DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed 09/25/2024, as well as the Response to Restriction Requirement filed 06/11/2026. Claims 1-28 are pending in the application. However, for the reasons noted below (Election/Restrictions), claims 21-28 are withdrawn from consideration. As such, claims 1-20 have been examined on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-20) in the Reply filed on 06/11/2026 is acknowledged.
4. Applicant’s traversal is based on the following arguments:
The Applicant believes that the "inclined applicator tip" clearly makes a contribution over the prior art and therefore constitutes a special technical feature, such that unity of invention should be acknowledged. The "inclined applicator tip" of the present application, unlike the "spacer" of US 2020/0146739 to Klever et al. ("Klever"), allows the cooling device to contact the target area at an incline, thereby providing the effects of facilitating the supply of cryogen and improving accessibility of a needle or laser when cooling of the target area is performed together with another medical procedure.
06/11/2026 Reply, pg. 2, emphasis in original.
Applicant further addresses the alleged shortcomings of Klever as follows:
Specifically, the Examiner asserts that the "spacer" of Klever also corresponds to an applicator tip attachable to a handheld device and includes an angled/inclined sidewall (47). However, with reference to Figs. 1A and 1E of Klever, the angled/inclined sidewall (47) is not configured to allow the handheld device to contact the target area at an inclined angle. and it can be confirmed that the handheld device disclosed in Citation 1 is always coupled substantially perpendicular to the target area.
Furthermore, the Detailed Description of Klever explicitly states that the "contact surface extends substantially normal to the spray direction of the orifice of the nozzle" (see para. [0084]), thereby confirming that the handheld device of Citation 1 is always coupled substantially perpendicular to the target area.
As a result, according to Klever, the "angled/inclined sidewall" of the spacer is not configured to allow the cooling device to contact the target area at an incline, but merely serves to secure visibility of the target area when the spacer is used.
06/11/2026 Reply, pg. 3, emphasis in original.
Applicant’s argument that the “special technical feature” of the “inclined applicator tip” makes a contribution over Klever (such that unity of invention should be acknowledged) because the handheld device of Klever is always coupled substantially perpendicular to the target area is not persuasive, as Applicant is improperly reading limitations into the claim.
Independent claim 1 recites that “a longest dimension of the elongated body portion forming an angle of inclination angle of inclination (θ) with respect to a plane which is parallel to the c-shape opening.” Independent claim 21 includes a similar (but not identical) limitation of “wherein the orientation of the opened portion forms an angle of inclination (θ) with respect to the cooling axis.” Neither independent claim 1 nor independent claim 21, however, prohibits a “substantially perpendicular” angle of inclination. In fact, this is made clear by Applicant’s own limitation in dependent claim 10, which recites “wherein the angle of inclination (θ) is about 90°.” Because Applicant’s own claim language clearly and unambiguously contemplates a 90° angle of inclination, and because Klever discloses such an angle (as Applicant explicitly concedes in the cited passages above), the alleged special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art.
For the foregoing reasons, the requirement is still deemed proper, and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 21-28 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 6-7, the recitation of “forming an angle of inclination angle of inclination (θ) with respect to a plane” (emphasis added) should instead recite --forming an angle of inclination (θ) with respect to a plane--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 18 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
8. Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein a minimum clearance distance is at least 5 mm, 10 mm, 15 mm, 20 mm, 30 mm, or 50 mm” in lines 2-3. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, as the claim fails to specify any structural elements between which the “minimum clearance distance” is measured/determined (i.e., a minimum clearance distance between what?). For this reason, the structure required by the claim is not clear, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
9. Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein a minimum gap distance is about 5 mm, 7 mm, 10 mm, 15 mm, or 20 mm” in line 2. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, as the claim fails to specify any structural elements between which the “minimum gap distance” is measured/determined (i.e., a minimum gap distance between what?). For this reason, the structure required by the claim is not clear, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-5, 10-13, & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2020/0146739 to Klever et al. (“Klever”).
12. Regarding claim 1, Klever discloses an inclined applicator tip [spacer (40) – e.g., ¶[0099]; FIGS. 1A, 1B, 1E, 2B, 2C] adapted to be operably coupled to a handheld [e.g., ¶’s [0083], [0104], [0105]] cooling device [broadly, a dispensing system for use in cryogenic skin treatment including, inter alia, container (10), valve (20), and nozzle (30) - ¶[0097]; FIG. 1A], the inclined applicator tip [(40)] comprising:
an opened portion [view-port (46) in the sidewall (47) of spacer (40) which extends into opening (41) - ¶[0099]; FIGS. 1A, 1B, 1E, 2A-2C], at least a portion of an edge of the opened portion comprising a c-shape opening [labelled in the annotated excerpt of FIG. 2C (provided below)];
PNG
media_image1.png
186
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Excerpt of FIG. 2C of KLEVER
an elongated body portion [elongated, vertically-extending wall extending from opening (41) up to nozzle part (32) - FIG. 1E] coupled to the opened portion [FIG. 1E], a longest dimension of the elongated body portion [vertical length – labelled in annotated FIG. 1E (provided below)] forming an angle of inclination (θ) [90° or “substantially normal” – see ¶[0084]; also labelled in annotated FIG. 1E below] with respect to a plane which is parallel to the c-shape opening [“parallel plane” labelled in annotated FIG. 1E below], the elongated body portion being substantially parallel to a cooling axis [the “cooling axis” is labelled in annotated FIG. 1E below] of the handheld cooling device when operably coupled [clearly shown in FIG. 1E]; and
PNG
media_image2.png
436
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 1E of KLEVER
a mounting portion [the proximal end of spacer (40) that receives nozzle part (32) - FIG. 1E] adapted to be operably coupled to the cooling device [FIG. 1E], the mounting portion and the opened portion being coupled to the elongated body portion at opposite ends of the longest dimension of the elongated body portion [clearly shown in FIG. 1E].
13. Regarding claim 2, Klever discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Klever further discloses wherein the handheld cooling device comprises a cryogenic cooling device [e.g., Abstract [(“[t]he invention relates to a dispensing system for use in cryogenic skin treatment that is capable of targeted delivery of a cryogen at a high rate, thereby achieving rapid freezing of targeted skin tissue”); ¶’s [0002], [0032], [0043]].
14. Regarding claim 3, Klever discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Klever further discloses wherein the opened portion comprises a circular, an elliptical, or a polygonal shape [circular shape – clearly shown in FIG. 2C].
15. Regarding claim 4, Klever discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Klever further discloses wherein the opened portion comprises a circular shape [clearly shown in FIG. 2C], and wherein a portion of the circular shape which forms the c-shape opening comprises a 90° arc [NOTE: the c-shape opening in FIG. 2C is approximately an 180° arc; as such, as broadly as claimed, a “portion” thereof (e.g., a “half”) would comprise a 90° arc.
16. Regarding claim 5, Klever discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Klever further discloses wherein the opened portion comprises a circular shape [clearly shown in FIG. 2C], and wherein a portion of the circular shape which forms the c-shape opening comprises a 180° arc [also shown in FIG. 2C].
17. Regarding claim 10, Klever discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Klever further discloses wherein the angle of inclination (θ) is about 90° [e.g., ¶[0084] (“wherein said contact surface extends substantially normal to the spray direction of the orifice of the nozzle”); FIG. 1E].
18. Regarding claim 11, Klever discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Klever further discloses wherein the opened portion comprises an inner radius of at least 5 mm [e.g., ¶[0077] (“The spray opening of the spacer preferably has a minimum diameter of 2-10 mm”); NOTE: a minimum diameter of 10 mm = a minimum radius of 5 mm], 10 mm, 15 mm, 20 mm, 30 mm, or 50 mm.
19. Regarding claim 12, Klever discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Klever further discloses wherein the longest dimension of the elongated body portion is no more than about 250 mm [see ¶[0103] (“FIG. 1E shows a detail of a portion of the nozzle 30 and the spacer 40… The spray opening 41 lies at a fixed distance h1 of between 2 and 25 mm from the orifice 31, independent of whether the valve is in the valve-open or in the valve-closed position”); NOTE: it is the Examiner’s position that, if “h1” in FIG. 1E is “between 2 and 25 mm,” then the longest dimension (as labelled in annotated FIG. 1E above) would clearly be no more (or no greater) than about 250 mm].
20. Regarding claim 13, Klever discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Klever further discloses wherein the longest dimension of the elongated body portion is at least about 15 mm [see ¶[0103] (“FIG. 1E shows a detail of a portion of the nozzle 30 and the spacer 40… The spray opening 41 lies at a fixed distance h1 of between 2 and 25 mm from the orifice 31, independent of whether the valve is in the valve-open or in the valve-closed position”); NOTE: it is the Examiner’s position that, if “h1” in FIG. 1E is “between 2 and 25 mm,” and “h1” does not comprise the full length of “the longest dimension of the elongated body portion” as clearly seen in FIG. 1E, then a value of “h1” of 25mm would clearly meet the limitation of “at least about 15mm”)].
21. Regarding claim 18, Klever discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
As best understood [see the rejection under § 112(b) above], Klever further discloses wherein a minimum clearance distance is at least 5 mm, 10 mm, 15 mm, 20 mm [see ¶[0103] (“FIG. 1E shows a detail of a portion of the nozzle 30 and the spacer 40… The spray opening 41 lies at a fixed distance h1 of between 2 and 25 mm from the orifice 31, independent of whether the valve is in the valve-open or in the valve-closed position”); NOTE: a minimum “clearance distance” between the opening (41) and orifice (31) of “h1” being, e.g., 25 mm would satisfy the limitations of “at least 5 mm, 10 mm, 15 mm, 20 mm”], 30 mm, or 50 mm.
22. Regarding claim 19, Klever discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
As best understood [see the rejection under § 112(b) above], Klever further discloses wherein a minimum gap distance is about 5 mm, 7 mm, 10 mm [e.g., ¶[0077] (“The spray opening of the spacer preferably has a minimum diameter of 2-10 mm”); NOTE: a minimum diameter of, e.g., 5 mm, 7 mm, or 10 mm between the end points of the opening (FIG. 2C) in Klever’s range of “2-10mm” would satisfy the limitations of “about 5 mm, 7 mm, 10 mm”)], 15 mm, or 20 mm.
23. Regarding claim 20, Klever discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Klever further discloses wherein a height of the opened portion is at least 5 mm, 10 mm [see ¶[0103] (“FIG. 1E shows a detail of a portion of the nozzle 30 and the spacer 40… The spray opening 41 lies at a fixed distance h1 of between 2 and 25 mm from the orifice 31, independent of whether the valve is in the valve-open or in the valve-closed position”); NOTE: the opening in Klever extends approximately ½ the height of “h1” (see FIG. 1E) or roughly 12.5 mm if using Klever’s value of 25 mm; as such, this would satisfy the limitations of “at least 5 mm, 10 mm”], 15 mm, 20 mm, 30 mm, or 50 mm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
24. 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.
25. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
26. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klever.
27. Regarding claim 6, Klever discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Klever further discloses:
wherein the opened portion comprises a circular shape [clearly shown in FIG. 2C].
As noted above, Klever discloses that a portion of the circular shape which forms the c-shape opening comprises a 180° arc [also shown in FIG. 2C].
Klever does not, however, disclose:
wherein a portion of the circular shape which forms the c-shape opening comprises a 270° arc.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Klever such that a portion of the circular shape which forms the c-shape opening comprise an arc of a desired size, including, e.g., a 270° arc, since a change in relative dimensions is an example of a common practice which the court has held normally requires only ordinary skill in the art, and is hence considered a routine expedient. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), in which the Federal Circuit 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.
In the instant case, there is no evidence of record that a device having the claimed relative dimensions (a 270° arc) would perform any differently than the prior art device of Klever (which discloses a 180° arc). For example, use of a 270° arc presents no novel or unexpected result over the 180° arc used in Klever, nor has Applicant disclosed that the 270° arc solves any stated problem, or is for any particular purpose [see, e.g., ¶[0064] of Applicant’s as-filed Specification, which recites “In some aspects, the portion of the applicator tip which defines the open-shape corresponds to an arc of about 30° to about 300°”)]. Further, modification of Klever to utilize a 270° arc would still allow for a 90° opening to allow for a view of the skin to be treated [Klever, ¶[0099]].
28. Claims 7-9 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klever in view of U.S. 2018/0303515 to Shadduck et al. ("Shadduck").
29. Regarding claim 7, Klever discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Klever does not, however, disclose:
[claim 7] wherein the angle of inclination (θ) is about 60°;
[claim 8] wherein the angle of inclination (θ) is about 70°; nor
[claim 9] wherein the angle of inclination (θ) is about 80°.
Shadduck, in a similar field of endeavor, relates to devices for dermatology, and more particularly to a fluid enhanced skin treatment system for skin rejuvenation [e.g., ¶[0002]]. With reference to FIG. 1, Shadduck teaches a treatment device (100) comprising a hand-held unit with an elongated shaft or body (105) that can be gripped by an operator's hand, and a working end or applicator tip portion (110) with a skin contact surface (122) configured to engage a patient's skin (124) [e.g., ¶[0049]].
Shadduck further teaches that the plane of the skin contact surface (122) can vary from about 45° to 90° from the longitudinal axis (111) of the body 105 [see ¶[0054] (“In FIG. 1, it can be seen about the plane of the skin contact surface 122 is angled about 30 to 45° from the longitudinal axis 111 of the body 105. It should be appreciated that the plane of the skin contact surface 122 can vary from about 45° to 90° from said axis 111. For convenience, FIGS. 2-3 show the skin contact surface 122 as being perpendicular to the axis 111”)].
Given that Klever is concerned with treating a wide variety of skin-abnormalities [¶[0006]], as well as protecting surrounding tissue from thermal injury/damage [e.g., ¶[0011], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Klever to enable the skin contacting surface of the spacer (40) to be angled at a desired angle of inclination including, e.g., wherein the angle of inclination (θ) is about 60°, wherein the angle of inclination (θ) is about 70°, and/or wherein the angle of inclination (θ) is about 80°, depending on, e.g., the portion of skin to be treated (and its location on the body) so as to optimize delivery of the cryogen in an accurate and effective manner.
Moreover, it has additionally been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In the instance case, Applicant’s claimed values of about 60°, about 70°, and about 80° lie inside the disclosed range of Shadduck of anywhere from about 45° to 90°.
Still further, the angling of a skin contacting surface of a handheld skin treatment device relative to the longitudinal axis thereof was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (as clearly demonstrated by Shadduck), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known angling/positioning technique to the known device (of Klever), and the results [providing the skin contacting surface at a desired angle of inclination based on, e.g., a target skin treatment area and/or desired clinical objectives] would have been entirely predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
30. Regarding claim 14, Klever discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Klever further discloses:
wherein the opened portion comprises an inner radius of at least 5 mm [e.g., ¶[0077] (“The spray opening of the spacer preferably has a minimum diameter of 2-10 mm”); NOTE: a minimum diameter of 10 mm = a minimum radius of 5 mm].
Klever does not, however, disclose:
wherein the angle of inclination (θ) is about 60°.
Shadduck, in a similar field of endeavor, relates to devices for dermatology, and more particularly to a fluid enhanced skin treatment system for skin rejuvenation [e.g., ¶[0002]]. With reference to FIG. 1, Shadduck teaches a treatment device (100) comprising a hand-held unit with an elongated shaft or body (105) that can be gripped by an operator's hand, and a working end or applicator tip portion (110) with a skin contact surface (122) configured to engage a patient's skin (124) [e.g., ¶[0049]].
Shadduck further teaches that the plane of the skin contact surface (122) can vary from about 45° to 90° from the longitudinal axis (111) of the body 105 [see ¶[0054] (“In FIG. 1, it can be seen about the plane of the skin contact surface 122 is angled about 30 to 45° from the longitudinal axis 111 of the body 105. It should be appreciated that the plane of the skin contact surface 122 can vary from about 45° to 90° from said axis 111. For convenience, FIGS. 2-3 show the skin contact surface 122 as being perpendicular to the axis 111”)].
Given that Klever is concerned with treating a wide variety of skin-abnormalities [¶[0006]], as well as protecting surrounding tissue from thermal injury/damage [e.g., ¶[0011], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Klever to enable the skin contacting surface of the spacer (40) to be angled at a desired angle of inclination including, e.g., wherein the angle of inclination (θ) is about 60°, depending on, e.g., the portion of skin to be treated (and its location on the body) so as to optimize delivery of the cryogen in an accurate and effective manner.
Moreover, it has additionally been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In the instance case, Applicant’s claimed value of about 60°, lies inside the disclosed range of Shadduck of anywhere from about 45° to 90°.
Still further, the angling of a skin contacting surface of a handheld skin treatment device relative to the longitudinal axis thereof was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (as clearly demonstrated by Shadduck), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known angling/positioning technique to the known device (of Klever), and the results [providing the skin contacting surface at a desired angle of inclination based on, e.g., a target skin treatment area and/or desired clinical objectives] would have been entirely predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
31. Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klever in view of U.S. 2018/0310950 to Yee et al. ("Yee").
32. Regarding claims 15-17, Klever discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Klever does not, however, disclose:
[claim 15] wherein the mounting portion comprises a magnetic coupling element adapted to operably couple to the cooling device;
[claim 16] wherein the magnetic coupling element comprises one or more permanent magnets; or
[claim 17] wherein the magnetic coupling element comprises a ferromagnetic material, and wherein the cooling device comprises one or more magnets configured to attract the ferromagnetic material in response to the inclined applicator tip being coupled to the device.
Yee, in a similar field of endeavor (cryotherapy applicators), teaches that it was known to facilitate engagement of components via magnets in order to allow for, e.g., quick replacement [e.g., ¶[0118]].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Klever to utilize magnets to facilitate attachment (or operative coupling) of spacer (40) to the nozzle (30) of valve (20) of the cooling device, since such a particular known coupling technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (as clearly demonstrated by Yee), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to the known device (of Klever), and the results [securing spacer (40) to the nozzle (30) of valve (20) of the cooling device] would have been entirely predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Still further, such a modification would allow for the quick attachment of spacer (40) to the cooling device as well as quick replacement (if needed), with quick replacement being an explicit advantage of magnetic coupling touted by Yee.
Finally, use of one or more permanent magnets and/or ferromagnetic material would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since Applicant has not disclosed that the use of magnets for coupling (much less permanent magnets and/or ferromagnetic material) solves any stated problem, is for any particular purpose, or presents a novel or unexpected result [see, e.g., ¶[0069] of Applicant’s as-filed Specification which recites “The mounting portion can comprise one or more coupling elements 607 designed to operably couple the applicator tip to the cooling device. The coupling elements can comprise posts, screws, clips, anchors, rivets, magnets, or other means of physically fastening the cooling tip to the device”)].
Conclusion
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Bradford C. Blaise whose telephone number is (571) 272-5617. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM MST.
Examiner Interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Joanne M. Rodden, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4276. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADFORD C. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights