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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed 10/26/2023 has/have been considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-10 and 20-26 are canceled. Claims 11-19 and 27-37 are pending in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/30/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 11, 16, 27 and 33 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 101 rejections of 04/30/2026 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2026 regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the claim 11 limitation, “…the expanding member configured to expand out of from a radially outer sidewall of the catheter responsive to the activation member being advanced distally…”, figure 2 of Addis (US 20020058964 A1 – hereinafter Addis) shows the expandable member in the form of a mesh 30 which radially expands from the cannula sidewalls when the flexible lines or wires 5 are advances distally to the cannula (Addis paragraph 0028 – “The flexible lines or wires are pushed distally to expand the mesh radially outward so that the first edge of the filter mesh is in close contact with the inner aortic wall”), and would therefore read on the claim language of “…the expanding member configured to expand out of from a radially outer sidewall of the catheter responsive to the activation member being advanced distally…”, as claimed in claim 11 and 27.
PNG
media_image1.png
166
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation, “…wherein the expanding member is configured to contact one wall of the coronary sinus to bias the catheter against the luminal wall of the coronary sinus” of claim 11, Addis teaches that the cannula of figure 2 can be used for coronary artery bypass (Addis figure 3 and paragraph 0028 – “When the cannula of FIG. 2 is used for aortic cannulation during cardiothoracic surgeries, such as coronary artery bypass, heart valve repair…After the cannula is positioned within the aorta as depicted in FIG. 3, balloon occluder 45 is inflated to isolate the coronary circulation from the peripheral circulation”). Addis further teaches that the cannula can be used within a vein of a patient (Addis paragraph 0025 – “However, the expansion mechanism may also be suitable for deployment of medical devices such as damming or occlusion devices, and locating and measuring applications in a patient's veins or body cavities”).
PNG
media_image2.png
240
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, it is reminded that such term(s) as “configured to” in the claim(s) do not limit claim scope to the particular function performed, and merely suggest optional functionality since the claim does not introduce any structure that positively recites and limits the features of the invention for exclusive use as intended. Absent limiting structural features, limitations following said clauses will be interpreted as recitations of intended use, wherein prior art will be evaluated based on its capability of performing and its suitability for the intended use. Therefore, it is considered that since Addis teaches that the cannula of figure 2 teaches the structural limitations AND can be inserted into coronary arteries/veins, Addis as stated above sufficiently satisfies the intended use limitation and would thus read on the claimed limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claims 12, 14-16, 19, 28, 30-35 and 37, specifically to the limitation, “…wherein activation of the expanding member is configured to provide wall apposition for the catheter…”, the expandable member 30 of Addis expands to contact vessel walls to provide “apposition”, or close contact to the catheter as shown in figure 3, and would therefore sufficiently read on the limitation as shown in figure 3 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
240
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further regarding the limitation of “…to facilitate puncturing the vessel wall”, it is reminded that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing 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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. see MPEP 2114 Apparatus and Article Claims — Functional Language. In the instant case, the reference of Addis and/or Addis in view of Bloom teaches all of the structural elements of the claims as stated in the rejection below, and would therefore be capable of performing any intended use in facilitating puncture of the vessel wall as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, the newly cited reference as taught by Bloom (US 20120053485 A1 – hereinafter Bloom) is relied upon to teach a similar catheter system/device which includes a needle port as required in claim 27, in combination with Addis as stated in the rejection below. Furthermore, figure 2 of Addis (US 20020058964 A1 – hereinafter Addis) shows the expandable member in the form of a mesh 30 which radially expands from the cannula sidewalls (Addis paragraph 0028 – “The flexible lines or wires are pushed distally to expand the mesh radially outward so that the first edge of the filter mesh is in close contact with the inner aortic wall”) as stated above, and would therefore sufficiently read on the “…an expanding member activated by the activation member that causes the expanding member to expand from a radially outer side wall of the catheter…” as required in claim 27.
Claim Interpretation
In accordance to MPEP 2111.04, such term(s) as “configured to” in the claim(s) do not limit claim scope to the particular function performed, and merely suggest optional functionality since the claim does not introduce any structure that positively recites and limits the features of the invention for exclusive use as intended. Absent limiting structural features, limitations following said clauses will be interpreted as recitations of intended use, wherein prior art will be evaluated based on its capability of performing and its suitability for the intended use. 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 patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing 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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Addis (US 20020058964 A1 – hereinafter Addis).
Re. claim 11, Addis teaches a guidewire delivery catheter used to implant a shunt between a coronary sinus and a left atrium,
the catheter including a securing mechanism that comprises:
an activation member including a wire (figure 2, flexible lines 5); and
an expanding member activated by the activation member (figure 2, filter mesh 30 connected to the flexible wires 5),
a proximal side of the expanding member coupled to a distal end of the activation member (figure 2, distal end of the filter mesh 30 connected to the flexible wires 5),
PNG
media_image1.png
166
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the expanding member configured to expand from a radially outer sidewall of the catheter responsive to the activation member being advanced distally (paragraph 0028 – “The flexible lines or wires are pushed distally to expand the mesh radially outward so that the first edge of the filter mesh is in close contact with the inner aortic wall”), wherein the expanding member is configured to secure a distal end of the catheter in place in the coronary sinus (paragraph 0029 – “Filter mesh 30 is mounted on the framework. In use, the balloon occluder is inflated through inflation lumen 46 to provide circulatory isolation, and the filter mesh is expanded to contact the interior aortic wall by pushing on flexible lines or wires”);
wherein the expanding member is configured to contact one wall of the coronary sinus to bias the catheter against the luminal wall of the coronary sinus (paragraph 0028 – “When the cannula of FIG. 2 is used for aortic cannulation during cardiothoracic surgeries, such as coronary artery bypass…After the cannula is positioned within the aorta as depicted in FIG. 3, balloon occluder 45 is inflated to isolate the coronary circulation from the peripheral circulation”).
PNG
media_image2.png
240
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 12, Addis further teaches wherein the expanding member comprises a mesh structure (figure 2, distal end of the filter mesh 30),
PNG
media_image1.png
166
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 14, Addis further teaches wherein the expanding member is configured to be retracted by pulling the activation member proximally (paragraph 0014 – “…the flexible lines are pulled and the filter mesh is contracted tightly against the elongate element”; paragraph 0030 – “After a surgeon has performed surgery on the heart, the balloon occluder may be deflated. The lines are pulled to contract the mesh”).
Re. claim 15, Addis further teaches wherein a distal portion of the expanding member is fixed to the catheter (figure 2 shows the distal end of the mesh 30 fixed to the distal end 22 of catheter 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
166
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 16, Addis further teaches wherein activation of the expanding member causes the expanding member is configured to provide to provide wall apposition for the catheter to facilitate puncturing the vessel wall (mesh 30 contracts to push against the aortic wall, paragraph 0029 – “Filter mesh 30 is mounted on the framework. In use, the balloon occluder is inflated through inflation lumen 46 to provide circulatory isolation, and the filter mesh is expanded to contact the interior aortic wall by pushing on flexible lines or wires”).
Re. claim 19, Addis further teaches wherein the expanding member is not activated through inflation using liquid or gas (no mention of inflation by liquid or gas, only paragraph 0028 – “The flexible lines or wires are pushed distally to expand the mesh radially outward so that the first edge of the filter mesh is in close contact with the inner aortic wall”; paragraph 0029 – “Filter mesh 30 is mounted on the framework. In use, the balloon occluder is inflated through inflation lumen 46 to provide circulatory isolation, and the filter mesh is expanded to contact the interior aortic wall by pushing on flexible lines or wires”).
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addis (US 20020058964 A1 – hereinafter Addis) in view of Deveraux (US 20180126127 A1 – hereinafter Deveraux) [previously cited].
Re. claim 13, Addis teaches the expanding member as stated above in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the expanding member comprises a compliant wire material.
Deveraux teaches a catheter system (abstract – A chordae management catheter…“) comprising an expanding member (figure 26, displacement component 2330 with flat or planar element 2672), wherein the expanding member comprises a compliant wire material (paragraph 0103 – “Displacement component 2630 is a flat or planar element 2672 that is formed from a self-expanding material and shape-set in the deployed or expanded configuration shown best in FIG. 26, which may be described as a conical or funnel configuration or profile 2674. In an embodiment hereof, flat or planar element 2672 is a mesh formed from Nitinol or another self-expanding material”).
PNG
media_image4.png
302
287
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the expandable mesh member of Addis, to incorporate the compliant wire mesh material Nitinol, as taught by Deveraux, since such modification would predictably result in fixing the expanded nitinol mesh of the catheter to a target region in the body.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addis (US 20020058964 A1 – hereinafter Addis) in view of Rafiee (US 20180008248 A1 – hereinafter Rafiee) [previously cited].
Re. claim 17, Addis teaches the claimed invention of claim 11 including the expandable member as stated above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the expanding member comprises a fabric covering that contains a distal portion of the activation member such that as the activation member is advanced distally, the distal portion of the activation member curves within the fabric covering to cause the fabric covering to form a dome shape.
Rafiee teaches a similar catheter system (paragraph 0004 – “The present disclosure relates to a device and method for transcatheter correction of cardiovascular abnormalities, such as the delivery of prosthetic valves to the heart”). Rafiee further teaches an expandable member (figure 1B, expandable mesh discs 112 with the dome shapes; paragraph 0012 – “In some implementations, a prosthesis is provided having a proximal end and a distal end, the prosthesis having a radially expandable body, the radially expandable body being configured to expand into at least one distal disc after becoming unconstrained”; paragraph 0064 – “The mesh covering preferably defines at least one proximal lobe, or disc 112…”),
PNG
media_image5.png
324
468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
And wherein the expanding member comprises a fabric covering that contains a distal portion of the activation member such that as the activation member is advanced distally, the distal portion of the activation member curves within the fabric covering to cause the fabric covering to form a dome shape (paragraph 0022 – “The prosthesis further includes an outer fabric covering connecting the plurality of radially expandable braided mesh bodies, the outer fabric being disposed outside of the braiding of the plurality of radially expandable braided mesh bodies”, and therefore the outer fabric covering the dome shaped discs would in turn form the dome shape).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the expandable mesh member of Addis, to incorporate the dome shaped expandable mesh AND fabric covering, as taught by Rafiee, since such modification would predictably result in fixing the expanded mesh of the catheter to a target region in the body.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addis (US 20020058964 A1 – hereinafter Addis) in view of Gambale (US 20010004690 A1 – hereinafter Gambale) [previously cited].
Re. claim 18, Addis teaches the claimed invention of claim 11 including the wire as stated above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the wire comprises a hypotube.
Gambale teaches a similar catheter system (paragraph 0107 – “The steerable delivery catheter 36 is not shown in FIGS. 6A and 6B but is understood to be part of the delivery system”), and further teaches an expandable member (figures 5A-5B, mesh tube 40),
PNG
media_image6.png
124
352
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Connected to a hypotube which expands the mesh tube 40 (paragraph 0108 – “In the case of implantation in the myocardium, the sharp piercing distal tip 64 of the release wire 54 penetrates the endocardial surface 6 to provide access to the myocardium 4. After placement of the mesh tube within the myocardium 4, it is expanded to its second configuration by moving the hypotube, which engages the proximal end 56 of the tube, in a proximal direction…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify wire of Addis, to hypotube, as taught by Gambale, since such modification would predictably result in ease of use in fixing the expanded mesh of the catheter to a target region in the body.
Claim(s) 27-28, 30-35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addis (US 20020058964 A1 – hereinafter Addis) in view of Bloom (US 20120053485 A1 – hereinafter Bloom) [NEW].
Re. claim 27, Addis teaches guidewire delivery catheter used to implant a shunt between a coronary sinus and a left atrium, the catheter comprising: a securing mechanism that comprises:
an activation member (figure 2, flexible lines 5);
an expanding member activated by the activation member that causes the expanding member to expand from a radially outer side wall of the catheter (figure 2, filter mesh 30 connected to the flexible wires 5 extending form the catheter sidewalls),
PNG
media_image1.png
166
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the expanding member thereby being configured to secure a distal end of the catheter in place in the coronary sinus (paragraph 0029 – “Filter mesh 30 is mounted on the framework. In use, the balloon occluder is inflated through inflation lumen 46 to provide circulatory isolation, and the filter mesh is expanded to contact the interior aortic wall by pushing on flexible lines or wires”; paragraph 0028 – “When the cannula of FIG. 2 is used for aortic cannulation during cardiothoracic surgeries, such as coronary artery bypass…After the cannula is positioned within the aorta as depicted in FIG. 3, balloon occluder 45 is inflated to isolate the coronary circulation from the peripheral circulation”).
Addis does not expressly teach a needle port formed on a radially inner side wall of the catheter, and the expanding member opposite the needle port.
Bloom teaches a similar catheter device comprising a catheter body (figure 18, shaft 310), an expandable member (figure 18, expandable member 330), and a needle port formed on a radially inner side wall of the catheter, where the expanding member is opposite the needle port (figure 18, needle port 318; paragraph 0060 – “As shown in FIGS. 19 and 20, bronchoscope shaft 310 has a lumen 319 in which is a biopsy needle 320 is slidably disposed, and a needle port 318 is provided in shaft 310 at its distal end 316 …”).
PNG
media_image7.png
288
426
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the catheter of Addis, to incorporate the needle port opposite the expandable member as taught by Bloom as stated above, since such modification would predictably result in allowing a needle to be slidably disposed through, for example, for securing and/or biopsy purposes.
Re. claim 28, Addis of the combined invention further teaches wherein the expanding member comprises a mesh structure (figure 2, distal end of the filter mesh 30),
PNG
media_image1.png
166
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 30, Addis of the combined invention further teaches wherein the expanding member is configured to be expanded responsive to pushing the activation member distally (paragraph 0029 – “Filter mesh 30 is mounted on the framework. In use, the balloon occluder is inflated through inflation lumen 46 to provide circulatory isolation, and the filter mesh is expanded to contact the interior aortic wall by pushing on flexible lines or wires”).
Re. claim 31, Addis of the combined invention further teaches wherein the expanding member is configured to be retracted by pulling the activation member proximally (paragraph 0014 – “…the flexible lines are pulled and the filter mesh is contracted tightly against the elongate element”; paragraph 0030 – “After a surgeon has performed surgery on the heart, the balloon occluder may be deflated. The lines are pulled to contract the mesh”).
Re. claim 32, Addis of the combined invention further teaches wherein a distal portion of the expanding member is fixed to the catheter (figure 2 shows the distal end of the mesh 30 fixed to the distal end 22 of catheter 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
166
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 33, Addis of the combined invention further teaches wherein activation of the expanding member is configured to provide wall apposition for the catheter to facilitate puncturing the vessel wall (mesh 30 contracts to push against the aortic wall, paragraph 0029 – “Filter mesh 30 is mounted on the framework. In use, the balloon occluder is inflated through inflation lumen 46 to provide circulatory isolation, and the filter mesh is expanded to contact the interior aortic wall by pushing on flexible lines or wires”).
Re. claim 34, Addis of the combined invention further teaches wherein the expanding member is not activated through inflation using liquid or gas (no mention of inflation by liquid or gas, only paragraph 0028 – “The flexible lines or wires are pushed distally to expand the mesh radially outward so that the first edge of the filter mesh is in close contact with the inner aortic wall”; paragraph 0029 – “Filter mesh 30 is mounted on the framework. In use, the balloon occluder is inflated through inflation lumen 46 to provide circulatory isolation, and the filter mesh is expanded to contact the interior aortic wall by pushing on flexible lines or wires”).
Re. claim 35, Addis of the combined invention further teaches wherein the expanding member permits fluid to flow through the coronary sinus when the expanding member is expanded out of the guidewire delivery catheter (figure 2, filter mesh 30 would allow liquid to flow through).
Re. claim 37, Addis of the combined invention further teaches wherein the expanding member forms a part of an outer wall of the guidewire delivery catheter during delivery (figure 2 shows the filter mesh 30 forming a wall from the end 3).
PNG
media_image8.png
166
658
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addis (US 20020058964 A1 – hereinafter Addis) in view of Bloom (US 20120053485 A1 – hereinafter Bloom) and Deveraux (US 20180126127 A1 – hereinafter Deveraux) [previously cited].
Re. claim 29, the combination of Addis and Bloom (hereinafter the combined invention) teaches the expanding member as stated above in claim 27, but does not explicitly teach wherein the expanding member comprises a compliant wire material.
Deveraux teaches a catheter system (abstract – A chordae management catheter…“) comprising an expanding member (figure 26, displacement component 2330 with flat or planar element 2672), wherein the expanding member comprises a compliant wire material (paragraph 0103 – “Displacement component 2630 is a flat or planar element 2672 that is formed from a self-expanding material and shape-set in the deployed or expanded configuration shown best in FIG. 26, which may be described as a conical or funnel configuration or profile 2674. In an embodiment hereof, flat or planar element 2672 is a mesh formed from Nitinol or another self-expanding material”).
PNG
media_image4.png
302
287
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the expandable mesh member of the combined invention, to incorporate the compliant wire mesh material Nitinol, as taught by Deveraux, since such modification would predictably result in fixing the expanded nitinol mesh of the catheter to a target region in the body.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addis (US 20020058964 A1 – hereinafter Addis) in view of Bloom (US 20120053485 A1 – hereinafter Bloom) and Arevalos (US 20200289196 A1 – hereinafter Arevalos) [previously cited].
Re. claim 36, the combination of Addis and Bloom (hereinafter the combined invention) teaches the claimed invention of claim 27 including the wire as stated above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the expanding member is at least partially housed within the guidewire delivery catheter during delivery.
Arevalos teaches a similar catheter system (abstract – “The device assembly comprises a delivery catheter…”), and further teaches an expanding member (tissue stabilizer, paragraph 0070 – “In some embodiments, the tissue stabilizer is connected to the guidewire and is made of a self-expanding mesh…”), and further teaches wherein the expanding member is at least partially housed within the guidewire delivery catheter during delivery (paragraph 0070 – “In some embodiments, the tissue stabilizer is connected to the guidewire and is made of a self-expanding mesh that is constrained within a separate catheter prior to delivery to the left atrium. In some embodiments, this self-expanding mesh resides in a collapsed state within the guide catheter (catheter 1) prior to deployment”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the expandable mesh member of the combined invention, to incorporate the expanding mesh housed within the catheter, as taught by Arevalos, since such modification would predictably result in easier catheter delivery to a target region in the body.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anh-Khoa N. Dinh whose telephone number is (571)272-7041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-4:00pm EST.
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, DAVID HAMAOUI can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/ANH-KHOA N DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights