DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 04/15/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1-7, 9-18, and 21-22 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 3, 7, and 9-17 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claim 1 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.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art of Gross is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the prior art of Gross is a medical catheter with openings of varying sizes, which would impact the flow rate of the fluid through the openings. In the same way, the catheter of the instant application has holes of varying sizes to provide different flow rates of fluid along the different regions of the catheter.
Though the same prior art reference is re-used herein, amended independent claim 1 required a change in the grounds of rejection relying on additional prior art teachings as detailed below in the prior art rejection. More specifically, independent claims 1 now requires the plurality of drainage holes to be round or oval shaped.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 14: “at least row” should read “at least each row”. 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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitations “a plurality of round or oval drainage holes” at lines 12-15 is unclear since it is not understood if “a plurality of round or oval drainage holes” cited at lines 12-15 are the same “a plurality of round or oval drainage holes” of line 8. For the purposes of examination, “a plurality of round or oval drainage holes” cited at lines 12-15 is interpreted to be the same “a plurality of round or oval drainage holes” of line 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carleo (Publication No. US 2012/0179144 A1) in view of Hede et al. (Publication No. WO 2020/103996 A1).
For the purposes of examination, PGPUB version of Hede et al. (US 2022/0001136 A1) will be cited.
Regarding claim 1, Carleo teaches an intermittent urinary catheter (urinary catheter; Abstract; Figure 1-2; Paragraph 0034 and 0062), comprising:
a catheter shaft (member 12; Figure 1-2; Paragraph 0062) having a proximal insertion end portion for advancement through a urethra into a bladder (region of tip 16 is proximal insertion end portion is used to advance through the urethra and to the bladder; Paragraph 0063; Figure 1-2) and a distal drainage end portion having a drainage opening (distal drainage end portion is at funnel 18 where the opening is at the funnel for drainage; Figure 1-2; Paragraph 0059), the catheter shaft having a drainage lumen in communication with the drainage opening (member 12 has a lumen in fluid communication with drainage open of the funnel 18; Paragraph 0059);
the proximal insertion end portion comprising a terminal proximal end (tip 16 is at the proximal insertion end portion; Figure 1-3) and a drainage hole region distal of the terminal proximal end (drainage hole regions 20; Paragraph 0062; Figure 1-3), the drainage hole region including a plurality of round or oval drainage holes extending through the proximal insertion end portion of the catheter and in communication with the drainage lumen (drainage hole region has a plurality of oval holes 20 extending through the proximal insertion end portion and in fluid communication with the drainage lumen of member 12; Figures 1-3; Paragraph 0062);
the plurality of round or oval drainage holes being arranged in a plurality of adjacent columns and a plurality of adjacent rows (holes 20 have a plurality of columns and rows; Figure 3), each column having an axis parallel to a longitudinal axis of the catheter shaft and at least one column having a plurality of round or oval drainage holes (each column has an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the member 12 and each column has more than one oval hole 20; Figure 3); and
wherein the plurality of round or oval drainage holes are in a pattern that is configured so that the drainage hole region has a greater flexibility than a portion of the catheter shaft distal to the drainage hole region (openings 20 near the tip 16 of the member 12 is more flexible than the distal portion of member 12 below the openings 20; Paragraph 0062; Figure 1-3). Carleo does not teach each row extends circumferentially about the longitudinal axis of the catheter shaft and at least row having a plurality of round or oval drainage holes.
However, Hede teaches each row extends circumferentially about the longitudinal axis of the catheter shaft and at least row having a plurality of round or oval drainage holes (each row extends circumferentially about the longitudinal axis of the shaft and each row has more than one opening 5; Figs 10A-10B; Paragraph 0220-0222).
Carleo and Hede are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of urinary catheters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Carleo to incorporate the teachings of the Hede and have plurality of round and oval drainage holes with the pattern of the plurality of columns and rows of Hede applied to the catheter of Carleo. This allows for the bladder of the user be completely empty with the multitude of openings and prevent all the openings from being blocked simultaneously (Hede; Paragraph 0217).
Regarding claim 2, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 1. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede further teaches wherein the flexibility of the drainage hole region is more flexible than a flexibility of the portion of the catheter shaft distal of the drainage hole region (Carleo; Paragraph 0062). The combination of Carleo in view of Hede does not expressly teach wherein the flexibility of the drainage hole region is 10% to 70% more flexible than a flexibility of the portion of the catheter shaft distal of the drainage hole region, as measured by an end loaded cantilever deflection test.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have flexibility of the drainage hole region to be 10% to 70% more flexible than a flexibility of the portion of the catheter shaft distal of the drainage hole region, as measured by an end loaded cantilever deflection test, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, the catheter of Carleo in view of Hede would not operate differently with the claimed percentage of flexibility of the drainage hole region since the catheter is constructed with similar components and structure and is intended to provide flexibility and drainage of urine out of the user for disposal. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the claimed flexibility “may be” the claimed ranges (specification; Paragraph 00032). Additionally, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite using the end loaded cantilever deflection test of the claimed invention to determine the material properties of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 1. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede further teaches wherein the catheter shaft includes a sidewall having an outer surface and an inner surface (Carleo; member 12 has a sidewall having an outer surface and an inner surface; Figure 1-3; Paragraph 0059), wherein the inner surface defines the drainage lumen (Carleo; member 12 has an inner surface that defines a drainage lumen; Figure 1-3); the plurality of round or oval drainage holes extend through the sidewall (Hede; holes 5 extend through side wall; Figure 8); and the drainage hole region of the proximal insertion end portion extending from a most proximal round or oval drainage hole through the sidewall to a most distal round or oval drainage hole through the sidewall (Hede; drainage hole region extend from proximal most hole 5 to distal most hole of side wall; Figure 10A-10B).
Regarding claim 4, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 1. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede further teaches wherein the drainage hole region varies in flexibility along a longitudinal axis of the catheter shaft (obvious that the flexible tip region of Carleo with the drainage holes pattern of Hede will vary the flexibility of the longitudinal axis of the catheter member 12 of Carleo – where the proximal most area with the most drainage holes will be the most flexible since there is less material present in these regions; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 4. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede further teaches wherein the proximal end of the drainage hole region has a greater flexibility than the distal end of the drainage hole region (obvious that the flexible tip region of Carleo with the drainage holes pattern of Hede will vary the flexibility of the longitudinal axis of the catheter member 12 of Carleo – where the proximal most area with the most drainage holes will be the most flexible since there is less material present in these regions; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 1. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede further teaches wherein the drainage hole region has a longitudinal axis (Carleo in view of Hede teaches the drainage hole region with the holes of Hede on the member of 12 along the longitudinal axis; see rejection of claim 1 above). The combination of Carleo in view of Hede does not expressly teach when 0.7 to 1.1 N of force is applied to the terminal proximal end in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the catheter shaft, the drainage hole region bends such that the longitudinal axis of the drainage hole region is about 30 to 50 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the catheter shaft.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the drainage hole region bends such that the longitudinal axis of the drainage hole region is about 30 to 50 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the catheter shaft when 0.7 to 1.1 N of force is applied to the terminal proximal end in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the catheter shaft, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, the catheter of Carleo in view of Hede would not operate differently with the claimed bend of the drainage hole region since the catheter is constructed with similar components and structure and is intended to provide flexibility and drainage of urine out of the user for disposal. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the claimed flexibility “about” the claimed ranges (specification; Paragraph 00032). Additionally, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite using the bendability force test of the claimed invention to determine the material properties of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 1. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede does not expressly teach wherein the drainage hole region is located between 2 mm and 30 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the drainage hole region be located between 2 mm and 30 mm from the terminal proximal end since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, the catheter of Carleo in view of Hede would not operate differently with the claimed distance of the drainage hole region since the catheter is constructed with similar components and structure and is intended to provide flexibility and drainage of urine out of the user for disposal. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the claimed distance is “about” the claimed ranges (specification; Paragraph 00029).
Regarding claim 9, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 1. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede further teaches wherein each of the round or oval drainage holes have the same shape and same size (Hede; openings 5 are round and are the same size; Figure 10A-10B).
Regarding claim 13, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 1. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede does not teach wherein each row of drainage holes is the same distance from adjacent rows.
However, another embodiment of Hede teaches wherein each row of drainage holes is the same distance from adjacent rows (Figure 11A-11B; Paragraph 0223-0224).
Hede is analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of urinary catheters, therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one known element (urinary catheter with varying row distances of the embodiment of Figures 10A-10B of Hede) for another (urinary catheter with the same row distances of the embodiment of Figures 11A-11B of Hede) since the substitution of the hole patterns would have yielded predictable results, namely, a urinary catheter with a plurality of drainage holes for draining urine from the user. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143(I)B).
Regarding claim 14, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 1. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede further teaches wherein a distance between adjacent rows varies (Hede; Figure 10A-10B; Paragraph 0220-0222).
Regarding claim 15, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 1. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede further teaches wherein each column of drainage holes is the same distance from adjacent columns (Hede; Figures 10A-10B).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carleo (Publication No. US 2012/0179144 A1) in view of Hede et al. (Publication No. WO 2020/103996 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Erbey, II et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0091442 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 1. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede does not teach wherein the round or oval drainage holes of at least some rows have a smaller size than the round or oval drainage holes of an immediately adjacent row.
However, Erbey, II teaches wherein the round or oval drainage holes of at least some rows have a smaller size than the round or oval drainage holes of an immediately adjacent row (size of holes decreases from proximal most row towards distal most row; Figure 11; Paragraph 0274-0275).
Carleo in view of Hede and Erbey, II are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical catheters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Carleo in view of Hede to incorporate the teachings of the embodiment of Erbey, II and have the pattern of the plurality of drainage holes comprising the sizes of the holes decreasing from the proximal most row to the distal most row, as taught by Erbey, II, applied to the catheter of Carleo in view of Hede. This allows for the increase in flow rate at the catheter end with the larger drainage opening versus at the opposing region with smaller the smaller drainage opening (Erbey, II; Paragraph 0279-0280).
Regarding claim 11, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 1. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede does not teach wherein the round or oval drainage holes of each row of drainage holes has a smaller size than an immediately adjacent proximal row of drainage holes.
However, Erbey, II teaches wherein the round or oval drainage holes of each row of drainage holes has a smaller size than an immediately adjacent proximal row of drainage holes (size of holes decreases from proximal most row towards distal most row; Figure 11; Paragraph 0274-0275).
Carleo in view of Hede and Erbey, II are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical catheters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Carleo in view of Hede to incorporate the teachings of the embodiment of Erbey, II and have the pattern of the plurality of drainage holes comprising the sizes of the holes decreasing from the proximal most row to the distal most row, as taught by Erbey, II, applied to the catheter of Carleo in view of Hede. This allows for the increase in flow rate at the catheter end with the larger drainage opening versus at the opposing region with smaller the smaller drainage opening (Erbey, II; Paragraph 0279-0280).
Regarding claim 21, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 1. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede does not teach wherein the pattern of the plurality of drainage holes comprises a plurality of adjacent rows wherein rows have less drainage holes than an adjacent proximal rows.
However, Erbey, II teaches wherein the pattern of the plurality of drainage holes comprises a plurality of adjacent rows wherein rows have less drainage holes than an adjacent proximal rows (number of drainage holes increase towards the end 2220 of the catheter where the catheter is inserted into the user; Figure 12; Paragraph 0279-0280).
Carleo in view of Hede and Erbey, II are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical catheters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Carleo in view of Hede to incorporate the teachings of the embodiment of Erbey, II and have the pattern of the plurality of drainage holes comprises a plurality of adjacent rows wherein rows have less drainage holes than an adjacent proximal rows, as taught by Erbey, II, applied to the catheter of Carleo in view of Hede. This allows for the increase in flow rate at the catheter end with the greater drainage openings versus at the opposing region with lesser drainage openings (Erbey, II; Paragraph 0279-0280).
Regarding claim 22, Carleo in view of Hede and Erbey, II teaches the catheter of claim 21. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede and Erbey, II further teaches wherein each row has less drainage holes than an immediately adjacent proximal rows (Figure 12; Paragraph 0279-0280; see rejection of claim 21 above).
Claim(s) 12 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carleo (Publication No. US 2012/0179144 A1) in view of Hede et al. (Publication No. WO 2020/103996 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gross et al. (Publication No. US 2007/0255230 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 1. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede does not teach wherein the round or oval drainage holes of each row of drainage holes has a smaller size than an immediately adjacent distal row of drainage holes.
However, Gross teaches wherein the round or oval drainage holes of each row of drainage holes has a smaller size than an immediately adjacent distal row of drainage holes (rows of holes are smaller than the immediate adjacent row towards the distal end of the cannula; Figure 3; Paragraph 0036).
Carleo in view of Hede and Gross are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical catheters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Carleo in view of Hede to incorporate the teachings of the embodiment of Gross and have each row of drainage holes has a smaller size than an immediately adjacent distal row of drainage holes, as taught by Gross, applied to the catheter of Carleo in view of Hede. This allows for the greater delivery of treatment in the area where the proximal region is located, compared to the proximal region (Gross; Paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 16, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 1. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede does not teach wherein a distance between adjacent columns varies.
However, Gross teaches wherein a distance between adjacent columns varies (distance of adjacent columns varies since there is a change in drainage hole sizes from the proximal to the distal end of the catheter; Figures 1-2; Paragraph 0033).
Carleo in view of Hede and Gross are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical catheters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Carleo in view of Hede to incorporate the teachings of the embodiment of Gross and have the distance between adjacent columns varies by the change in size of the drainage holes from the proximal end to the distal end, as taught by Gross, applied to the catheter of Carleo in view of Hede. This allows for the greater delivery of treatment in the area where the distal region is located, compared to the proximal region (Gross; Paragraph 0035).
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carleo (Publication No. US 2012/0179144 A1) in view of Hede et al. (Publication No. WO 2020/103996 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McKinnon et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0312478 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Carleo in view of Hede teaches the catheter of claim 1. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede does not teach wherein the rows are offset from adjacent rows.
However, McKinnon teaches wherein the rows are offset from adjacent rows (holes 450 are organized in staggered rows from adjacent rows; Paragraph 0056-0061).
Carleo in view of Hede and McKinnon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical catheters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Carleo in view of Hede to incorporate the teachings of the embodiment of McKinnon and have the pattern of the staggered rows from adjacent rows, as taught by McKinnon, applied to the catheter of Carleo in view of Hede. This allows for an equal flow efficiency along the length of the region of holes (McKinnon; Paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 18, Carleo in view of Hede and McKinnon teaches the catheter of claim 17. The combination of Carleo in view of Hede and McKinnon further teaches wherein each row is offset from an immediately adjacent row (McKinnon; holes 450 are organized in staggered rows from adjacent rows; Paragraph 0056-0061).
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 KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM ET.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights