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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5/7/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application. Claims 4-9, 13-16, and 21 remain withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 3/12/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 5/7/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 112(d) of Claim 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The rejection of Claim 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-15, filed 5/7/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 103 of Claim 1 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. (See MPEP 2141.02(VI)) Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1, 11-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2023/0108741 A1 to Kawakami et al. (“Kawakami”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0212553 A1 to Appling et al. (“Appling”) and U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0282072 A1 to Katballe et al. (“Katballe”).
Regarding claim 1, Kawakami discloses an endoscope (endoscope 1; Fig. 1, paragraph 0050) comprising:
an insertion cord (insertion portion 2; Fig. 1, paragraph 0051) including a main tube (flexible tube portion 8; Fig. 1, paragraph 0051) and a bending section distal to the main tube (a bending portion 7; Fig. 1, paragraph 0051);
a handle comprising a housing (the operation portion 3 includes a housing 31; Fig. 2, paragraph 0069) comprising housing shells (the housing 31 is configured from two housing members 31a and 31b; Fig. 2-3, paragraph 0069), a steering wire actuator (pulley 21; Fig. 16, paragraphs 0069 and 0147), the wire pipe fastener (the housing member 31a includes a fastening plate portion 31a2 in a shell; Fig. 16, paragraph 0081) including channels comprising a first channel and a second channel (two cutout portions 31a3 are formed in the fastening plate portion 31a2; Fig. 16, paragraph 0081);
steering wires comprising a first steering wire and a second steering wire (two bending wires 23; Fig. 16, paragraph 0067), the steering wires connected to the steering wire actuator (each of one end of the two bending operation wires 23 can be fixed to the pulley 21; Fig. 16, paragraph 0067) and running through the insertion cord (each of the other end of the two bending operation wires 23 is connected to the distal portion; paragraph 0067) so that manipulation of the steering wire actuator causes bending of the bending section (the respective bending operation wires 23 are traction members that pull a distal end side portion of the insertion portion 2; paragraph 0067);
wire pipes comprising a first wire pipe and a second wire pipe (the sheaths 35; Fig. 16, paragraph 0076), the wire pipes extending from the wire pipe fastener through the main pipe (the two sheaths 35 are inserted in parallel through the operation portion 3 and the flexible tube portion 8 along a central axis of the flexible tube portion 8; Fig. 16, paragraph 0076), the first steering wire and the second steering wire running inside the first wire pipe and the second wire pipe, respectively (the sheaths 35 are wire sheaths or guide coils through which the bending operation wires 23 are inserted; Fig. 16, paragraph 0076),
wherein the first wire pipe and the second wire pipe are fixated in the first channel and the second channel of the wire pipe fastener, respectively (the circumferential grooves 36a are engaged in the cutout portions 31a3 of the fastening plate portion 31a2, whereby the end portions of the respective sheaths 35 are fixed to the housing 31 in the housing 31; Fig. 16, paragraph 0083), the first steering wire and the second steering wire extending proximally of the wire pipe fastener along a first axis and a second axis, respectively (one ends of the respective bending operation wires 23 extending from end portions of the sheath 35 are fixed to the pulley 21; Fig. 1 6, paragraph 0077), the first axis and the second axis crossing each other at a position (C) between the wire pipe fastener and the steering wire actuator (the two bending operation wires 23 are hooked on the pulley 38A to cross in the vicinity of the pulley 21 when viewed in the direction parallel to the central axis of the shaft member 22; Fig. 16, paragraph 01047).
However, Kawakami does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing shells comprising at least 70% polypropylene material and attached to each other with snap-fit shell fasteners formed in one-piece with the housing shells.
Appling teaches a handle comprising a housing comprising housing shells (the housing 12 is comprised of a first shell 32 and a second shell 34 that are generally mirror images of one another, with minor variances, and coupled with one another along a plane to collectively define a hollow compartment; Fig. 2, paragraph 0045), the housing shells attached to each other with snap-fit shell fasteners formed in one-piece with the housing shells (additional fasteners may be provided for securing the shells 30, 32 to one another at other locations. It should be appreciated that various other attachment mechanisms could be employed, e.g. snap-mating features; Fig. 2, paragraph 0045). Appling teaches that such handle design is easy to manufacture (paragraph 0005).
Appling is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes with a handle comprising a steering assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the endoscope of Kawakami to incorporate the teachings of Appling by constructing the handle as two housing shells attached to each other with snap-fit shell fasteners. Doing so helps create an endoscope handle that is easy to manufacture, as recognized by Appling.
Additionally, Katballe teaches a housing comprising at least 70% polypropylene material (the endoscope guide (100) is constructed from polypropylene; Fig. 1, paragraph 0112). Katballe teaches that polypropylene is a medical grade mouldable polymer which has been approved for surgical procedures (paragraph 0105).
Katballe is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscope systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the endoscope of Kawakami, as modified by Appling, to incorporate the teachings of Katballe by constructing the handle housing out of polypropylene. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 11, Kawakami, as previously modified by Appling and Katballe, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Kawakami, as modified by Appling and Katballe, does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the steering wire actuator and the position (C) is larger than a distance between the wire pipe fastener and the position (C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the distance between the steering wire actuator and the position (C) of Kawakami to be larger than a distance between the wire pipe fastener and the position (C) since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the steering assembly would not operate differently with the claimed spacing between the position (C), the steering wire actuator, and the wire pipe fastener. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that “in a variation of the present embodiment, the distance between the steering wire actuator and the position C is larger than the distance between the wire pipe fastener and the position C” (paragraph 0029 of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding claim 12, Kawakami, as previously modified by Appling and Katballe, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 11. However, Kawakami, as modified by Appling and Katballe, does not explicitly disclose wherein the distance between the steering wire actuator and the position (C) is at least double the distance between the wire pipe fastener and the position (C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the distance between the steering wire actuator and the position (C) of Kawakami to be at least double the distance between the wire pipe fastener and the position (C) since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the steering assembly would not operate differently with the claimed spacing between the position (C), the steering wire actuator, and the wire pipe fastener. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that “in a variation of the present embodiment, the distance between the steering wire actuator and the position C is larger than the distance between the wire pipe fastener and the position C, preferably the distance between the steering wire actuator and the position C is at least double of the distance between the wire pipe fastener and the position C” (paragraph 0029 of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding claim 17, Kawakami, as previously modified by Appling and Katballe, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Katballe further teaches wherein at least 20% of the polypropylene material is bio-propylene (the endoscope guide (100) is constructed from polypropylene; Fig. 1, paragraph 0112). The chemical structure of polypropylene is the same regardless of which source materials were used to manufacture it; therefore, the polypropylene presented in the applicant’s disclosure is equivalent to the polypropylene disclosed by Katballe.
Regarding claim 18, Kawakami, as previously modified by Appling and Katballe, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Appling further teaches wherein the housing shells are attached to each other without an adhesive material (shells 32 and 34 are attached together with attachment mechanism 46 and additional fasteners 47 —which could be attached to each other without an adhesive material (see MPEP § 2113); Fig. 2, paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 19, Kawakami, as previously modified by Appling and Katballe, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Kawakami, as modified by Appling and Katballe, does not explicitly disclose an endoscopic system comprising a monitor and a control unit.
Appling discloses a system comprising an endoscope (endoscope; Fig. 2, paragraph 0045), a monitor and a control unit (an umbilical cable 18 extends from the housing 12 for being coupled with processing device 20 for receiving data obtained by devices at the distal tip 16. The processing device 20 may include various types of electronics configured to display image data or perform various other analytical functions; Fig. 1, paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a monitor and control unit in the endoscope of Kawakami, as taught by Appling, to increase the functionality of the endoscope of Kawakami by enabling am operator to view images captured at the distal tip of the endoscope during a medical procedure.
Regarding claim 20, Kawakami, as previously modified by Appling and Katballe, discloses the system according to claims 1 and 19. Katballe further teaches wherein at least 20% of the polypropylene material of the housing shells is bio-propylene (the endoscope guide (100) is constructed from polypropylene; Fig. 1, paragraph 0112). The chemical structure of polypropylene is the same regardless of which source materials were used to manufacture it; therefore, the polypropylene presented in the applicant’s disclosure is equivalent to the polypropylene disclosed by Katballe.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Appling and Katballe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2024/0374124 A1 to Fuchs et al. (“Fuchs”).
Regarding claim 2, Kawakami, as previously modified by Appling and Katballe, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Sato, as modified by Appling and Katballe, does not explicitly disclose wherein the first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with the first axis and the second axis, respectively.
Fuchs teaches wherein the first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with a first axis and a second axis which intersect (by being accommodated in the slots 35, 35’ of the clamping plate 30, the Bowden cable sheaths 21, 21’ are held in approximately V-shaped arrangement; Fig. 3 and 8a, paragraph 0078). Fuchs teaches a V-shaped channel arrangement helps to ensure the wires run in a straight line to the control wheel (paragraph 0078).
Fuchs is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes with a wire pipe fastener. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the endoscope of Kawakami, as modified by Appling and Katalle, to incorporate the teachings of Fuchs by angling the first channel and the second channel such that the first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with the first axis and the second axis, respectively. Doing so helps to ensure the wires run in a straight line to the control wheel, as recognized by Fuchs.
Regarding claim 3, Kawakami, as previously modified by Appling and Katballe, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Kawakami, as modified by Appling and Katballe, does not explicitly disclose wherein the first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with the first axis and the second axis, respectively, wherein the endoscope further comprises a support platform comprised in one-piece with the wire pipe fastener, the wire pipe fastener extending from the support platform.
Fuchs teaches wherein the first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with a first axis and a second axis which intersect (by being accommodated in the slots 35, 35’ of the clamping plate 30, the Bowden cable sheaths 21, 21’ are held in approximately V-shaped arrangement; Fig. 3 and 8a, paragraph 0078), wherein the endoscope further comprises a support platform comprised in one-piece with the wire pipe fastener, the wire pipe fastener extending from the support platform (support 36 with which the clamping plate 30 is held on the housing 11 of the handpiece 10; Fig. 4 and 12, paragraph 0082). Fuchs teaches that the support platforms helps to secure the wire pipe fastener in the handle housing (paragraph 0082), thereby improving mechanical stability and reducing movement of the wires during use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the endoscope of Kawakami, as modified by Appling and Katballe, to incorporate the teachings of Fuchs by angling the first channel and the second channel such that the first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with the first axis and the second axis and placing the wire pipe fastener on a support platform. Doing so helps to secure the wire pipe fastener in the handle housing, thereby improving mechanical stability and reducing movement of the wires during use, as recognized by Fuchs.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-15, and 17 of copending Application No. 18/746,685 in view of Appling and Katballe. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘685 disclose all of the limitations of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 15, and 19 except for wherein the handing comprises a housing comprising housing shells and wherein the housing shells comprising at least 70% polypropylene material and attached to each other with snap-fit shell fasteners formed in one-piece with the housing shells.
Regarding claim 1, Appling teaches a handle comprising a housing comprising housing shells (the housing 12 is comprised of a first shell 32 and a second shell 34 that are generally mirror images of one another, with minor variances, and coupled with one another along a plane to collectively define a hollow compartment; Fig. 2, paragraph 0045), the housing shells attached to each other with snap-fit shell fasteners formed in one-piece with the housing shells (additional fasteners may be provided for securing the shells 30, 32 to one another at other locations. It should be appreciated that various other attachment mechanisms could be employed, e.g. snap-mating features; Fig. 2, paragraph 0045). Appling teaches that such handle design is easy to manufacture (paragraph 0005).
Appling is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes with a handle comprising a steering assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the endoscope of ‘685 to incorporate the teachings of Appling by constructing the handle as two housing shells attached to each other with snap-fit shell fasteners. Doing so helps create an endoscope handle that is easy to manufacture, as recognized by Appling.
Additionally, Katballe teaches a housing comprising at least 70% polypropylene material (the endoscope guide (100) is constructed from polypropylene; Fig. 1, paragraph 0112). Katballe teaches that polypropylene is a medical grade mouldable polymer which has been approved for surgical procedures (paragraph 0105).
Katballe is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscope systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the endoscope of ‘685, as modified by Appling, to incorporate the teachings of Katballe by constructing the handle housing out of polypropylene. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 17, ‘685, as previously modified by Appling and Katballe, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, ‘685 does not explicitly disclose wherein at least 20% of the polypropylene material is bio-propylene. Katballe further teaches wherein at least 20% of the polypropylene material is bio-propylene (the endoscope guide (100) is constructed from polypropylene; Fig. 1, paragraph 0112). The chemical structure of polypropylene is the same regardless of which source materials were used to manufacture it; therefore, the polypropylene presented in the applicant’s disclosure is equivalent to the polypropylene disclosed by Katballe.
Regarding claim 18, ‘685, as previously modified by Appling and Katballe, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, ‘685 does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing shells are attached to each other without an adhesive material. Appling further teaches wherein the housing shells are attached to each other without an adhesive material (shells 32 and 34 are attached together with attachment mechanism 46 and additional fasteners 47 —which could be attached to each other without an adhesive material (see MPEP § 2113); Fig. 2, paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 20, ‘685, as previously modified by Appling and Katballe, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 19. However, ‘685 does not explicitly disclose wherein at least 20% of the polypropylene material of the housing shells is bio-propylene. Katballe further teaches wherein at least 20% of the polypropylene material of the housing shells is bio-propylene (the endoscope guide (100) is constructed from polypropylene; Fig. 1, paragraph 0112). The chemical structure of polypropylene is the same regardless of which source materials were used to manufacture it; therefore, the polypropylene presented in the applicant’s disclosure is equivalent to the polypropylene disclosed by Katballe.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, Kawakami, as previously modified by Appling and Katballe, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Kawakami, as modified by Appling and Katballe, does not explicitly disclose wherein the wire pipes extend proximally from the wire pipe fastener and proximally of the position (C).
U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2011/0237891 A1 to Sato et al. wherein a first wire pipe and a second wire pipe are fixated in a first channel and a second channel of the wire pipe fastener, respectively (the proximal ends of the first wire guide 34a and the second wire guide 34b are fixed to a wire guide fixing member (wire guide fixing portion) 35 provided within the operation portion 3; Fig. 3B, paragraph 0037).
Sophn fails to explicitly teach wherein the wire pipes extend proximally from the wire pipe fastener and proximally of the position (C).
Additionally, there is no reason, teaching, or suggestion provided with any prior art of record to modify the above endoscope to have the above features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2024/0180406 A1 to Batchelor teaches two bending operation wires that cross at a position between a wire pipe fastener and a steering actuator as described in Fig. 10A the descriptive text.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA G STARKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 ET.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at 5712707235. 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.
/OLIVIA GRACE STARKEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights