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 .
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 3, 8, 12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the vessel wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is interpreted that “the vessel wall” is referring to a blood vessel wall.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the vessel wall" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is interpreted that “the vessel wall” is referring to a blood vessel wall.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the vessel wall" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is interpreted that “the vessel wall” is referring to a blood vessel wall.
Claim 15 recites “the plurality of metal wires” in lines 6 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 15.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the vessel wall" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is interpreted that “the vessel wall” is referring to a blood vessel wall.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first polymer material", “the second polymer material” and “the third polymer material” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9-10, 13-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuentes (US 20120277671) in view of Howat et al. (US 20100217257 hereinafter “Howat”)
Regarding Claim 1, Fuentes teaches (Figs 1A) A catheter (10) comprising:
a central polymer liner (108; see [0037] teaching 108 is a melt processable polymer) comprising a first polymer material (see [0037] teaching 108 is a melt processable polymer); and
a braided metal wire jacket (106, 110) comprising a plurality of metal wires (See [0036] and [0038] teaching that 106 and 110 are made of flat stainless steel wires);
wherein a portion (110) of the plurality of metal wires (106, 110) are partially exposed on an outer surface (surface of 108 closer to 112) of the central polymer liner (108), and a portion (106) of the plurality of metal wires (!06, 110) are partially exposed on an inner surface (surface of 108 closer to 104) of the central polymer liner.
Fuentes does not specify the plurality of metal wires having at least one metal wire coated in the polymer material, and wherein the coating on the exposed portions of the plurality of metal wires form contact surfaces.
Howat teaches [0037] a polymer coating (42) is on the wire (40). This coating moves with the braid assembly during catheter articulation (See [0037], therefore it is interpreted that the coating on the exposed portions of the metal wires would be a ‘contact surface’.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wires of Fuentes such that the plurality of metal wires having at least one metal wire coated in the polymer material, and wherein the coating on the exposed portions of the plurality of metal wires form contact surfaces as taught by Howat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to minimize friction between the elements as the braid assembly moves during catheter articulation (see Howat [0037]).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. The combination does not specify the catheter wherein every other metal wire of the plurality of metal wires is coated in the first polymer material.
As seen in Howat [0039], there are multiple methods of applying the coatings to the wires of the device. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Fuentes device to have every other metal wire of the plurality of metal wires is coated in the first polymer material, as it involves only adjusting the method of applying a coating of a wire to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fuentes by making the every other metal wire of the plurality of metal wires is coated in the first polymer material as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The examiner also notes that instant paragraph [0063] teaches that every other metal wire of the plurality of metal wires is coated in the first polymer material is an example of pre-coating the wires therefore it is considered an alternative method of coating than coating all the wires. Since applicant has not disclosed that having every other metal wire of the plurality of metal wires is coated in the first polymer material solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. The combination does not specify the catheter wherein only a portion of the plurality of metal wires is coated in the polymer material such that a spiral pattern is created along the catheter.
As seen in Howat [0039] there are multiple methods of applying the coatings to the wires of the device, some of which allow for a more ‘uniform’ application of coating (this implies some of the other methods are not as ‘uniform’ as such would result in a ‘portion’ of the wires coated). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the method of coating the wires of Fuentes to have “only a portion of the plurality of metal wires is coated in the polymer material such that a spiral pattern is created along the catheter”, as it involves only adjusting the method of application of the coating to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wires of Fuentes by making “only a portion of the plurality of metal wires is coated in the polymer material such that a spiral pattern is created along the catheter” as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). ). The examiner also notes that instant paragraph [0009] teaches that only a portion of the plurality of metal wires can be coated in the first polymer material such that a spiral pattern is created along the catheter is an example of pre-coating the wires therefore it is considered an alternative method of coating than coating all portions the wires. Since applicant has not disclosed that having only a portion of the plurality of metal wires can be coated in the first polymer material such that a spiral pattern is created along the catheter solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Fuentes further teaches the catheter wherein the catheter comprises an inner polymer liner (104), comprising a second polymer material different from the first polymer material (See [0036] teaching various polymer materials, it is interpreted that at least one configuration would result in 104 having a different polymer material than 108), the inner polymer liner (104) disposed over the partially exposed inner surface of the plurality of metal wires (106; see Fig 1A).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 6 as described above. Fuentes does not specify the catheter wherein the plurality of metal wires comprises a first layer of metal wires having a first diameter alternating with a second layer of metal wires having a second diameter, and such that the first diameter of the first layer of metal wires is greater than the second diameter of the second layer of metal wires.
However, as seen in Fuentes [0038], the dimensions and winding parameters between 106 and 110 may be varied (same or different). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the plurality of metal wires of the Fuentes device to have “a first layer of metal wires having a first diameter alternating with a second layer of metal wires having a second diameter, and such that the first diameter of the first layer of metal wires is greater than the second diameter of the second layer of metal wires”, as it involves only adjusting the dimension (diameter) of a component (wires) disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fuentes by making the “wherein the plurality of metal wires comprises a first layer of metal wires having a first diameter alternating with a second layer of metal wires having a second diameter, and such that the first diameter of the first layer of metal wires is greater than the second diameter of the second layer of metal wires” as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Fuentes further teaches the catheter wherein the catheter comprises an outer polymer liner (112), comprising a third polymer material different from the first and second polymer materials (See [0040] teaching that 112 is one of the materials mentioned in [0036], since 104, 108 and 112 are all one of the polymer materials disclosed in [0036] there is an embodiment where each of the layers 104, 108 and 112 have different polymer materials from the disclosed materials), the outer polymer liner (112) disposed over the partially exposed outer surface (110) of the plurality of metal wires (106, 110).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 10 as described above. Fuentes does not specify the catheter wherein the plurality of metal wires comprises a first liner of metal wires having a first diameter alternating with a second liner of metal wires having a second diameter, and such that the first diameter of the first liner of metal wires is greater than the second diameter of the second liner of metal wires.
However, as seen in Fuentes [0038], the dimensions and winding parameters between 106 and 110 may be varied (same or different). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the plurality of metal wires of the Fuentes device to have “a first layer of metal wires having a first diameter alternating with a second layer of metal wires having a second diameter, and such that the first diameter of the first layer of metal wires is greater than the second diameter of the second layer of metal wires”, as it involves only adjusting the dimension (diameter) of a component (wires) disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fuentes by making the “wherein the plurality of metal wires comprises a first layer of metal wires having a first diameter alternating with a second layer of metal wires having a second diameter, and such that the first diameter of the first layer of metal wires is greater than the second diameter of the second layer of metal wires” as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Fuentes further teaches the catheter wherein the catheter comprises an inner polymer liner (104) disposed over the partially exposed inner surface (106) of the plurality of metal wires (106, 110) and an outer polymer liner (112) disposed over the partially exposed outer surface (110) of the plurality of metal wires (106, 110).
Regarding Claim 15, Fuentes teaches (Fig 3) a method of forming a catheter comprising: braiding a metal wire jacket (106) comprising a first layer of metal wires (See Fig 3 step 310), and a second, alternating layer of metal wires (See [0036] teaching a braiding machine, it is interpreted the braiding machine would have to ‘alternate layers’ in order to form the ‘braid’ structure), over a mandrel (See Fig 3 teaching method is done over a core rod);
re-flowing a central polymer liner (see step 312), comprising the polymer material (See [0037], 108 is a polymer material (as mentioned in [0036] with various polymer materials), over the braided metal wire jacket (106; see Fig 3 step 312 and Fig 1a);
partially exposing an outer surface (110) of the plurality of metal wires on an outer surface of the central polymer liner (108; see step 314, where 110 is exposed on 108);
partially exposing an inner surface (106) of the plurality of metal wires on an inner surface of the braided metal wire jacket (See Fig 1a, 106 is exposed on inner surface of 108); and
removing the mandrel (see Fig 3, step 318 is removing core rod).
Fuentes does not specify the metal wire jacket pre-coated with a polymer material.
Howat teaches [0037] a polymer coating (42) is on the wire (40). This coating moves with the braid assembly during catheter articulation (See [0037], therefore it is interpreted that the coating on the exposed portions of the metal wires would be a ‘contact surface’.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wires of Fuentes such the metal wire jacket is pre-coated with a polymer material, as taught by Howat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to minimize friction between the elements as the braid assembly moves during catheter articulation (see Howat [0037]).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 15 as described above. Fuentes further teaches the method wherein the method comprises: before the step of braiding the metal wire jacket (Fig 3 step 310), placing an inner polymer liner (104) comprising a second polymer material (see [0036-0037] teaching multiple polymers that are used for 104 and 108) over the mandrel (see Fig 3 step 308 teaching the inner jacket is on the core rod) such that an inner surface of the plurality of metal wires forms a contact surface with the inner polymer liner (See Fig 1a, 106 and 104 form a contact surface).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 15 as described above. Fuentes further teaches the method wherein the method comprises: before the step of removing the mandrel (Fig 3 step 318), re-flowing an outer polymer liner (112; see Fig 3 step 316) comprising a third polymer material (See [0040] teaching that 112 is one of the materials mentioned in [0036], since 104, 108 and 112 are all one of the polymer materials disclosed in [0036] there is an embodiment where each of the layers 104, 108 and 112 have different polymer materials from the disclosed materials) over the partially exposed outer surface (110) of the plurality of metal wires (106, 110) such that the partially exposed outer surface forms a contact surface with the outer polymer liner (112) and an outer surface of the outer polymer liner is the contact surface with the vessel wall (See Fig 1a, 110 and 112 form a contact surface and the outer surface of 112 is the outermost surface, therefore would contact the vessel).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 15 as described above. The combination does not specify the method wherein the step of braiding a metal wire jacket comprises braiding two liners of metal wires wherein a first liner of metal wires comprises a first diameter and a second liner of metal wires comprises a second diameter such that the first diameter of the first liner of metal wires is greater than the second diameter of the second liner of metal wires.
However, as seen in Fuentes [0038], the dimensions and winding parameters between 106 and 110 may be varied (same or different). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the plurality of metal wires of the Fuentes device to have “a first layer of metal wires having a first diameter alternating with a second layer of metal wires having a second diameter, and such that the first diameter of the first layer of metal wires is greater than the second diameter of the second layer of metal wires”, as it involves only adjusting the dimension (diameter) of a component (wires) disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fuentes by making the “wherein the step of braiding a metal wire jacket comprises braiding two liners of metal wires wherein a first liner of metal wires comprises a first diameter and a second liner of metal wires comprises a second diameter such that the first diameter of the first liner of metal wires is greater than the second diameter of the second liner of metal wires” as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 20, Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 15 as described above. Fuentes does not specify the method wherein the first polymer material of the central polymer liner comprises Teflon and wherein the second polymer material of the inner polymer liner and the third polymer material of the outer polymer liner comprises Pebax.
Howat teaches [0043] a medical device with polymer layers including materials of Teflon and Pebax.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first polymer material, second polymer material and third polymer material of Fuentes such that the first polymer material of the central polymer liner comprises Teflon and wherein the second polymer material of the inner polymer liner and the third polymer material of the outer polymer liner comprises Pebax as taught by Howat. It has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose (see MPEP 2144.07)
Claim(s) 2, 7, 11-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuentes and Howat as applied to claims 1, 6, 10 and 15 above, and further in view of Campbell et al. (US 20070088323 hereinafter “Campbell”).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. The combination does not specify the catheter wherein the partially exposed outer surface and the partially exposed inner surface of the plurality of metal wires is chemically etched.
Campbell teaches [0170-0171] a device with a stiffening braid, where the inner and the outer surface of the wire can be pretreated through chemical etching prior to providing the polymer cover.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wires of Fuentes such that the partially exposed outer surface and the partially exposed inner surface of the plurality of metal wires is chemically etched as taught by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this procedure would result in the same polymer covered stiffening wire, while also providing the benefit of better adhesion between the polymer and the wire.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 6 as described above. Fuentes does not specify the catheter wherein an outer surface of the inner polymer liner and the partially exposed inner surface of the plurality of metal wires are chemically etched.
Howat teaches [0043] that the inner polymer liner could be chemically etched.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inner polymer liner of Fuentes such that the inner polymer liner is chemically etched as taught by Howat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as this is an alternative treatment known in the art for an inner polymeric lining of a catheter (see Howat [0043]).
The combination does not specify the partially exposed inner surface of the plurality of metal wires are chemically etched.
Campbell teaches [0170-0171] a device with a stiffening braid, where the inner and the outer surface of the wire can be pretreated through chemical etching prior to providing the polymer cover.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wires of Fuentes such that the partially exposed outer surface and the partially exposed inner surface of the plurality of metal wires is chemically etched as taught by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this procedure would result in the same polymer covered stiffening wire, while also providing the benefit of better adhesion between the polymer and the wire.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 10 as described above. Fuentes does not specify the catheter wherein an inner surface of the outer polymer liner and the partially exposed outer surface of the plurality of metal wires are chemically etched.
Howat teaches [0047] that the outer polymer liner could be chemically etched.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer polymer liner of Fuentes such that the outer polymer liner is chemically etched as taught by Howat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as this is an alternative treatment known in the art for an outer polymeric lining of a catheter (see Howat [0047]).
The combination does not specify the partially exposed inner surface of the plurality of metal wires are chemically etched.
Campbell teaches [0170-0171] a device with a stiffening braid, where the inner and the outer surface of the wire can be pretreated through chemical etching prior to providing the polymer cover.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wires of Fuentes such that the partially exposed outer surface and the partially exposed inner surface of the plurality of metal wires is chemically etched as taught by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this procedure would result in the same polymer covered stiffening wire, while also providing the benefit of better adhesion between the polymer and the wire.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Fuentes, Howat and Campbell teaches all elements of claim 11 as described above. Fuentes further teaches the catheter wherein the partially exposed outer surface (110) forms a contact surface with the inner surface outer polymer liner (112; see Fig 1a the two surfaces ‘contact’ therefore they form a ‘contact surface’) and an outer surface of the outer polymer liner (112) forms a contact surface with the vessel wall (112 is the outermost surface, therefore it would ‘contact’ the vessel wall).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 15 as described above. The combination does not specify the method further comprising: chemically etching the outer surface and the inner surface of the plurality of metal wires of the braided metal wire jacket.
Campbell teaches [0170-0171] a device with a stiffening braid, where the inner and the outer surface of the wire can be pretreated through chemical etching prior to providing the polymer cover.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wires of Fuentes such that the outer surface and the inner surface of the plurality of metal wires is chemically etched as taught by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this procedure would result in the same polymer covered stiffening wire, while also providing the benefit of better adhesion between the polymer and the wire.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuentes and Howat as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beasley et al. (US 20050273076 hereinafter “Beasley”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Fuentes and Howat teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. The combination does not specify the catheter wherein the partially exposed outer surface of the plurality of metal wires is the contact surface with the vessel wall.
Beasley teaches (Figs 10-11) a catheter (60) comprising apertures (66), and an exposed outer surface of a reinforcing member (16; see Fig 1 with coil 16, it is interpreted the coil seen through apertures 66 in Fig 10 and Fig 11 is the same coil 16). Through the aperture, the ‘exposed outer surface’ of the reinforcing member (16) is the contact surface with the vessel wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the catheter of Fuentes such that it includes apertures as taught by Beasley. This modification would result in the partially exposed outer surface of the plurality of metal wires is the contact surface with the vessel wall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include apertures in the catheter of Fuentes in order to facilitate distribution of medication to the patient (see Beasley [0005]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuentes, Howat and Campbell as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Beasley (US 20050273076).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Fuentes, Howat and Campbell teaches all elements of claim 7 as described above. Fuentes further teaches the catheter wherein the outer surface of the inner polymer liner (104) forms a contact surface with the partially exposed inner surface (106) of the plurality of metal wires (106, 110).
The combination does not specify the partially exposed outer surface of the plurality of metal wires forms a contact surface with the vessel wall.
Beasley teaches (Figs 10-11) a catheter (60) comprising apertures (66), and an exposed outer surface of a reinforcing member (16; see Fig 1 with coil 16, it is interpreted the coil seen through apertures 66 in Fig 10 and Fig 11 is the same coil 16). Through the aperture, the ‘exposed outer surface’ of the reinforcing member (16) is the contact surface with the vessel wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the catheter of Fuentes such that it includes apertures as taught by Beasley. This modification would result in the partially exposed outer surface of the plurality of metal wires is the contact surface with the vessel wall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include apertures in the catheter of Fuentes in order to facilitate distribution of medication to the patient (see Beasley [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sharrock (US 4368730) teaches a catheter with a reinforcing member exposed on the outer surface.
Follmer (US 5827242) teaches a catheter with a reinforcing member exposed on the inner surface
Griffin (US 7001369) teaches a device with a reinforcing member exposed in a portion of the device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEERAJA GOLLAMUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-6449. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached at (571) 270-5246. 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.
/NEERAJA GOLLAMUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights