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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 2 June 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1,14, 19, 23, 25, and 28 have been amended, claims 31-33 have been added, claims 15, 18 and 29-30 have been or remain canceled. Thus claims 1-14, 16-17, 19-28, and 31-33 are presently pending in this application, and claim 2 remains withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 13 March 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 2 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 that the assertion that the device of Hietanen is fully capable of use as claimed does not meet the test of anticipation. Applicant argues that the “configured to” language in claim 1 requires more than mere theoretical capability; it requires that the device possess structural features that adapt it for the recited function.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The device of Hietanen does in fact possess structural features that adapt it for the recited function, specifically, it includes all of the claimed structural features and does not include features that would risk injury or steer away from the claimed use. The Hietanen disclosure does not need to describe use during laparoscopic surgery.
Applicant argues that there is no disclosure that Hietanen’s adhesive is selected or configured to withstand the tensile forces required to tent the abdomen for instrument insertion not any suggestion that the device is sized or otherwise adapted for such surgical use.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The device of Hietanen is designed for manipulating tissue and while the word tenting is not use, a device that can “pull, stretch, twist, extend, elongate, and/or the like the underlying skin, tissue, fascia, and/or the like” [0020] is capable of tenting skin.
Applicant argues the rejections are based on hindsight because Hietanen has no disclosure, teaching, or even suggestion that its therapy tape is “configured to elevate abdominal tissue of a patient in laparoscopic surgery.” Applicant argues that despite the many potential application and uses of therapy tape, Hietanen fails to mention that the tape could be configured for use in laparoscopic surgery even though laparoscopic surgery has been in practice since at least the 1980’s.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Hietanen does not need to mention laparoscopic surgery for the device of Hietanen to be configured to elevate abdominal tissue of a patient in laparoscopic surgery. Because it includes the necessary structure, it is configured as claimed.
Applicant argues the Office Action has not articulated why a person of ordinary skill would look to Liu’s mechanical forceps for laparoscopic surgery., the devices are in different fields of endeavor and there is no articulated reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill working in one field would look to the other for guidance.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While they have clear differences, the references of Hietanen and Liu are both in the field of manipulating tissue. Further, the reference of Liu is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, a problem face by the inventor being tenting skin. MPEP 2141.01(a) states “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” Both Hietanen and Liu are reasonably pertinent to the problem of tenting skin.
Applicant argues Liu teaches away from the present invention by providing forceps. Applicant argues the device of Liu is fundamentally incompatible with Applicant’s adhesive-based device that adheres to the skin surface without penetration.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The device of Hietanen is not being modified to include the structure of Liu, instead it is being modified to be configured for use in laparoscopic surgery. There is no indication in Liu that an adhesive gripping mechanism would be insufficient so there is no teaching away from the modification. One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of many types of tissue gripping mechanisms so merely knowing about the instrument of Liu would not discourage one of ordinary skill from using the adhesive mechanism of Hietanen. Mere disclosure of alternatives or even a description that some teaching is somewhat inferior does not "teach away". See MPEP $2143.01(I)
Applicant argues regarding claim 14 that Hoffman has no disclosure or illustration that panel 26A and the panel 26B are foldable to a first folded position in which they are substantially parallel to and in closely spaced facing relation to each other, instead Hoffman states that the panels are opposed at 180 degrees from each other.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 14 requires the panels to be “foldable”. This is functional language and does not require the panels to be folded as claimed, only foldable as claimed. The description of the flexibility and the folded orientations shown in Hoffman indicate that the device would be foldable as claimed. While not shown in the claimed folded configuration, as outlined in the rejection below, the device of Hoffman is flexible and could be folded as shown in annotated Fig 5B.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hietanen et al. (US 2018/0104087 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hietanen et al. (US 2018/0104087 A1) in view of Liu et al. (CN 201542695 U).
Regarding claim 1, Hietanen et al. discloses a hand held tissue lifting device ([0004] “the adhesive material is configured to maintain adherence with the backing layer and the patient's skin while the handles are pulled normal to the patient's skin.”) configured to elevate abdominal tissue of a patient in laparoscopic surgery (the device of Hietanen et al. is fully capable of being adhered to abdominal tissue and this can be performed during a laparoscopic surgery, the device of Hietanen et al. is made to elevate tissue, the tissue can be abdominal and can be during a laparoscopic procedure, [0020] “For example, the handles may enable the healthcare professional and/or the patient to pull, stretch, twist, extend, elongate, and/or the like the underlying skin, tissue, fascia, and/or the like as a part of a medical treatment (e.g., a medical treatment including stretching, pulling, pushing, twisting, and/or the like the underlying skin, tissue and/or fascia of a patient)”, [0036] “the adhesive layer may provide sufficient tensile strength between the therapy tape and the patient's skin that manipulating the therapy tape (e.g., via handles) may cause relative manipulation of the patient's skin, and the therapy tape may remain secured to the patient's skin”), comprising: an anchor ([0004] backing layer) including an upper surface and a lower surface ([0004] “the flexible backing layer defines a top side and a bottom side opposite the top side”), and a layer of adhesive on the lower surface ([0004] “(ii) an adhesive material secured relative to the bottom side of the flexible backing layer”) for attachment to abdominal skin of said patient ([0004] “wherein the adhesive material is configured to adhere the backing layer against a patient's skin”) said adhesive being configured to tent an area of the abdomen including the abdominal skin under a tensile force for insertion of an instrument through a portion of said area of the abdomen that is elevated while tented in laparoscopic surgery ([0036] “the adhesive layer may provide sufficient tensile strength between the therapy tape and the patient's skin that manipulating the therapy tape (e.g., via handles) may cause relative manipulation of the patient's skin, and the therapy tape may remain secured to the patient's skin”, [0036] “the adhesive may comprise an acrylic polymer.”); and a handle ([0004] “(iii) one or more handles”) that is sized and configured to be hand held by a user (a grippable handle is sized and configured to be handheld), the handle being movably attached to the upper surface of the anchor ([0004] “secured relative to the top side of the flexible backing layer”, [0040] “the handle 4 to pivot and/or otherwise flex relative to the backing layer 2.”).
Regarding claim 1, Hietanen et al. discloses a hand held tissue lifting device ([0004] “the adhesive material is configured to maintain adherence with the backing layer and the patient's skin while the handles are pulled normal to the patient's skin.”) configured to elevate abdominal tissue of a patient (the device of Hietanen et al. is made to elevate tissue, the tissue can be abdominal, [0020] “For example, the handles may enable the healthcare professional and/or the patient to pull, stretch, twist, extend, elongate, and/or the like the underlying skin, tissue, fascia, and/or the like as a part of a medical treatment (e.g., a medical treatment including stretching, pulling, pushing, twisting, and/or the like the underlying skin, tissue and/or fascia of a patient)”, [0036] “the adhesive layer may provide sufficient tensile strength between the therapy tape and the patient's skin that manipulating the therapy tape (e.g., via handles) may cause relative manipulation of the patient's skin, and the therapy tape may remain secured to the patient's skin”), comprising: an anchor ([0004] backing layer) including an upper surface and a lower surface ([0004] “the flexible backing layer defines a top side and a bottom side opposite the top side”), and a layer of adhesive on the lower surface ([0004] “(ii) an adhesive material secured relative to the bottom side of the flexible backing layer”) for attachment to abdominal skin of said patient ([0004] “wherein the adhesive material is configured to adhere the backing layer against a patient's skin”) said adhesive being configured to tent an area of the abdomen including the abdominal skin under a tensile force for insertion of an instrument through a portion of said area of the abdomen that is elevated while tented in laparoscopic surgery ([0036] “the adhesive layer may provide sufficient tensile strength between the therapy tape and the patient's skin that manipulating the therapy tape (e.g., via handles) may cause relative manipulation of the patient's skin, and the therapy tape may remain secured to the patient's skin”, [0036] “the adhesive may comprise an acrylic polymer.”); and a handle ([0004] “(iii) one or more handles”) that is sized and configured to be hand held by a user (a grippable handle is sized and configured to be handheld), the handle being movably attached to the upper surface of the anchor ([0004] “secured relative to the top side of the flexible backing layer”, [0040] “the handle 4 to pivot and/or otherwise flex relative to the backing layer 2.”).
However, Hietanen et al. fails to explicitly teach the hand held tissue lifting device is configured for use in a laparoscopic surgery.
Liu et al. teaches a hand held tissue lifting device (Fig 1) configured to elevate abdominal tissue of a patient in laparoscopic surgery ([0001] “laparoscopic skin lifting forceps”, “effectively lift the umbilical skin.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the device of Hietanen et al. to be configured for use in a laparoscopic surgery as taught by Liu et al. to “to increase the abdominal space and prevent the pneumoperitoneum puncture needle from damaging the intestine and other abdominal organs.” [0002]
Regarding claim 3, Hietanen et al. discloses the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 1. Hietanen et al. further discloses wherein the anchor and the handle are separate components ([0040] “the handle 4 may be a separate component from the backing layer 2”) attachable to each other ([0040] “secured relative to the backing layer 2”).
Regarding claim 7, Hietanen et al. discloses the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 3. Hietanen et al. further teaches wherein the handle is formed of a material that is more rigid than the material of the anchor ([0028] “a first portion of the backing layer may comprise a flexible, inelastic material and a second portion of the backing layer may comprise a flexible, elastic material.”, [0040] “the handle 4 may comprise a material different from the backing layer 2”, “the handle may comprise a rigid material”).
Regarding claim 8, Hietanen et al. discloses the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 7. Hietanen et al. further teaches wherein the anchor comprises a sheet of flexible polymer material (the backing layer having the adhesive [0026], the adhesive being an “acrylic polymer.” [0036]).
Regarding claim 9, Hietanen et al. discloses the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 8. Hietanen et al. further teaches wherein the sheet of flexible polymer material has a thickness that allows the anchor to follow contours of a patient’s skin ([0004] “(i) a backing layer configured to conform to a portion of a patient's body” the backing must necessarily have a thickness to allow it to conform as described).
Regarding claim 12, Hietanen et al. discloses the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 1. Hietanen et al. further discloses wherein the layer of adhesive on the lower surface of the anchor is configured to provide tenting by having the capability of lifting a load of at least 10 pounds applied to said abdominal skin and to hold such load for a period of at least 30 seconds (while the device of Hietanen et al. is silent to this function, using paragraph [045] from the instant application specification, this capability is attributed to an adhesive that “may be comprised of biocompatible materials including synthetic rubber, silicone, or acrylic based adhesives, or other suitable commercially available adhesive”, since the device of Hietanen et al. has such an adhesive on its bottom surface to adhere to skin, it would also function as claimed, [0036] “the adhesive may comprise an acrylic polymer.”, [0036] “the adhesive layer may provide sufficient tensile strength between the therapy tape and the patient's skin that manipulating the therapy tape (e.g., via handles) may cause relative manipulation of the patient's skin, and the therapy tape may remain secured to the patient's skin”).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hietanen et al. (US 2018/0104087 A1) and in the alternative in view of Liu et al. (CN 201542695 U) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Carriere (US 6,769,541 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Hietanen et al. discloses the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 3. Hietanen et al. further discloses wherein the handle defines an opening ([0039] the handle is a D-ring, a D-ring has an opening) such that the tissue lifting device may be hand held (D-rings may be handheld).
However, Hietanen et al. fails to teach the opening is sized and configured for insertion of a user’s fingers.
Carriere teaches a handle defines an opening (10a, 10b Fig 2c) that is sized and configured for insertion of a user’s fingers (As shown in Fig 2C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the opening of Hietanen et al. to be sized and configured with the limitations as taught by Carriere to permit the handle to be gripped by the fingers of a user (Col 7 lines 38-53).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hietanen et al. discloses the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 4. Modified Hietanen et al. further teaches wherein the opening is fully enclosed (The D-ring of Hietanen et al. is fully enclosed, further the opening of Carriere is fully enclosed in Fig 2c).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hietanen et al. discloses the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 4. Hietanen et al. further teaches a handle has a fully enclosed opening defined by a semicircular ring or loop ([0039] the handle is a D-ring, A D-ring is a fully enclosed semicircular ring).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hietanen et al. (US 2018/0104087 A1) and in the alternative in view of Liu et al. (CN 201542695 U) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hagy et al. (US 2016/0339186 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Hietanen et al. discloses the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 9. However, Hietanen et al. fails to teach wherein the sheet of flexible polymer material has a thickness of 0.003 to 0.100 inches.
Hagy et al. teaches a sheet of flexible polymer material ([0041] “suitable elastomers”, “(b) diisocyanates and polyalkylene polyester glycols; Hycar* brand butadiene-acrylonitrile modified with carboxyl groups; Hydrin™ brand copolymer of epichlorohydrin with ethylene oxide; styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymers available under the Kraton™ brand; Hytrel™ brand copolyester, and the like, which are essentially liquid-impervious, do not absorb a significant amount of moisture, and can be formed into thin smooth surfaced sheets”) has a thickness of 0.003 to 0.100 inches ([0041] “5 mil”, 5 mil is 0.005 inches). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the sheet of flexible polymer material of Hietanen et al. to have the thickness as taught by Hagy et al. since such a thickness forms a flexible skin contact sheet. [0041]
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hietanen et al. (US 2018/0104087 A1) and in the alternative in view of Liu et al. (CN 201542695 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoffman et al. (US 2019/0038051 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hietanen et al. discloses the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 1. However, Hietanen et al. fails to teach wherein a non-adhesive dead zone is formed on a least a portion of a periphery of the anchor to assist a user in removal of the hand held tissue lifting device from the patient.
Hoffman et al. teaches wherein a non-adhesive dead zone (39 Fig 3, [0041] “adhesive layer 34 can also extend only as far as end line 38, thereby leaving a portion of panel 26B uncoated by adhesive layer 34. Thus, a portion of panel 26B can form pull tab 39 that can be grasped to peel panel 26B away from surface 40.”) is formed on a least a portion of a periphery of the anchor (39 Fig 3 is formed on the edge of the anchor as shown in Fig 3) to assist a user in removal of the device from the attachment surface ([0041] “Thus, a portion of panel 26B can form pull tab 39 that can be grasped to peel panel 26B away from surface 40. Pull tab 39 can aid with removal of hanger device 10, such as by allowing panel 26B to be pulled up from an edge. Thus, because panel 26B is flexible, panel 26B can be pulled away from surface 40 along a peel front so that only a small amount of adhesive layer 34 needs to be overcome at a time.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the device of Hietanen et al. to include the non-adhesive dead zone with the limitations as taught by Hoffman et al. to aid with removal of the device from the attachment surface [0041].
Claims 14, 19, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hietanen et al. (US 2018/0104087 A1) and in the alternative in view of Liu et al. (CN 201542695 U), and further in view of and Hoffman et al. (US 2019/0038051 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Hietanen et al. discloses a hand held tissue lifting device ([0004] “the adhesive material is configured to maintain adherence with the backing layer and the patient's skin while the handles are pulled normal to the patient's skin.”) configured to elevate abdominal tissue of a patient in laparoscopic surgery (the device of Hietanen et al. is fully capable of being adhered to abdominal tissue and this can be performed during a laparoscopic surgery, the device of Hietanen et al. is made to elevate tissue, the tissue can be abdominal and can be during a laparoscopic procedure, [0020] “For example, the handles may enable the healthcare professional and/or the patient to pull, stretch, twist, extend, elongate, and/or the like the underlying skin, tissue, fascia, and/or the like as a part of a medical treatment (e.g., a medical treatment including stretching, pulling, pushing, twisting, and/or the like the underlying skin, tissue and/or fascia of a patient)”, [0036] “the adhesive layer may provide sufficient tensile strength between the therapy tape and the patient's skin that manipulating the therapy tape (e.g., via handles) may cause relative manipulation of the patient's skin, and the therapy tape may remain secured to the patient's skin”), comprising: a flexible anchor ([0004] flexible backing layer) comprising a first anchor portion and a second anchor portion (the portions of the backing layer 2 on either side of the handles 4 as shown in Figs 1A and 1C), a first layer of adhesive on a lower surface of said first anchor portion for attachment to abdominal skin of said patient and a second layer of adhesive on a lower surface of said second anchor portion for attachment to said abdominal skin of said patient ([0004] “wherein the adhesive material is configured to adhere the backing layer against a patient's skin”, the layer on the portion of the backing layer on the side above the handle as shown in Fig 1A and on the side below the handle as shown in Fig 1A, [0004] “(ii) an adhesive material secured relative to the bottom side of the flexible backing layer”) said first layer of adhesive and said second layer of adhesive each being configured to jointly tent the abdominal tissue under a tensile force for insertion of an instrument through a portion of said elevated abdominal tissue (using paragraph [045] from the instant application specification, an adhesive sufficiently capable is described as “may be comprised of biocompatible materials including synthetic rubber, silicone, or acrylic based adhesives, or other suitable commercially available adhesive”, [0036] “the adhesive may comprise an acrylic polymer.”); a handle ([0004] “(iii) one or more handles”, [0039] the handle is a D-ring) sized and configured to be hand held (a grippable handle is sized and configured to be handheld).
However, Hietanen et al. fails to teach a handle support connecting the first anchor portion and the second anchor portion; a first fold line adjacent the handle support, the first anchor portion being foldable about the first fold line; a second fold line adjacent to the handle support, the second anchor portion being foldable about the second fold line, wherein said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion are foldable about said respective fold lines to a first folded position within which said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion are substantially parallel to and in closely spaced facing relation to each other; the handle being attachable to the handle support for movement relative to the first anchor portion and the second anchor portion, wherein said handle in said first folded position lies substantially parallel to and in closely spaced facing relation to said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion.
Hoffman et al. teaches a handle support (12 Fig 1A) connecting the first anchor portion (14A Fig 1A) and the second anchor portion (14B Fig 1A) ([0037] “Backing 16 is folded over hook element 18 at crease 20 to form central flap zone 12, while adhesion zones 14A and 14B extend out from central flap zone 12 at creases 22A and 22B.”); a first fold line (22A Fig 1A) adjacent the handle support (see the flap 12 adjacent crease 22A Fig 1A), the first anchor portion being foldable about the first fold line (shown folded in Fig 1A); a second fold line (22B Fig 1A) adjacent to the handle support (see the flap 12 adjacent crease 22B Fig 1A), the second anchor portion being foldable about the second fold line (shown folded in Fig 1A), wherein said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion are foldable about said respective fold lines to a first folded position within which said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion are substantially parallel to and in closely spaced facing relation to each other (the device is foldable in the claimed configuration, the device is made of a single-piece body: [0038] “backing 16 comprises a single-piece body that includes adhesion zone 14A, central flap zone 12 and adhesion zone 14B, which, when folded, comprise first panel 24A, second panel 24B, third panel 26A and fourth panel 26B”, because the body is made of a single-piece all parts of the body would have the same flexibility. As depicted in annotated Fig 5B below, the device is already capable of folding along annotated fold A. Before attachment to a surface, the body would be equally capable of folding along annotated fold B, both folds are 180 degree folds and would result in the first anchor portion and the second anchor portion being substantially parallel to and in closely spaced facing relation to each other); the handle (18 A, the Fig 1A) being attached to the handle support for movement relative to the first anchor portion and the second anchor portion ([0037] “central flap zone 12 is flexible such that hook element 18 can be used to hang items in all such angles and orientations.”), wherein said handle in said first folded position lies substantially parallel to and in closely spaced facing relation to said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion (As shown in annotated Fig 5B below, with flap 26A folded along annotated fold B, the handle which is at the end of 24A and 24B, also depicted in Fig 5A, would be substantially parallel to and in closely spaced facing relation to said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the device of Hietanen et al. to include the limitations as taught by Hoffman et al. to form the device such that it promotes adhesion to a surface under a variety of loading orientations [0037].
PNG
media_image1.png
340
240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Hietanen et al. discloses a hand held tissue lifting device ([0004] “the adhesive material is configured to maintain adherence with the backing layer and the patient's skin while the handles are pulled normal to the patient's skin.”) configured to elevate abdominal tissue of a patient (the device of Hietanen et al. is made to elevate tissue, the tissue can be abdominal, [0020] “For example, the handles may enable the healthcare professional and/or the patient to pull, stretch, twist, extend, elongate, and/or the like the underlying skin, tissue, fascia, and/or the like as a part of a medical treatment (e.g., a medical treatment including stretching, pulling, pushing, twisting, and/or the like the underlying skin, tissue and/or fascia of a patient)”, [0036] “the adhesive layer may provide sufficient tensile strength between the therapy tape and the patient's skin that manipulating the therapy tape (e.g., via handles) may cause relative manipulation of the patient's skin, and the therapy tape may remain secured to the patient's skin”), comprising: a flexible anchor ([0004] flexible backing layer) comprising a first anchor portion and a second anchor portion (the portions of the backing layer 2 on either side of the handles 4 as shown in Figs 1A and 1C), a first layer of adhesive on a lower surface of said first anchor portion for attachment to abdominal skin of said patient and a second layer of adhesive on a lower surface of said second anchor portion for attachment to said abdominal skin of said patient ([0004] “wherein the adhesive material is configured to adhere the backing layer against a patient's skin”, the layer on the portion of the backing layer on the side above the handle as shown in Fig 1A and on the side below the handle as shown in Fig 1A, [0004] “(ii) an adhesive material secured relative to the bottom side of the flexible backing layer”) said first layer of adhesive and said second layer of adhesive each being configured to jointly tent the abdominal tissue under a tensile force for insertion of an instrument through a portion of said elevated abdominal tissue (using paragraph [045] from the instant application specification, an adhesive sufficiently capable is described as “may be comprised of biocompatible materials including synthetic rubber, silicone, or acrylic based adhesives, or other suitable commercially available adhesive”, [0036] “the adhesive may comprise an acrylic polymer.”); a handle ([0004] “(iii) one or more handles”, [0039] the handle is a D-ring) sized and configured to be hand held (a grippable handle is sized and configured to be handheld).
However, Hietanen et al. fails to explicitly teach the hand held tissue lifting device is configured for use in a laparoscopic surgery and a handle support connecting the first anchor portion and the second anchor portion; a first fold line adjacent the handle support, the first anchor portion being foldable about the first fold line; a second fold line adjacent to the handle support, the second anchor portion being foldable about the second fold line, wherein said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion are foldable about said respective fold lines to a first folded position within which said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion are substantially parallel to and in closely spaced facing relation to each other; the handle being attachable to the handle support for movement relative to the first anchor portion and the second anchor portion, wherein said handle in said first folded position lies substantially parallel to and in closely spaced facing relation to said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion.
Liu et al. teaches a hand held tissue lifting device (Fig 1) configured to elevate abdominal tissue of a patient in laparoscopic surgery ([0001] “laparoscopic skin lifting forceps”, “effectively lift the umbilical skin.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the device of Hietanen et al. to be configured for use in a laparoscopic surgery as taught by Liu et al. to “to increase the abdominal space and prevent the pneumoperitoneum puncture needle from damaging the intestine and other abdominal organs.” [0002]
Hoffman et al. teaches a handle support (12 Fig 1A) connecting the first anchor portion (14A Fig 1A) and the second anchor portion (14B Fig 1A) ([0037] “Backing 16 is folded over hook element 18 at crease 20 to form central flap zone 12, while adhesion zones 14A and 14B extend out from central flap zone 12 at creases 22A and 22B.”); a first fold line (22A Fig 1A) adjacent the handle support (see the flap 12 adjacent crease 22A Fig 1A), the first anchor portion being foldable about the first fold line (shown folded in Fig 1A); a second fold line (22B Fig 1A) adjacent to the handle support (see the flap 12 adjacent crease 22B Fig 1A), the second anchor portion being foldable about the second fold line (shown folded in Fig 1A), wherein said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion are foldable about said respective fold lines to a first folded position within which said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion are substantially parallel to and in closely spaced facing relation to each other (the device is foldable in the claimed configuration, the device is made of a single-piece body: [0038] “backing 16 comprises a single-piece body that includes adhesion zone 14A, central flap zone 12 and adhesion zone 14B, which, when folded, comprise first panel 24A, second panel 24B, third panel 26A and fourth panel 26B”, because the body is made of a single-piece all parts of the body would have the same flexibility. As depicted in annotated Fig 5B below, the device is already capable of folding along annotated fold A. Before attachment to a surface, the body would be equally capable of folding along annotated fold B, both folds are 180 degree folds and would result in the first anchor portion and the second anchor portion being substantially parallel to and in closely spaced facing relation to each other); the handle (18 A, the Fig 1A) being attached to the handle support for movement relative to the first anchor portion and the second anchor portion ([0037] “central flap zone 12 is flexible such that hook element 18 can be used to hang items in all such angles and orientations.”), wherein said handle in said first folded position lies substantially parallel to and in closely spaced facing relation to said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion (As shown in annotated Fig 5B below, with flap 26A folded along annotated fold B, the handle which is at the end of 24A and 24B, also depicted in Fig 5A, would be substantially parallel to and in closely spaced facing relation to said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the device of Hietanen et al. to include the limitations as taught by Hoffman et al. to form the device such that it promotes adhesion to a surface under a variety of loading orientations [0037].
PNG
media_image1.png
340
240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, modified Hietanen et al. teaches the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 14. Modified Hietanen et al. further teaches wherein the first anchor portion and the second anchor portion are folded to a second folded position about the respective fold lines such that the first anchor portion and the second anchor portion are substantially parallel to each other and substantially perpendicular to said handle, the first anchor portion and the second anchor portion lying in a common plane (See the configuration as shown in Figs 2 and 4a of Hoffman et al. the central flap 12 is substantially perpendicular to the anchor portions 14A and 14B which are lying in a common plane).
Regarding claim 26, modified Hietanen et al. teaches the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 14. However, modified Hietanen et al. fails to teach wherein a non-adhesive dead zone is formed on a portion of a periphery of one of the first anchor portion or the second anchor portion to assist a user in removal of the hand held tissue lifting device from the patient.
Hoffman et al. teaches wherein a non-adhesive dead zone (39 Fig 3, [0041] “adhesive layer 34 can also extend only as far as end line 38, thereby leaving a portion of panel 26B uncoated by adhesive layer 34. Thus, a portion of panel 26B can form pull tab 39 that can be grasped to peel panel 26B away from surface 40.”) is formed on a least a portion of a periphery of the second anchor (39 Fig 3 is formed on the edge of the second anchor 26B as shown in Fig 3) to assist a user in removal of the device from the attachment surface ([0041] “Thus, a portion of panel 26B can form pull tab 39 that can be grasped to peel panel 26B away from surface 40. Pull tab 39 can aid with removal of hanger device 10, such as by allowing panel 26B to be pulled up from an edge. Thus, because panel 26B is flexible, panel 26B can be pulled away from surface 40 along a peel front so that only a small amount of adhesive layer 34 needs to be overcome at a time.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the device of Hietanen et al. to include the non-adhesive dead zone with the limitations as taught by Hoffman et al. to aid with removal of the device from the attachment surface [0041].
Regarding claim 19, modified Hietanen et al. teaches the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 14. Modified Hietanen et al. further teaches wherein the first anchor portion and the second anchor portion are folded to a second folded position about the respective fold lines such that the first anchor portion and the second anchor portion are substantially parallel to each other and substantially perpendicular to said handle, the first anchor portion and the second anchor portion lying in a common plane (See the configuration as shown in Figs 2 and 4a of Hoffman et al. the central flap 12 is substantially perpendicular to the anchor portions 14A and 14B which are lying in a common plane).
Regarding claim 26, modified Hietanen et al. teaches the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 14. However, modified Hietanen et al. fails to teach wherein a non-adhesive dead zone is formed on a portion of a periphery of one of the first anchor portion or the second anchor portion to assist a user in removal of the hand held tissue lifting device from the patient.
Hoffman et al. teaches wherein a non-adhesive dead zone (39 Fig 3, [0041] “adhesive layer 34 can also extend only as far as end line 38, thereby leaving a portion of panel 26B uncoated by adhesive layer 34. Thus, a portion of panel 26B can form pull tab 39 that can be grasped to peel panel 26B away from surface 40.”) is formed on a least a portion of a periphery of the second anchor (39 Fig 3 is formed on the edge of the second anchor 26B as shown in Fig 3) to assist a user in removal of the device from the attachment surface ([0041] “Thus, a portion of panel 26B can form pull tab 39 that can be grasped to peel panel 26B away from surface 40. Pull tab 39 can aid with removal of hanger device 10, such as by allowing panel 26B to be pulled up from an edge. Thus, because panel 26B is flexible, panel 26B can be pulled away from surface 40 along a peel front so that only a small amount of adhesive layer 34 needs to be overcome at a time.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the device of Hietanen et al. to include the non-adhesive dead zone with the limitations as taught by Hoffman et al. to aid with removal of the device from the attachment surface [0041].
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hietanen et al. (US
2018/0104087 A1), and in the alternative in view of Liu et al. (CN 201542695 U), and in view of Hoffman et al. (US 2019/0038051 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Pratl (US 2002/0166212 A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Hietanen et al. teaches the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 14. the handle support includes a hinge (the modification in view of Hoffman et al. includes the hinge loop formed at crease 20 as shown in Fig 1).
However, modified Hietanen et al. fails to teach wherein said hinge is disposed fully interiorly of the periphery of said hand held tissue lifting device for applying a tensile force to said first anchor portion and to said second anchor portion only at a central portion of said hand held tissue device, and wherein said handle is rotatably attached to said handle support within said hinge.
Hoffman et al. teaches an alternate embodiment (Fig 9A) wherein said hinge (the loop in Fig 9A) is disposed fully interiorly of the periphery of said hand held tissue lifting device (as shown in Fig 9A, the loop is at the end of the 24A which is completely surrounded by the panels 26A and 26B) for applying a tensile force to said first anchor portion and to said second anchor portion only at a central portion of said hand held tissue device (The force transmitted through 24A Fig 9A would apply force as claimed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the hinge to be disposed as taught by the alternate embodiment of Hoffman et al. to allow structure for tabs to “distribute loading of hook element 18 throughout both of panels 26A and 26B to minimize edge loading effects that can propagate peeling and separation of panels 26A and 26B from surface 40.” [0069].
Pratl teaches a handle (22 Fig 2) is rotatably attached within a hinge (50 Fig 8a) (See the rotation from Figs 2-4, [0028] “The first portion 70 of the ring 22 preferably fits within the recess 50 with a loose interference fit […]the ring is captured within the recess and is pivotally movable between its first and second positions with light finger pressure, but is held in place by friction between the ring and the base panel in the absence of external force.”, the handle freely rotates between positions relative to the anchor with light finger pressure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the device of Hietanen et al. to include the hinge with the limitations as taught by Pratl to allow the user to easily orient the handle relative to the anchor to accommodate the user’s preferences or needs. Accordingly, Hietanen et al. teaches embodiments where the handle may have a different orientation relative to the anchor ([0043] “therapy tape 11 may have a different handle orientation relative to the length of the therapy tape 11”).
Regarding claim 17, modified Hietanen et al. teaches the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 16. Modified Hietanen et al. further teaches wherein the handle is rotatable within the hinge relative to the first and second anchor portions about an arc of approximately 360 degrees (where the handle of Hoffman et al. is not adhered to the central flap as taught by Pratl, the handle would be rotatable within the hinge around the central flap about an arc of approximately 360 degrees as claimed, only not being able to rotate beyond when the handle contacts the flap at 0 and 360 degree positions ).
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hietanen et al. (US
2018/0104087 A1), and in the alternative in view of Liu et al. (CN 201542695 U), and in view of Hoffman et al. (US 2019/0038051 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Carriere (US 6,769,541 B1).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hietanen et al. (US
2018/0104087 A1), and in the alternative in view of Liu et al. (CN 201542695 U), and in view of Hoffman et al. (US 2019/0038051 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Geist (US 4,333,468 A).
Regarding claim 24, modified Hietanen et al. teaches the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 14. Modified Hietanen et al. further teaches wherein said handle support (Hoffman et al.- 12 Fig 1A) comprises a first attachment zone (24A Fig 1B) and a second attachment zone (24B Fig 1B) that are connected to each other by a connecting adhesive ([0041] “a first side of panels 24A, 24B, 26A and 26B is exposed, while a second side is substantially covered with adhesive layer 34. As shown in FIG. 3”) to form said handle support.
However Modified Hietanen et al. fails to teach said connecting adhesive having a stronger adhesive strength than an adhesive strength of the first layer of adhesive on said lower surface of said first anchor portion and an adhesive strength of said second layer of adhesive on said lower surface of said second anchor portion.
Geist teaches a connecting adhesive (33 Fig 4) having a stronger adhesive strength than an adhesive strength of the first layer of adhesive (36 Fig 4) on said lower surface of said first anchor portion (the left side of 30b Fig 4) and an adhesive strength of said second layer of adhesive (36 Fig 4) on said lower surface of said second anchor portion (the right side of 30b Fig 4) (the adhesive strength of a permanent adhesive 33 is stronger than that of a skin safe pressure sensitive adhesive 36, Col 4 lines 4-6 “upwardly extending intermediate portions 31b, 32b likewise joined by the permanent adhesive 33.”, Col 4 lines 22-25 “the peel-off strip, if any, is separated from adhesive layer 36 and then the adhesive layer 36 adhered to the patient's skin in the desired position.“). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the adhesives of modified Hietanen et al. to include the limitations as taught by Geist to strengthen the structure of the device with an adhesive that will not result in unintentional disassembly.
Accordingly, Hoffman et al. teaches that it is known to more securely attach the handle support layers to eliminate a peel from ([0055] “panels 24A and 24B can be welded or otherwise fixed together to eliminate a peel front.”).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hietanen et al. (US
2018/0104087 A1), and in the alternative in view of Liu et al. (CN 201542695 U), and in view of Hoffman et al. (US 2019/0038051 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Hagy et al. (US 2016/0339186 A1).
Regarding claim 25, modified Hietanen et al. teaches the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 14. However, modified Hietanen et al. fails to teach wherein a cutout is formed into a periphery of at least one of the first anchor portion or the second anchor portion, and wherein said handle in said first folded position overlies a portion of said cutout.
Hagy et al. teaches a cutout is formed into a periphery of at least one of the first anchor portion or the second anchor portion (24 Fig 1B) portion, and wherein said handle in said first folded position overlies a portion of said cutout (in the embodiment shown in Fig 1A, the height of the handle is larger than half of the width, and would fold over the end in a parallel configuration, as such it would overlay the cutout 24 shown in Fig 1B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the device of modified Hietanen et al. to include the cutout with the limitations as taught by Hagy et al. to allow “access through the skin contacting member 14 to reach the skin beneath, for instance for placement of a catheter, a needle, an IV line, a dialysis port (e.g., to access a fistula), or the like.” [0051]
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hietanen et al. (US
2018/0104087 A1), and in the alternative in view of Liu et al. (CN 201542695 U), and in view of Hoffman et al. (US 2019/0038051 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Leung et al. (US 2021/0251628 A1).
Regarding claim 27, modified Hietanen et al. discloses the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 14. However, modified Hietanen et al. fails to teach a container, comprising: one or more hand held tissue lifting devices of claim 14; and a tray within which the one or more hand held tissue lifting devices are contained.
Leung et al. teaches a tray ([0035] “a procedure kit tray”) within which the one or more devices are contained ([0035] “The combined unit may then be disposed in a sterile package such as a Tyvek pouch, blister packaging, a procedure kit tray”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to include the tray with the limitations as taught by Leung et al. to provide for a sterile package for the device which would prevent incidence of infection where it is used in a surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 28, modified Hietanen et al. discloses the container of claim 27. Modified Hietanen et al. further teaches where the tray and one or more of the hand held tissue lifting devices are sterilized (Leung et al.- [0035] “then terminally sterilized with ethylene oxide, gamma or e-beam irradiation, plasma, or other sterilization methods known in the art.”, where the contents of the tray are sterilized this includes the one or more of the hand held tissue lifting devices).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hietanen et al. (US 2018/0104087 A1), and in the alternative in view of Liu et al. (CN 201542695 U) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Buttaravoli (US 4,324,237 A).
Regarding claim 23, modified Hietanen et al. teaches the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 14, wherein each of said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion (the portions of the backing layer 2 on either side of the handles 4 as shown in Figs 1A and 1C) comprises a sheet of polymer material ([0028] “ the backing layer may comprise […]synthetic materials, (e.g., polyester, synthetic rubber, polyvinyl chloride, and/or the like)”), wherein said handle support comprises a connection portion between said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion (the area under the handle as shown in Fig 1C) , wherein a third layer of adhesive is disposed on a lower surface of said connecting portion (the layer of adhesive on the portion under the handle, as shown in Fig 1C).
However, modified Hietanen et al. fails to teach and wherein a non-adhesive surface of said connecting portion is defined by a covering disposed on said third layer of adhesive.
Buttaravoli teaches a non-adhesive surface is defined by a layer of adhesive covering (narrow liner 13 Figs 2 and 9) disposed on a layer of adhesive (liner 13 is disposed on adhesive layer 11 as shown in the expanded view in Fig 2, Col 5 lines 48-50 “narrow liner 13 may be permanently adhered to the endmost portion 9c of cover strip 9”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the non-adhesive surface of modified Hietanen et al. to be defined by a covering with the limitations as taught by Buttaravoli as this is taught as a known alternative to an adhesive layer stopping short of the non-adhesive surface (Col 5 lines 50-51).
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagy et al. (US 2016/0339186 A1) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 2019/0038051 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Hagy et al. discloses a hand held tissue lifting device ([0033] “The ability to apply a lifting force to the skin can also oppose needle puncture force during a skin puncture procedure”) configured to elevate abdominal tissue of a patient in laparoscopic surgery, comprising: an anchor (14 Fig 1B) including an upper surface and a lower surface (the top surface of 14 is shown in Fig 1B, the bottom surface is under it), and a layer of adhesive on said lower surface for attachment to abdominal skin of a patient adjacent to said patient's navel ([0054] “The bottom side of the skin contacting member 14 will contact the skin during use, and a biocompatible adhesive is carried on the bottom side of the skin contacting member 14 for adhering the device to the skin.”, the device is fully capable of being attached to any part of a patient’s skin including abdominal skin adjacent the patient’s navel), said adhesive being configured to tent the abdominal tissue under a tensile force for insertion of an instrument through a portion of said abdominal skin that is elevated while the abdominal tissue is tented in laparoscopic surgery ([0033] “apply a lifting force to the skin can also oppose needle puncture force during a skin puncture procedure”), said anchor having a cutout extending into a periphery thereof (24 Fig 1B), said cutout being configured to avoid said patient's navel (there is no material at the position of the cutout to contact the patient’s navel, depending on the size of the cutout, there may be other material of the device that overlaps the navel but the navel would be avoided at the location of the cutout, the examiner further notes Hagy et al. describes the “recess 24 can have any suitable shape and size” [0051]) when said anchor is attached to said abdominal skin of said patient in laparoscopic surgery (the device is fully capable of being attached to the patient in a laparoscopic surgery); and a handle (12 Fig 1A) that is sized and configured to be hand held by a user ([0046] “gripping tab 12”, a gripping tab is sized and configured to be gripped by a user’s hand, also shown in the embodiment in Fig 8), said handle being attached to said upper surface of said anchor (As shown in Fig 1A, the handle attaches to the upper surface).
However, the embodiment of Hagy et al. in Fig 1 is silent to said handle being movably attached to said upper surface of said anchor.
Hoffman et al. teaches a handle (18 Fig 1A) being movably attached (As shown in Figs 2 and 5A the handle moves relative to the anchor) to an upper surface of an anchor (26A and 26B are not directly attached to the handle but they are movably attached like how it is attached in the instant invention). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the handle of Hagy et al. to be movably attached to the upper surface of the anchor as taught by Hoffman et al. to form the device such that it promotes adhesion to a surface under a variety of loading orientations [0037].
Regarding claim 32, modified Hagy et al. teaches the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 31. Modified Hagy et al. further teaches wherein said handle is movable relative to said anchor to a folded position substantially parallel to said anchor and overlying a portion of said cutout (in the embodiment shown in Fig 1A, the height of the handle is larger than half of the width, and would fold over the end in a parallel configuration, as such it would overlay the cutout 24 shown in Fig 1B).
Regarding claim 33, modified Hagy et al. teaches the hand held tissue lifting device of claim 32. However, modified Hagy et al. fails to teach wherein a non-adhesive dead zone is formed on a least a portion of said periphery of said anchor to assist a user in the removal of said hand held tissue lifting device from said patient, said handle in said folded position lying substantially parallel to said anchor and overlying a portion of said dead zone.
Hoffman et al. teaches wherein a non-adhesive dead zone (39 Fig 3, [0041] “adhesive layer 34 can also extend only as far as end line 38, thereby leaving a portion of panel 26B uncoated by adhesive layer 34. Thus, a portion of panel 26B can form pull tab 39 that can be grasped to peel panel 26B away from surface 40.”) is formed on a least a portion of a periphery of said anchor (39 Fig 3 is formed on the edge of the anchor as shown in Fig 3) to assist a user in the removal of the device from the attachment surface ([0041] “Thus, a portion of panel 26B can form pull tab 39 that can be grasped to peel panel 26B away from surface 40. Pull tab 39 can aid with removal of hanger device 10, such as by allowing panel 26B to be pulled up from an edge. Thus, because panel 26B is flexible, panel 26B can be pulled away from surface 40 along a peel front so that only a small amount of adhesive layer 34 needs to be overcome at a time.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the device of modified Hagy et al. to include the non-adhesive dead zone with the claimed limitations as taught by Hoffman et al. to aid with removal of the device from the attachment surface [0041]. The modification of Hagy et al. to include the dead zone would still have the dimensions shown in Fig 1, the handle would fold over the end of the device and as such it would overlay a portion of said dead zone.
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 Anna Vargas whose telephone number is (571)270-3873. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 4:00 PM-9:00 PM 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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/A.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/COURTNEY FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights