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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molnar et al (US 2012/0053659) hereinafter Molnar in view of Kamiyama et al (US 2021/0038859) hereinafter Kamiyama.
Regarding claim 1, Molnar discloses an endovascular device ([0031] Fig. 1: IMD 16) comprising:
an elongated body (lead body 100) configured to be introduced in a blood vessel of a patient [0147];
a plurality of electrodes (segmented electrodes 102) disposed along the elongated body [0147],
the plurality of electrodes comprising a first group of electrodes (electrodes 102A) and a second group of electrodes (electrodes 102B; [0148] each of the levels of electrodes 102 includes three segmented electrodes 102A, 102B, 102C (shown in FIG. 13B) distributed around the outer perimeter of lead body 100);
wherein each electrode of the first group of electrodes faces a first direction and each electrode of the second group of electrodes faces a second direction different from the first direction ([0148] Each level of electrodes 102 includes a plurality of segmented electrodes positioned at different angular positions around the circumference of lead body 100),
wherein each electrode of the plurality of electrodes is a segmented electrode or a partial ring electrode ([0148] electrodes 102 includes a plurality of segmented electrodes), and
wherein the plurality of electrodes is configured to deliver electrical stimulation to tissue of a brain of the patient or sense a patient parameter from a location within the blood vessel ([0150] at least some of the segmented electrodes 102A-102C may be configured to both sense bioelectrical brain signals and deliver electrical stimulation to brain 28).
Molnar fails to disclose a plurality of conductors comprising a first conductor electrically coupled to each electrode of the first group of electrodes and a second conductor electrically coupled to each electrode of the second group of electrodes. However, Kamiyama discloses a plurality of conductors (conducting wires 6) comprising a first conductor electrically coupled to each electrode of the first group of electrodes and a second conductor electrically coupled to each electrode of the second group of electrodes ([0050] some of the plurality of the electrodes 5 may be connected in series to one of the conducting wires 6, other electrodes among the plurality of the electrodes 5 may be connected in series to another conducting wire 6). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Molnar with a plurality of conductors comprising a first conductor electrically coupled to each electrode of the first group of electrodes and a second conductor electrically coupled to each electrode of the second group of electrodes as taught by Kamiyama. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of dedicating certain electrodes as sense electrodes and certain electrodes as stimulation electrodes (Kamiyama, [0050]).
Regarding claim 2, Molnar discloses wherein the plurality of electrodes further comprises a third group of electrodes (electrodes 102C; [0148] each of the levels of electrodes 102 includes three segmented electrodes 102A, 102B, 102C (shown in FIG. 13B)),
wherein each electrode of the third group of electrodes faces a third direction different from the first direction and the second direction ([0148] Each level of electrodes 102 includes a plurality of segmented electrodes positioned at different angular positions around the circumference of lead body 100).
Molnar fails to disclose wherein the plurality of conductors further comprises a third conductor electrically coupled to each electrode of the third group of electrodes. However, Kamiyama discloses a plurality of conducting wires connecting different groups of electrodes in series ([0050] some of the plurality of the electrodes 5 may be connected in series to one of the conducting wires 6, other electrodes among the plurality of the electrodes 5 may be connected in series to another conducting wire 6). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the third group of electrodes as taught by Molnar with a connecting a group of electrodes in series via a conducting wire as taught by Kamiyama. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of dedicating certain electrodes as sense electrodes and certain electrodes as stimulation electrodes (Kamiyama, [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Molnar discloses wherein the first group of electrodes, the second group of electrodes, and the third group of electrodes are independently activatable ([0150] selectively activate one or more segmented electrodes of levels of electrodes 102 as stimulation electrodes and a different subset of two or more segmented electrodes as sense electrodes (to define a sense electrode combination)).
Regarding claim 4, Molnar discloses wherein each electrode of the first group of electrodes is circumferentially aligned along the elongated body (Figs. 13A-13B),
wherein each electrode of the second group of electrodes is circumferentially aligned along the elongated body, and wherein each electrode of the third group of electrodes is circumferentially aligned along the elongated body ([0148] Each level of electrodes 102 includes a plurality of segmented electrodes positioned at different angular positions around the circumference of lead body 100).
Regarding claim 5, Molnar discloses wherein the first group of electrodes comprises three or more electrodes, the second group of electrodes comprises three or more electrodes, and the third group of electrodes comprises three or more electrodes (Figs. 13A-13B show three or more electrodes for each group of 102A-102C).
Regarding claim 6, Molnar discloses wherein a first electrode of the first group of electrodes, a first electrode of the second group of electrodes, and a first electrode of the third group of electrodes are disposed on the elongated body at a first distance from a distal-most end of the elongated body (Figs. 13A-13B which show three groups of electrodes 102 disposed along an elongated body 100 at a first distance from distal end 98A),
wherein a second electrode of the first group of electrodes, a second electrode of the second group of electrodes, and a second electrode of the third group of electrodes are disposed on the elongated body at a second distance from the distal-most end of the elongated body (Fig 13A shows three or more electrodes for each group of electrodes 102A-C), and
wherein a third electrode of the first group of electrodes, a third electrode of the second group of electrodes, and a third electrode of the third group of electrodes are disposed on the elongated body at a third distance from the distal-most end of the elongated body (Fig 13A shows three or more electrodes for each group of electrodes 102A-C; [0148] Levels of electrodes 102 are positioned on lead body 100 at different axial positions along lead 98).
Regarding claim 7, Molnar discloses a medical lead (lead body 100) comprising the elongated body [0147].
Regarding claim 9, Molnar discloses wherein the endovascular device is configured to be operated in a trial mode for a trial period to determine an efficacy of the electrical stimulation or sensing ([0066] During a trial stage in which IMD 16 is evaluated to determine whether IMD 16 provides efficacious therapy to patient 12, a plurality of therapy programs may be tested and evaluated for efficacy).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molnar (US 2012/0053659) in view of Kamiyama (US 2021/0038859) and further in view of Opie et al (US 2018/0303595) hereinafter Opie.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Molnar discloses the system of claim 1 a discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the elongated body comprises an electrically insulative material,
wherein the at least a portion of the electrically insulative material is removed to expose an electrically conductive material to define the plurality of electrodes.
However, Opie discloses wherein the elongated body comprises an electrically insulative material ([0115] insulated lead wire 141),
wherein the at least a portion of the electrically insulative material is removed to expose an electrically conductive material to define the plurality of electrodes ([0115] electrodes 131 can be one or more exposed sections on the insulated lead wire 141).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system as taught by Molnar with wherein the elongated body comprises an electrically insulative material, wherein the at least a portion of the electrically insulative material is removed to expose an electrically conductive material to define the plurality of electrode as taught by Opie. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of preventing the lead wire from delivering unnecessary stimulation to the tissue by only delivering stimulation at the electrodes.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molnar (US 2012/0053659) in view of Kamiyama (US 2021/0038859) and further in view of Dubrow et al (US 2006/0204738) hereinafter Dubrow.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Molnar discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to disclose one or more surface textures or coatings configured to promote endothelization within the blood vessel. However, Dubrow discloses one or more surface textures or coatings configured to promote endothelization within the blood vessel ([0183] Coatings such as endothelial cell linings found in autologous vessels, polymers, polysaccharides, etc. can provide a non-thrombogenic surface to increase endothelial cell proliferation). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system as taught by Molnar with one or more surface textures or coatings configured to promote endothelization within the blood vessel as taught by Dubrow. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of minimizing thrombogenicity [0183].
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molnar (US 2012/0053659) in view of Kamiyama (US 2021/0038859) and further in view of Dafni (US 2005/0070805).
Regarding claim 11, Molnar discloses processing circuitry (processor 40) configured to control therapy delivery via the plurality of electrodes ([0088] Processor 40 controls stimulation generator 44), but fails to disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect a level of endothelization proximate the plurality of electrodes based on a sensed parameter.
However, Dafni discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect a level of endothelization proximate the plurality of electrodes based on a sensed parameter ([0034] the controller is adapted to calculate an endothelial functioning score, responsive to the impedance measurements sensed from electrodes). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system as taught by Molnar with the processing circuitry being configured to detect a level of endothelization proximate the plurality of electrodes based on a sensed parameter as taught by Dafni. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a score indicative of the endothelial function of the artery (Dafni, [0028]).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Molnar discloses the system of claim 11 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the sensed parameter is an impedance. However, Dafni discloses wherein the sensed parameter is an impedance ([0034] the controller is adapted to calculate an endothelial functioning score, responsive to the impedance measurements sensed from electrodes).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system as taught by Molnar with the sensed parameter is an impedance as taught by Dafni. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a score indicative of the endothelial function of the artery (Dafni, [0028]).
Claim(s) 13-14 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molnar (US 2012/0053659) in view of Kamiyama (US 2021/0038859) and Dafni (US 2005/0070805) and further in view of Tehrani et al (US 2023/0270998).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Molnar discloses the system of claim 11 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to select one or more electrical stimulation parameters values based on detecting the level of endothelization proximate the plurality of electrodes. However, Tehrani discloses selecting one or more electrical stimulation parameters values based on detecting the level of endothelization proximate the plurality of electrodes ([0142] in case of endothelization another set of electrodes can be selected for optimum performance). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system as taught by Molnar with electing one or more electrical stimulation parameters values based on detecting the level of endothelization proximate the plurality of electrodes as taught by Tehrani. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of optimizing stimulation by changing the electrode configuration to deliver stimulation at an area lacking endothelization.
Regarding claim 14, Molnar discloses wherein one or more electrical stimulation parameters comprises one or more of a frequency, a power, or an amplitude of electrical stimulation ([0046] a sensed bioelectrical brain signal may provide feedback to control the timing, intensity (e.g., a function of one or more stimulation parameter values, such as stimulation amplitude, pulse width and/or frequency)).
Regarding claim 24, Molnar discloses a method comprising:
processing circuitry (processor 40) configured to control therapy delivery via a plurality of electrodes (segmented electrodes 102) disposed along an elongated body (lead body 100; [0147]); and
wherein the elongated body is configured to be introduced in a blood vessel of a patient [1047],
wherein the plurality of electrodes comprises a first group of electrodes (electrodes 102A) and a second group of electrodes (electrodes 102B; [0148] each of the levels of electrodes 102 includes three segmented electrodes 102A, 102B, 102C (shown in FIG. 13B) distributed around the outer perimeter of lead body 100);
wherein each electrode of the first group of electrodes faces a first direction and each electrode of the second group of electrodes faces a second direction different from the first direction ([0148] Each level of electrodes 102 includes a plurality of segmented electrodes positioned at different angular positions around the circumference of lead body 100),
wherein each electrode of the plurality of electrodes is a segmented electrode or a partial ring electrode ([0148] electrodes 102 includes a plurality of segmented electrodes), and
wherein the plurality of electrodes is configured to deliver electrical stimulation to tissue of a brain of the patient or sense a patient parameter from a location within the blood vessel ([0150] at least some of the segmented electrodes 102A-102C may be configured to both sense bioelectrical brain signals and deliver electrical stimulation to brain 28).
Molnar fails to disclose detecting, via processing circuitry configured to control therapy delivery via a plurality of electrodes disposed along an elongated body, a level of endothelization proximate the plurality of electrodes based on a sensed parameter; and
selecting, via the processing circuitry, one or more electrical stimulation parameter values based on detecting the level of endothelization proximate the plurality of electrodes,
wherein a first conductor is electrically coupled to each electrode of the first group of electrodes and a second conductor is electrically coupled to each electrode of the second group of electrodes.
However, Dafni discloses detecting, via processing circuitry, a level of endothelization proximate the plurality of electrodes based on a sensed parameter ([0034] the controller is adapted to calculate an endothelial functioning score, responsive to the impedance measurements sensed from electrodes). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Molnar with detecting, via processing circuitry, a level of endothelization proximate the plurality of electrodes based on a sensed parameter as taught by Dafni. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a score indicative of the endothelial function of the artery (Dafni, [0028]).
Tehrani discloses selecting one or more electrical stimulation parameter values based on detecting the level of endothelization proximate the plurality of electrodes ([0142] in case of endothelization another set of electrodes can be selected for optimum performance). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Molnar with selecting one or more electrical stimulation parameter values based on detecting the level of endothelization proximate the plurality of electrodes as taught by Tehrani. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of optimizing stimulation by changing the electrode configuration to deliver stimulation at an area lacking endothelization.
Kamiyama discloses wherein a first conductor (conducting wires 6) is electrically coupled to each electrode of the first group of electrodes and a second conductor (conducting wires 6) is electrically coupled to each electrode of the second group of electrodes ([0050] some of the plurality of the electrodes 5 may be connected in series to one of the conducting wires 6, other electrodes among the plurality of the electrodes 5 may be connected in series to another conducting wire 6). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Molnar with wherein a first conductor is electrically coupled to each electrode of the first group of electrodes and a second conductor is electrically coupled to each electrode of the second group of electrodes as taught by Kamiyama. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of dedicating certain electrodes as sense electrodes and certain electrodes as stimulation electrodes (Kamiyama, [0050]).
Regarding claim 25, Molnar discloses wherein the plurality of electrodes further comprises a third group of electrodes (electrodes 102C; [0148] each of the levels of electrodes 102 includes three segmented electrodes 102A, 102B, 102C (shown in FIG. 13B)),
wherein each electrode of the third group of electrodes faces a third direction different from the first direction and the second direction ([0148] Each level of electrodes 102 includes a plurality of segmented electrodes positioned at different angular positions around the circumference of lead body 100).
Molnar fails to disclose wherein a third conductor is electrically coupled to each electrode of the third group of electrodes. However, Kamiyama discloses a plurality of conducting wires connecting different groups of electrodes in series ([0050] some of the plurality of the electrodes 5 may be connected in series to one of the conducting wires 6, other electrodes among the plurality of the electrodes 5 may be connected in series to another conducting wire 6). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the third group of electrodes as taught by Molnar with a third conductor being electrically coupled to each electrode of the third group of electrodes as taught by Kamiyama. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of dedicating certain electrodes as sense electrodes and certain electrodes as stimulation electrodes (Kamiyama, [0050]).
Regarding claim 26, Molnar discloses selectively delivering electrical stimulation to tissue of the brain of the patient or selectively sensing the patient parameter via the first group electrodes and not delivering electrical stimulation to tissue of the brain of the patient or not sensing the patient parameter via the second group of electrodes or the third group of electrodes ([0063] electrodes may include dedicated sense electrodes that are configured to sense a physiological signal of patient 12, but not deliver stimulation, and dedicated stimulation electrodes that are configured to deliver stimulation to patient 12, but not sense a physiological signal).
Regarding claim 27, Molnar discloses wherein each electrode of the first group of electrodes is circumferentially aligned along the elongated body (Figs 13A-13B),
wherein each electrode of the second group of electrodes is circumferentially aligned along the elongated body, and wherein each electrode of the third group of electrodes is circumferentially aligned along the elongated body ([0148] Each level of electrodes 102 includes a plurality of segmented electrodes positioned at different angular positions around the circumference of lead body 100).
Claim(s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opie (US 2018/0303595) in view of Kamiyama (US 2021/0038859).
Regarding claim 15, Opie discloses an endovascular device ([0099] Fig. 5a: medical device 100) comprising:
an elongated body (stent 101) comprising a distal portion transformable between a relatively low-profile delivery configuration and a deployed configuration ([0099] a collapsible and expandable stent 101),
wherein the distal portion is configured to be introduced in a blood vessel of a patient ([0194] stent 101 having been deployed in a blood vessel 104);
a plurality of electrodes disposed along the elongated body, the plurality of electrodes comprising a first group of electrodes and a second group of electrodes ([0099] a plurality of electrodes 131 coupled to the stent 101; See annotated Fig. 38A); and
PNG
media_image1.png
300
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 38A: Three groups of electrodes 131 have been encircled
wherein when the distal portion of the elongated body is in the deployed configuration, each electrode of the first group of electrodes faces a first direction and each electrode of the second group of electrodes faces a second direction different from the first direction (See annotated Fig. 38A which shows groups of electrodes facing different directions), and
wherein the plurality of electrodes is configured to deliver electrical stimulation to tissue of a brain of the patient or sense a patient parameter from a location within the blood vessel (0114] ability of the electrodes 131 to stimulate or record from medium).
Opie further discloses there may be one or more electrodes 131 per wire strand 141 and there may be one or more strands 141 utilized per device 100 [0113], but fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of conductors comprising a first conductor electrically coupled to each electrode of the first group of electrodes and a second conductor electrically coupled to each electrode of the second group of electrodes. However, Kamiyama discloses a plurality of conductors (conducting wires 6) comprising a first conductor electrically coupled to each electrode of the first group of electrodes and a second conductor electrically coupled to each electrode of the second group of electrodes ([0050] some of the plurality of the electrodes 5 may be connected in series to one of the conducting wires 6, other electrodes among the plurality of the electrodes 5 may be connected in series to another conducting wire 6). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Molnar with a plurality of conductors comprising a first conductor electrically coupled to each electrode of the first group of electrodes and a second conductor electrically coupled to each electrode of the second group of electrodes as taught by Kamiyama. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of dedicating certain electrodes as sense electrodes and certain electrodes as stimulation electrodes (Kamiyama, [0050]).
Regarding claim 16, Opie discloses wherein the plurality of electrodes further comprises a third group of electrodes (See annotated Fig. 38A which shows three groups of electrodes),
wherein when the distal portion of the elongated body is in the deployed configuration, each electrode of the third group of electrodes faces a third direction different from the first direction and the second direction (See annotated Fig. 38A which shows three groups of electrodes facing different directions).
Opie further discloses there may be one or more electrodes 131 per wire strand 141 and there may be one or more strands 141 utilized per device 100 [0113], but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of conductors further comprises a third conductor electrically coupled to each electrode of the third group of electrodes.
However, Kamiyama discloses a plurality of conducting wires connecting different groups of electrodes in series ([0050] some of the plurality of the electrodes 5 may be connected in series to one of the conducting wires 6, other electrodes among the plurality of the electrodes 5 may be connected in series to another conducting wire 6). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the third group of electrodes as taught by Opie with a connecting a group of electrodes in series via a conducting wire as taught by Kamiyama. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of dedicating certain electrodes as sense electrodes and certain electrodes as stimulation electrodes (Kamiyama, [0050]).
Regarding claim 17, Opie discloses wherein in the relatively low-profile delivery configuration, each electrode of the plurality of electrodes is aligned along the elongated body (Annotated Fig. 38A shows rows (groups) of electrodes being aligned).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opie (US 2018/0303595) in view of Kamiyama (US 2021/0038859) and further in view of Molnar (US 2012/0053659).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Opie discloses the system of claim 15 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the endovascular device is configured to be operated in a trial mode for a trial period to determine an efficacy of the electrical stimulation or sensing. However, Molnar discloses wherein the endovascular device is configured to be operated in a trial mode for a trial period to determine an efficacy of the electrical stimulation or sensing ([0066] During a trial stage in which IMD 16 is evaluated to determine whether IMD 16 provides efficacious therapy to patient 12, a plurality of therapy programs may be tested and evaluated for efficacy). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system as taught by Opie with the endovascular device being configured to be operated in a trial mode for a trial period to determine an efficacy of the electrical stimulation or sensing as taught by Molnar. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining whether or not the device provides efficacious therapy to the patient (Molnar, [0066]).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opie (US 2018/0303595) in view of Kamiyama (US 2021/0038859) and Molnar (US 2012/0053659) and further in view of Dafni (US 2005/0070805).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Opie discloses the system of claim 15 as discussed above, but fails to disclose processing circuitry configured to control therapy delivery via the plurality of electrodes, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect a level of endothelization proximate the plurality of electrodes based on a sensed parameter.
However, Molnar discloses processing circuitry configured to control therapy delivery via the plurality of electrodes ([0088] Processor 40 controls stimulation generator 44). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system as taught by Opie with processing circuitry configured to control therapy delivery via the plurality of electrodes as taught by Molnar. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of having a processor selectively choose stimulation electrodes to stimulate a target tissue based on sensed bioelectrical brain signals (Molnar, [0109]).
Dafni discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect a level of endothelization proximate the plurality of electrodes based on a sensed parameter ([0034] the controller is adapted to calculate an endothelial functioning score, responsive to the impedance measurements sensed from electrodes). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system as taught by Opie with wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect a level of endothelization proximate the plurality of electrodes based on a sensed parameter as taught by Dafni. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a score indicative of the endothelial function of the artery (Dafni, [0028]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLOW GRACE WELCH whose telephone number is (703)756-1596. The examiner can normally be reached Usually M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/WILLOW GRACE WELCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792