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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-27 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claims 3 and 7 have been cancelled.
Claim 1, 23, and 27 are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, and 8-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-19, 21-25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazarus (US 20130211385 A1) in view of Diao (US 20090149716 A1) in view of Weston (US 11103377 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lazarus in view of Weston a surgical drain comprising:
a tube with a first end (62), a second end (70), and a tube lumen (46);
a drainage component (drainage tube, 46) comprising a drain lumen (46) in communication with the tube lumen and a plurality of drainage holes (50, 52, 54) sized and configured to allow fluid to enter the drain lumen and be communicated to the tube lumen (paragraph [0061]), the drainage component being positioned proximate to the second end of the tube; and
a positioning mechanism comprising:
a shaft (see annotated figure, section of tubing between wires) configured to encircle a junction between the tube and the drainage component and a plurality of extensions (wires, 72, 74, 78, 80).
An alternative embodiment of Lazarus in view of Weston wherein the extensions (wires, 72, 74, 78, 80) are configured to articulate from the unfolded configuration to the folded configuration when the surgical drain is passes through an opening with an internal diameter smaller than an external diameter of the positioning mechanism when in an unfolded configuration (paragraph [0061]) (figures 13-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primary embodiment of Lazarus so the extensions are configured to articulate from the unfolded configuration to the folded configuration when the surgical drain is passes through an opening with an internal diameter smaller than an external diameter of the positioning mechanism when in an unfolded configuration so that the extensions do not impede insertion of the surgical drain.
Lazarus fails to teach the non-metallic extension portions, each extension of the plurality of extensions being configured to fold from the unfolded configuration toward the drainage component the unfolded configuration, wherein each extension of the plurality of extensions are curved along their width with a curvature corresponding to a shape of the drainage component so that when they are folded toward the drainage component.
Diao teaches an endoscoping system with non-metallic (paragraph [0050]) extension portions (64), each extension of the plurality of extensions being configured to fold from the unfolded configuration toward the drainage component the unfolded configuration [0057](figure 2), wherein each extension of the plurality of extensions are curved along their width with a curvature corresponding to a shape of the drainage component so that when they are folded toward the drainage component [0116]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extension portions of Lazarus, similarly to Diao so the tissue is prevented from getting stuck in the suction or within the arms (as motivated by Diao, paragraph [0057]).
Lazarus and Diao fail to teach wherein the plurality of extensions being configured to fold at a hinge positioned at a joint between the shaft and each extension and the extensions overlap one another to form a cylindrical shape fitting over the drainage component, thereby minimizing their profile. Weston teaches a drainage catheter wherein the plurality of extensions (106) being configured to fold at a hinge (108) positioned at a joint between the shaft and each extension (figure 1a-2b) and the extensions overlap one another to form a cylindrical shape fitting over the drainage component, thereby minimizing their profile (figure 2a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extensions of Lazarus so wherein the plurality of extensions being configured to fold at a hinge positioned at a joint between the shaft and each extension and the extensions overlap one another to form a cylindrical shape fitting over the drainage component, thereby minimizing their profile, similar to Weston, in order to prevent the extensions from being bent backwards (as motivated by Weston, Column 5, lines 49-57).
Regarding Claim 2, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 1. Lazarus further teaches wherein an extension of the plurality of extensions has a uniform width along its length (figures 7-9).
Regarding Claim 8, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 1. The primary embodiment of Lazarus fails to teach a stylet, the stylet comprising: a stiffening member configured, sized, and positioned to reside within the tube lumen and add stiffness to the surgical drain; and a tip coupled to the stiffening member and configured to be removably inserted into, and extend from, the first end of the tube, wherein removal of the tip facilitates removal of the stylet from the tube. However, an alternative embodiment of Lazarus in view of Weston a stylet, the stylet comprising: a stiffening member (yoke, 114) configured, sized, and positioned to reside within the tube lumen and add stiffness to the surgical drain (paragraph [0083-0084]); and a tip coupled to the stiffening member and configured to be removably inserted into, and extend from, the first end of the tube, wherein removal of the tip facilitates removal of the stylet from the tube (paragraph [0083-0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primary embodiment of Lazarus so that the Lazarus may be steered and controlled.
Regarding Claim 9, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 8. The primary embodiment of Lazarus fails to teach wherein the stiffening member resides in a portion of the tube lumen. However, an alternative embodiment of Lazarus in view of Weston wherein the stiffening member resides in a portion of the tube lumen (paragraph [0083-0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primary embodiment of Lazarus so that the Lazarus may be steered and controlled.
Regarding Claim 10, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 8. The primary embodiment of Lazarus fails to teach wherein the stiffening member extends through and resides in the tube lumen and a portion of the drain lumen. However, an alternative embodiment of Lazarus in view of Weston wherein the stiffening member extends through and resides in the tube lumen and a portion of the drain lumen (paragraph [0083-0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primary embodiment of Lazarus so that the Lazarus may be steered and controlled.
Regarding Claim 11, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 1. Lazarus fails to explicitly teach wherein the positioning mechanism is sized, positioned, and configured to be positioned proximate to a patient’s internal cervical is when the surgical drain is inserted into a uterus of the patient via a surgical opening in the uterus and the tube is sized and configured to extend along the patient’s vaginal canal so that the first end is positioned outside the vagina. However Lazarus does teach wherein a body cavity drainage device may comprise a drainage tube having a distal end sized and configured for insertion into a body cavity, a sleeve sized and configured to couple to a body cavity wall (paragraph [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify size and positioning of the surgical drain of Lazarus to be compatible with the uterus.
Regarding Claim 12, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 8. The primary embodiment of Lazarus fails wherein the positioning mechanism is sized, positioned, and configured to provide tactile feedback to a user, the tactile feedback indicating when the positioning mechanism is positioned proximate to a patient’s cervix when the surgical drain is inserted into a uterus of the patient via a surgical opening in the uterus and the tube is sized and configured to extend along the patient’s endocervical canal so that the first end is positioned outside the vagina.
The control device that can be used manually, would be met with tactile feedback (if the device was stuck or unable to proceed) and Lazarus does teach wherein a body cavity drainage device may comprise a drainage tube having a distal end sized and configured for insertion into a body cavity, a sleeve sized and configured to couple to a body cavity wall (paragraph [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify size and positioning of the surgical drain of Lazarus to be compatible with the uterus, and therefor the positioning mechanism would be configured to prevent unintended displacement of the surgical drain caused by at least one of intraabdominal pressure and movement of the patient
Regarding Claim 13, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 1. Lazarus further teaches wherein each of the plurality of drainage holes (50, 52, 54) is the same size (figure 9).
Regarding Claim 14, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 1. Lazarus further teaches wherein the plurality of drainage holes includes a first set of drainage holes arranged linearly along a top of the drainage component and a second set of drainage holes arranged linearly along a bottom of the drainage component (see annotated figure below).
Regarding Claim 15, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 1. Lazarus fails to teach wherein a size of a first set of drainage holes included in the plurality of drainage holes is positioned proximate to the positioning mechanism and is larger than a size of a second set of drainage holes included in the plurality of drainage holes. Lazara teaches that the holes could vary in size based on their purpose (paragraph [0091]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a size of a first set of drainage holes included in the plurality of drainage holes is positioned proximate to the positioning mechanism and is larger than a size of a second set of drainage holes included in the plurality of drainage holes, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. And so that the holes may drain from a plurality of locations.
PNG
media_image1.png
515
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 1. Lazarus further teaches wherein the surgical drain is configured to decrease a volume of a hollow organ (abstract) when negative pressure is applied thereto via the source of suction (paragraph [0077]).
Regarding Claim 17, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 1. Lazarus further teaches wherein first end is further configured to be coupled to a fluid collection device (suction device, paragraph [0078]).
Regarding Claim 18, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 1. Lazarus further teaches wherein the drainage component is configured to extend into a cavity of a hollow organ (abstract).
Regarding Claim 19, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 1. Lazarus further teaches a reservoir device coupled to the first end of the tube (suction device, paragraph [0078]).
Regarding Claim 21, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 1. Lazarus further teaches wherein the positioning mechanism comprises material colored to visually contrast with blood (metal wire that can be coated, paragraph [0059]).
Regarding Claim 22, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 1. Lazarus fails to explicitly teach wherein the positioning mechanism is configured to prevent unintended displacement of the surgical drain caused by at least one of intraabdominal pressure and movement of the patient. However Lazarus does teach wherein a body cavity drainage device may comprise a drainage tube having a distal end sized and configured for insertion into a body cavity, a sleeve sized and configured to couple to a body cavity wall (paragraph [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify size and positioning of the surgical drain of Lazarus to be compatible with the uterus, and therefor the positioning mechanism would be configured to prevent unintended displacement of the surgical drain caused by at least one of intraabdominal pressure and movement of the patient.
Regarding Claim 23, Lazarus in view of Weston a system for draining fluid from a body comprising:
a surgical drain comprising:
a tube with a first end (70), a second end (62), and a tube lumen (46), the first end being configured to couple to a fluid collection device (paragraph [0070]);
a drainage component (46) positioned proximate to the second end of the tube (figure 7), the drainage component comprising a drain lumen in communication with the tube lumen and a plurality of drainage holes (50, 52, 54) sized and configured to allow fluid to enter the drain lumen and be communicated to the tube lumen (paragraph [0061]); and
a positioning mechanism positioned between the tube and the drainage component in a manner that does not obstruct the tube lumen or the drain lumen (figure 7), the positioning mechanism including a shaft (section of tubing between wires) configured to encircle a junction between the tube and the drainage component and a plurality of extensions (wires, 72, 74, 78, 80) that extend from the shaft and are configured to articulate between an unfolded configuration and a folded configuration (paragraph [0068]); and
the fluid collection device in communication with the first end of the tube (suction device, paragraph [0070]),
wherein the extensions are configured to articulate from the unfolded configuration to the folded configuration when the surgical drain is passes through an opening with an internal diameter smaller than an external diameter of the positioning mechanism when in an unfolded configuration (paragraph [0061]).
a shaft (see annotated figure, section of tubing between wires) configured to encircle a junction between the tube and the drainage component and a plurality of extensions (wires, 72, 74, 78, 80).
their profile is minimized to provide atraumatic extraction from the opening; and the fluid collection device in communication with the first end of the tube.
An alternative embodiment of Lazarus in view of Weston wherein the extensions (wires, 72, 74, 78, 80) are configured to articulate from the unfolded configuration to the folded configuration when the surgical drain is passes through an opening with an internal diameter smaller than an external diameter of the positioning mechanism when in an unfolded configuration (paragraph [0061]) (figures 13-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primary embodiment of Lazarus so the extensions are configured to articulate from the unfolded configuration to the folded configuration when the surgical drain is passes through an opening with an internal diameter smaller than an external diameter of the positioning mechanism when in an unfolded configuration so that the extensions do not impede insertion of the surgical drain.
Lazarus fails to teach the non-metallic extension portions, each extension of the plurality of extensions being configured to fold from the unfolded configuration toward the drainage component the unfolded configuration, wherein each extension of the plurality of extensions are curved along their width with a curvature corresponding to a shape of the drainage component so that when they are folded toward the drainage component.
Diao teaches an endoscoping system with non-metallic (paragraph [0050]) extension portions (64), each extension of the plurality of extensions being configured to fold from the unfolded configuration toward the drainage component the unfolded configuration [0057](figure 2), wherein each extension of the plurality of extensions are curved along their width with a curvature corresponding to a shape of the drainage component so that when they are folded toward the drainage component [0116]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extension portions of Lazarus, similarly to Diao so the tissue is prevented from getting stuck in the suction or within the arms (as motivated by Diao, paragraph [0057]).
Lazarus and Diao fail to teach wherein the plurality of extensions being configured to fold at a hinge positioned at a joint between the shaft and each extension and the extensions overlap one another to form a cylindrical shape fitting over the drainage component, thereby minimizing their profile. Weston teaches a drainage catheter wherein the plurality of extensions (106) being configured to fold at a hinge (108) positioned at a joint between the shaft and each extension (figure 1a-2b) and the extensions overlap one another to form a cylindrical shape fitting over the drainage component, thereby minimizing their profile (figure 2a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extensions of Lazarus so wherein the plurality of extensions being configured to fold at a hinge positioned at a joint between the shaft and each extension and the extensions overlap one another to form a cylindrical shape fitting over the drainage component, thereby minimizing their profile, similar to Weston, in order to prevent the extensions from being bent backwards (as motivated by Weston, Column 5, lines 49-57).
Regarding Claim 24, Lazarus in view of Weston the system of claim 23. Lazarus further teaches a source of suction coupled to at least one of the fluid collection device and the first end of the tube (paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 25, Lazarus in view of Weston the system of claim 23. Lazarus fails to teach wherein the positioning mechanism is configured for placement proximate to a patient’s internal cervical os. However Lazarus does teach wherein a body cavity drainage device may comprise a drainage tube having a distal end sized and configured for insertion into a body cavity, a sleeve sized and configured to couple to a body cavity wall (paragraph [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify size and positioning of the surgical drain of Lazarus to be compatible with the uterus.
Regarding Claim 27, Lazarus in view of Weston a system for collapsing a hollow organ comprising: a surgical drain comprising:
a tube with a first end (70), a second end (62), and a tube lumen (46), the first end being configured to couple to a fluid collection device (paragraph [0070]);
a drainage component (46) positioned proximate to the second end of the tube (figure 7), the drainage component comprising a drain lumen in communication with the tube lumen and a plurality of drainage holes (50, 52, 54) sized and configured to allow fluid to enter the drain lumen and be communicated to the tube lumen (paragraph [0061]); and
a positioning mechanism positioned between the tube and the drainage component in a manner that does not obstruct the tube lumen or the drain lumen (figure 7), the positioning mechanism including a shaft (section of tubing between wires) configured to encircle a junction between the tube and the drainage component and a plurality of extensions (wires, 72, 74, 78, 80) that extend from the shaft and are configured to articulate between an unfolded configuration and a folded configuration (paragraph [0068]); and
the extensions overlap one another to form a cylindrical shape fitting over the drainage component, thereby minimizing their profile;
the source of suction, the source of suction being configured to apply negative pressure to the tube lumen and drainage component lumen (paragraph [0070]),
a shaft (see annotated figure, section of tubing between wires) configured to encircle a junction between the tube and the drainage component and a plurality of extensions (wires, 72, 74, 78, 80).
An alternative embodiment of Lazarus in view of Weston wherein the extensions (wires, 72, 74, 78, 80) are configured to articulate from the unfolded configuration to the folded configuration when the surgical drain is passes through an opening with an internal diameter smaller than an external diameter of the positioning mechanism when in an unfolded configuration (paragraph [0061]) (figures 13-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primary embodiment of Lazarus so the extensions are configured to articulate from the unfolded configuration to the folded configuration when the surgical drain is passes through an opening with an internal diameter smaller than an external diameter of the positioning mechanism when in an unfolded configuration so that the extensions do not impede insertion of the surgical drain.
Lazarus fails to teach the non-metallic extension portions, each extension of the plurality of extensions being configured to fold from the unfolded configuration toward the drainage component the unfolded configuration, wherein each extension of the plurality of extensions are curved along their width with a curvature corresponding to a shape of the drainage component so that when they are folded toward the drainage component.
Diao teaches an endoscoping system with non-metallic (paragraph [0050]) extension portions (64), each extension of the plurality of extensions being configured to fold from the unfolded configuration toward the drainage component the unfolded configuration [0057](figure 2), wherein each extension of the plurality of extensions are curved along their width with a curvature corresponding to a shape of the drainage component so that when they are folded toward the drainage component [0116]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extension portions of Lazarus, similarly to Diao so the tissue is prevented from getting stuck in the suction or within the arms (as motivated by Diao, paragraph [0057]).
Lazarus and Diao fail to teach wherein the plurality of extensions being configured to fold at a hinge positioned at a joint between the shaft and each extension and the extensions overlap one another to form a cylindrical shape fitting over the drainage component, thereby minimizing their profile. Weston teaches a drainage catheter wherein the plurality of extensions (106) being configured to fold at a hinge (108) positioned at a joint between the shaft and each extension (figure 1a-2b) and the extensions overlap one another to form a cylindrical shape fitting over the drainage component, thereby minimizing their profile (figure 2a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extensions of Lazarus so wherein the plurality of extensions being configured to fold at a hinge positioned at a joint between the shaft and each extension and the extensions overlap one another to form a cylindrical shape fitting over the drainage component, thereby minimizing their profile, similar to Weston, in order to prevent the extensions from being bent backwards (as motivated by Weston, Column 5, lines 49-57).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazarus (US 20130211385 A1) in view of Diao (US 20090149716 A1) in view of Weston (US 11103377 B1) in view of Prechtel (US 8715244 B2).
Regarding Claim 4, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 1. Lazarus fails to teach wherein an extension of the plurality of extensions has a tapered width along its length so that a width of the extension is narrower at a joint between the respective extension and the shaft. Prechtel teaches a method of securing a medical device in the body wherein an extension of the plurality of extensions has a tapered width (74) along its length so that a width of the extension is narrower at a joint between the respective extension and the shaft (fig. 7C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extensions of Lazarus so they have a shape similar to Prechtel to better fit the shape of the cannula.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazarus (US 20130211385 A1) in view of Diao (US 20090149716 A1) in view of Weston (US 11103377 B1) in view of Huelsen (US 20230131497 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 1. Lazarus fails to teach wherein the plurality of extensions includes a set of small extensions and a set of large extensions. Huelsen teaches an endoscope hood with a plurality of flexible elements (270) to anchor the endoscope wherein the plurality of extensions includes a set of small extensions and a set of large extensions (figures 10-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extensions of Lazarus to have extensions with different lengths similar to Huelsen so that there is a greater resistance to removal (as motivated by Heulsen, paragraph [0063])
Regarding Claim 6, Lazarus in view of Diao and Weston and Weston teaches the surgical drain of claim 1. Lazarus fails to teach wherein the positioning mechanism further comprises a plurality of living hinges with each living hinge of the plurality of living hinges being positioned proximate to a joint between the shaft and each respective extension, further wherein each living hinge is configured to enable the articulation of a respective extension of the plurality of extensions between the unfolded configuration and the folded configuration. Huelsen further teaches wherein the positioning mechanism further comprises a plurality of living hinges with each living hinge of the plurality of living hinges being positioned proximate to a joint between the shaft and each respective extension (paragraph [0063]) further wherein each living hinge is configured to enable the articulation of a respective extension of the plurality of extensions between the unfolded configuration and the folded configuration (in combination with Lazarus, paragraph [0068])). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wires of Lazarus so the extensions are flexible and are not harmful to tissue.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached on (571)-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-270-5879.
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.
/KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights