DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed 08/03/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1 – 20 and 26 – 29 are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, and 17 – 20 are amended.
Claims 26 – 29 are new.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/03/2026 These drawings are partially acceptable.
Some of objections to the drawings in the previous action dated 05/042026 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments filed 08/03/2026. Specifically, the objection to Fig. 4, wherein the reference characters “18a/18b” are used to designate the inner tubular member even though Applicant’s disclosure refers to “22a/22b” as the inner tubular member, and the reference characters “22a/22b” are used to designate the outer tubular member even though Applicant’s disclosure refers to “18a/18b” as the outer tubular member. All of the other drawing objections, recited in the previous Office Action, have been withdrawn as the appropriate corrections have been made.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The objections to specification in the previous action dated 05/042026 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments filed 08/03/2026.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, and 17 – 20 in the previous action dated 01/11/2023 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments filed 06/10/2023. Specifically, the objection to claim 2, regarding the phrase “a second outer hoop”, the objection to claims 6, 7, and 15 regarding the phrases “the inner hoop” and “outer hoop”, the objection to claim 10 regarding the phrase “the plurality of hoops”, the objection to claims 11 and 18 regarding the phrases “the second, outer hoop” and “the first, inner hoop”, the objection to claim 17 regarding the phrase “the plurality of nested hoops”, and the objection to claims 19 and 20 regarding the phrase “each hoop” have been withdrawn as the appropriate corrections have been made.
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.
The rejection of claims 10 under U.S.C 35 112(b) regarding indefiniteness, recited in the previous action dated 05/042026 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments filed 08/03/2026. Specifically, the rejection of claim 1, regarding the lack of clarity in the phrase "a second hoop", has been withdrawn as the limitation has been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 26 – 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Majercak et al (US 2016/0374714 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Majercak discloses an apparatus (device 10) for endovascular use for treating a vessel intima (abstract, paragraphs [0001], [0023], and Figs. 1 – 3), comprising:
a catheter (catheter 100) adapted to form a plurality of hoops (outer cutting basket 108 and inner cutting basket 110) capable of rotating relative to one another in a deployed position (paragraphs [0004 – 0006], [0023], and [0033 – 0034]) the plurality of nested hoops comprising a first inner hoop (inner cutting basket 110) consisting of two opposed arcuate members and a second outer hoop (outer cutting basket 108) consisting of two opposed arcuate members (blades) (paragraphs [0004 – 0006], [0023], claims 2 and 3) (Examiner’s note: claims 2 and 3 recite wherein the first inner basket and the second outer basket comprise at least two rotatory blades. The phrase “at least two” encompasses “only two”. Therefore, Majercak discloses an embodiment wherein each of the baskets consisting of only two blades (i.e., arcuate members)),
[claim 27] the first inner hoop having an outer diameter less than an inner diameter of the second outer hoop (paragraph [0027] and Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Majercak discloses [claim 28] wherein, in the deployed position, the second outer hoop is adapted to deform a cross-section of the vessel from a generally circular shape toward a generally elliptical shape, and the first inner hoop is adapted to engage an intima of the vessel at locations spaced approximately 90 degrees from locations at which the second outer hoop engages the intima and [claim 29] wherein the first inner hoop and the second outer hoop are adapted to rotate relative to one another while the cross-section of the vessel is in the generally elliptical shape (paragraphs [0037 – 0038]) so as to continuously treat an endothelial layer of the intima (Examiner’s note: the limitations of both claims 28 and 29 are intended use limitations which requires only that the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. With that said, both of the inner and outer cutting baskets of Majercak form elliptical shapes when expanded and rotate relative to each other, as disclosed in the paragraphs cited above; and therefore, the system of Majercak is capable of and configured to function in the manner claimed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 12, and 14 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al (US 2001/0031981 A1) in view of Majercak et al (US 2016/0374714 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Evans discloses an apparatus (catheter 10) for endovascular use for treating a vessel intima (abstract, paragraphs [0017 – 0019], [0049 – 0052], [0062 – 0071], and Figs. 1 – 11), comprising:
a catheter (catheter 10) adapted to form a plurality of nested hoops (outer cutting basket 20 and inner cutting basket 18) capable of rotating relative to one another in a deployed position (paragraphs [0064 – 0066]);
the plurality of nested hoops (outer cutting basket 20 and inner cutting basket 18) including a first hoop (inner cutting basket 18) and a second hoop (outer cutting basket 20), the first hoop (inner cutting basket 18) having a distal radial recess (recess between opposing surfaces 82 – Fig. 11) and the second hoop (outer cutting basket 20) having a distal radial projection (projection extending within the recess shown in Fig. 11) such that the distal radial projection is received within the distal radial recess (Fig. 11);
Evans further discloses, in paragraph [0065] wherein the axial movement between the second hoop (outer cutting basket 20) and the first hoop (inner cutting basket 18) is limited via thrust bearing surfaces 80 (shown in Fig. 10).
However, Evans is silent regarding (i) wherein the proximal outer limiter is a radial projection positioned within a radial recess such that the first hoop includes a proximal radial recess and the second hoop includes a proximal radial projection.
As to (i), Majercak teaches, in the same field of endeavor, an apparatus (device 10) for endovascular use for treating a vessel intima (abstract, paragraphs [0001], [0023], and Figs. 1 – 3), comprising a catheter (catheter 100) adapted to form a plurality of nested hoops (outer cutting basket 108 and inner cutting basket 110) capable of rotating relative to one another in a deployed position (paragraphs [0004 – 0006] and [0023]), the plurality of nested hoops (outer cutting basket 108 and inner cutting basket 110) comprise a first inner hoop (inner cutting basket 110) and a second outer hoop (outer cutting basket 108). Majercak further teaches wherein the first hoop includes a proximal radial recess (recess between axial fixation mechanism 104a shown in Fig. 8) and the second hoop includes a proximal radial projection (axial fixation mechanism 106a) (paragraph [0038] and Fig. 8), wherein, in the deployed position, the proximal radial projection is received within the proximal radial recess (paragraph [0038] and Fig. 8).
It should be understood that Evans and Majercak are known references in the art that teach an internal tissue cutting device comprising proximal axial movement limiters between an outer cutting basket and an inner cutting basket positioned within the outer cutting basket (paragraphs [0062 – 0071], and Figs. 1 – 11 – Evans ; abstract, paragraphs [0001], [0038], and Figs. 1 – 8 – Majercak); and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one proximal axial limiter for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in the modified system of Evans being able to function as intended to properly control the system. The Examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143.
However, the combination of Evans and Majercak is silent regarding (ii) wherein the first hoop comprises the projections (proximal and distal) and the second hoop comprises the recesses (proximal and distal).
As to (ii), it would be obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to swap the positions of the “projections” and the “recess”, such that the projections (proximal and distal) are on the first hoop (inner cutting basket 18) and the recesses (proximal and distal) are on the second hoop (outer cutting basket 20), as it has been held that mere reversal of parts is not novel and such a modification is well within the purview of a person of ordinary skill in the art (See In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955)); additionally, the modification would yield predictable results and the device being operable for its intended use. Therefore, the combination encompasses wherein the first hoop (inner cutting basket 18) has the distal radial projection (projection extending between the recess faces 82 – shown in Fig. 11 of Evans) / the proximal radial projection (axial fixation mechanism 106a of Majercak) and the second hoop (outer cutting basket 108) has the distal radial recess (recess extending between the faces 82 – shown in Fig. 11 of Evans) / the proximal radial recess (axial fixation mechanism 104a of Majercak).
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, the combination of Evans and Majercak teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, Evans discloses the first hoop is an inner hoop (inner cutting basket 18) and the second hoop is an outer hoop (outer cutting basket 20), the first inner hoop (inner cutting basket 18) having an outer diameter less than an inner diameter of a second outer hoop (outer cutting basket 20) (paragraphs [0049 – 0052], [0062 – 0071], and Figs. 1 – 11).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, as discussed above, the combination of Evans and Majercak teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, Evans discloses the catheter (catheter 10) comprises an inner tube (proximal end 24 of the basket 18) connected to the first inner hoop (inner cutting basket 18) and an outer tube (catheter body 12) connected to the second outer hoop (outer cutting basket 20) (paragraphs [0064 – 0065]), [claim 5] wherein the inner tube and the outer tube form an annulus (lumen 40) for delivery of a treatment agent (Examiner’s note: a treatment agent is capable of being delivered through the lumen 40).
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, the combination of Evans and Majercak teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, Evans discloses wherein each of the inner hoop (inner cutting basket 18) and outer hoop (outer cutting basket 20) comprises arcuate members (blades) connected to the respective inner tube or outer tube (paragraphs [0051 – 0052] and Figs. 2 – 4).
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, the combination of Evans and Majercak teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, Evans discloses wherein a distal end of the inner tube (proximal end 24 of inner cutting basket 18) is rotatably connected to the outer tube (catheter body 12) (indirectly connected; paragraph [0065] and Fig. 11), and the inner tube (proximal end 24 of the inner cutting basket 18) is connected to a rod (drive shaft 32) for advancing distally to form the inner hoop and outer hoop (paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, as discussed above, the combination of Evans and Majercak teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, Evans discloses further including one or more motors (motor) adapted for causing relative rotation and counter-rotation of the plurality of nested hoops (paragraphs [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above, the combination of Evans and Majercak teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, combination encompasses wherein the receipt of the proximal radial projection within the proximal radial recess and receipt of the distal radial projection within the distal radial recess maintain spacing between the first hoop and the second hoop during relative rotation of the first hoop and the second hoop (Examiner’s note: the combination encompasses wherein each of the radial projections extends within the recesses such that the relative longitudinal position and spacing between the inner and outer hoops would stay the same).
Regarding claim 11, Evans discloses an apparatus (catheter 10) for endovascular use for treating a vessel intima (abstract, paragraphs [0017 – 0019], [0049 – 0052], [0062 – 0071], and Figs. 1 – 11), comprising:
a catheter (catheter 10) adapted to form a plurality of nested hoops (outer cutting basket 20 and inner cutting basket 18);
the plurality of nested hoops (outer cutting basket 20 and inner cutting basket 18) including a first inner hoop (inner cutting basket 18) and a second outer hoop (outer cutting basket 20),
the first inner hoop (inner cutting basket 18) having an outer diameter less than an outer diameter of the second outer hoop (Figs. 2 – 4) and adapted to rotate relative to the second outer hoop (outer cutting basket 20) (paragraphs [0064 – 0066]);
the first hoop (inner cutting basket 18) having a distal radial recess (recess between opposing surfaces 82 – Fig. 11) and the second hoop (outer cutting basket 20) having a distal radial projection (projection extending within the recess shown in Fig. 11) such that the distal radial projection is received within the distal radial recess (Fig. 11);
Evans further discloses, in paragraph [0065] wherein the axial movement between the second hoop (outer cutting basket 20) and the first hoop (inner cutting basket 18) is limited via thrust bearing surfaces 80 (shown in Fig. 10).
However, Evans is silent regarding (i) wherein the proximal outer limiter is a radial projection positioned within a radial recess such that the first hoop includes a proximal radial recess and the second hoop includes a proximal radial projection.
As to (i), Majercak teaches, in the same field of endeavor, an apparatus (device 10) for endovascular use for treating a vessel intima (abstract, paragraphs [0001], [0023], and Figs. 1 – 3), comprising a catheter (catheter 100) adapted to form a plurality of nested hoops (outer cutting basket 108 and inner cutting basket 110) capable of rotating relative to one another in a deployed position (paragraphs [0004 – 0006] and [0023]), the plurality of nested hoops (outer cutting basket 108 and inner cutting basket 110) comprise a first inner hoop (inner cutting basket 110) and a second outer hoop (outer cutting basket 108). Majercak further teaches wherein the first hoop includes a proximal radial recess (recess between axial fixation mechanism 104a shown in Fig. 8) and the second hoop includes a proximal radial projection (axial fixation mechanism 106a) (paragraph [0038] and Fig. 8), wherein, in the deployed position, the proximal radial projection is received within the proximal radial recess (paragraph [0038] and Fig. 8).
It should be understood that Evans and Majercak are known references in the art that teach an internal tissue cutting device comprising proximal axial movement limiters between an outer cutting basket and an inner cutting basket positioned within the outer cutting basket (paragraphs [0062 – 0071], and Figs. 1 – 11 – Evans ; abstract, paragraphs [0001], [0038], and Figs. 1 – 8 – Majercak); and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one proximal axial limiter for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in the modified system of Evans being able to function as intended to properly control the system. The Examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143.
However, the combination of Evans and Majercak is silent regarding (ii) wherein the first hoop comprises the projections (proximal and distal) and the second hoop comprises the recesses (proximal and distal).
As to (ii), it would be obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to swap the positions of the “projections” and the “recess”, such that the projections (proximal and distal) are on the first hoop (inner cutting basket 18) and the recesses (proximal and distal) are on the second hoop (outer cutting basket 20), as it has been held that mere reversal of parts is not novel and such a modification is well within the purview of a person of ordinary skill in the art (See In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955)); additionally, the modification would yield predictable results and the device being operable for its intended use. Therefore, the combination encompasses wherein the first hoop (inner cutting basket 18) has the distal radial projection (projection extending between the recess faces 82 – shown in Fig. 11 of Evans) / the proximal radial projection (axial fixation mechanism 106a of Majercak) and the second hoop (outer cutting basket 108) has the distal radial recess (recess extending between the faces 82 – shown in Fig. 11 of Evans) / the proximal radial recess (axial fixation mechanism 104a of Majercak).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, as discussed above, the combination of Evans and Majercak teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, Evans discloses the catheter (catheter 10) comprises an inner tube (proximal end 24 of the basket 18) connected to the first inner hoop (inner cutting basket 18) and an outer tube (catheter body 12) connected to the second outer hoop (outer cutting basket 20) (paragraphs [0064 – 0065]), [claim 14] wherein the inner tube and the outer tube form an annulus (lumen 40) for delivery of a treatment agent (Examiner’s note: a treatment agent is capable of being delivered through the lumen 40).
Regarding claim 15, as discussed above, the combination of Evans and Majercak teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, Evans discloses wherein a distal end of the inner tube (proximal end 24 of inner cutting basket 18) is rotatably connected to the outer tube (catheter body 12) (indirectly connected; paragraph [0065] and Fig. 11), and the inner tube (proximal end 24 of the inner cutting basket 18) is connected to a rod (drive shaft 32) for advancing distally to form the inner hoop and outer hoop (paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, as discussed above, the combination of Evans and Majercak teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, Evans discloses further including one or more motors (motor) adapted for causing relative rotation and counter-rotation of the plurality of nested hoops (paragraphs [0067]).
Regarding claim 18, as discussed above, the combination of Evans and Majercak teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, combination encompasses wherein the receipt of the proximal radial projection within the proximal radial recess and receipt of the distal radial projection within the distal radial recess maintain spacing between the first hoop and the second hoop during relative rotation of the first hoop and the second hoop (Examiner’s note: the combination encompasses wherein each of the radial projections extends within the recesses such that the relative longitudinal position and spacing between the inner and outer hoops would stay the same).
Regarding claim 19, as discussed above, the combination of Evans and Majercak teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, Evans discloses wherein each of the hoops of the plurality of hoops comprises a pair of opposed arcuate members (Examiner’s note: each of the baskets comprise at least two arcuate blades that are positioned radially opposite each other).
Regarding claim 20, as discussed above, the combination of Evans and Majercak teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, Evans teaches in paragraph [0057] wherein the struts 30 which make up the first inner and second outer hoops extend substantially axially, and when the struts are expanded outward to contact the vessel wall, the struts will form at least a generally elliptical shape. Alternatively, Majercak teaches wherein the inner and outer hoops are generally elliptical in shape (inner cutting basket 110 and outer cutting basket 108) is generally elliptical (Fig. 2); therefore, Majercak teaches wherein a generally elliptical shape for cutting members comprised within a cutting basket is a known shape and that it is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to have inner and outer cutting members of the inner and outer cutting baskets have a generally elliptical shape; and modifying the struts 30 of Evans to have a generally elliptical shape would yield predictable results such that the modified device would be able to operate as intended to cut / shear the thrombus. Therefore, the combination encompasses or, in the alternative, makes obvious having the first and second hoops form generally elliptical shapes.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al (US 2001/0031981 A1) in view of Majercak et al (US 2016/0374714 A1) (previously cited), as applied to claims 3 and 12 above, and further in view of Clark, III (US 4,030,503).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, as discussed above, the combination of Evans and Majercak teaches the apparatus of claims 3 and 12 above.
However, the combination is silent regarding (i) [claims 4 and 13] wherein the outer tube is coiled.
As to the above, Clark, III teaches an apparatus for endovascular use for treating a vessel intima (col. 1 lines 8 – 25 and Fig. 1) comprising a catheter (catheter 2) comprising a coiled outer tube (tube 4 / sleeve 5) (col. 1 lines 38 – 45) for the purpose of providing flexibility to the catheter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the outer tube of Evans in view of Majercak to be coiled, based on the teachings of Clark, III, for the purpose of providing flexibility to the catheter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under Majercak have been considered but are moot as the arguments are directed to Applicant’s amendments, and the previous rejection of the claims has been withdrawn in light of said amendments. Specifically, the rejections were withdrawn because Majercak does not teach both proximal and distal protrusions / recesses on the inner and outer hoops. It is noted that a new rejection has been made over Evans and Majercak. The teachings of Evans and Majercak combined are relied upon for teaching the newly added limitations as discussed above.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 directed to newly added claims 26 – 29 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. More specifically:
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that Majercak does not disclose both the first inner hoop and second outer hoop consisting of two opposed arcuate members”, as stated in the rejection of claim 26 above, Majercak discloses in claims 2 and 3 wherein the inner and outer cutting baskets (i.e., the inner and outer hoops) comprise “at least two blades”; and the phrase “at least two blades” encompasses an embodiment wherein each of the inner and outer cutting baskets (i.e., the inner and outer hoops) comprise / consist of only two blades. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Restaino whose telephone number is (571)272-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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.
/Andrew Restaino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
