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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
-Figs. 4A-E contain reference to element 93 which is not found within the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the term “Dow Corning” which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 14 recites “length of the cervix,” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –length of the cervix.—
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
-Claim 12 recites “an imaging system” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to image a position of the tip element with respect to the uterine horn. According to the specification the controller includes an ultrasound or pulsating doppler system [Pg. 9, lines 16-17] and equivalents thereof.
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 7, 9, 11, 12, 14-18 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 7 recites “the proximal end up to the inflatable cuff” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this limitation is referring to the proximal end of the flushing catheter, the uterine horn or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 9 recites “the proximal end” in line 3. It is unclear whether this limitation is referring to the proximal end of the flushing catheter, the uterine horn or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 11 recites “the at least two ports” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 11 recites “the at least two lumens” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Regarding claims 14 and 15, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
-Claim 15 recites “at least 50% of the uterine horn” in line 2. It is unclear whether this limitation requires that the tip element is advanced at least 50% of the cervix prior to entrance of the uterine horn, at least 50% of the length of the uterine horn, at least 50% the diameter of the uterine horn, at least 50% of the cervix, or a separate embodiment. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 16 recites “in particular” in line 2. It is unclear whether the limitation following this recitation is required by the claim.
-Claim 17 recites “the volume of flushing fluid” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 18 recites “a proximal end” in line 12. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from a proximal end originally recited in claim 1, line 6.
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) 1-5, 9, 10, 13-15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Struthers (WO 0235924).
Regarding Claim 1, Struthers teaches an embryo collection device for collecting embryos in the uterine horn of a pig [abstract], comprising:
an introduction probe to be partially introduced into the cervix of the pig [Fig. 2, element 28 (introducer)], provided with a guide lumen [Fig. 4, element 60 (outer catheter)]; and
a flushing catheter [Fig. 4, element 62 (inner catheter)], slidably arranged in the guide lumen [Pg. 17, lines 20-26], comprising:
a proximal end and a distal end [Fig. 4, elements 64 (distal end) and 66 (proximal end)], an inflation lumen extending from an inflation port at the proximal end [Fig. 4, element 72 (egress port)] and [Pg. 17, lines 30-33] and a flushing lumen extending from a flushing port at the proximal end [Fig. 4, element 74 (outlet) and 75 (conduit)] and [Pg. 21, lines 28-33];
an inflatable cuff fluidly connected to the inflation lumen to be inflated for at least partially closing the uterine horn towards a proximal end thereof [Fig. 4, elements 68 and 70 (inflatable cuffs)], [Pg. 21, lines 20-23] and [Pg. 20, lines 10-12]; and
a flushing section arranged between the inflatable cuff and the distal end to be introduced inside the uterine horn [Abstract; “an inlet…flushing fluid…embryos from the uterine horn.”] and [Pg. 18, lines 28-33], comprising a flushing opening fluidly connected to the flushing lumen [Fig. 4, element 88 (inlet) and 86 (egress port), 75 (conduit)],
wherein the flushing section comprises a tip element arranged at the distal end [Fig. 4, element 82 (distal end)] and [Pg. 19, lines 9-16]—describing the tip element as a fiber optic device to guide movement of the catheter, and wherein the tip element is shaped to steer the flushing catheter [Pg. 19, lines 9-16].
Regarding Claim 2, Struthers teaches wherein the tip element is a rounded cone [Fig. 4, element 82].
Regarding Claim 3, Struthers teaches wherein the tip element is a bent rounded cone [Pg. 17, lines 28-30]—describing the curved nature of [Fig. 4, element 65 (slight curve)].
Regarding Claim 4, Struthers teaches wherein the flushing section comprises an elongate element that spaces the inflatable cuff from the tip element in a longitudinal direction [Fig. 4, element 80 (fluid seal/elongate element)] and [Pg. 18, lines 19-23].
Regarding Claim 5, Struthers teaches wherein the flushing opening is arranged in the elongate element and/or in the tip element [Pg. 18, lines 28-31; “egress port 86 formed in the distal end 84 of the inner catheter 62.”]—interpreted to be the tip element.
Regarding Claim 9, Struthers teaches wherein the flushing catheter comprises a collection lumen extending from an embryo collection port at the proximal end towards the flushing section [Fig. 4, element 90 (container/collection lumen)], and wherein the flushing section comprises a collection opening fluidly connected to the collection lumen [Fig. 4, element 74 (outlet/collection opening) and 75 (conduit/fluid connection)].
Regarding Claim 10, Struthers teaches wherein the introduction probe is straight, and/or wherein the introduction probe has a flat outer surface [Fig. 2, element 28]—depicting both a straight and flat outer surface of the introducer.
Regarding Claim 13, Struthers teaches a method of using the embryo collection device comprising the step of: collecting embryos in the uterine horn of a sow or a gilt with the embryo collection device [Fig. 5F] and [Pg. 21, lines 25-28].
Regarding Claim 14, Struthers teaches wherein the introduction probe is introduced into the cervix but not advanced through the entire cervix, for example introduced up to 2/3 of the length of the cervix, [Figs. 5A-B] and [Pg. 20, lines 18-28].
Regarding Claim 15, Struthers teaches wherein the tip element is advanced up to at least 50% of the uterine horn, for example up to the tip of the uterine horn [Fig. 5F] and [Pg. 20, lines 13-16]—reference to the extreme location of the uterine horn.
Regarding Claim 18, Struthers teaches a method for flushing a reproductive tract using the embryo collection device of claim 1, comprising the steps of:
moving the introduction probe having the guide lumen partially into the reproductive tract in a movement direction [Fig. 5A] and [Pg. 20, lines 18-22];
moving the flushing catheter arranged in the guide lumen to slide within the guide lumen in the movement direction [Pg. 21, lines 20-23];
rotating the flushing catheter with respect to the introduction probe to steer the flushing catheter with the tip element thereof in a direction angled to the movement direction [Pg. 28, lines 26-28] and [Pg. 17, lines 5-8];
further moving the flushing catheter at a proximal end in the movement direction [Fig. 5B-D];
inflating the inflatable cuff [Fig. 5D] and [Pg. 20, lines 10-12];
providing flushing fluid into the flushing lumen [Fig. 5F] and [Pg. 20, lines 12-15] and collecting flushing fluid from the flushing lumen and/or from a collection lumen [Fig. 5F] and [Pg. 21, lines 25-33] and [Pg. 22, lines 5-6].
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struthers (WO 0235924) in view of Bosley (U.S. 6527752).
Regarding Claim 6, Struthers is silent on wherein the tip element is less rigid than the elongate element. Bosley teaches wherein the tip element is less rigid than the elongate element [Col 6, lines 9-12]—describing the smaller diameter distal portion as more flexible than the proximal portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the tip of the catheter be less rigid than the elongate portion of the catheter as taught by Bosley to avoid the need for surgical procedures as suggested by Struthers as Struthers discusses relaxing, dilating and penetrating the cervix of a sow easily without surgical intervention [Pg. 15, lines 5-14] with Bosley because Bosley teaches avoiding damage to the endometrium [Col 1, lines 50-53].
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struthers (WO 0235924) in view of Hirayama et al. (Non-surgical transfer of vitrified porcine embryos using a catheter designed for a proximal site of the uterus. Animal Science Journal, 91:e13457, 2020).
Regarding Claim 19, Struthers is silent on wherein a length from the distal end to the inflatable cuff is 5-70 cm. Hirayama teaches wherein a length from the distal end to the inflatable cuff is 5-70 cm [Experiment 2; “The mean length of the outer catheter inserted into recipients was 45.3 ± 1.6 cm.”]—which as shown in Fig. 2 includes the length from the O-ring to the distal end of the injector and guide. The O-ring is interpreted to be the inflatable cuff since it is used for the same purpose of sealing the uterus of the pig.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a length between the O-ring and the distal portion of the device as 5-70 cm as taught by Hirayama to seal the uterine horn of the pig as suggested by Struthers as Struthers discusses the cervix of the pig being about 4-8 inches in length [Pg. 2, lines 5-7] with Hirayama because Hirayama teaches the depths of insertion of the catheters being between 36.5-52.5 cm [Table 1].
Regarding Claim 20, Struthers is silent on wherein a length from the distal end to the inflatable cuff is 30-40 cm. Hirayama teaches wherein a length from the distal end to the inflatable cuff is 30-40 cm. [Experiment 2; “The mean length of the outer catheter inserted into recipients was 45.3 ± 1.6 cm.”]—which as shown in Fig. 2 includes the length from the O-ring to the distal end of the injector and guide. The O-ring is interpreted to be the inflatable cuff since it is used for the same purpose of sealing the uterus of the pig.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a length between the O-ring and the distal portion of the device as 30-40 cm as taught by Hirayama to seal the uterine horn of the pig as suggested by Struthers as Struthers discusses the cervix of the pig being about 4-8 inches in length [Pg. 2, lines 5-7] with Hirayama because Hirayama teaches the majority of the depths of insertion of the catheters being between 30-40 cm [Table 1].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struthers (WO 0235924) in view of Willenburg (U.S. 20200069407).
Regarding Claim 7, Struthers is silent on wherein a length of the flushing catheter from the proximal end up to the inflatable cuff is at least 100 cm. Willenburg teaches wherein a length of the flushing catheter from the proximal end up to the inflatable cuff is at least 100 cm [0023] where the second tubular portion includes an inflatable balloon [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the length of the device to be greater than 100 cm as taught by Willenburg to accommodate the length of the pig anatomy as suggested by Struthers as Struthers discusses the cervix of the pig being about 4-8 inches in length [Pg. 2, lines 5-7] with Willenburg because Willenburg teaches the ability of the device to reach the utero-tubal junction [0023].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struthers (WO 0235924) in view of Stroud (U.S. 20200246123).
Regarding Claim 8, Struthers is silent on wherein the tip element is autoclave-resistant. Stroud teaches wherein the tip element is autoclave-resistant [0080] and [0097]—discusses various portions of the catheter being autoclaved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the components of the device auto-clave resistant as taught by Stroud to eliminate the need for clean environments required for surgery as suggested by Struthers as Struthers discusses typical use of surgical suite at a veterinary clinic during surgical procedures [Pg. 14, lines 21-31] with Stroud because Stroud teaches autoclaving for sanitation purposes [0097].
Claim(s) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struthers (WO 0235924) in view of Harris (U.S. 5030202).
Regarding Claim 11, Struthers teaches an embryo collection assembly, comprising:
a flushing pump fluidly connectable to the flushing lumen via one of the at least two ports for pumping flushing fluid through the flushing opening [Fig. 4, element 96 (sump)] and [Pg. 18, lines 32-33];
an embryo collection container [Fig. 4, element 90 (container/collection lumen)], fluidly connectable to one of the at least two lumens for collecting embryos flushed out of the uterine horn [Fig. 4, element 74 (outlet/collection opening) and 75 (conduit/fluid connection)].
Struthers is silent on an inflation pump fluidly connectable to the inflation lumen via one of the at least two ports for inflating the inflatable cuff. Harris teaches an inflation pump fluidly connectable to the inflation lumen via one of the at least two ports for inflating the inflatable cuff [Col 10, lines 17-25].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an inflation pump for the inflatable cuff as taught by Harris to eliminate the need for clean environments required for surgery as suggested by Struthers as Struthers discusses inflating and deflating the cuffs by means of individual lumens [Pg. 17, lines 30-33] with Harris because Harris teaches operator control of the pump [Col 10, lines 22-25].
Regarding Claim 12, Struthers further teaches comprising an imaging system, for imaging a position of the tip element with respect to the uterine horn [Col 18, lines 5-9] and/or [Pg. 15, lines 22-27]—which describes the use of an ultrasonic transducer located on the protruding tip of the device.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struthers (WO 0235924) in view of Hicks (U.S. 10478460).
Regarding Claim 16, Struthers is silent on performed 3-9 days after observing a standing reflex of the sow, in particular on day 5-7. Hicks teaches performed 3-9 days after observing a standing reflex of the sow, in particular on day 5-7 [Col 14, lines 60-67] and [Col 15, lines 1-20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method on days 5-7 as taught by Hicks to transfer embryos based on ovulation and pig reproduction timing as suggested by Struthers as Struthers discusses embryos resting in the pig anatomy 4-6 days post ovulation [Pg. 8, line 5] with Hicks because Hicks teaches observing the animals for signs of estrus [Col 14, lines 60-67].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struthers (WO 0235924) in view of Squires et al. (Cryopreservation of Equine Embryos, Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 41, 7-12, 2016).
Regarding Claim 17, Struthers is silent on comprising the step of recovering 50-70% of the volume of flushing fluid. Squires et al. teaches comprising the step of recovering 50-70% of the volume of flushing fluid [Introduction; “A significant difference between embryo transfer in cattle and horses is that a very predictable superovulation regime is available for cattle and typically six transferable embryos are available from each flush. In contrast, superovulation is not currently available in horses, and consequently, embryo recovery is based on only one ovulation and generally ranges from 50% to 70% embryo recovery per cycle.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recover 50-70% of the material containing embryos as taught by Squires to increase viability of recovered embryos as suggested by Struthers as Struthers discusses prohibitions of current instrumentation on embryo recovery [Pg. 14, lines 21-24] with Squires because Squires teaches investigating factors responsible for embryo viability [Pg 10, paragraph 3; “They concluded that three factors may have been responsible for the high in vitro and in vivo embryo viability: (1) removal of 95%–99% of the blastocoel fluid; (2) use of a three-step vitrification procedure; and (3) use of an open system vitrification device.”]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Addis (U.S. 20200008840)—includes reference to a flushing catheter for embryo collection
-Carson (U.S. 20130165744)—discloses Fig. 13a which appears to include many of the required structural elements for embryonic collection
-Newcomb (U.S. 4178936)—references the use of an inflatable cuff and rigidity considerations for ova collection
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights