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 (IDS) submitted on 07/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 21-33, 40-42 and 44 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.
The term “Blood baseline” in claims 1, 21, 22, 26, and 27 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by a “Blood baseline” value, and although applicant can act as their own lexicographer, there needs to be an explicit definition in the specification. Furthermore, “blood baseline” is not a term commonly defined in the art. It appears that the applicant has mentioned the term in the specification, however it is not explicitly defined, hence, the examiner is interpreting “Blood baseline” to mean a control or baseline value.
The term “Saline Baseline” in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by a “Saline Baseline” value, and although the applicant can act as their own lexicographer, there needs to be an explicit definition in the specification. Furthermore, “saline baseline” is not a commonly defined term in the art. It appears that the applicant has mentioned the term in the specification, however, it is not explicitly defined, hence, the examiner is interpreting “saline baseline” to mean the impedance value of the control liquid.
Regarding claim 44, the phrase "Optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 40, 41, 42 and 44 are rejected by virtue of its dependency of claim 21 and inherits the indefiniteness of claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations classifying each bipole, and value computed for each bipole, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation of classifying each bipole for tissue contact based on the real-time impedance signal of each bipole and a blood baseline value computed for each bipole is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, which are mathematical concepts which can be done in the head, because it is a mathematical calculation. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. There are no additional elements. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 21 the limitations computing a blood baseline value, and classifying each bipole, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor programmed to,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “compute a blood baseline value for each bipole of the plurality of bipoles; and classify each bipole for tissue contact based on a real-time impedance signal of each bipole and the blood baseline value for each bipole” language, “computing” and “classifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating the blood baseline based on the data obtained by the user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the there is only one additional element- using a processor to perform the calculations. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the calculation amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 22 the limitation “calculate an impedance” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “herein the processer is further programmed to,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “calculate an impedance offset for each bipole relative to a control bipole, and wherein computing the blood baseline value is further based on the impedance offset” language “calculating” in the context of the claim encompasses the user manually calculating the impedance based on the data obtained by the user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for claim, there is only one additional element- using a processor to perform the calculations. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the calculation amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 24 the limitation the impedance offset is a ratio is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation of calculating the impedance offset to be a ration is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, which are mathematical concepts which can be done in the head, because it is a mathematical calculation. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 25 the limitation
PNG
media_image1.png
78
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation of calculating the offset to be a ration is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, which are mathematical concepts which can be done in the head, because it is a mathematical calculation. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 26 the limitation computing the blood baseline is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “wherein the processer is further programmed to compute,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “compute the blood baseline for each bipole based on measuring impedance,” “computing” in the context for the claim encompasses the user manually calculating the blood baseline. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the claim, there is only one additional element- using a processor to perform the calculations. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the calculation amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 27 the limitation
PNG
media_image2.png
50
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation of calculating the blood baseline is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, which are mathematical concepts which can be done in the head, because it is a mathematical calculation. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 21, 26, 27, 29-33, and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babkin et al (US 20190125422Al) herein referred to as “Babkin” in view of Prutchi (US20150351836A1).
Regarding claim 1 Babkin discloses A method for verifying tissue contact of a catheter with a tissue in a patient, ([0090] Methods for verifying contact between the distal treatment section of a catheter and target tissue) the method comprising: advancing a distal section of the catheter through the vasculature of the patient and into a candidate location for ablating the tissue; ([0017] discusses advancing a distal treatment section of a catheter through the vasculature for ablation [0023] specifies the vasculature as right or left pulmonary vein antrum, posterior wall of the left atrium or CTI, which can be equated to the candidate location) obtaining a real-time impedance signal of a plurality of bipoles arranged along the distal treatment section; and classifying each bipole for tissue contact based on the real-time impedance signal of each bipole and a blood baseline value computed for each bipole. ([0114] sorts the data based on tissue contact; processor obtains and interprets the electrical signals and displays on a monitor; baseline values can be computed; [0063] a processor programmed to determine tissue contact based on real time electrical activity data) However Babkin does not explicitly disclose classifying each bipole for tissue contact and computing the blood baseline value for each bipole.
Prutchi discloses classifying each bipole of a plurality of bipoles for tissue contact and performing calculations for each bipole of a plurality of bipoles; ([0074] Sensing and calculation is done for each bipole and [0075] control algorithms which classify if each of the bipoles have completed lesion formation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify measuring and classifying the plurality of bipoles as disclosed in Babkin to measuring each bipole as disclosed in Prutchi. The motivation to do so being to control the quality of lesion ablation and avoid undesirable local over-ablation. (Prutchi [0075])
Regarding claim 21, A cryoablation system for verifying tissue contact of a catheter with a tissue in a patient, comprising: a catheter ([0090] systems, apparatuses and methods for verifying contact between the distal treatment section of a catheter and the target tissue) comprising a flexible body and a distal treatment section; ([Abstract] ablation device with flexible shaft which acts as the body and a distal treatment section) a plurality of bipoles arranged along the distal treatment section; ([Abstract] and FIG 2 seen below, mentions a plurality of conducting elements extending along the distal treatment section which are connected to a first and second electrode, separated a distance D1 apart, thus forming a discrete bipole) and a processor programmed to: compute a blood baseline value for each bipole of the plurality of bipoles; and classify each bipole for tissue contact based on a real-time impedance signal of each bipole and the blood baseline value for each bipole. ([0114] sorts the data based on tissue contact; processor obtains and interprets the electrical signals and displays on a monitor; baseline values can be computed; [0063] a processor programmed to receive electrical activity data and determine tissue contact which is equivalent to real time processing) However Babkin does not explicitly disclose classifying each bipole for tissue contact and computing the blood baseline value for each bipole.
Prutchi discloses classifying each bipole of a plurality of bipoles for tissue contact and performing calculations for each bipole of a plurality of bipoles; ([0074] Sensing and calculation is done for each bipole and [0075] control algorithms which classify if each of the bipoles have completed lesion formation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify measuring and classifying the plurality of bipoles as disclosed in Babkin to measuring each bipole as disclosed in Prutchi. The motivation to do so being to control the quality of lesion ablation and avoid undesirable local over-ablation. (Prutchi [0075])
PNG
media_image3.png
519
1360
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25 Babkin in view of Prutchi discloses The system of claim 24, however, Babkin in view of Prutchi does not explicitly disclose wherein the impedance
PNG
media_image4.png
31
405
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Babkin in view of Prutchi do disclose impedance calculations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device to calculate the offset based on the measurements from the electrical impedance 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” (MPEP § 2144.05). Furthermore, there appears to be no criticality placed on the calculation by the present application. There are only so many finite ways known to one of ordinary skill in the art to make this impedance offset calculation.
Regarding claim 26 Babkin discloses The system of claim 22, wherein the processer is further programmed to compute the blood baseline (Babkin [0063] a processor programmed to determine tissue contact based on real time electrical activity data) measuring impedance of the control bipole while suspended in blood in the patient (Babkin [0099] measuring the impedance of the control while suspended in blood) However, Babkin does not explicitly disclose computing the blood baseline for each bipole
Prutchi discloses that computation and measurement can be done for each bipole (Prutchi [0146] impedance measured for each of the bipolar electrodes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify measuring and classifying the plurality of bipoles as disclosed in Babkin to measuring each bipole as disclosed in Prutchi. The motivation to do so being to control the quality of lesion ablation and avoid undesirable local over-ablation. (Prutchi [0075])
PNG
media_image5.png
30
464
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27 Babkin in view of Prutchi discloses The system of claim 26, However Babkin in view of Prutchi does not explicitly disclose
However, Babkin in view of Prutchi do disclose that calculations were done on the baseline value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device to calculate the blood baseline based on the measurements from the electrical impedance 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” (MPEP § 2144.05) Furthermore, there appears to be no criticality placed on the calculation by the present application. There are only so many finite ways known to one of ordinary skill in the art to make this baseline calculation.
Regarding claim 29 Babkin in view of Prutchi discloses The system of claim 21, wherein each bipole is a pair of discrete electrodes. (Babkin [Abstract] and FIG 2 seen above, mentions a plurality of conducting elements extending along the distal treatment section which are connected to a first and second electrode, separated a distance D1 apart, thus forming a discrete bipole)
Regarding claim 30 Babkin in view of Prutchi discloses The system of claim 21, wherein the tissue is cardiac tissue is selected from the group consisting of pulmonary vein openings, the atria or ventricles, and the cavo-tricuspid isthmus (CTI). (Babkin [0023] Treatment for right pulmonary veins, atrium or cavo-tricuspid isthmus (CTI))
Regarding claim 31 Babkin discloses The system of claim 21, wherein the processer is further programmed to display a tissue contact value for each bipole. ([0127] tissue contact presented on a display). However, Babkin does not explicitly disclose to display a tissue contact value for each bipole.
Prutchi discloses that a tissue contact value for each bipole can be displayed ([0074] mentions use of a display for output of values for each electrode [0075] discusses electrical impedance for each bipole to indicate tissue contact)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify measuring and classifying the plurality of bipoles as disclosed in Babkin to measuring each bipole as disclosed in Prutchi. The motivation to do so being to control the quality of lesion ablation and avoid undesirable local over-ablation. (Prutchi [0075])
Regarding claim 32 Babkin in view of Prutchi discloses The system of claim 21, wherein the catheter is further operable to ablate the tissue. (Babkin [Abstract] mentions use of catheter to ablate)
Regarding claim 33 Babkin in view of Prutchi discloses The system of claim 32, wherein the ablation is cryo and/or electroporation-based. (Babkin [0002] specifies cryoablation)
Regarding claim 40 Babkin in view of Prutchi discloses The system of claim 21, wherein the control bipole is the sole/only bipole required to be suspended in blood in the patient for calibrating the system. (Babkin [0128] catheter floated in blood to verify before placing in tissue, this sole bipole is considered the control)
Regarding claim 41 Babkin discloses The system of claim 21, However Babkin does not explicitly disclose selecting the control bipole.
Prutchi discloses selecting the control bipole (Prutchi [0152] controller can select any electrode based on the output from sensors)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify which bipole is selected as disclosed in Babkin to selecting the control bipole as disclosed in Prutchi. The motivation to do so being to finish off ablation at a location where a state of ablation has not reached a target level. (Prutchi [0152])
Regarding claim 42 Babkin discloses The system of claim 41, wherein the control bipole is automatically selected by the computer based on live image data. ([0128] demonstrates the use of Fluoroscopy to obtain “live data,”) However, Babkin does not explicitly disclose wherein the control bipole is automatically selected by the computer
Prutchi discloses wherein the control bipole is automatically selected by the computer ([0008] programmed to select a control bipole based on feedback from sensors)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify which bipole is selected as disclosed in Babkin to selecting the control bipole as disclosed in Prutchi. The motivation to do so being to finish off ablation at a location where a state of ablation has not reached a target level. (Prutchi [0152])
Claims 22, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babkin in view of Prutchi in further view of Osadchy et al (US20190117111A1) herein referred to as “Osadchy”
Regarding claim 22 Babkin in view of Prutchi discloses The system of claim 21, However, Babkin in view of Prutchi does not explicitly disclose wherein the processer is further programmed to: calculate an impedance offset for each bipole relative to a control bipole, and wherein computing the blood baseline value is further based on the impedance offset.
Osadachy discloses wherein the processer is further programmed to: calculate an impedance offset for each bipole relative to a control bipole, and wherein computing the blood baseline value is further based on the impedance offset. (Osadachy [0085] processor calculates the impedance offset and compares it to the baseline impedance which can be equated to the control)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Babkin in view of Prutchi to incorporate the calculation of the offset as seen in Osadachy. The motivation for this being comparing the impedance offset for each bipole relative to the control impedance indicates tissue proximity (Osadachy[0085])
Regarding claim 23 Babkin in view of Prutchi discloses The system of claim 22, wherein the impedance offset is based on measuring, impedance of the control bipole and each of the plurality of bipoles while suspended in a liquid. (Babkin [0128] catheter floated in blood to verify before placing in tissue, this sole bipole is considered the control; Prutchi [0075] discusses measurements taken for each bipole) However, Babkin in view of Prutchi does not explicitly disclose measuring ex vivo
Osadchy discloses measuring ex vivo (Osadachy [0056] impedance measured from electrode within the heart and an external electrode (ex-vivo))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement as disclosed in Babkin in view of Prutchi to incorporate the measurement to be ex-vivo. The motivation for this being comparing this external impedance to the internal impedance helps to ascertain the threshold distance of the tissue (Osadachy [0086])
Regarding claim 24 Babkin in view of Prutchi discloses The system of claim 23, however Babkin in view of Prutchi does not explicitly disclose wherein the impedance offset is a ratio.
Osadachy explicitly discloses wherein the impedance offset is a ratio. (Osadachy [0086] computes a ratio between ascertained ratio and real baseline component)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Babkin in view of Prutchi to incorporate the calculation of the offset as seen in Osadachy. The motivation being that the ratio is what is used to determine whether there is contact with the tissue or not. (Osadachy [0086])
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babkin in view of Prutchi in further view of McCarthy et al (US20130324993A1) herein referred to as “McCarthy”
Regarding claim 28 Babkin in view of Prutchi discloses The system of claim 23, However, Babkin in view of Prutchi does not explicitly disclose wherein the liquid is a saline solution
McCarthy discloses wherein the liquid is a saline solution. (McCarthy [0084])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid as disclosed in Babkin in view of Prutchi to incorporate the saline liquid. The motivation being to attribute the difference between the dielectric constants to that of the saline and the tissue rather than to changes in the temperature. (McCarthy [0084])
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babkin in view of Prutchi in further view of Kimchi et al (WO 0113792A1) herein referred to as “Kimchi”
Regarding claim 44 Babkin in view of Prutchi discloses The system of claim 21, wherein the tissue contact verification system is operable to determine a contact state for a plurality of electrodes (Babkin [0116] processor programmed to interpret the electrical signals and from electrode pairs and indicate to user contact verification). However, Babkin in view of Prutchi does not disclose non-cardiac tissue, and optionally, the tissue is a tissue wall of the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems
Kimchi discloses a non-cardiac tissue, and optionally, the tissue is a tissue wall of the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems. ([Abstract] Electrical impedance can be obtained from organs which may be the lungs, part of the gastrointestinal tract. These organs constitute non-cardiac tissue)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify measuring the cardiac tissue impedance as disclosed in Babkin in view of Prutchi, to include the non-cardiac tissue as disclosed in Kimchi. The motivation for this being that it is obvious to interchange between cardiac and non-cardiac tissue as long as they are contractile, motile or muscular as seen in Kimchi where the impedance is measured for both cardiac and non-cardiac tissue (Kimchi [Description pg 7: lines 1-9])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA M GANAN-SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Joanne M Rodden can be reached at 3032974276. 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.G.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794