opposite ends (as shown in Mitelberg Figure 6) of the plurality of regions (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above), wherein the number (the number of Mitelberg slots 18 respectively within the first end region shown in Mitelberg Figure 6 above; 19 total) of slots (Mitelberg 18) in the first-end region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) is greater than (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) the number (the number of Mitelberg slots 18 respectively within each of the second-end region –6 slots total--, the first intermediate region –6 slots total--, and the second intermediate region –3 slots total--, as shown in Mitelberg Figure 6 above) of slots (Mitelberg 18) in each of a remainder of the plurality of regions (the second-end region, the first intermediate region, and the second intermediate region, as shown in Mitelberg Figure 6 above) such that the first-end region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) comprises a first stiffness (the stiffness –the flexible region-- described in Mitelberg Paragraph 0033, where stiffness is the inverse of flexibility, as evidenced by wikipedia.com), wherein the number (the number of Mitelberg slots 18 respectively within the second end region shown in Mitelberg Figure 6 above; 3 total) of slots (Mitelberg 18) in the second-end region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) is less than (as shown in Figure 6 above) the number (the number of Mitelberg slots 18 respectively within each of the first intermediate region –6 slots total--, and the second intermediate region –3 slots total--, as shown in Mitelberg Figure 6 above) of slots (Mitelberg 18) in each of the remainder of the plurality of regions (the first intermediate region, and the second intermediate region, as shown in Mitelberg Figure 6 above) such that the second-end region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) comprises a second stiffness (the stiffness of the second-end region –the rigid region-- described in Mitelberg Paragraph 0033, where stiffness is the inverse of flexibility, as evidenced by wikipedia.com), wherein the first stiffness (the stiffness –the flexible region-- described in Mitelberg Paragraph 0033, where stiffness is the inverse of flexibility, as evidenced by wikipedia.com) less than (as described in Mitelberg Paragraph 0033) the second stiffness (the stiffness described in Mitelberg Paragraph 0033, where stiffness is the inverse of flexibility, as evidenced by wikipedia.com).
As to Claim 6, Martin, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 4, and continues to teach the plurality of regions (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) includes an intermediate region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above, where the intermediate region is comprised of the first and second intermediate regions) between (as shown in Mitelberg Figure 6) the first-end region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) and second-end region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) where the number (the number of Mitelberg slots 18 respectively within the intermediate region shown in Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above; 12 total) of slots in the intermediate region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above, where the intermediate region is comprised of the first and second intermediate regions) is greater than (as shown in Mitelberg Figure 6 see Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) the number (the number of slots 18 respectively within the second end region shown in Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above; 3 total) of slots (Mitelberg 18) in the second-end region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) and less than (as shown in Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) the number (the number of Mitelberg slots 18 respectively within the first end region shown in Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above; 19 total) of slots (Mitelberg 18) in the first-end region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above), such that an intermediate stiffness (the stiffness resulting from the slots shown in Mitelberg Figure 6 in each of the intermediate regions) of the intermediate region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above, where the intermediate region is comprised of the first and second intermediate regions) is less than (Mitelberg Paragraph 0034) the first stiffness (the stiffness –the flexible region-- described in Mitelberg Paragraph 0033, where stiffness is the inverse of flexibility, as evidenced by wikipedia.com) and greater than (Mitelberg Paragraph 0034) the second stiffness (the stiffness described in Mitelberg Paragraph 0033, where stiffness is the inverse of flexibility, as evidenced by wikipedia.com).
As to Claim 7, Martin, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 4, and continues to teach the plurality of regions (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) includes a plurality of intermediate regions (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) sequentially located between (as shown in Mitelberg Figure 6) the first-end region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) and second-end region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above), where the number of slots (the number of Mitelberg slots 18 respectively within the intermediate region shown in Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above; 6 each, 12 total) in each of the plurality of intermediate regions (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) decreases from (as shown in Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) the first-end region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) to the second-end region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above), such that a stiffness (the stiffness resulting from the slots shown in Mitelberg Figure 6 in each of the intermediate regions) of each of the plurality of intermediate regions (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above) increases towards (Mitelberg Paragraph 0034) the second-end region (see Mitelberg Figure 6 in the Claim 4 rejection above).
As to Claim 9, Martin, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 4, and continues to teach at least one slot (Mitelberg 18) of the plurality of slots (Mitelberg 18) extends through (as shown in Mitelberg Figure 6) a wall (the wall through which Mitelberg slots 18 are cut through, as shown in Mitelberg Figures 5/6) of the inner liner (Mitelberg 10a).
As to Claim 10, Martin, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 4, and continues to teach at least one slot (Mitelberg 18) of the plurality of slots (Mitelberg 18) comprises a plurality (as shown in Mitelberg Figure 6) of adjacent openings (Mitelberg 18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tran (2020/0023164) and Salstrom (2015/0231367) show similar inner liners.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights