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
With respect to prior art rejection, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, applicant argues that “Mark ‘084 only discusses the disclosed surgical cutting instrument in the context of cutting tissue. Nowhere does Mark ‘084 contemplate the disclosed device being used as “an aspiration device” or in a use without cutting tissue, so as to look to embodiments of Mark ‘533 being used in that manner for a modification to the device of Mark ‘084. Instead, the PHOSITA would only look to the teachings of Mark ‘533 with respect to embodiments used for cutting tissue. In those tissue-cutting embodiments, Mark '533 expressly teaches stopping the inner/cutting member at a position such that the cutting edge is positioned remotely from the tissue receiving window (Mark '533, paragraphs [0084], [0096], [0097], and [0098]) to prevent trapping tissue (as in FIG. 27). Therefore, the PHOSITA would not be led by the teachings of Mark '533 to modify the cutting device of Mark '084 to stop the second member at a stop position in which the tissue-receiving window is partially open because doing so would risk trapping tissue in the window and/or would risk tearing tissue when attempting to remove the device, which risks Mark '084 expressly seeks to avoid. Accordingly, the proposed modification of Mark '084 in view of Mark '533 is improper.” (page 7, second full paragraph of the Remarks). Examiner respectfully traverses applicant’s remarks. Mark ‘533 clearly discloses using the tissue cutting device as an aspiration device further provide the advantage of utilize an adjustable vacuum force to move the target tissues away from areas where tissue cutting operations are undesired to allow the cutting operation performed remotely from those areas (“In certain examples, the inner cannula stop position is adjusted to provide a desired degree of aspiration, outer cannula 44 is positioned proximate a target tissue, and vacuum is applied to manipulate the target tissue and draw it into outer cannula opening 49. Outer cannula 44 is then moved to a desired location or orientation, thereby moving the target tissue to the desired location or orientation. Once the target tissue has been satisfactorily manipulated, a cutting operation is initiated. By using device 40 in this manner, target tissues can be drawn away from areas where tissue cutting operations are undesirable, and the cutting can be performed remotely from those areas.” (para. [0084]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would motivate to incorporate this teaching into the device of Mark ‘084 so that it too would have the same advantage.
Second, applicant argues that Yoshida does not provide any advantage to the device of Mark ‘084, thus, modification of Mark ‘084 in view of Yoshida is based on applicant’s own disclosure. Examiner respectfully traverse applicant’s remarks. In column 7, lines 26-31, Mark ‘084 discloses “An example of one known transmission mechanism for converting the rotary motion of shaft 70 to a linearly reciprocating motion is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,411,513 to Ireland et al., the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.” The term “an example of one known transmission mechanism” suggests that other known transmission mechanism for converting the rotary motion of shaft 70 to a linearly reciprocating motion can be used with the device. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would motivate to use the transmission mechanism of Yoshida to substitute the transmission mechanism as described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,411,513 since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element or mechanism for another to obtain predictable results (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
As to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, applicant states that “Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) with respect to the cited patent.”
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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark et al. (US 6,245,084, which is cited in Office action issued on April 24, 2025, hereinafter “Mark ‘084”) in view of Mark (US 2010/0152533, which is cited in Office action issued on April 24, hereinafter “Mark ‘533”) and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US 4,589,414, which is cited in Office action issued on April 24, hereinafter “Yoshida”).
Referring to claim 1, Mark ‘084 discloses a tissue resecting device 10 (FIGS. 1, 32, 3B and 6A-7; col. 4, ln 28 to col. 12, ln 32), comprising:
an assembly of tubular first member 64 (FIGS. 6A-7; col. 9, ln 55-68) and second member 102 (FIGS. 6A-6C; col. 9, ln 14-26) or 106 (FIG. 7; col. 9, ln 55-68); the second member 102 having a resecting element 104 (col. 9, ln 14-26) or the second member 106 having a resecting element 108 (FIG. 7; col. 9, ln 55-68) at a distal end thereof ;
a handle 26 (FIGS. 1-2; col. 4, ln 38-46 and ln 60-63);
a motor drive system 34 and 70 (FIGS. 1-2 and 7; col. 5, ln 5-10 and col. 7, ln 12-31) carried in the handle and a controller 28 (FIG. 2; col. 4, ln 14-20) configured for moving the second member 102, 106 across a window 68 of the first member 64 (FIG. 7; col. 6, ln 9-103); the motor drive system including a motor 34 and a motor shaft 70 (FIGS. 2 and 3B; col. 3, ln 58-63) driving a rotation-to-linear motion conversion mechanism 72 (FIG. 3B; col. 7, ln 12-31: “In an alternative embodiment, the rotary motor shaft 70 is connected to one end of a transmission mechanism 72 which is operable to convert the rotary motion of the shaft 70 to a linearly reciprocating motion.”), wherein a distal edge 104, 108 of the second member 102, 106, respectively, moves back and forth across the window 68 of the first member 64 from a window open position to a window closed position; wherein
the controller 28 includes an algorithm configured to stop reciprocation of the second member 102, 106 with the distal edge 104, 108, respectively, of the second member at a stop position
wherein the rotation-to-linear motion conversion mechanism
Mark ‘084 discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for disclosing (1) the controller 28 includes an algorithm configured to stop reciprocation of the second member 102, 106 with the distal edge 104, 108, respectively, of the second member at a stop position in which the tissue-receiving window is partially open and (2) the rotation-to-linear motion conversion mechanism includes a rotatable drive collar disposed about at least a portion of the second member 102, 106.
As to (1), however, in the same field of endeavor, which is a tissue resecting device, Mark ‘533 discloses in a minimal invasive surgery a tissue resecting device can be used as an aspiration device and it is desired to have a distal end of a cutter stop at a stop position in which the tissue-receiving window is partially open to control the aspiration (“However, in certain methods of use, device 40 is used as an aspiration wand. In those methods, the stop position of inner cannula distal end 79 may be adjusted to different locations within outer cannula opening 49 in order to adjust the level of aspiration supplied to a region of the anatomy proximate outer cannula opening 49. For example, stop positions may be selected that limit the percent open area of outer cannula opening 49 to 25%, 50%, or 75% of the total area of opening 49.” (para. [0096])). Mark ‘533 further discloses using the tissue cutting device as an aspiration device provide the advantage of utilize an adjustable vacuum force to move the target tissues away from areas where tissue cutting operations are undesired to allow the cutting operation performed remotely from those areas (“In certain examples, the inner cannula stop position is adjusted to provide a desired degree of aspiration, outer cannula 44 is positioned proximate a target tissue, and vacuum is applied to manipulate the target tissue and draw it into outer cannula opening 49. Outer cannula 44 is then moved to a desired location or orientation, thereby moving the target tissue to the desired location or orientation. Once the target tissue has been satisfactorily manipulated, a cutting operation is initiated. By using device 40 in this manner, target tissues can be drawn away from areas where tissue cutting operations are undesirable, and the cutting can be performed remotely from those areas.” (para. [0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the controller of Mark ‘084 according to suggestion of Mark ‘533 (see FIGS. 22-24 and paragraphs [0086]-[0104] of Mark ‘533 reference) to have the ability to stop the distal edge 104, 108 of the tubular member 102, 106, respectively, at a stop position in which the tissue-receiving window is partially open 49 to 25%, 50%, or 75% of the total area of opening to allow the surgeon to utilize the tissue cutting device as an aspiration device to effectively move the target tissues away from areas where tissue cutting operations are undesired to allow the cutting operation performed remotely from those areas.
As to (2), however, in the same field of endeavor, which is a tissue resecting device, Yoshida discloses a rotatable drive collar with groove is used as a rotation-to-linear motion conversion mechanism (cam 21 as shown in FIG. 1; col. 3, ln 5-18). In column 7, lines 26-31, Mark ‘084 discloses “An example of one known transmission mechanism for converting the rotary motion of shaft 70 to a linearly reciprocating motion is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,411,513 to Ireland et al., the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.” The term “an example of one known transmission mechanism” suggests that other known transmission mechanism for converting the rotary motion of shaft 70 to a linearly reciprocating motion can be used with the device. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would motivate to use the transmission mechanism of Yoshida to substitute the transmission mechanism as described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,411,513 since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element or mechanism for another to obtain predictable results (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The modification would have a drive collar with groove disposed about at least a portion of the inner tubular member of Mark ‘084.
Referring to claim 11, Mark ‘084/Mark ‘533/Yoshida discloses the tissue resecting device of claim 1, wherein the drive collar (cam 21 of Yoshida) is rotatable with the motor shaft 70 of Mark ‘084 (Mark ‘083: FIG. 3B and Yoshida: FIG. 1; col. 3, ln 49 to col. 4, ln 13).
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark ‘084 in view of Mark ‘533 and further in view of Breitenmoser (US 5,156,221, which is cited in the Office action issued on April 24, 2025, hereinafter “Breitenmoser”) and Smith (US 3,724,354 which is cited in the Office action issued on April 24, 2025, hereinafter “Smith”).
Referring to claims 2-5, Mark ‘084/Mark ‘533/Yoshida disclose the tissue resecting device of claim 1, further comprising a sensor 38 (see FIGS. 3A-3B of Mark ‘084 reference) is operable to produce the motor stop identification signal when the sensor aligned with indicator 77 (Mark ‘084: col. 7, ln 32-63). Mark ‘084 discloses the sensor is a Hall sensor for sensing a predefined position of the drive shaft relative to the housing and producing a stop position signal corresponding thereto (col. 2, ln 28-33). Breitenmoser discloses that a microswitch can be substitute for Hall sensor (col. 4, ln 63-68). Furthermore, Smith discloses a microswitch 130 mounted adjacent to cam 42, which includes indent for engagement with microswitch 130 to detect a position of shaft, which is carried by positioning cam 42 (FIGS. 3-5, col. 4, ln 55-65).
Referring again to claims 2-5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substitute the sensor mechanism as disclosed by Mark ‘084 with a microswitch and substitute position indicator 77 with an indent since in the collar since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable result (i.e., detecting a position on the shaft) is old and well known in the art (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Referring to claim 6, Mark ‘084/Mark ‘533/Yoshida discloses the tissue resecting device of claim 2, wherein the microswitch sends an electrical signal to the controller for each instance the microswitch engages the engagement feature (Smith: col. 4, ln 65-68).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark ‘084 in view of Mark ‘533 and Yoshida as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Goble et al. (US 20030060862).
Referring to claims 14-15, which are directly dependent on claim 1, Mark ‘084/Mark ‘533/Yoshida discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for disclosing the first and second members include opposing polarity electrodes for selectively resecting and coagulating tissue. However, in the same field of endeavor, which is a tissue resecting device, Goble discloses a surgical instrument comprises at least two elongate hollow tubes (14, 15), each having an aperture (18) at the distal end portion. The inner tube (14) is disposed within the other tube (15), and is mounted for rotation about its longitudinal axis. The outer tube (16) constitutes an active electrode, and the inner tube (14) constitutes the return electrode of an electrosurgical device. A radio frequency signal, supplied to the electrosurgical device, causes tissue to be coagulated prior to being cut by the cutting tool (4), resulting in smaller pieces of cut tissue which are easier to remove through the lumen (21).
Referring again to claims 14-15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, the have made the outer tube constitutes an active electrode, and the inner tube constitutes the return electrode to allow the tissue resecting device of Mark ‘084/Mark ‘533/Yoshida to cut and coagulated tissue to prevent bleeding.
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 1-2 and 5-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,844 (hereinafter “the patent”) in view of Cesarini et al. (US 2004/0092980, hereinafter “Cesarini”).
Referring to claim 1, claim 1 of the patent discloses a tissue resecting device, comprising: an assembly of tubular first and second members, the second member having a resecting element at a distal end thereof; a handle; a motor drive system carried in the handle and a controller configured for moving the second member across a window of the first member; the motor drive system including a motor and a motor shaft driving a rotation-to-linear motion conversion mechanism, wherein a distal edge of the second member moves back and forth across the window of the first member from a window open position to a window closed position; wherein the controller includes an algorithm configured to stop reciprocation of the second member with the distal edge of the second member at a stop position in which the tissue-receiving window is partially open; wherein the rotation-to-linear motion conversion mechanism includes a rotatable drive collar. Claim 1 of the patent fails to disclose the drive collar disposed about at least a portion of the second member.
Referring to claim 1 again, however, in the same field of endeavor, which is a tissue resecting device, Cesarini discloses a tissue resecting device, comprising: an assembly of tubular first and second members, the second member having a resecting element at a distal end thereof (FIG. 1B; para. [0066]); a rotation-to-linear motion conversion mechanism, wherein a distal edge of the second member moves back and forth across the window of the first member from a window open position to a window closed position; wherein the rotation-to-linear motion conversion mechanism includes a rotatable drive collar 150 (FIGS. 1B and 5A-5D; para. [0066]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have located the drive collar on a portion of the second member as suggest by Cesarini to effectively transfer rotational motion of drive shaft of the motor into linear motion of the second member.
Referring to claim 2, claim 1 of the patent discloses a microswitch, wherein the microswitch engages an engagement feature of the drive collar once each revolution of the drive collar.
Referring to claim 5, claim 2 of the patent discloses the engagement feature is an indent in the drive collar.
Referring to claim 6, claim 1 of the patent discloses wherein the microswitch sends an electrical signal to the controller for each instance the microswitch engages the engagement feature.
Referring to claim 7, claim 1 of the patent discloses the controller is configured to de-energize the motor at a point Y between a reference point in which the microswitch engages the engagement feature and the stop position.
Referring to claim 8, claim 3, which is dependent on claim 1, of the patent discloses the controller is configured to calculate point Y based on a calculated speed of rotation of the drive collar and calculated resistance of driving the second member.
Referring to claim 9, claim 4, which is dependent on claim 3, which is in turn dependent on claim 1, of the patent discloses wherein the controller incudes an algorithm responsive to the calculated resistance to de-energize the motor at point Y to permit momentum to move the second member to the stop position.
Referring to claim 10, claim 5, which is dependent on claim 4, which is dependent on claim 3, which is in turn dependent on claim 1, of the patent discloses the algorithm is configured to compare the calculated resistance to a look-up table of known resistances correlated with a momentum parameter related to stopping movement of the second member.
Referring to claim 11, claim 6, which is dependent on claim 1 of the patent discloses the drive collar is rotatable with the motor shaft.
Referring to claim 12, claim 7, which is dependent on claim 6, which is in turn dependent on claim 1, of the patent discloses the drive collar includes an arcuate slot engaging a pin secured to the second member.
Referring to claim 13, claim 8, which is dependent on claim 7, which is dependent on claim 6, which is in turn dependent on claim 1, of the patent discloses the pin and the second member reciprocate as the drive collar rotates.
Referring to claim 14, claim 9, which is dependent on claim 1, of the patent discloses the controller is configured to stop the distal edge of the second member at the stop position for coagulating tissue.
Referring to claim 15, claim 10, which is dependent on claim 9, which is in turn dependent on claim 1, of the patent discloses the first and second members include opposing polarity electrodes for selectively resecting and coagulating tissue.
Referring to claim 16, claim 11 of the patent discloses an assembly including an outer member having a tissue-receiving window and an inner member movably positioned within the outer member, the inner member having a resecting element at a distal end thereof; a handle; a motor drive system carried in the handle and a controller configured for moving the resecting element of the inner member across the tissue-receiving window of the outer member to resect tissue; the motor drive system including a motor and a motor shaft driving a rotation-to-linear motion conversion mechanism to reciprocate the inner member through at least one full distal and proximal reciprocation stroke via 360 degree rotation of the rotation-to-linear motion conversion mechanism in a first rotational direction, wherein a distal edge of the resection element moves back and forth across the window of the outer member from a window open position to a window closed position; wherein the controller includes an algorithm configured to stop reciprocation of the inner member with the distal edge of the resecting element at a stop position in which the tissue-receiving window is partially open; wherein the rotation-to-linear motion conversion mechanism includes a rotatable drive collar; and a microswitch, wherein the microswitch engages an indent in the drive collar once each revolution of the drive collar; wherein the microswitch sends an electrical signal to the controller for each instance the microswitch engages the indent; wherein the controller is configured to de-energize the motor at a point Y between a reference point in which the microswitch engages the indent and the stop position. Claim 11 of the patent fails to disclose the drive collar disposed about at least a portion of the second member.
Referring to claim 16 again, however, in the same field of endeavor, which is a tissue resecting device, Cesarini discloses a tissue resecting device, comprising: an assembly of tubular first and second members, the second member having a resecting element at a distal end thereof (FIG. 1B; para. [0066]); a rotation-to-linear motion conversion mechanism, wherein a distal edge of the second member moves back and forth across the window of the first member from a window open position to a window closed position; wherein the rotation-to-linear motion conversion mechanism includes a rotatable drive collar 150 (FIGS. 1B and 5A-5D; para. [0066]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have located the drive collar on a portion of the second member as suggest by Cesarini to effectively transfer rotational motion of drive shaft of the motor into linear motion of the second member.
Referring to claim 17, claim 11 of the patent discloses a microswitch, wherein the microswitch engages an indent in the drive collar once each revolution of the drive collar.
Referring to claim 18, claim 11 of the patent discloses the microswitch sends an electrical signal to the controller for each instance the microswitch engages the indent.
Referring to claim 19, claim 11 of the patent discloses the controller is configured to de-energize the motor at a point Y between a reference point in which the microswitch engages the indent and the stop position.
Referring to claim 20, claim 12, which is dependent on claim 11, of the patent discloses the controller is configured to calculate point Y based on a calculated speed of rotation of the drive collar and calculated resistance of driving the inner member, and wherein the controller incudes an algorithm responsive to the calculated resistance to de-energize the motor at point Y to permit momentum to move the inner member to the stop position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and a Terminal Disclaimer is filed to overcome to nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action.
Claims 16-20 are allowable if Terminal Disclaimer is filed to overcome to nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/TUAN V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771