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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/25/2024 has been received and made of record. Note the acknowledged form PTO-1449 enclosed herewith.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first actuating mechanism” in claims 1, 8 and 15; “a second actuating mechanism” in claims 1 and 9; and “a control element” in claims 2, 6, 10, 13, 16 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 13 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 1 (and thereby dependent claims 2-7) recites the limitation "to first percutaneous device" in line 5. An antecedent basis term for this limitation is missing in the claim. A very minor amendment such as “to the first percutaneous device” will moot this rejection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 (and thereby dependent claim 11) recites the limitation "the second actuating mechanism" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the second actuating mechanism" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 (and thereby dependent claims 16-20) recites the limitation "to first percutaneous device" in line 3. An antecedent basis term for this limitation is missing in the claim. A very minor amendment such as “to the first percutaneous device” will moot this rejection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the coil angle" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelly et al. (US 5,665,098).
Kelly discloses (see Figs. 1-3) a plaque removal system comprising the following claim limitations:
(claim 15) A system comprising: a first percutaneous device (32/40) comprising a helical section (36); and a first actuating mechanism (i.e., exterior control, see col. 5, lines 54-61) coupled to first percutaneous device (32/40) and configured to impart axial and rotational movement to the first percutaneous device (32/40) (col. 5, line 54-col. 6, line 24; exterior control expressly may simultaneously pull and rotate tube 32 and head 34 that are attached to blades 36); and engage the first percutaneous device (32/40) to change a diameter of the helical section (36) of the first percutaneous device (32/40) from a first diameter (as shown in Fig. 1) to a second diameter (as shown in Fig. 2) (col. 5, line 54-col. 6, line 24; pulling of tube 32 and tip 40 expressly expands the helical section 36 from a constricted position to an expanded position);
(claim 16) the first percutaneous device comprising a control element (32/40) coupled to the helical section (36) (tip 40 attached to blades 36, as shown in Figs. 1-3; col. 5, lines 47-51), and wherein the first actuating mechanism (i.e., exterior control, see col. 5, lines 54-61) engages the control element (32/40) to change the diameter of the helical section (36) of the first percutaneous device to the second diameter (as shown in Fig. 2; col. 5, line 54-col. 6, line 24; exterior control expressly pulls tube 32 and tip 40 to expand the helical section 36 from a constricted position to an expanded position);
(claim 17) wherein the control element (32/40) is coupled to a distal end of the helical section (36) (as shown in Figs. 1-2; col. 5, lines 47-51);
(claim 18) wherein the first actuating mechanism (i.e., exterior control, see col. 5, lines 54-61) applies an axial force to the control element (32/40) to change the diameter of the helical section (36) of the first percutaneous device to the second diameter (as shown in Fig. 2; col. 5, line 54-col. 6, line 24; exterior control expressly pulls tube 32 and tip 40 to expand the helical section 36 from a constricted position to an expanded position);
(claim 19) the first percutaneous device comprising a control element (32/40), wherein the control element is coupled to the helical section (36) (tip 40 attached to blades 36, as shown in Figs. 1-3; col. 5, lines 47-51), and wherein the first actuating mechanism (i.e., exterior control, see col. 5, lines 54-61) applies an axial force to the control element to change the diameter and the coil angle of the helical section (36) of the first percutaneous device (as shown in Fig. 2; col. 5, line 54-col. 6, line 24; exterior control expressly pulls tube 32 and tip 40 to expand the helical section 36 from a constricted position to an expanded position); and
(claim 20) wherein the first actuating mechanism (i.e., exterior control, see col. 5, lines 54-61) is configured to (i.e., capable of) change a diameter of the helical section (36) of the first percutaneous device from the first diameter (see Fig. 1) to the second diameter (see Fig. 2) while the first actuating mechanism imparts axial and rotational movement to the first percutaneous device to create a bore through a vascular lesion (26’) (as shown in Figs. 1-3; col. 5, line 29-col. 6, line 24; exterior control expressly axially pulls tube 32 and tip 40 to expand the helical section 36 from a constricted position to an expanded position while simultaneously delivering rotation to tip 40 for improved shearing of plaque).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zacca et al. (US 5,217,474) in view of Reis et al. (US 2010/0175701).
Zacca discloses (see Figs. 1-3) an atherectomy system and method comprising the following claim limitations:
(claim 1) A catheter procedure system for performing a procedure to treat a vascular lesion (see Abstract; col. 1, lines 7-13), comprising a first percutaneous device (16) extending through a lumen and out of a distal end of a second percutaneous device (14) (as shown in Figs. 1-3), the first percutaneous device (16) comprising a helical section (20); a first actuating mechanism (1) coupled to first percutaneous device (16) and configured to (i.e., capable of) engage and to impart rotational movement to (16) (col. 5, lines 58-64); and a second actuating mechanism (5) coupled to the first percutaneous device (16) and configured to (i.e., capable of) change a diameter of the helical section (20) of the first percutaneous device (16) to a first diameter to create a bore of a first size through the vascular lesion (as shown in Figs. 1-3; col. 8, lines 1-13; col. 9, lines 3-45; drive control unit port 5 expressly activated to provide piston activation pressure to cavity 60 to move distal collar 28 to change the diameter of the helical section 20);
(claim 2) the first percutaneous device (16) comprising a control element (28), wherein the control element (28) is coupled to the helical section (20) (as shown in Figs. 2-3; at attachment region 22a; col. 8, lines 58-60), and wherein the second actuating mechanism (5) engages the control element (28) to change the diameter of the helical section (20) of the first percutaneous device (16) to the first diameter (col. 9, lines 3-45; second actuating mechanism 5 moves hydraulic fluid to engage and axially move control element 28 to change the diameter of coils 20);
(claim 3) wherein the control element (28) is coupled to a distal end (at 22a) of the helical section (20) (as shown in Figs. 2-3; at attachment region 22a; col. 8, lines 58-60);
(claim 4) wherein the second actuating mechanism (5) applies an axial force to the control element (28) to change the diameter of the helical section (20) of the first percutaneous device (16) to the first diameter (col. 9, lines 3-45; second actuating mechanism 5 moves hydraulic fluid to axially move control element 28 to change the diameter of coils 20);
(claim 5) wherein the second actuating mechanism (5) is configured to (i.e., capable of) change the diameter and a coil angle of the helical section (20) of the first percutaneous device (16) (as expressly shown in Figs. 2-3; col. 8, lines 1-13; col. 9, lines 3-45; drive control unit port 5 expressly activated to provide piston activation pressure to cavity 60 to axially move distal collar 28 to change the diameter of the helical section 20 wherein the coil angle also changes at unwound/stretched coil groups 36);
(claim 6) the first percutaneous device comprising a control element (28), wherein the control element (28) is coupled to the helical section (20) (as shown in Figs. 2-3; at attachment region 22a; col. 8, lines 58-60), and wherein the second actuating mechanism (5) engages the control element (28) to change the diameter and the coil angle of the helical section (20) of the first percutaneous device (16) (as expressly shown in Figs. 2-3; col. 8, lines 1-13; col. 9, lines 3-45; drive control unit port 5 expressly activated to provide piston activation pressure to cavity 60 to axially move distal collar 28 to change the diameter of the helical section 20);
(claim 7) wherein the second actuating mechanism (5) is configured to (i.e., capable of) change a diameter of the helical section (20) of the first percutaneous device (16) from the first diameter (see Fig. 2) to a second diameter (see Fig. 3) (as expressly shown in Figs. 2-3; col. 8, lines 1-13; col. 9, lines 3-45; drive control unit port 5 expressly activated to provide piston activation pressure to cavity 60 to axially move distal collar 28 to change the diameter of the helical section 20) while the first actuating mechanism (1) imparts rotational movement to the first percutaneous device (16) to create the bore through the vascular lesion (col. 5, lines 58-64; col. 8, lines 1-13; col. 9, lines 3-45; independent actuators for rotational movement and helical diameter change expressly disclosed);
(claim 8) A method for performing a procedure to treat a vascular lesion (see Abstract; col. 1, lines 7-13), comprising: operating a first actuating mechanism (5) coupled to a first percutaneous device (16) comprising a helical section (20) to impart movement to the first percutaneous device (16) to position the helical section (20) adjacent to a vascular lesion (col. 5, lines 58-64; rotational movement of the helical section to abraded the adjacent vascular lesion/plaque); changing a diameter of the helical section (20) of the first percutaneous device (16) to a first diameter (as shown in Figs. 1-3; col. 8, lines 1-13; col. 9, lines 3-45; drive control unit port 5 expressly actuated to provide piston activation pressure to cavity 60 to move distal collar 28 to change the diameter of the helical section 20); and operating the first actuating mechanism (5) to impart rotational movement to the helical section (20) of the first diameter to create a bore of a first size through the vascular lesion (col. 5, lines 58-64; rotational movement of the helical section to abraded the adjacent vascular lesion/plaque);
(claim 9) wherein changing the diameter of the helical section (20) of the first percutaneous device (16) to the first diameter comprises: operating a second actuating mechanism (5) coupled to the first percutaneous device (16) to change the diameter of the helical section (20) of the first percutaneous device (16) to the first diameter (as shown in Figs. 1-3; col. 8, lines 1-13; col. 9, lines 3-45; drive control unit port 5 expressly actuated to provide piston activation pressure to cavity 60 to move distal collar 28 to change the diameter of the helical section 20);
(claim 10) wherein operating the second actuating mechanism (5) coupled to the first percutaneous device (16) to change the diameter of the helical section (20) comprises: operating the second actuating mechanism (5) to engage a control element (28) coupled to the helical section (20) to change the diameter of the helical section (20) of the first percutaneous device (16) to the first diameter (as shown in Figs. 1-3; col. 8, lines 1-13; col. 9, lines 3-45; drive control unit port 5 expressly activated to provide piston activation pressure to cavity 60 to move distal collar 28 to change the diameter of the helical section 20);
(claim 11) wherein operating the second actuating mechanism (5) to engage the control element (28) comprises: operating the second actuating mechanism (5) to apply an axial force to the control element (28) to change the diameter of the helical section (20) of the first percutaneous device (16) to the first diameter (col. 9, lines 3-45; second actuating mechanism 5 moves hydraulic fluid to axially move control element 28 to change the diameter of coils 20);
(claim 12) wherein changing the diameter of the helical section (20) comprises changing the diameter and a coil angle of the helical section (20) of the first percutaneous device (16) (as expressly shown in Figs. 2-3; col. 8, lines 1-13; col. 9, lines 3-45; drive control unit port 5 expressly activated to provide piston activation pressure to cavity 60 to axially move distal collar 28 to change the diameter of the helical section 20 wherein the coil angle also changes at unwound/stretched coil groups 36);
(claim 13) wherein operating the second actuating mechanism (5) coupled to the first percutaneous device (16) to change the diameter of the helical section (20) comprises: operating the second actuating mechanism (5) to engage a control element (28) coupled to the helical section (20) to change the diameter and the coil angle of the helical section (20) of the first percutaneous device (16) (as expressly shown in Figs. 2-3; col. 8, lines 1-13; col. 9, lines 3-45; drive control unit port 5 expressly activated to provide piston activation pressure to cavity 60 to axially move distal collar 28 to change the diameter of the helical section 20 wherein the coil angle also changes at unwound/stretched coil groups 36); and
(claim 14) wherein the diameter of the helical section (20) of the first percutaneous device (16) is changed to the first diameter (see Fig. 3) while the first actuating mechanism (1) is operated to impart rotational movement to the helical section (20) to create the bore through the vascular lesion (col. 3, lines 55-57; lengthening the coil (i.e., changing the diameter) while rotating the coil is expressly disclosed).
Zacca, as applied above, discloses a system and method for atherectomy comprising all the limitations of the claim except for the system being robotic and wherein the first actuating mechanism also provides for both axial and rotational movement of the first percutaneous device.
However, Reis teaches (see exemplary Fig. 11C) a similar catheter-based surgical system and method comprising the system being robotic (16, see Fig. 1A; [0003]; [0009]) and wherein the first actuating mechanism (104, Fig. 11C) also provides for both axial and rotational movement (as shown in Fig. 11C; [0080]; each drive mechanism 104 expressly taught to provide both rotation and axial translation) of the first percutaneous device (102, Fig. 11C) in order to beneficially provide the well-known benefits of robotic interventional systems including simplified and modularized exchange/coupling of surgical tools, maintaining precision control of the surgical tool, preserving portability of the surgical tool, and increasing the ability of the tool to interact with the patient ([0003]; [0009]-[0010]; [0080]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system/method of Zacca to have system being robotic and wherein the first actuating mechanism also provides for both axial and rotational movement of the first percutaneous device in order to beneficially provide the well-known benefits of robotic interventional systems including simplified and modularized exchange/coupling of surgical tools, maintaining precision control of the surgical tool, preserving portability of the surgical tool, and increasing the ability of the tool to interact with the patient, as taught by Reis.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 8-9 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-8 and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,998,290. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are broader variants of the claims of the patent and this anticipate the claims of the patent, as set forth below. See MPEP 2131.02(I).
Present Invention
U.S. Pat. No. 11,998,290
8
6-8, 15-17
9
7,16
12
6-7
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see:
Weinrib (US 4,706,671);
Monfort et al. (US 4,890,611);
Delsanti (US 4,998,539);
Reger (US 5,156,610);
Ham et al. (US 5,456,667);
Hermann et al. (US 5,527,326); and
Sepetka et al. (US 2006/0195137).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Lynch whose telephone number is (571)270-3952. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:00AM-6:00PM, with alternate Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston, at (571) 272-7134. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT A LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights