DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to the amendment received 3/26/2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification are sufficient to overcome the drawings objection set forth in the previous office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the claim objections set forth in the previous office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome most of the 35 USC 112(b)/second paragraph rejections set forth in the previous office action.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the obviousness double patenting rejections set forth in the previous office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the performing” to -performing the ablation- in ll. 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the performing” to -performing the ablation- in ll. 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the generating” to -generating the- in ll. 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the ablation” to -the performed ablation- in ll. 2-3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “of ablation” to -of the at least one of the previously performed ablation procedures- in ll. 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “a quality of stability” to -a quality of the catheter stability- in ll. 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the included quality of stability” to -the quality of catheter stability- in ll. 3.. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the gap index” to -the calculated gap index- in ll. 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “a quality of stability” to -a quality of the catheter stability- in ll. 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the gap index” to -the calculated gap index- in ll. 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “and processor” to -and the processor- in ll. 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “location” to -locations- in ll. 20. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the ablation” to -the performed ablation- in ll. 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “of ablation” to -of the at least one of the previously performed ablation procedures- in ll. 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “a quality of stability” to -a quality of the catheter stability- in ll. 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the included quality of stability” to -the quality of catheter stability- in ll. 3.. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the gap index” to -the calculated gap index- in ll. 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “a quality of stability” to -a quality of catheter stability- in ll. 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the gap index” to -the calculated gap index- in ll. 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 & 12-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “gaps” in ll. 2; however, claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends, recites the limitation “gaps” and “the identified gaps”. It is unclear if the “gaps” of claim 4 are the same as or different from the “gaps” of claim 1. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a gap” in ll. 2; however, claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends, recites the limitation “gaps” and “the identified gaps”. It is unclear if the “gap” of claim 5 is the same as or different from the “gaps” of claim 1. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the gap index is high” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “high” is regarded as indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the gap index being high” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “high” is regarded as indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitations of “data” in ll. 2 & 5. It is unclear if the “data” of ll. 5 is the same as or different from the “data” of ll. 2. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claims 15-26 depend from claim 14 and are thus also rejected.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “gaps” in ll. 2; however, claim 14, upon which claim 17 depends, recites the limitation “gaps” and “the identified gaps”. It is unclear if the “gaps” of claim 17 are the same as or different from the “gaps” of claim 14. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a gap” in ll. 2; however, claim 14, upon which claim 18 depends, recites the limitation “gaps” and “the identified gaps”. It is unclear if the “gap” of claim 18 is the same as or different from the “gaps” of claim 14. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 19 recites the limitation of “data” in ll. 1; however, as previously discussed, claim 14 recites the limitations of “data” in ll. 2 & 5. It is unclear as to which “data” claim 19 is referring to. For purposes of examination, the “data” of claim 19 will be interpreted as the “data” of ll. 5 in claim 19.
Claim 20 recites the limitation of “data” in ll. 1; however, as previously discussed, claim 14 recites the limitations of “data” in ll. 2 & 5. It is unclear as to which “data” claim 20 is referring to. For purposes of examination, the “data” of claim 19 will be interpreted as the “data” of ll. 5 in claim 20.
Claim 21 recites the limitation of “data” in ll. 1; however, as previously discussed, claim 14 recites the limitations of “data” in ll. 2 & 5. It is unclear as to which “data” claim 21 is referring to. For purposes of examination, the “data” of claim 19 will be interpreted as the “data” of ll. 5 in claim 21.
Claim 22 recites the limitation of “data” in ll. 1; however, as previously discussed, claim 14 recites the limitations of “data” in ll. 2 & 5. It is unclear as to which “data” claim 22 is referring to. For purposes of examination, the “data” of claim 19 will be interpreted as the “data” of ll. 5 in claim 22.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the gap index is high” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “high” is regarded as indefinite.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the gap index being high” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “high” is regarded as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-22 & 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEN-HAIM et al. (2020/0060757, previously cited) in view of Warner et al. (2018/0221075, previously cited).
Concerning claim 1, as illustrated in at least Figs. 1A-B, 3D, 4A, 6, 9, 11-12 & 14A, Ben-Haim et al. disclose a computer-implemented method (methods for estimating prognosis of ablation treatment effectiveness; [0002]) comprising:
receiving, by an optimization engine executed by one or more processors, data associated with previously performed ablation procedures, the data including performance metrics for the previously performed ablation procedures (system 1100 comprises processor(s) 1104 that parametrize the lesion based on one any of the parameters which are shown feeding into the nodes of lesion effectiveness parameters 1500 in Fig. 4A, particularly including post-lesioning observations 1532 optionally include one or more of dielectric measurements 1533 which may characterize lesion state, measurements of acute electrical isolation 1534 (that is, measurements made within the time of the initial ablation procedure), measurements of persistent electrical isolation 1536 (that is, measurements made in the days, months, and/or years after the initial ablation procedure), and/or measurements made by image 1535, for example, nuclear medicine imaging of fibrotic extent; [0201], [0205-0206], [0210-0211], [0282-0285], [0292]);
generating, by the optimization engine, expected outcomes for a plurality of the previously performed ablation procedures based on the received data (system 1100 comprises processor(s) 1104 that include pre-ablation, during ablation, and post-ablation estimators, where once the post-procedure clinical situation has stabilized, the long-term estimators potentially become of more practical use, as key medical decisions also become more strategic in nature. An estimator looking months or years in advance at the likelihood of disease recurrence can help a clinician advise a patient when the next follow-up session should occur, and/or help to plan for an apparently likely eventuality of the return of disease. In some embodiments, an ablation segment effectiveness estimator estimates a likelihood (for example, a percentage likelihood, or another prediction, optionally including an estimate of specificity and/or sensitivity) of effective block for one or more ablation segments within a week, a month, three months, six months, a year, two years, five years, or any other suitable period after the procedure that created the ablation segment; [0398]);
generating, by the optimization engine, one or more success predictions associated with one or more potential ablation procedures utilizing the generated expected outcomes; (system 1100 comprises processor(s) 1104 that executes an estimator 1150 utilizing the lesion effectiveness parameters 1500 with results that may be presented to a user, the estimator 1150 being any of earned lesion estimator 1604 (as described in FIG. 1) and/or ablation line estimator 1804 (as described in FIG. 6) and/or ablation segment estimator 2104 (as described in FIG. 14A) and/or edema estimator 2604 (as described in FIG. 18), the estimators all taking into account post-lesioning observations 1532 as inputs to the estimators; [0201], [0206], [0210-0212], [0256-0257] [0362], [0365-0366], [0388]);
performing an ablation selected from the one or more potential ablation procedures (a portion of the planned lesion is made at step 130; [0486]);
identifying gaps in the performed ablation, the identified gaps including potential locations of reconnection (parametrized gaps 1730 are identified where gaps potentially allow an impulse to escape into surrounding tissue, where it may contribute to an irregular heartbeat; [0190], [0368], [0378], [0381-0382]); and
outputting the identified gaps (estimator effectiveness, that include gaps, is displayed on interactive map; [0328]).
Ben-Haim et al. fail to specifically disclose calculating a gap index of the ablation and outputting the gap index of the ablation, identifying the gaps in the performed ablation based on the calculated gap index, the identified gaps at least including potential locations of reconnection ablation, and outputting the calculated gap index. However, Warner et al. disclose a computer-implemented method (500) comprising performing an ablation (510) and calculating a gap index (ABD and/or AGP) of the ablation (540), identifying gaps in the performed ablation based on the calculated gap index (550-560), the identified gaps at least including potential locations of reconnection ablation (identification of gaps, both marginal and isolated, may provide a potential metric (e.g., number of marginal and isolated gaps) by which an EP ablation procedure can be measured for reliably predicting patient readmission), and outputting the calculated gap index and identified gaps (570). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Warner et al. to further comprise calculating a gap index of the ablation and outputting the gap index of the ablation, identifying gaps in the performed ablation based on the calculated gap index, the identified gaps at least including potential locations of reconnection ablation, and outputting the calculated gap index in order to provide the benefit of locating and mitigating possible gap locations via additional ablation applications or diagnosis and have the technical effect of predicting and identifying gaps between electrophysiology ablation points recorded from a completed electrophysiology ablation procedure, and in response to the indication of ablation gaps, may recommend further EP ablation at the identified ablation gaps, prior to patient discharge and while the patient is still connected to the EP ablation system while also being more reliably and consistently achieved, thereby reducing readmission rate for follow-up EP ablation procedures as taught by Warner et al. ([0008], [0053-0059], [0063]; Fig. 3 & 5)
Concerning claim 2, Ben-Haim et al. disclose performing an ablation (55) includes ablating a series of neighboring locations (220) to produce a ring or line of ablated tissue (55) ([0245], [0247], [0251]; Fig. 3D, Fig. 8A-C).
Concerning claim 3, Ben-Haim et al. disclose the ablation (55) includes providing one or more ablations (220) to prevent transmission of an electric wave ([0227]).
Concerning claim 4, Ben-Haim et al. disclose the one or more success predictions (1804) searching for gaps (1730) in an ablation ring or ablation line (55) ([0381-0382], [0394]; Fig. 10B)
Concerning claim 5, Warner et al. further disclose the higher the gap index the higher a probability of a gap in the ablation ([0058]).
Concerning claim 6, Ben-Haim et al. disclose the data includes at least an ablation index for at least one of the previously performed ablation procedures, the ablation index derived from at least one of force (1566), power (1563) and time (1564) of ablation of a site ([0255], [0361]; Fig. 4A, 9 & 11).
Concerning claim 7, Ben-Haim et al. disclose the data includes at least an average or maximum temperature (1555) for at least one of the previously performed ablation procedures ([0243], [0289], [0296]; Fig. 4A, 9 & 11).
Concerning claims 8-9, Ben-Haim et al. fail to disclose the data includes at least a quality of stability for at least one of the previously performed ablation procedures, the included quality of stability being derived from a site stability algorithm, wherein the data includes at least a distance to a nearest stable stie for at least one of the previously performed ablation procedures, the nearest stable stie being determined using a site stability algorithm. However, Warner et al. further disclose receiving data including at least a quality of stability (jump index) derived from a site stability algorithm to generate a success prediction for an ablation and the data includes at least a distance to the nearest stable site using a site stability algorithm. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Ben-Haim et al. in view of Warner et al. such that the data includes at least a quality of stability, the included quality of stability being derived from a site stability algorithm, wherein the data includes at least a distance to a nearest stable site, the nearest stable stie being determined using a site stability algorithm in order to provide the benefit of accounting for uncertainties relating to the catheter as taught by Warner et al. ([0037], [0042]; Table 1). Since Ben-Haim et al. teach the method comprising the estimators comprising inputs that are pre-ablation, during ablation, and post-ablation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the invention of Ben-Haim et al. in view of Warner et al. such that the quality of stability and nearest stable stie stability algorithm is for at least one of the previously performed ablation procedures in order to provide the benefit of a post-procedure follow-up as taught by Ben-Haim et al. ([0391], [0398]).
Concerning claim 11, Ben-Haim et al. disclose parameters to be collected for the performed ablation at each location (52) ([0192], [0362], [0389-0391]; Fig. 11), and thus, the modified invention of Ben-Haim et al. in view of Warner et al. teach the gap index is calculated for each location (52) an ablation is performed.
Concerning claim 12, Warner et al. further disclose comprising outputting (570) a map of ablation sites highlighting ablation locations where the gap index is high ([0059]; Fig. 5).
Concerning claim 13, Warner et al. disclose the gap index being high is determined by thresholding (570) the gap index ([0058-0059]; Fig. 5).
Concerning claim 14, as illustrated in at least Figs. 1A-B, 3D, 4A, 6, 9 & 14A, Ben-Haim et al. disclose a system (system 1100; Fig. 1A) comprising
an input/out (I/O) device for receiving data from a catheter configured to perform ablation on a patient heart (interfaces 1110, 1118, 1112, 1126, 1130, 1134, 1142; [0215]);
a memory; and a processor, the memory and processor configured to process the received data (data processor 1104 includes a memory for storing instructions; [0121-0122], [0201]) and to:
receive, by an optimization engine executed by one or more processors, data associated with previously performed ablation procedures, the data including performance metrics for the previously performed ablation procedures (system 1100 comprises processor(s) 1104 parametrize the lesion based on one any of the parameters which are shown feeding into the nodes of lesion effectiveness parameters 1500 in Fig. 4A, particularly including post-lesioning observations 1532 optionally include one or more of dielectric measurements 1533 which may characterize lesion state, measurements of acute electrical isolation 1534 (that is, measurements made within the time of the initial ablation procedure), measurements of persistent electrical isolation 1536 (that is, measurements made in the days, months, and/or years after the initial ablation procedure), and/or measurements made by image 1535, for example, nuclear medicine imaging of fibrotic extent; [0201], [0205-0206], [0210-0211], [0282-0285], [0292]);
generate, by the optimization engine, expected outcomes for a plurality of the previously performed ablation procedures based on the received data (system 1100 comprises processor(s) 1104 that include pre-ablation, during ablation, and post-ablation estimators, where once the post-procedure clinical situation has stabilized, the long-term estimators potentially become of more practical use, as key medical decisions also become more strategic in nature. An estimator looking months or years in advance at the likelihood of disease recurrence can help a clinician advise a patient when the next follow-up session should occur, and/or help to plan for an apparently likely eventuality of the return of disease. In some embodiments, an ablation segment effectiveness estimator estimates a likelihood (for example, a percentage likelihood, or another prediction, optionally including an estimate of specificity and/or sensitivity) of effective block for one or more ablation segments within a week, a month, three months, six months, a year, two years, five years, or any other suitable period after the procedure that created the ablation segment; [0398]);
generate, by the optimization engine, one or more success predictions associated with one or more potential ablation procedures utilizing the generated expected outcomes; (system 1100 comprises processor(s) 1104 that executes an estimator 1150 utilizing the lesion effectiveness parameters 1500 with results that may be presented to a user, the estimator 1150 being any of earned lesion estimator 1604 (as described in FIG. 1) and/or ablation line estimator 1804 (as described in FIG. 6) and/or ablation segment estimator 2104 (as described in FIG. 14A) and/or edema estimator 2604 (as described in FIG. 18), the estimators all taking into account post-lesioning observations 1532 as inputs to the estimators; [0201], [0206], [0210-0212], [0256-0257] [0362], [0365-0366], [0388])
performing an ablation selected from the one or more potential ablation procedures (a portion of the planned lesion is made at step 130; [0486]);
identify gaps in the performed ablation, the identified gaps including potential locations of reconnection (parametrized gaps 1730 are identified where gaps potentially allow an impulse to escape into surrounding tissue, where it may contribute to an irregular heartbeat; [0190], [0368], [0378], [0381-0382]); and
output the identified gaps (estimator effectiveness, that include gaps, is displayed on interactive map; [0328]).
Ben-Haim et al. fail to specifically disclose the memory and processor configured to calculate a gap index of ablation, identify the gaps in the performed ablation based on the calculated gap index, the identified gaps at least including potential locations of reconnection; and output the calculated gap index of the ablation and the identified gaps. However, Warner et al. disclose a computer-implemented method (500), and thus a processor and memory configured to perform an ablation (510) and calculate a gap index (ABD and/or AGP) of the ablation (540), identify gaps in the performed ablation based on the calculated gap index (550-560), the identified gaps at least including potential locations of reconnection ablation (identification of gaps, both marginal and isolated, may provide a potential metric (e.g., number of marginal and isolated gaps) by which an EP ablation procedure can be measured for reliably predicting patient readmission), and output the calculated gap index and identified gaps (570). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Warner et al. such that the memory and processor are configured to calculate a gap index of ablation, identify gaps in the performed ablation based on the calculated gap index, the identified gaps at least including potential locations of reconnection; and output the calculated gap index of the ablation and the identified gaps in order to provide the benefit of locating and mitigating possible gap locations via additional ablation applications or diagnosis and have the technical effect of predicting and identifying gaps between electrophysiology ablation points recorded from a completed electrophysiology ablation procedure, and in response to the indication of ablation gaps, may recommend further EP ablation at the identified ablation gaps, prior to patient discharge and while the patient is still connected to the EP ablation system while also being more reliably and consistently achieved, thereby reducing readmission rate for follow-up EP ablation procedures as taught by Warner et al. ([0008], [0053-0059], [0063]; Fig. 3 & 5)
Claim 15 is rejected upon the same rationale as applied to claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected upon the same rationale as applied to claim 3.
Claim 17 is rejected upon the same rationale as applied to claim 4.
Claim 18 is rejected upon the same rationale as applied to claim 5.
Claim 19 is rejected upon the same rationale as applied to claim 6.
Claim 20 is rejected upon the same rationale as applied to claim 7.
Claims 21-22 are rejected upon the same rationale as applied to claims 8-9.
Claim 24 is rejected upon the same rationale as applied to claim 11.
Claim 25 is rejected upon the same rationale as applied to claim 12.
Claim 26 is rejected upon the same rationale as applied to claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, neither alone nor in combination teach the gap index of the performed ablation to be a function of an ablation index, an average temperature of the performed ablation, a quality of stability, and a distance to the nearest stable site.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the claimed gap index is calculated prior to by modeling…the ablation”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Warner teaches calculating a gap index “via method 500 which occurs ‘following a completed EP ablation procedure’, and thus fails to teach calculating the gap index “during the ablation”, the Examiner respectfully notes that Warner teaches calculating a gap index, but Ben-Haim et al, the primary reference, teaches the estimators use parameters, such as gap information, pre-ablation, during ablation, and post-ablation. Thus, the modified invention teaches calculating the gap index “during the ablation” as discussed in the rejections.
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 JAYMI E DELLA whose telephone number is (571)270-1429. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:00 am - 4:45 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joanne Rodden can be reached on (303) 297-4276. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAYMI E DELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
JAYMI E. DELLA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights