DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 21st, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority in parent Application No. DE10 2022 109 680.7, filed on April 21st, 2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 contains a clerical error in the form of “, wherein” occurring twice. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is missing a contingent clause, such as “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitations are: “fixing means” in claims 11, 13, 14, 18, and 19 as well as “positioning means” in claim 15.
The specification discloses that the “positioning means” can be a heart needle and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the “fixing means”, the specification discloses elements 7 and 8 in Fig. 2 as “fixing means” but the image does not clearly depict these fixing means to reasonably interpret the structure.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11- 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitation “fixing means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For “fixing means”, the specification discloses elements 7 and 8 in Fig. 2 but it is unclear whether these “fixing means” comprise a hook, clamp, or other anchor method. Therefore, the specification does not provide any written description support for the “fixing means” limitation in claims 11-14, 18, and 19. Examiner will interpret the “fixing means” to be an anchor.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 11, 13, 14, 18, and 19, and all their dependent claims thereof, recite the limitation "fixing means" invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as set forth above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For “fixing means”, it seems that the specification does not disclose any corresponding structure to perform the recited function of “to at least one of fix or clamp the flat structure to the target unit.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-11, and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osypka (US20150066125).
Regarding claim 1, Osypka teaches an electromedical electrode assembly (1) ([0005] “an electrode assembly”), comprising: at least one implantable cardioversion electrode (2) for delivery of cardioversion pulses to a target tissue ([0001] “temporarily implantable elastic electrode assembly used for… cardioversion/defibrillation in case of postoperative atrial fibrillation” occurs on a target tissue), wherein the cardioversion electrode (2) is formed of a flexible, electrically conductive flat structure (3) ([0026] “elasticity of the defibrillation electrode is essential… caused by … an elastic section” lays flat on the conductive tissue and [0027] “a defibrillation electrode in shape of a circle, an ellipsis, a polygon (Hexagon) or any other shape”) which is flat in an undeformed initial position and is adapted for flat contact with a target tissue. ([0028] “Once the fixation members have been positioned, the defibrillation electrode adopts its original shape again and thus provides an optimal contact of the electrode poles on the heart surface.”)
Regarding claim 2, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Osypka also teaches wherein the flat structure (3) [i.e., a defibrillation electrode] is elastic. ([0026] “elasticity of the defibrillation electrode is essential… caused by … an elastic section”)
For the purposes of applying art, Figure 7’s arrow indicates a reference longitudinal axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
325
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Osypka also teaches wherein at least one of a) the flat structure (3) has a longitudinal axis (4) which extends in a plane when the flat structure (3) is undeformed, or b) the flat structure (3) includes a longitudinal structure (5) with at least one of an alternating or sinusoidal bending direction. ([Fig. 7] wave shaped defibrillation electrode contains a sinusoidal wave in a longitudinal direction)
Regarding claim 4, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Osypka also teaches wherein the flat structure (3) is formed from at least one electrical conductor (5) for emitting cardioversion pulses ([0013] “the defibrillation electrode is made of an insulated stranded wire and a pole wire”)
Regarding claim 9, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Osypka also teaches wherein the at least one electrical conductor (5) is a stripped stranded wire for emitting cardioversion pulses. ([0022] “The defibrillation pole may also consist of a stainless steel stranded wire”)
Regarding claim 10, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Osypka also teaches wherein the flat structure (3) is selected from the group consisting of stainless steel, platinum, … gold. ([0022] “The defibrillation pole may also consist of a stainless steel stranded wire”; see also [0023] “the metallic poles is covered with a coating of platinum or gold”)
Regarding claim 11, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Osypka also teaches two fixing means (7, 8) between which the flat structure (3) is arranged and which serve to at least one of fix or clamp the flat structure (3) to the target tissue. ([Fig. 2] contains various anchors such as a zigzag, anchor, loop and hook, knot, multiple anchors, multiple knots; see also [0005] “the fixation members (20) and (21) are fixed on the right and left side in the pericardium (4) when in use or are anchored to each other at the front of the heart”)
Regarding claim 13, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Osypka also teaches wherein at least one of a) the flat structure (3) is at least one of stretchable or adaptable to an atrial size of a heart to be treated, in particular by the fixing means (7, 8) ([0033] As the anatomical size of the heart can vary greatly, the distance between the pericardium and the atria is important. The correct distance can be achieved by designing the fixation members (e.g. anchor or zigzag) at such a length that they can be fixed at any of the electrode poles' desired position.”)
Regarding claim 14, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Osypka also teaches wherein a distal one of the fixing means (8) is arranged distally of the flat structure (3). ([0029] “the defibrillation electrode has a fixation member at the distal end facing the pericardium.”)
Regarding claim 15, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Osypka also teaches at least one positioning means (10) at a distal end (9) of the electrode assembly (1) for positioning a fixing means (8) in the target tissue. ([0032] “The fixation members are drawn through the pericardium with a heart needle”)
For the purposes of applying art, Figure 7’s annotated arrow indicates a reference longitudinal axis.
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
321
216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Osypka also teaches a connecting lead (13) via which the flat structure (3) is connectable to a stimulation generator ([0015] “electrical leads are connected to a pacemaker or defibrillator”), and the connecting lead (13) is connected to the flat structure (3) at a point (14) which lies on a longitudinal central axis (4) of the flat structure (3). ([Fig. 1] elastic sections (12) and (13) are connected to the electrode poles (15) and (16) on a central axis)
Regarding claim 17, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Osypka also teaches further comprising at least one implantable lateral electrode (15) for emitting pacing pulses. ([Fig. 2] electrode poles (15) and (16))
Regarding claim 18, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 17. Osypka also teaches further comprising at least one fixing means (7, 8) for fixing the lateral electrode (15) in a target tissue associated with the at least one lateral electrode (15). ([Fig. 2] contains various anchors such as a zigzag, anchor, loop and hook, knot, multiple anchors, multiple knots; see also [0005] “the fixation members (20) and (21) are fixed on the right and left side in the pericardium (4) when in use or are anchored to each other at the front of the heart” which occurs on a second electrode pole)
Regarding claim 19, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 18. Osypka also teaches wherein the at least one fixing means (7, 8) associated with the lateral electrode (15) is a fixing means of at least two fixing means (7, 8) for at least one of fixing or clamping the flat structure (2) ([Fig. 2] contains various anchors such as a zigzag, anchor, loop and hook, knot, multiple anchors, multiple knots; see also [0005] “the fixation members (20) and (21) are fixed on the right and left side in the pericardium (4) when in use or are anchored to each other at the front of the heart” which occurs on a second electrode pole)
Regarding claim 20, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 17. Osypka also teaches wherein the at least one lateral electrode (15) and the at least one cardioversion electrode (2) are arrangeable at a freely selectable angle relative to one another. ([0014] “it is possible to adjust the position of the electrode poles by simply shifting the guide tube”)
Regarding claim 21, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 17. Osypka also teaches wherein at least one of the at least one cardioversion electrode (2) or the at least one lateral electrode (15) is explantable by pulling on a proximal end (11) of the electrode assembly (1). ([0035] “After use the thread can be pulled and the fastening elements separate, so the electrode assembly can also be removed from the back side of the heart through the front opening.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osypka (US20150066125) as applied to claims 1, 4, and 11 above).
Regarding claim 8, Osypka all of the limitations of claim 1. Osypka also teaches wherein the flat structure (3) in an unstretched state has at least one of a) a length extension Li measurable in a direction of a longitudinal axis (4) thereof of between 10 and 50 mm inclusive in each case, or b) an extension L2 measurable transversely to the longitudinal axis (4) of between 5 and 30 mm inclusive in each. ([0033] As the anatomical size of the heart can vary greatly, the distance between the pericardium and the atria is important. The correct distance can be achieved by designing the fixation members (e.g. anchor or zigzag) at such a length that they can be fixed at any of the electrode poles' desired position.”) The specification does not disclose that the specifically claimed range of having a flat structure in an unstretched state with a distance between 1 and 5cm for any particular purpose or to solve any stated problem that distinguishes it from the other ranges disclosed. The specification therefore lacks disclosure of the criticality required by the Courts in providing patentability to the claimed range. Osypka’s prior art discloses that the size varies greatly from patient to patient In addition to a lack of disclosed criticality in the specification, an obviousness rejection based upon optimization must rely on prior art that discloses the optimized parameter is a result-effective variable [See MPEP 2144.05]. Since the prior art of record, Osykpa, teaches that “The correct distance can be … a length that they can be fixed at any of the electrode poles' desired positions” based on the “anatomical size of the heart”, the prior art therefore provides teaching that the length between the flat structure is a variable that achieves a recognized result, and satisfies the above requirement of a result-effective variable in order to set forth an obviousness rejection based on optimization. Because Applicants fail to disclose that the claimed ranges of a flat structure in an unstretched state with a distance between 1 and 5cm provides a criticality to the invention that separates it from the other ranges in the specification, and the prior art discloses that “a length that they can be fixed at any of the electrode poles' desired position.” absent unexpected results, it would therefore have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of fixing means separation distance by normal optimization procedures known in the cardiac rhythm management arts.
Regarding claim 12, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Osypka also teaches the flat structure (3) has a distance between 10 and 70 mm inclusive from at least one of the two fixing means (7, 8). ([0033] As the anatomical size of the heart can vary greatly, the distance between the pericardium and the atria is important. The correct distance can be achieved by designing the fixation members (e.g. anchor or zigzag) at such a length that they can be fixed at any of the electrode poles' desired position.”)
The specification does not disclose that the specifically claimed range of a distance between 10 and 70 mm is for any particular purpose or to solve any stated problem that distinguishes it from the other ranges disclosed. The specification therefore lacks disclosure of the criticality required by the Courts in providing patentability to the claimed range. Osypka’s prior art discloses that the size varies greatly from patient to patient In addition to a lack of disclosed criticality in the specification, an obviousness rejection based upon optimization must rely on prior art that discloses the optimized parameter is a result-effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05. Since the prior art of record, Osykpa, teaches that “The correct distance can be … a length that they can be fixed at any of the electrode poles' desired positions” based on the “anatomical size of the heart”, the prior art therefore provides teaching that the length between the flat structure is a variable that achieves a recognized result, and satisfies the above requirement of a result-effective variable in order to set forth an obviousness rejection based on optimization. Because Applicants fail to disclose that the claimed ranges of a flat structure distance of 10 and 70 mm provides a criticality to the invention that separates it from the other ranges in the specification, and the prior art discloses that “a length that they can be fixed at any of the electrode poles' desired position.” absent unexpected results, it would therefore have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of fixing means separation distance by normal optimization procedures known in the cardiac rhythm management arts.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osypka (US20150066125) as applied to claims 1, 4, and 11 above, and further in view of Pederson (Pat. 5766226).
Regarding claim 5, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Osypka also teaches wherein the at least one electrical conductor (5) has an electrical resistance ([0025] “Inside the coil there is a low impedance lead”). Osypka does not explicitly teach, as taught by Pederson, resistance which is less than 150 ohms. ([Col. 6, lines 5] “50 ohm inter electrode resistance). Pederson and Osykpa come from the same field of cardiac rhythm management. The specification does not disclose that the specifically claimed range of less than 150 ohms is for any particular purpose or to solve any stated problem that distinguishes it from the other ranges disclosed. The specification therefore lacks disclosure of the criticality required by the Courts in providing patentability to the claimed range. In addition to a lack of disclosed criticality in the specification, an obviousness rejection based upon optimization must rely on prior art that discloses the optimized parameter is a result-effective variable [MPEP 2144.05]. Since Pederson teaches that electrode resistance can be 50 ohms, the prior art therefore provides teaching that the electrode resistance is a variable that achieves a recognized result, and satisfies the above requirement of a result-effective variable in order to set forth an obviousness rejection based on optimization. Because Applicants fail to disclose that the claimed range of less than 150 ohms provides a criticality to the invention that separates it from the other ranges in the specification, and the prior art discloses that electrode resistance can be 50 ohms absent unexpected results, it would therefore have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable range of less than 150 ohms by normal optimization procedures known in the electrode arts.
Regarding claim 6, Osypka teaches the limitations of claim 5. Osypka also teaches wherein a longitudinal axis of the at least one conductor (5) extends in a plane of the undeformed flat structure (3) or in alternating bending directions, and/or wherein the flat structure (3) is formed from the conductor (5) bent at least one of with alternating bending directions or sinusoidally. ([Fig. 2]; see also [0027] “a wave-shaped defibrillation electrode or [0027] “a defibrillation electrode in shape of a circle, an ellipsis, a polygon (Hexagon) or any other shape”)
Regarding claim 7, Osypka teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Osypka also teaches wherein at least one of … b) the conductor (5) has at least two mutually adjacent and/or interconnected conductor sections (6) which together span an angle a between 100 and 170 degrees, or c) the at least two conductor sections (6) are connected to one another via a bending radius R. ([Fig. 1] the electrode poles (15) and (16) span an angle between 100 and 170 degrees [i.e., annotated reference angle] and are connected via a bending radius).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
321
216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jenson et al. (US20090299447) discloses deployable epicardial array devices containing flexible electrode arrays that can conform to a patient’s heart. The device contains fixing mechanisms, various conformations including sinusoidal shapes, various conductive materials, such as platinum, and more.
Gottsche et al. (US20220219003) discloses electromedical electrode with anchoring structures zigzag, hook, barbed hook, or tab to function as pull-out protection.
Marshall et al. (US20160158567) discloses an implantable heart lead with curvilinear electrode arrays using a pre-formed undulating distal portion that spaces defibrillation electrode segments along the wave while placing one or more pace/sense electrodes between those segments in locations that can sit closer to the heart.
Kitschmann (Pat. 5928278) discloses a defibrillation electrode for a temporary and epicardial use after heart operations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ANTHONY SKROBARCZYK whose telephone number is (571)272-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30AM -5PM CST.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571-272-8506. 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.
/R.A.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights