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 .
Acknowledgments
In the reply, filed on May 28, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1 and 21.
Applicant added new claims 23-24.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II (Figure 3) in the reply filed on May 28, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: Applicant respectfully submits that Figures 2E and 3 are not patentably distinct from one another in the manner asserted in the Office Action. Para. [0052] of the instant application confirms "...the components and/or characteristics of the system shown in FIGS. 2A-2E may be employed in connection with the components and/or characteristics of the other device shown in FIG. 3." In both Figures 2E and 3, the inner catheter can have keyway 222. Para. [0057] discloses that the steerable catheter of FIG. 2E can include "...a plurality of respective keyways 222. And any number (e.g., one, two, three, four, etc.) of splines 212 or keyways 222 may be used." And, the keyed locking collar of FIG. 3 provides another example of the keyway 222. Para. [0062] states "The keyed locking collar 260 may include a keyway 222 (similar to other keyways described elsewhere herein) and may be coupled to the inner catheter 120." As such, a single embodiment of the steerable catheter can include features of both Species I and II indicating that the species are not patentably distinct (Remarks, page 7). Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. The election of species is withdrawn.
Currently, claims 1-24 are under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 15, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 3, line 6, “thereto” should be changed to “to the inner catheter distal end”.
In regards to claim 15, lines 3-4, “an inner catheter proximal end and an inner catheter distal end, and” should be changed to “an inner catheter proximal end, an inner catheter distal end,”.
In regards to claim 15, line 18, “the distal end of the outer catheter” should be changed to “the outer catheter distal end”.
In regards to claim 22, line 4, “actuating” should be changed to “the actuating”.
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 1-24 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.
In regards to claim 1, lines 14-15 recite “the keyway of the inner catheter”. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Second, claim 1, line 7 previously recites “a keyed locking collar defining a keyway”. It is unclear whether the two recitations are the same component or different components. Claims 2-14, 21-22, and 24 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 1.
In regards to claim 6, line 2 recites “at least one locking collar”. Claim 6 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 7 recites “a keyed locking collar”. It is unclear whether the two recitations are the same component or different components.
In regards to claim 6, line 2 recites “the keyway of the inner catheter”. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Second, claim 6 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 7 previously recites “a keyed locking collar defining a keyway”. It is unclear whether the two recitations are the same component or different components.
In regards to claim 7, line 3 recites: “the keyway is defined by the first elongated tubular member”. Claim 6 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 7 recites “a keyed locking collar defining a keyway”. If claim 1 establishes that the keyway is defined by the keyed locking collar, it is unclear how claim 7 can recite that “the keyway is defined by the first elongated tubular member”.
In regards to claim 8, line 2 recites “a plurality of splines”. Claim 8 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 11 recites “a spline”. It is unclear whether the two recitations are related or different.
In regards to claim 8, line 3 recites “a plurality of respective keyways”. Claim 8 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 7 recites “a keyway”. It is unclear whether the two recitations are related or different.
In regards to claim 9, line 2 recites “two splines”. Claim 9 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 11 recites “a spline”. It is unclear whether the two recitations are related or different.
In regards to claim 9, lines 3-4 recite “two respective keyways”. Claim 9 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 7 recites “a keyway”. It is unclear whether the two recitations are related or different.
In regards to claim 10, line 2 recites “three splines”. Claim 10 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 11 recites “a spline”. It is unclear whether the two recitations are related or different.
In regards to claim 10, lines 3-4 recite “three respective keyways”. Claim 10 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 7 recites “a keyway”. It is unclear whether the two recitations are related or different.
In regards to claim 11, line 2 recites “three splines”. Claim 11 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 11 recites “a spline”. It is unclear whether the two recitations are related or different.
In regards to claim 11, lines 3-4 recite “three respective keyways”. Claim 11 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 7 recites “a keyway”. It is unclear whether the two recitations are related or different.
In regards to claim 12, line 3 recites: “the keyway extends along a length of the inner catheter”. Claim 12 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 7 recites “a keyed locking collar defining a keyway”. If claim 1 establishes that the keyway is defined by the keyed locking collar, it is unclear how claim 12 can recite that “the keyway extends along a length of the inner catheter”.
In regards to claim 12, lines 4-5 recite “the deflectable region of the outer catheter”. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Second, claim 12, lines 1-2 previously recite “the steerable catheter comprises a deflectable region”. It is unclear whether the two recitations are the same component or different components.
In regards to claim 15, lines 14-15 recite “the keyway of the inner catheter”. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Second, claim 15, line 7 previously recites “a keyed locking collar comprising a keyway”. It is unclear whether the two recitations are the same component or different components. Claims 16-20 and 23 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 15.
In regards to claim 19, line 2 recites “two splines”. Claim 19 depends upon claim 15. Claim 15, line 11 recites “a spline”. It is unclear whether the two recitations are related or different. Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 19.
In regards to claim 19, lines 3-4 recite “two respective keyways”. Claim 19 depends upon claim 15. Claim 15, line 7 recites “a keyway”. It is unclear whether the two recitations are related or different. Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 19.
In regards to claim 20, line 2 recites “three splines”. Claim 20 depends upon claim 19. Claim 19, line 2 recites “two splines”. Claim 19 depends upon claim 15. Claim 15, line 11 recites “a spline”. It is unclear whether the three recitations are related or different.
In regards to claim 20, lines 3-4 recites “three respective keyways”. Claim 20 depends upon claim 19. Claim 19, lines 3-4 recite “two respective keyways”. Claim 19 depends upon claim 15. Claim 15, line 7 recites “a keyway”. It is unclear whether the three recitations are related or different.
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.
Claims 1-8, 12-13, 15-18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Hoven et al (US 2019/0321597).
In regards to claim 1, Van Hoven et al teaches a steerable catheter (Figures 6A-6C) comprising:
a first actuation line (1120)
an inner catheter (1020) having an inner catheter proximal end (1024), an inner catheter distal end (1026), an inner catheter outer surface and an inner catheter inner surface defining an inner catheter lumen (1028)
a keyed locking collar (paragraph [0060]: It may be appreciated that the keys 1400… may be included in a separate cylindrical layer on the outer surface of the catheter 1020… Further, it may be appreciated that the keys 1400 may extend… one or more portions of the length of the catheter 1020, including simply a small strip at a designated location along the length of the catheter 1020) defining a keyway (portion between keys 1400) and coupled to the inner catheter outer surface
an outer catheter (1000) having an outer catheter proximal end (1014), an outer catheter distal end (1016), an outer catheter outer surface, and an outer catheter inner surface defining an outer catheter lumen (1018) and a spline (portion between keyways 1402) that is longitudinally-extending and that projects radially inward into the outer catheter lumen, the outer catheter lumen being operable to receive the inner catheter with the spline of the outer catheter operable to key with the keyway of the inner catheter (Figure 6A), the spline defining a spline lumen (1406) operable to receive the first actuation line
In regards to claim 2, Van Hoven et al teaches an outer catheter actuation ring (280) coupled to the outer catheter distal end, the first actuation line (90) being coupled to the outer catheter actuation ring (Figure 2).
In regards to claim 3, Van Hoven et al teaches a second actuation line (1120), wherein the inner catheter defines an inner catheter actuation line lumen (paragraph [0056]: coiled steering lumens) from the inner catheter proximal end to the inner catheter distal end and operable to receive the second actuation line therethrough, the second actuation line extending from the inner catheter proximal end to the inner catheter distal end and coupled thereto (Figure 5H).
In regards to claim 4, Van Hoven et al teaches an inner catheter actuation ring coupled to the inner catheter distal end (claim 8: a tip ring attached to a distal end of… the inner catheter), the second actuation line being coupled to the inner catheter actuation ring (claim 8: a first pullwire channel).
In regards to claim 5, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein each of the spline and the keyway is parallel with a central axis of the steerable catheter (Figure 6A).
In regards to claim 6, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein the inner catheter includes at least one locking collar (paragraph [0060]: It may be appreciated that the keys 1400… may be included in a separate cylindrical layer on the outer surface of the catheter 1020… Further, it may be appreciated that the keys 1400 may extend… one or more portions of the length of the catheter 1020, including simply a small strip at a designated location along the length of the catheter 1020) that defines the keyway of the inner catheter.
In regards to claim 7, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein the inner catheter comprises a first elongated tubular member (1020) defining the inner catheter outer surface and the keyway is defined by the first elongated tubular member (Figure 6A).
In regards to claim 8, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein the outer catheter inner surface further defines a plurality of splines (portions between keyways 1402) and the inner catheter outer surface further defines a plurality of respective keyways (portions between keys 1400).
In regards to claim 12, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein the steerable catheter comprises a deflectable region at or around the outer catheter distal end (Figures 1A-1C), and wherein the keyway extends along a length of the inner catheter toward the inner catheter distal end and terminates proximate the deflectable region of the outer catheter (Figure 6A).
In regards to claim 13, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein the inner catheter is slidably received within the outer catheter along a length of the keyway (Figure 6A).
In regards to claim 15, Van Hoven et al teaches a steerable catheter (Figures 6A-6C) comprising:
a first actuation line (1120) having a proximal portion and a distal portion
an inner catheter defining a first elongated tubular member (1020) having an inner catheter proximal end (1024) and an inner catheter distal end (1026), and an inner catheter outer surface and an inner catheter inner surface defining an inner catheter lumen (1028)
a keyed locking collar (paragraph [0060]: It may be appreciated that the keys 1400… may be included in a separate cylindrical layer on the outer surface of the catheter 1020… Further, it may be appreciated that the keys 1400 may extend… one or more portions of the length of the catheter 1020, including simply a small strip at a designated location along the length of the catheter 1020) comprising a keyway (portion between keys 1400) and coupled to the inner catheter
an outer catheter (1000) having an outer catheter proximal end (1014), an outer catheter distal end (1016), an outer catheter outer surface, and an outer catheter inner surface defining an outer catheter lumen (1018) and a spline (portion between keyways 1402) that is longitudinally-extending and that projects radially inward into the outer catheter lumen, the outer catheter lumen being operable to receive the inner catheter with the spline of the outer catheter operable to key with the keyway of the inner catheter (Figure 6A), the spline defining a spline lumen (1406) operable to receive the first actuation line, the first actuation line extending along the outer catheter and the distal portion of the first actuation line being coupled proximate the distal end of the outer catheter (Figures 1A-1C)
In regards to claim 16, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein the keyed locking collar is integrally formed with the first elongated tubular member of the inner catheter (Figure 6A).
In regards to claim 17, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein the keyed locking collar radially extends beyond an outer diameter of the inner catheter (paragraph [0060]: It may be appreciated that the keys 1400… may be included in a separate cylindrical layer on the outer surface of the catheter 1020… Further, it may be appreciated that the keys 1400 may extend… one or more portions of the length of the catheter 1020, including simply a small strip at a designated location along the length of the catheter 1020).
In regards to claim 18, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein a length of the keyed locking collar is less than a length of the inner catheter (paragraph [0060]: Further, it may be appreciated that the keys 1400 may extend… one or more portions of the length of the catheter 1020, including simply a small strip at a designated location along the length of the catheter 1020).
In regards to claim 21, Van Hoven et al teaches a method of treating a patient, the method comprising:
obtaining the steerable catheter of claim 1 (Figures 6A-6C)
advancing the outer catheter into a body lumen (paragraph [0070]: the outer guide catheter 1000 may be tracked over a dilator and guidewire from a puncture in the femoral vein, through the inferior vena cava and into the right atrium)
advancing the inner catheter into the outer catheter (paragraph [0072]: the inner guide catheter 1020 is advanced through the central lumen 1018 of the outer guide catheter 1000) thereby engaging the spline with the keyway (Figure 6A)
actuating the first actuation line to thereby cause movement at the outer catheter distal end (paragraph [0075]: the curvatures in the catheters 1000… are formed by steering mechanisms)
In regards to claim 22, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein the steerable catheter further comprises a handle (1056) at the outer catheter proximal end, the handle being operatively coupled to the first actuation line such that actuation of the handle causes actuation of the first actuation line, and wherein actuating the first actuation line comprises performing at least one actuation of the handle (Figure 4)(paragraph [0051]: Steering of the outer guide catheter 1000… may be achieved by actuation of one or more steering mechanisms. Actuation of the steering mechanisms is achieved with the use of actuators which are typically located on handles connected with each of the catheters 1000… Handle 1056 includes steering actuator 1050 which may be used to bend, arc or reshape the outer guide catheter 1000, such as to form a primary curve).
In regards to claim 23, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein the keyed locking collar is removably coupled to the inner catheter (paragraph [0060]: It may be appreciated that the keys 1400… may be included in a separate cylindrical layer on the outer surface of the catheter 1020).
In regards to claim 24, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein a position of the keyed locking collar is adjustable along a length of the inner catheter outer surface (paragraph [0060]: It may be appreciated that the keys 1400… may be included in a separate cylindrical layer on the outer surface of the catheter 1020… Further, it may be appreciated that the keys 1400 may extend… one or more portions of the length of the catheter 1020, including simply a small strip at a designated location along the length of the catheter 1020).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hoven et al, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above.
In regards to claim 9, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein the outer catheter inner surface defines two splines (two portions between keyways 1402) that are located apart on an outer catheter circumference and the inner catheter outer surface further defines two respective keyways (two portions between keys 1400) located apart on an inner catheter circumference; however, Van Hoven et al does not teach that the two splines are located “about 180 degrees” apart on the outer catheter circumference and the two respective keyways are located “180 degrees” apart on the inner catheter circumference, as Van Hoven et al instead teaches that the two splines are located about 30 degrees apart on the outer catheter circumference and the two respective keyways are located about 30 degrees apart on the inner catheter circumference (Figures 6B-6C). But before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the two splines and the two respective keyways, of the catheter of Van Hoven et al, to be located about 180 degrees apart on the outer catheter circumference and located 180 degrees apart on the inner catheter circumference, respectively, as Applicant has not disclosed that such a configuration of the two splines and the two respective keyways provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the two splines are located about 30 degrees apart on the outer catheter circumference and the two respective keyways are located about 30 degrees apart on the inner catheter circumference, as taught by Van Hoven et al, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that either configuration of the two splines and the two respective keyways will allow for maintaining the rotational relationship between the inner catheter and the outer catheter in order to assist in steering capabilities.
In regards to claim 10, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein the outer catheter inner surface defines three splines (three portions between keyways 1402) that are located apart on an outer catheter circumference and the inner catheter outer surface further defines three respective keyways (three portions between keys 1400) located apart on an inner catheter circumference; however, Van Hoven et al does not teach that the three splines are located “about 90 degrees” apart on the outer catheter circumference and the three respective keyways are located “about 90 degrees” apart on the inner catheter circumference, as Van Hoven et al instead teaches that the three splines are located about 30 degrees apart on the outer catheter circumference and the three respective keyways are located about 30 degrees apart on the inner catheter circumference (Figures 6B-6C). But before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the three splines and the three respective keyways, of the catheter of Van Hoven et al, to be located about 90 degrees apart on the outer catheter circumference and located about 90 degrees apart on the inner catheter circumference, respectively, as Applicant has not disclosed that such a configuration of the three splines and the three respective keyways provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the three splines are located about 30 degrees apart on the outer catheter circumference and the three respective keyways are located about 30 degrees apart on the inner catheter circumference, as taught by Van Hoven et al, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that either configuration of the three splines and the three respective keyways will allow for maintaining the rotational relationship between the inner catheter and the outer catheter in order to assist in steering capabilities.
In regards to claim 11, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein the outer catheter inner surface defines three splines (three portions between keyways 1402) that are located apart on an outer catheter circumference and the inner catheter outer surface further defines three respective keyways (three portions between keys 1400) located apart on an inner catheter circumference; however, Van Hoven et al does not teach that the three splines are located “about 120 degrees” apart on the outer catheter circumference and the three respective keyways are located “about 120 degrees” apart on the inner catheter circumference, as Van Hoven et al instead teaches that the three splines are located about 30 degrees apart on the outer catheter circumference and the three respective keyways are located about 30 degrees apart on the inner catheter circumference (Figures 6B-6C). But before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the three splines and the three respective keyways, of the catheter of Van Hoven et al, to be located about 120 degrees apart on the outer catheter circumference and located about 120 degrees apart on the inner catheter circumference, respectively, as Applicant has not disclosed that such a configuration of the three splines and the three respective keyways provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the three splines are located about 30 degrees apart on the outer catheter circumference and the three respective keyways are located about 30 degrees apart on the inner catheter circumference, as taught by Van Hoven et al, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that either configuration of the three splines and the three respective keyways will allow for maintaining the rotational relationship between the inner catheter and the outer catheter in order to assist in steering capabilities.
In regards to claim 19, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein the outer catheter inner surface defines two splines (two portions between keyways 1402) that are located apart on an outer catheter circumference and the inner catheter outer surface further defines two respective keyways (two portions between keys 1400) located apart on an inner catheter circumference; however, Van Hoven et al does not teach that the two splines are located “about 180 degrees” apart on the outer catheter circumference and the two respective keyways are located “about 180 degrees” apart on the inner catheter circumference, as Van Hoven et al instead teaches that the two splines are located about 30 degrees apart on the outer catheter circumference and the two respective keyways are located about 30 degrees apart on the inner catheter circumference (Figures 6B-6C). But before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the two splines and the two respective keyways, of the catheter of Van Hoven et al, to be located about 180 degrees apart on the outer catheter circumference and located about 180 degrees apart on the inner catheter circumference, respectively, as Applicant has not disclosed that such a configuration of the two splines and the two respective keyways provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the two splines are located about 30 degrees apart on the outer catheter circumference and the two respective keyways are located about 30 degrees apart on the inner catheter circumference, as taught by Van Hoven et al, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that either configuration of the two splines and the two respective keyways will allow for maintaining the rotational relationship between the inner catheter and the outer catheter in order to assist in steering capabilities.
In regards to claim 20, in the modified catheter of Van Hoven et al, Van Hoven et al teaches wherein the outer catheter inner surface defines three splines (three portions between keyways 1402) that are located apart on an outer catheter circumference and the inner catheter outer surface further defines three respective keyways (three portions between keys 1400) located apart on an inner catheter circumference; however, Van Hoven et al does not teach that the three splines are located “about 90 degrees” apart on the outer catheter circumference and the three respective keyways are located “about 90 degrees” apart on the inner catheter circumference, as Van Hoven et al instead teaches that the three splines are located about 30 degrees apart on the outer catheter circumference and the three respective keyways are located about 30 degrees apart on the inner catheter circumference (Figures 6B-6C). But before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the three splines and the three respective keyways, of the modified catheter of Van Hoven et al, to be located about 90 degrees apart on the outer catheter circumference and located about 90 degrees apart on the inner catheter circumference, respectively, as Applicant has not disclosed that such a configuration of the three splines and the three respective keyways provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the three splines are located about 30 degrees apart on the outer catheter circumference and the three respective keyways are located about 30 degrees apart on the inner catheter circumference, as taught by Van Hoven et al, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that either configuration of the three splines and the three respective keyways will allow for maintaining the rotational relationship between the inner catheter and the outer catheter in order to assist in steering capabilities.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hoven et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Westlund et al (US 2003/0105451).
In regards to claim 14, Van Hoven et al is silent about a hemostatic seal between the outer catheter inner surface and the inner catheter outer surface. Westlund et al teaches a steerable catheter (Figure 4A) comprising a hemostatic seal (401) between an outer catheter (102) inner surface and an inner catheter (101) outer surface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steerable catheter, of Van Hoven et al, with a hemostatic seal between the outer catheter inner surface and the inner catheter outer surface, as taught by Westlund et al, as such will prevent leakage of fluid and blood under venous or arterial pressure (paragraph [0048]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm 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, Kevin C Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/SHEFALI D PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights