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 Objections
Claims 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Recitation of “the cylindrical” in line 1 of claim 13 should be corrected to “the cylindrical rod”.
A period in line 9 of claim 15 should be corrected to a semi-colon.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English translation copy of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 202223730 U to Xiuhong et al. (hereinafter "Xiuhong") in view of US 2014/0324024 (Tejani).
Regarding Claim 1, Xiuhong discloses a device (a drainage tube fixator, Figure; Para. [0002]) for stereotactic placement of a catheter (a drainage tube, Para. [0004]) comprising: a conical component (a conical cover 1, Figure; Para. [0013]) comprising a first opening and a second opening (see top and bottom of conical cover 1, respectively, in Figure), where the first opening and second opening form a lumen therethrough (...the inner cavity of the conical cover 1..., Para. [0013]; see Figure); a cylindrical rod (a sleeve 2, Figure; Para. [0013]), coupled to the conical component (see Figure), for receiving the catheter (In use, the drainage tube is passed through the elastic rubber ring inside the cannula, and then the conical cover..., Para. [0008]); and a footplate (an annular folded edge, Figure; Para. [0013]), coupled to the conical component (...The lower end of the conical cover 1 is provided with an annular folded edge..., Para. [0013]), for securing the device to a subject (...and the bottom surface of the annular folded edge is provided with an adhesive layer 4..., Para. [0013]; ...and the conical cover is bonded and fixed to the patient’s body surface through the adhesive layer..., Para. [0008]).
Xiuhong fails to explicitly disclose a clip, coupled to the conical component, for holding the catheter.
Tejani is in the field of catheter retention devices (Abstract) and teaches a clip (a catheter clip 100, Fig. 1; Para. [0027]), coupled to a component (Para. [0025]), for holding a catheter (a catheter, Para. [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Xiuhong to include the clip of Tejani. The motivation being to prevent post-placement shifting of the catheter, to prevent increasing the length of the procedure, to prevent increased trauma for the patient as the catheter is repositioned (Para. [0003] of Tejani), and provide improved stabilization of the catheter (Para. [0001] of Tejani).
In regards to using the footplate for securing the device underneath a skin of the subject, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the claimed use, it meets the claim. In this case, Xiuhong discloses the footplate coupled to the conical component as discussed above, therefore the device of Xiuhong is capable of being used for securing the device underneath the skin of a subject. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Xiuhong discloses the device of claim 1, and Xiuhong further discloses wherein the second opening is located at a base of the conical component, wherein the base is configured to contact with a target tissue (..and the conical cover is bonded and fixed to the patient’s body surface through the adhesive layer..., Para. [0008]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Xiuhong discloses the device of claim 2.
In regards to the target tissue being a calvarial surface anterior to a burr hole, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. In this case, Xiuhong discloses a device that is made to contact a body surface of a patient, therefore, the device of Xiuhong is capable of being located at a calvarial surface anterior to a burr hole. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Xiuhong discloses the device of claim 1.
Xiuhong fails to explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the second opening is from about 0.5 cm to about 1.5 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a diameter of the second opening that is from about 0.5 cm to about 1.5 cm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a diameter sufficient for catheter placement, thereby facilitating successful intraventricular procedures.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Xiuhong discloses the device of claim 1, and Xiuhong further discloses wherein the conical component is a 180-degree hollow truncated conical component (one half of the conical cover of Xiuhong forms a 180-degree hollow truncated conical component, see Figure).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Xiuhong discloses the device of claim 1, and Xiuhong further discloses wherein the first opening is located at a top of the conical component (see Figure). Xiuhong fails to explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the first opening is from about 0.25 cm to about 0.75 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a diameter of the first opening is from about 0.25 cm to about 0.75 cm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a diameter sufficient for catheter placement, thereby facilitating successful intraventricular procedures.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Xiuhong discloses the device of claim 1.
Xiuhong fails to explicitly disclose wherein a height of the conical component is about 1 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the lime of the invention lo provide a height of the conical component is about 1 cm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a height sufficient for catheter placement, thereby facilitating successful intraventricular procedures.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Xiuhong discloses the device of claim 3.
In regards to the device being configured to be placed on the calvarial surface anterior to a burr hole in a semi-circular way so that an entire burr hole is free for catheter placement, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. In this case, Xiuhong discloses a device, half of which is semi-circular, that has a footplate capable of being placed on, for example, a calvarial surface anterior to a burr hole, and provides a central opening that is capable of allowing catheter placement within a burr hole, therefore, the device of Xiuhong is capable of being configured to be placed on the calvarial surface anterior to a burr hole in a semi-circular way so that an entire burr hole is free for catheter placement. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Xiuhong discloses the device of claim 1.
In regards to the footplate being configured to be located at a calvarial surface anterior to a burr hole to secure the device underneath a skin of a subject, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. In this case, the footplate of Xiuhong is as capable as the claimed invention of being located at a calvarial surface anterior to a burr hole to secure the device underneath a skin of a subject. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Xiuhong discloses the device of claim 9.
Xiuhong fails to explicitly disclose wherein a length of the footplate is from about 0.1 cm to about 2 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a length of the footplate is from about 0.1 cm to about 2 cm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a length sufficient for catheter placement, thereby facilitating successful intraventricular procedures.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Xiuhong discloses the device of claim 9, and Xiuhong further discloses wherein a portion of the cylindrical rod is located in the lumen (when viewed from the top down, the inner portion of the cylindrical rod is located within the lumen, see Figure).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Xiuhong discloses the device of claim 1.
Xiuhong fails to explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the cylindrical rod is from about 0.1 cm lo about 0.75 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the lime of the invention to provide a diameter of the cylindrical rod is from about 0.1 cm to about 0.75 cm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a diameter sufficient for catheter placement, thereby facilitating successful intraventricular procedures.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Xiuhong discloses the device of claim 1, and Xiuhong further discloses wherein the cylindrical rod comprises a lumen (see Figure) that is configured to receive a catheter (a drainage tube, Para. [0004]) so that the catheter is aligned parallel to the cylindrical rod (In use, the drainage tube is passed through the elastic rubber ring inside the cannula..., Para. [0008]) and placed through a frustum of the conical component into a ventricle (see Figure; Para. [0004]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Xiuhong discloses the device of claim 1, and Tajani further discloses wherein the clip is configured to hold a catheter in place during a surgical procedure (Embodiments relate to methods and devices for stabilizing catheters during percutaneous vascular and cardiac procedures. Such as diagnostics and interventions..., Para. [0001]).
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wo 2017/031340 A1 to Hazard et al. (hereinafter “Hazard”) in view of US 2017/0340864 A1 to Rios et al. (hereinafter “Rios”).
Hazard teaches a device (30) (Figs. 3, 10A-10B) for stereotactic placement of a catheter comprising:
a conical component (refer to "cup 32" with p. 17. lines 14-17: "...cup 32 has the shape of a conical frustum...") comprising a first opening (see Fig. 3) and a second opening (34). where the first opening and second opening form a lumen therethrough (see Fig. 3);
a cylindrical rod (10), coupled to the conical component, for receiving the catheter (38);
a footplate (see p. 17, lines 5-7: "the exterior surface of cup 32 can comprise features to enhance the fit of cup 32 within a patient, such as ridges, flanges, threads, barbs, and the like"), coupled to the conical component, for securing the device underneath of a skin of a subject.
Hazard fails to explicitly disclose a clip, coupled to the conical component, for holding the catheter.
Rios is in the field of catheter retention devices and teaches a clip (134) (figure 3; Para [0030]: "at least one clip 134 located in catheter-notch 122, configured for holding and retaining ventriculostomy catheter 10").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Hazard to include the clip of Rios for holding and retaining ventriculostomy catheter (Para [0030] of Rios).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hazard discloses the device of claim 1, and Hazard further discloses wherein the second opening (34) is located at a base of the conical component (32), wherein the base is configured to contact with a target tissue (figure 3).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Hazard discloses the device of claim 2.
In regards to the target tissue being a calvarial surface anterior to a burr hole, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. In this case, Hazard discloses a device that is made to contact a body surface of a patient, therefore, the device of Hazard is capable of being located at a calvarial surface anterior to a burr hole. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Hazard discloses the device of claim 1.
Hazard fails to explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the second opening is from about 0.5 cm to about 1.5 cm.
Hazard teaches that the conical component (cup 32) has a diameter of 5 to 50 mm (0.5 cm to 5 cm)(page 17, lines 16-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a diameter of the second opening that is from about 0.5 cm to about 1.5 cm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a diameter sufficient for catheter placement, thereby facilitating successful intraventricular procedures.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Hazard discloses the device of claim 1, and Hazard further discloses wherein the conical component is a 180-degree hollow truncated conical component (see figure 3).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Hazard discloses the device of claim 1, and Hazard further discloses wherein the first opening is located at a top of the conical component (see figure 3). Hazard fails to explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the first opening is from about 0.25 cm to about 0.75 cm.
Hazard teaches that the conical component (cup 32) has a diameter of 5 to 50 mm (0.5 cm to 5 cm)(page 17, lines 16-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a diameter of the first opening is from about 0.25 cm to about 0.75 cm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a diameter sufficient for catheter placement, thereby facilitating successful intraventricular procedures.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Hazard discloses the device of claim 1.
Hazard fails to explicitly disclose wherein a height of the conical component is about 1 cm.
Hazard teaches that the conical component (cup 32) has a height of 5 to 50 mm (0.5 cm to 5 cm)(page 17, lines 16-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the lime of the invention lo provide a height of the conical component is about 1 cm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a height sufficient for catheter placement, thereby facilitating successful intraventricular procedures.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Hazard discloses the device of claim 3.
In regards to the device being configured to be placed on the calvarial surface anterior to a burr hole in a semi-circular way so that an entire burr hole is free for catheter placement, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. In this case, Hazard discloses a device, half of which is semi-circular, that has a footplate capable of being placed on, for example, a calvarial surface anterior to a burr hole, and provides a central opening that is capable of allowing catheter placement within a burr hole, therefore, the device of Hazard is capable of being configured to be placed on the calvarial surface anterior to a burr hole in a semi-circular way so that an entire burr hole is free for catheter placement. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Hazard discloses the device of claim 1.
In regards to the footplate being configured to be located at a calvarial surface anterior to a burr hole to secure the device underneath a skin of a subject, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. In this case, the footplate of Hazard is as capable as the claimed invention of being located at a calvarial surface anterior to a burr hole to secure the device underneath a skin of a subject. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Hazard discloses the device of claim 9.
Hazard fails to explicitly disclose wherein a length of the footplate is from about 0.1 cm to about 2 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a length of the footplate is from about 0.1 cm to about 2 cm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a length sufficient for catheter placement, thereby facilitating successful intraventricular procedures.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Hazard discloses the device of claim 9, and Hazard further discloses wherein a portion of the cylindrical rod (10) is located in the lumen (16) (figures 1-2B).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Hazard discloses the device of claim 1.
Hazard fails to explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the cylindrical rod is from about 0.1 cm lo about 0.75 cm.
Hazard teaches that the diameters of the inner lumen of rod (10) is between 0.5 mm (0.05 cm) and 10 mm (1 cm) (page 15, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the lime of the invention to provide a diameter of the cylindrical rod is from about 0.1 cm to about 0.75 cm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a diameter sufficient for catheter placement, thereby facilitating successful intraventricular procedures.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Hazard discloses the device of claim 1, and Hazard further discloses wherein the cylindrical rod (10) comprises a lumen (16) (see figures 1-2B) that is configured to receive a catheter (38) so that the catheter is aligned parallel to the cylindrical rod and placed through a frustum of the conical component into a ventricle (see figures 1-2B, 10A-10B).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Hazard discloses the device of claim 1, and Rios further discloses wherein the clip is configured to hold a catheter in place during a surgical procedure (figure 3; Para [0030]: "at least one clip 134 located in catheter-notch 122, configured for holding and retaining ventriculostomy catheter 10").
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Xiuhong in view of Tejani and US Patent No. 10,632,283 (Withers).
Regarding Claim 15, Xiuhong discloses a method for placing a catheter (a drainage tube, Para. [0004]) comprising: placing a device (a drainage tube fixator, Figure; Para. [0002]) on a target hole for inserting the catheter (Currently, in clinical practice, when inserting drainage tubes into patients..., Para. [0004]), wherein the device comprises a conical component (a conical cover 1, Figure; Para. [0013]) comprising a first opening and a second opening (see top and bottom of conical cover 1, respectively, in Figure), where the first opening and second opening form a lumen therethrough (...the inner cavity of the conical cover 1..., Para. [0013]; see Figure); a cylindrical rod (a sleeve 2, Figure; Para. [0013), coupled to the first opening (see Figure), for receiving the catheter (In use, the drainage tube is passed through the elastic rubber ring inside the cannula, and then the conical cover..., Para. [0008]); and a footplate (an annular folded edge, Figure; Para. [0013]), coupled to the conical component (...The lower end of the conical cover 1 is provided with an annular folded edge..., Para. [0013]), for securing the device to a subject (...and the bottom surface of the annular folded edge is provided with an adhesive layer 4..., Para. [0013]; ...and the conical cover is bonded and fixed to the patient’s body surface through the adhesive layer..., Para. [0008]); aligning the catheter parallel to the cylindrical rod (In use, the drainage tube is passed through the elastic rubber ring inside the cannula, and then the conical cover..., Para. [0008]); and placing the catheter through a frustum of the conical component into a target tissue (see Figure; Para. [0004]).
Xiuhong fails to explicitly disclose a clip, coupled to the conical component, for holding the catheter.
Tejani is in the field of catheter retention devices (Abstract) and teaches a clip (a catheter clip 100, Fig. 1; Para. [0027]), coupled to a component (Para. [0025]), for holding a catheter (a catheter, Para. [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Xiuhong to include the clip of Tejani. The motivation being to prevent post-placement shifting of the catheter, to prevent increasing the length of the procedure, to prevent increased trauma for the patient as the catheter is repositioned (Para. [0003] of Tejani), and provide improved stabilization of the catheter (Para. [0001] of Tejani).
Xiuhong fails to explicitly disclose the footplate is used for securing the device underneath of a skin of the subject.
Withers is in the field of catheter placement devices (Title) and teaches a footplate (a location foot 17, Fig. 8; Col. 5, Lines 33-36) that is used for securing a device (a catheter placement device 50; Fig. 8; Col. 5, Lines 33-36) underneath a skin of a subject (...an incision 10 is made in the skin of the patient's 35 head at the recognized landmarks for placement of an intraventricular catheter...The skin of the head is then spread using retractors...The device of the present invention is located against the skull...and held there firmly, Col. 6, Lines 32-44; The manual location of the device is illustrated in FIG. 14., Col. 6, Line 53; Fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Xiuhong by securing the footplate underneath a skin of the subject as suggested by Withers. The motivation being to provide a device that facilitates greater stability during catheter manipulation by virtue of being placed against the solid surface of the skull as opposed to the loose and flexible surface of the skin, thereby preventing misplacement of an intraventricular catheter which may inadvertently damage delicate structures within the brain causing neurological injury (Col. 2, Lines 29-32 of Withers).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Xiuhong discloses the method of claim 15, and Tejani further discloses holding the catheter using the clip during a surgical procedure (…the catheter, retention device may include a catheter clip… may retain the catheter in a proximal-distal direction and/or a rotational direction once the catheter has been placed within the vasculature, Para. [0021]).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Xiuhong discloses the method of claim 15, and Xiuhong further discloses wherein the subject shows an indication, wherein the indication comprises subarachnoid hemorrhage, intraventricular hemorrhage, traumatic brain injury (TBI), hydrocephalus, pseudotumor and post-surgical wound drainage, or a combination thereof (Currently, in clinical practice, when inserting drainage tubes into patients..., Para. [0004]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiuhong in view of Tejani and Withers as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2015/0343709 to Gerstle et al. (hereinafter, "Gerstle").
Regarding Claim 17, modified Xiuhong discloses the method of claim 16.
Xiuhong fails to explicitly disclose wherein the device is printed using a three-dimensional printer.
Gerstle is in the field of medical devices (Title) and teaches wherein a prosthesis device is printed using a three-dimensional printer (The present disclosure provides a...process for producing prostheses, tools, instruments, guides, and models for a wide variety medical procedures (e.g., surgery), Para. [0006]; see also Abstract and Paras. [0006], and [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method Xiuhong such that the device is printed using a three-dimensional printer as suggested by Gerstle. The motivation being to allow the manufacturing process to occur at the surgeon's location (Para. [0024] of Gerstle), to allow for customized design (Para. [0024] of Gerstle), and to produces the medical device in a reduced total period of time (Para. [0025] of Gerstle), thereby providing greater convenience, flexibility, and mobility for surgical applications (Para. [0006] of Gerstle).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0119753 A1 teaches burr hole mounted stereotactic biopsy device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1142. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, IN SUK BULLOCK can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/John Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
JK
2/26/26