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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-15, 34 and 35 in the reply filed on 3/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 28-33 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 28-33 pertain to an unelected species pursuant to the Requirement for Restriction dated 2/6/2026 and subsequent election made 3/27/2026, and as such should be indicated as withdrawn from consideration. However, Claims 28-33 are not indicated as being withdrawn from consideration. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 34 and 35, and Claims 7-15 by dependency, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Independent Claims 1, 34 and 35:
Claim 1 recites “administering a first electrical signal to the target neural population via the signal delivery device to induce a motor response in the first muscle, the first electrical signal having a frequency in a frequency range of from 1.2 kHz to 100 kHz” and “and administering a second electrical signal to the target neural population via the signal delivery device to induce a motor response in the second muscle, the second electrical signal having a frequency of less than 1.2 kHz.” However, the Present Specification does not describe the placement of the claimed “signal delivery devices” such that the recited manner of motor response is induced in a particular muscle with sufficient specificity to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. One of ordinary skill would appreciate that different muscles are differently innervated, and that stimulation applied at different locations would likely induce different responses in different muscles. As such, one of ordinary skill would be unable to discern from the Present Specification the particulars of the recited “administering” of electrical signals necessary to induce such motor response as claimed.
Claims 34 and 35 recite similar limitations to those addressed above in Claim 1, and stand rejected for the same reasons explained above.
Regarding Claims 2-6, Claims 2-6 recite various responses that are induced by the “electrical signals” of Claim 1. For the same reasons explained above with respect to Claim 1, the Present Specification does not describe the placement of the claimed “signal delivery devices” such that the recited manner of motor response is induced in a particular muscle with sufficient specificity to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13, 15 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,630,711 B1 to Wark et al. (“Wark”).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Wark teaches:
A method for inducing a motor response in a patient, comprising: (Title, “Systems and methods for treating disorders by selectively activating and/or blocking muscles through intrafasicular stimulation of the pudendal nerve”);
implanting a signal delivery device at a position proximate a target neural population in the patient, the target neural population including motor neurons associated with a first muscle and a second muscle; (Claim 1, “A method of treating a disorder comprising … d. inserting the first microelectrode array into the first pudendal nerve such that the plurality of microelectrodes penetrate intrafascicularly into the pudendal nerve … f. programming the controller for selective stimulation by microelectrodes of the first micro electrode array, said selective stimulation being tuned for selective stimulation of at least one muscle selected from the group consisting of the external urethral sphincter, the detrusor muscle, the anal sphincter, and the cavernous smooth musculature of the penis;” Claim 11, “…wherein the selective stimulation includes simultaneous low frequency stimulation by at least one microelectrode and high frequency stimulation by at least one other microelectrode of the first microelectrode array;” Col. 4, Ln. 44-50, “The system further includes a controller that is electronically associated with the first microelectrode array and that can be programmed to provide simultaneous low frequency stimulation by one or more microelectrodes to stimulate a first muscle and high frequency stimulation by one or more other microelectrodes to stimulate a second muscle.” Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25);
The pudendal nerve is such a “target neural population” as claimed.
administering a first electrical signal to the target neural population via the signal delivery device to induce a motor response in the first muscle, the first electrical signal having a frequency in a frequency range of from 1.2 kHz to 100 kHz; (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 5, Ln. 59-61, “The high frequency current can have a frequency of from about 0.5 kHz to about 20 kHz.”);
Wark’s range of .5 kHz to 20 kHz anticipates the claimed range of 1.2 kHz to 100 kHz. “Prior art which teaches a range overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with ‘sufficient specificity.’” MPEP 2131.03(II). “What constitutes a ‘sufficient specificity’ is fact dependent.” Id. Here, the claimed range is quite broad, and the Present Specification provides no evidence of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range. Although the claimed range is broader than the prior art range, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect any difference in effect at the higher end of Applicant’s broader range. Accordingly, that facts suggest that Wark’s range of . 5 kHz to 20 kHz discloses the claimed range of 1.2 kHz to 100 kHz with sufficient specificity, and Wark’s range anticipate the claimed range. See Id., citing ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Wark’s high frequency stimulation is applied in the manner claimed (i.e., to such a “target neural population” as claimed and at the frequency claimed), and thus accomplished the recited result (i.e., the result of “administering a first electrical signal to the target neural population via the signal delivery device” at the recited frequency is “induc[ing] a motor response in the first muscle”)
and administering a second electrical signal to the target neural population via the signal delivery device to induce a motor response in the second muscle, the second electrical signal having a frequency of less than 1.2 kHz (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 6, Ln. 11-13, “For the purposes of the present invention, low frequency is from about 5 Hz to about 100 Hz;” Col 8, Ln. 48-52, “Sustained detrusor contractions were produced using pro longed low frequency (33 Hz, 60 sec, 200 usec, monophasic) stimulation via single electrodes from a USEA implanted in the pudendal nerve.”).
Wark’s range of 5 Hz to about 100 Hz as well as Wark’s specific example of “pro longed low frequency (33 Hz, 60 sec, 200 usec, monophasic) stimulation” anticipate the claimed range of “less than 1.2 kHz. See MPEP 2131.03(I), (“A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range.”); see also UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023), (“If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim.”).
Wark’s low frequency stimulation is applied in the manner claimed (i.e., to such a “target neural population” as claimed and at the frequency claimed), and thus accomplished the recited result (i.e., the result of “administering a second electrical signal to the target neural population via the signal delivery device” at the recited frequency is “induc[ing] a motor response in the second muscle”).
Regarding Claim 2, Wark discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Wark additionally discloses:
wherein administering the first electrical signal preferentially induces a motor response in the first muscle relative to any motor response induced in the second muscle (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 5, Ln. 59-61; Col. 6, Ln. 11-13; Col 8, Ln. 48-52)
Wark administers the same stimulation claimed in the same manner claimed. Claim 2 recites an effect of delivering such stimulation. Wark’s same stimulation delivered in the same manner thus has the same effect.
Regarding Claim 3, Wark discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Wark additionally discloses:
wherein administering the first electrical signal induces a motor response in the first muscle without inducing a patient-detectable motor response in the second muscle (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 5, Ln. 59-61; Col. 6, Ln. 11-13; Col 8, Ln. 48-52)
Wark administers the same stimulation claimed in the same manner claimed. Claim 3 recites an effect of delivering such stimulation. Wark’s same stimulation delivered in the same manner thus has the same effect.
Regarding Claim 4, Wark discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Wark additionally discloses:
wherein administering the second electrical signal preferentially induces a motor response in the second muscle relative to any motor response induced in the first muscle (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 5, Ln. 59-61; Col. 6, Ln. 11-13; Col 8, Ln. 48-52)
Wark administers the same stimulation claimed in the same manner claimed. Claim 4 recites an effect of delivering such stimulation. Wark’s same stimulation delivered in the same manner thus has the same effect.
Regarding Claim 5, Wark discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Wark additionally discloses:
wherein administering the second electrical signal induces a motor response in the second muscle without inducing a patient-detectable motor response in the first muscle (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 5, Ln. 59-61; Col. 6, Ln. 11-13; Col 8, Ln. 48-52)
Wark administers the same stimulation claimed in the same manner claimed. Claim 5 recites an effect of delivering such stimulation. Wark’s same stimulation delivered in the same manner thus has the same effect.
Regarding Claim 6, Wark discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Wark additionally discloses:
wherein administering both the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal increases the overall motor response in the patient relative to administering only the first electrical signal or only the second electrical signal (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 5, Ln. 59-61; Col. 6, Ln. 11-13; Col 8, Ln. 48-52)
Wark administers the same stimulation claimed in the same manner claimed. Claim 6 recites an effect of delivering such stimulation. Wark’s same stimulation delivered in the same manner thus has the same effect.
Regarding Claim 7, Wark discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Wark additionally discloses:
wherein the signal delivery device includes at least one electrode, and wherein administering the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal includes administering the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal from the same at least one electrode (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 5, Ln. 59-61; Col. 6, Ln. 11-13; Col 8, Ln. 48-52)
Wark’s “first microelectrode array” is such an “at least one electrode” as claimed, and Wark administers Wark’s first and second electrical signals via Wark’s “first microelectrode array” in Wark’s above-cited embodiment.
Regarding Claim 8, Wark discloses the entirety of Claim 7 as explained above.
Wark additionally discloses:
wherein the at least one electrode includes a pair of electrodes, and wherein the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal are administered via the same pair of electrodes (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 5, Ln. 59-61; Col. 6, Ln. 11-13; Col 8, Ln. 48-52; Claim 3, “further comprising a second microelectrode array implanted in the first pudendal nerve and electronically associated with the controller for unilateral stimulation.”).
Wark’s “first microelectrode array” in combination with Wark’s “second microelectrode array” are such a “pair of electrodes” as claimed in the embodiment of Claim 3, wherein Wark’s stimulation is unilateral.
Regarding Claim 9, Wark discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Wark additionally discloses:
wherein the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal are administered without repositioning the signal delivery device (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 5, Ln. 59-61; Col. 6, Ln. 11-13; Col 8, Ln. 48-52)
Wark’s “signal delivery device” is implanted, and thus remains in the same position post-implantation when Wark’s signals are delivered.
Regarding Claim 10, Wark discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Wark additionally discloses:
wherein the first electrical signal has a frequency in a frequency range of from about 5 kHz to about 15 kHz (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 5, Ln. 59-61, “The high frequency current can have a frequency of from about 0.5 kHz to about 20 kHz.”);
Wark’s range of .5 kHz to 20 kHz anticipates the claimed range of 5 kHz to 20 kHz. “Prior art which teaches a range overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with ‘sufficient specificity.’” MPEP 2131.03(II). “What constitutes a ‘sufficient specificity’ is fact dependent.” Id. Here, the claimed range is quite broad, and the Present Specification provides no evidence of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range. Although the claimed range is broader than the prior art range, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect any difference in effect at the higher end of Applicant’s broader range. Accordingly, that facts suggest that Wark’s range of . 5 kHz to 20 kHz discloses the claimed range of 5 kHz to 20 kHz with sufficient specificity, and Wark’s range anticipate the claimed range. See Id., citing ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Regarding Claim 11, Wark discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Wark additionally discloses:
wherein the first electrical signal has a frequency of about 10 kHz (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 5, Ln. 59-61, “The high frequency current can have a frequency of from about 0.5 kHz to about 20 kHz.”);
The Present Specification sets forth a specific definition for the term “about.” Para. [0017] states “…the terms ‘generally,’ ‘about,’ and ‘approximately’ refer to values within 10% of a stated value. For example, the use of the term ‘about 100’ refers to a range of 90 to 110, inclusive.”
The term “about 10 kHz” is thus being interpreted in accordance with the Present Specification to mean “a range of 9 to 11 kHz, inclusive.”
Wark’s range of .5 kHz to 20 kHz anticipates the claimed range of 9 kHz to 11 kHz. “Prior art which teaches a range overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with ‘sufficient specificity.’” MPEP 2131.03(II). “What constitutes a ‘sufficient specificity’ is fact dependent.” Id. Here, the claimed range is quite broad, and the Present Specification provides no evidence of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range. Although the claimed range is broader than the prior art range, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect any difference in effect at the higher end of Applicant’s broader range. Accordingly, that facts suggest that Wark’s range of . 5 kHz to 20 kHz discloses the claimed range of 9 kHz to 11 kHz with sufficient specificity, and Wark’s range anticipate the claimed range. See Id., citing ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Regarding Claim 12, Wark discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Wark additionally discloses:
wherein the second electrical signal has a frequency of less than 100 Hz (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 6, Ln. 11-13, “For the purposes of the present invention, low frequency is from about 5 Hz to about 100 Hz;” Col 8, Ln. 48-52, “Sustained detrusor contractions were produced using pro longed low frequency (33 Hz, 60 sec, 200 usec, monophasic) stimulation via single electrodes from a USEA implanted in the pudendal nerve.”).
Wark’s range of 5 Hz to about 100 Hz anticipates the claimed range of “less than 100 Hz.” See MPEP 2131.03(II).
Regarding Claim 13, Wark discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Wark additionally discloses:
wherein the second electrical signal has a frequency of less than 10 Hz Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 6, Ln. 11-13, “For the purposes of the present invention, low frequency is from about 5 Hz to about 100 Hz;” Col 8, Ln. 48-52, “Sustained detrusor contractions were produced using pro longed low frequency (33 Hz, 60 sec, 200 usec, monophasic) stimulation via single electrodes from a USEA implanted in the pudendal nerve.”).
Wark’s range of 5 Hz to about 100 Hz anticipates the claimed range of “less than 10 Hz.” See MPEP 2131.03(II).
Regarding Claim 15, Wark discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Wark additionally discloses:
wherein the patient is diagnosed with an indication characterized by motor dysfunction (Claim 1, “A method of treating a disorder comprising, a. identifying a patient suffering from at least one disorder selected from the group consisting of bladder dysfunction, erectile dysfunction, and bowel elimination disorders…”).
Regarding Independent Claim 34, Wark discloses:
A method for treating a patient, comprising: (Title, “Systems and methods for treating disorders by selectively activating and/or blocking muscles through intrafasicular stimulation of the pudendal nerve”);
programming a signal generator to: (Claim 1, “…f. programming the controller for selective stimulation by microelectrodes of the first micro electrode array…”);
administer a first electrical signal to a target neural population via an implanted signal delivery device, the target neural population including motor neurons associated with a first muscle and a second muscle, (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25);
This limitation is being interpreted similarly to the similar Claim 1 limitation, as explained above.
wherein the first electrical signal has a frequency in a frequency range of from 1.2 kHz to 100 kHz, and wherein the first electrical signal induces a motor response in the first muscle; (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 5, Ln. 59-61);
This limitation is being interpreted similarly to the similar Claim 1 limitation, as explained above.
and administer a second electrical signal to the target neural population via the implanted signal delivery device, wherein the second electrical signal has a frequency of less than 1.2 kHz, and wherein the second electrical signal induces a motor response in the second muscle. (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 5, Ln. 59-61).
This limitation is being interpreted similarly to the similar Claim 1 limitation, as explained above.
Regarding Independent Claim 35, Wark discloses:
A patient treatment system, comprising: (Title, “Systems and methods for treating disorders by selectively activating and/or blocking muscles through intrafasicular stimulation of the pudendal nerve”);
a signal delivery device configured to be implanted at a position proximate a target neural population in the patient, the target neural population including motor neurons associated with a first muscle and a second muscle; (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25);
This limitation is being interpreted similarly to the similar Claim 1 limitation, as explained above.
and a signal generator having a computer readable storage medium with instructions that, when executed, cause the signal generator to: (Claim 1, “…f. programming the controller for selective stimulation by microelectrodes of the first micro electrode array…”);
deliver a first electrical signal to the target neural population via the signal delivery device to induce a motor response in the first muscle, the first electrical signal having a frequency in a frequency range of from 1.2 kHz to 100 kHz; (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 5, Ln. 59-61);
This limitation is being interpreted similarly to the similar Claim 1 limitation, as explained above
and deliver a second electrical signal to the target neural population via the signal delivery device to induce a motor response in the second muscle, the second electrical signal having a frequency less than 1.2 kHz. (Claim 1; Claim 11; Col. 4, Ln. 44-50; Col. 1, Ln. 58 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 6, Ln. 18-25; Col. 5, Ln. 59-61).
This limitation is being interpreted similarly to the similar Claim 1 limitation, as explained above
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,630,711 B1 to Wark et al. (“Wark”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0233848 A1 to Gad et al. (“Gad”).
Regarding Claim 14, Wark discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Wark does not disclose:
wherein the second electrical signal has a frequency of less than 1 Hz
Gad describes “electrical stimulators are provided for transcutaneous and/or epidural stimulation” (Abstract). Gad is analogous art.
Gad teaches:
wherein the second electrical signal has a frequency of less than 1 Hz (Para. [0520], “In certain embodiments the transcutaneous electrical stimulation and/or epidural stimulation is applied at a frequency ranging from about 0.5 Hz up to about 100 Hz, or from about 1 Hz up to about 50 Hz, or from about 10 Hz up to about 30 Hz, or from about 0.5 Hz to about 1 Hz…”).
Gad’s range of “from about 0.5 Hz to about 1 Hz” is “a frequency of less than 1 Hz.”
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wark with the teachings of Gad (i.e., to use Gad’s frequency of “about 0.5 Hz to about 1 Hz”) in order to “induce bladder or bowel retention” (Gad at Para. [0520]).
Notice of Art Deemed Relevant Though Not Relied Upon
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes the relevance of US 2019/0255331 A1. Although not relied upon as a reference in the instant rejection, the Examiner notes the apparent relevance of Abstract, Paras. [0050], [0051], [0071], and [0081] to the Independent Claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J MUTCHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8012. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Jennifer McDonald, can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/C.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights