DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-19, drawn to a system/cannula, classified in A61B 18/1487.
II. Claim 20, drawn to a method for channeling a path into bone, classified in A61B 2018/00565.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process, such as targeting a different part of the body.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply: the groupings have acquired a separate status in the art as shown by their different classification, their recognized divergent subject matter, and their differing field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with Jason Kraus on June 1, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. V. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 12/566,895, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. More specifically, this application fails to disclose the "mating links", "cord", and "dial".
The Examiner notes that support for the instant claims has been found in U.S. Application No. 12/683,555. As such, the Examiner will be taking the priority date for the instant application for the purposes of examination as 1/7/2010, this being the filing date of U.S. Application No. 12/683,555.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 7/25/05, 1/10/25, and 1/13/25 fail to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the cited references were not attached. They have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in these information disclosure statements or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the first paragraph does not provide the most current status for the related application. That is, the parent application is referenced as a U.S. application even though it has issued as a patent. The paragraph should be amended to include the appropriate patent number.
Furthermore, the lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5, 6, 14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 2 (line 3) and 14 (lines 3-4), “trailing link” should be replaced with -trailing links-; In claims 5 and 17, “and” should be moved from the end of line 5 to the end of line 4; In claim 6, “and” should be moved from the end of line 4 to the end of line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a proximal portion" in line 15. The antecedent basis for this limitation is confusing, since it’s already been recited.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a central passageway" in lines 1-2. The antecedent basis for this limitation is confusing, since it’s unclear how/whether its related to the previously-recited “central passageway”. Consequently, it is unclear which “central passageway” is being referred to in line 3.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the target site" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the curved stylet radius" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the distal end of the cannula" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a proximal portion" in line 12. The antecedent basis for this limitation is confusing, since it’s already been recited.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "a central passageway" in line 2. The antecedent basis for this limitation is confusing, since it’s unclear how/whether its related to the previously-recited “central passageway”. Consequently, it is unclear which “central passageway” is being referred to in line 3.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the distal end of the cannula" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It should be noted that all other cited claims have been rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,414,571. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the claims of the application. Accordingly, the application claims are not patentably distinct from the patent claims. Here, the more specific patent claims encompass the broader application claims. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific narrow invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 13-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McGrogan, U.S. 2011/0082365 (hereinafter McGrogan) in view of Sennett, U.S. 2005/0216018 (hereinafter Sennett).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, McGrogan discloses (note figs. 9-12) a curved cannula (900) comprising: a proximal portion; a distal portion; a central passageway (902) extending from the proximal portion to the distal portion; a plurality of mating links (922, 924, 926) disposed at the distal portion, the plurality of mating links configured to have mating surfaces that allow the distal portion of the cannula to curve in one direction; a cord (930, 932, 934) extending from the proximal portion to the distal portion, wherein the cord holds together the plurality of mating links; an actuator coupled to the cord and configured to adjust tension on the cord to steer the distal portion (note paragraphs 46-47); and a ‘locking nut’ (e.g., enlarged proximal region of ‘900’) at a proximal portion configured to engage with an introducer (i.e., capable of engaging with an introducer) to stop additional advancement of the curved cannula. However, McGrogan fails to explicitly disclose that the actuator comprises a dial, wherein the dial is threadedly engaged with the proximal portion of the curved cannula, and wherein the dial comprises: a body with external threads; an internal opening through which the cord passes; and a fixation point where a proximal end of the cord is secured; wherein rotation of the dial adjusts the tension on the cord by changing the distance between the fixation point and the proximal portion of the curved cannula. Sennett teaches (note figs. 1-5) a similar curved cannula comprising a dial actuator (212), wherein the dial is ‘threadedly engaged’ with the proximal portion of the curved cannula, and wherein the dial comprises: a body with ‘external threads’ (see external grooves in fig. 5); an internal opening through which a cord (208) passes; and a fixation point where a proximal end of the cord is secured (note paragraph 28); wherein rotation of the dial adjusts the tension on the cord by necessarily changing the distance between the fixation point and the proximal portion of the curved cannula (note paragraph 28). It is well known in the art that these different actuator configurations are widely considered to be interchangeable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to have modified the apparatus of McGrogan to comprise a dial actuator (as taught by Sennett). This is because this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution of interchangeable actuator configurations in order to produce a similar result (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 14, McGrogan discloses (see above) a curved cannula wherein the plurality of mating links comprises a distal link (926) at the distal portion of the curved cannula and a plurality of trailing links (922, 924) proximal to the distal link, wherein the distal link and each of the plurality of trailing links are configured to interlock with adjacent links.
Regarding claim 15, McGrogan discloses (see above) a curved cannula wherein the distal link comprises a tubular body with a central passageway and an opening near a distal end of the distal link, the opening intersecting the central passageway (see figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 16, McGrogan discloses (see above) a curved cannula wherein the cord extends through the plurality of mating links and terminates ‘at’ the opening of the distal link, the cord secured by a spherical member disposed in a ‘retaining surface’ of the opening of the distal link (note paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 18, McGrogan discloses (see above) a curved cannula wherein the central passageway is configured to receive (i.e., capable of receiving) a treatment device for delivering therapy to a target site within the bone. It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 19, McGrogan discloses (see above) a curved cannula wherein the mating surfaces of the mating links are configured to allow the distal end of the cannula to curve at an angle. However, McGrogan fails to explicitly disclose the claimed angle range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further modified McGrogan accordingly, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it should be noted that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claims 1-5 and 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carrison, U.S. 2005/0209610 (hereinafter Carrison) in view of McGrogan and Sennett.
Regarding claims 1-5, Carrison discloses (note figs. 8-13; note paragraph 16) a system for channeling a path into bone, comprising: an introducer (112) having a central channel and an opening at a distal tip; a curved cannula (110/124) sized to be received in said central channel and delivered to said opening at the distal tip, the curved cannula comprising: a proximal portion; a distal portion; a central passageway extending from the proximal portion to the distal portion; and a ‘locking nut’ (e.g., enlarged proximal region of ‘110/124’) at a proximal portion of the curved cannula, the locking nut configured to engage with the introducer to stop additional advancement of the curved cannula; and a ‘treatment device’ (132/134) configured to be delivered through the central passageway of the curved cannula to a location beyond the curved path. However, Carrison fails to explicitly disclose that the curved cannula comprises a plurality of mating links disposed at the distal portion, the mating links configured to have mating surfaces that allow the distal portion of the cannula to curve in one direction, as well as a cord extending from the proximal portion to the distal portion, wherein the cord holds together the plurality of mating links, and wherein the mating links and the cord are arranged in the claimed configuration. McGrogan teaches (note figs. 9-12) a similar curved cannula (900) comprising a plurality of mating links (922, 924, 926) disposed at the distal portion, the mating links configured to have mating surfaces that allow the distal portion of the cannula to curve in one direction, as well as a cord (930, 932, 934) extending from the proximal portion to the distal portion, wherein the cord holds together the plurality of mating links, and wherein the mating links and the cord are arranged in the claimed configuration (note figs. 11-12; paragraph 49). It is well known in the art that these different curved cannula configurations are widely considered to be interchangeable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to have modified the apparatus of Carrison to comprise a plurality of mating links and a cord (as taught by McGrogan). This is because this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution of interchangeable curved cannula configurations in order to produce a predictable result (see MPEP 2143). While this combination of references necessarily teaches an actuator coupled to the cord and configured to adjust tension on the cord to steer the distal portion (note paragraphs 46-47 of McGrogan), it fails to expressly teach that the actuator comprises a dial threadedly engaged with the proximal portion of the curved cannula, wherein the dial comprises: a body with external threads; an internal opening through which the cord passes; and a fixation point where a proximal end of the cord is secured; wherein rotation of the dial adjusts the tension on the cord by changing the distance between the fixation point and the proximal portion of the curved cannula. Sennett teaches (note figs. 1-5) a similar curved cannula comprising a dial actuator (212), wherein the dial is ‘threadedly engaged’ with the proximal portion of the curved cannula, and wherein the dial comprises: a body with ‘external threads’ (see external grooves in fig. 5); an internal opening through which a cord (208) passes; and a fixation point where a proximal end of the cord is secured (note paragraph 28); wherein rotation of the dial adjusts the tension on the cord by necessarily changing the distance between the fixation point and the proximal portion of the curved cannula (note paragraph 28). It is well known in the art that these different actuator configurations are widely considered to be interchangeable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to have further modified the apparatus of Carrison to comprise a dial actuator (as taught by Sennett). This is because this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution of interchangeable actuator configurations in order to produce a similar result (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 11, Carrison in view of McGrogan and Sennett teaches (see above) a curved cannula wherein the mating surfaces of the mating links are configured to allow the distal end of the cannula to curve at an angle. However, this combination of references fails to expressly teach the claimed angle range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further modified Carrison accordingly, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it should be noted that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carrison in view of McGrogan and Sennett as applied to claims 1-5 and 11 above, and further in view of Pellegrino, U.S. 2004/0064137 (hereinafter Pellegrino).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Carrison in view of McGrogan and Sennett teaches (see above) a system comprising a treatment device, wherein the treatment device comprises an elongate flexible catheter sized to fit within the central passageway of the curved cannula. However, this combination of references fails to expressly teach a treatment device comprising an energy delivery probe having at least two RF electrodes. Pellegrino teaches (note fig. 25) a similar device made up of a treatment device comprising an energy delivery probe having at least two RF electrodes (‘909’ and ‘963’). It is well known in the art that these different treatment configurations are widely considered to be interchangeable, and that this energy-based configuration would result in increased efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to have further modified the apparatus of Carrison to utilize a treatment device comprising an energy delivery probe having at least two RF electrodes (as taught by Pellegrino). This is because this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution of interchangeable treatment configurations in order to increase efficiency (see MPEP 2143).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carrison in view of McGrogan and Sennett as applied to claims 1-5 and 11 above, and further in view of Kraft, U.S. 2003/0225364 (hereinafter Kraft).
Regarding claims 8-10, Carrison discloses (see above) a system for channeling a path into bone, comprising: an introducer, a curved cannula, and a treatment device. However, Carrison fails to explicitly disclose that the system further comprises a straight stylet for use with the introducer, as well as a curved stylet for use with the curved cannula, wherein both stylets are sharp. Kraft teaches a similar system for channeling a path into bone, comprising: a straight stylet (104) for use with an introducer (101), as well as a curved stylet (106) for use with a curved cannula (105), wherein both stylets are sharp (note paragraphs 64 and 74-75). It is well known in the art that these different bone-piercing configurations are widely considered to be interchangeable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to have further modified the system of Carrison to comprise a straight sharpened stylet for use with the introducer as well as a curved sharpened stylet for use with the curved cannula (as taught by Kraft). This is because this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution of interchangeable bone-piercing configurations in order to produce a predictable result (see MPEP 2143).
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carrison in view of McGrogan and Sennett as applied to claims 1-5 and 11 above, and further in view of Janssen, U.S. 2005/0283148 (hereinafter Janssen).
Regarding claim 12, Carrison discloses (see above) a system for channeling a path into bone, comprising: an introducer, a curved cannula, and a treatment device. However, Carrison fails to explicitly disclose that the system further comprises a nerve conduction sensor. Janssen teaches (note paragraph 51) a system comprising a nerve conduction sensor, which would result in increased safety and efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to have further modified the system of Carrison to comprise a nerve conduction sensor in order to increase safety and efficiency. It should be noted that this modified device would be capable of performing the claimed function.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. 2006/0064101 (Arramon).
U.S. 2007/0038230 (Stone).
U.S. 5,885,288 (Aust).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANTHONY GIULIANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 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 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.
/THOMAS A GIULIANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights