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
Claims 21-39 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-39 are new.
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.
Claim 30 is 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 30 recites the limitation "the AuPt alloy" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 21-23, 29, and 32-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarge et al. (US 2017/0035437 A1) (“Sarge”).
Regarding claim 21, Sarge discloses (Figures 1-20) a vaso-occlusive device, comprising: an elongate vaso-occlusive structure comprising a mesh body (104/200/301/401/504/601/901/1001/1102/1202, 1203/1401/1501/1601/1702, 1703/1800/1901/2001) configured for implantation in an aneurysm sac (paragraph 0131); wherein the mesh body has a collapsed configuration having a first cross-sectional dimension when constrained within a delivery catheter (paragraph 0131); wherein the mesh body is biased to self-expand with an expansion force from the collapsed configuration into an expanded configuration having a second cross-sectional dimension greater than the first cross-sectional dimension when deployed out of the delivery catheter into the aneurysm sac (paragraph 0131); wherein the mesh body is sufficiently soft (i.e., laterally flexible or conformable, as defined in paragraph 0006 of the Specification) and capable of limiting a normal force exerted by the mesh body towards the delivery catheter (paragraphs 0151-0153). However, Sarge fails to disclose that a frictional force between the vaso-occlusive device and the delivery catheter is less than 0.06 lbs when the mesh body is within the delivery catheter.
Sarge discloses that the frictional force between the vaso-occlusive device and the delivery catheter is a result effective variable. Sarge discloses that reducing the braid angle as small as possible when in the expanded configuration creates lower radial outward forces and consequently less friction when the braid is delivered through the delivery catheter (paragraphs 0152). Sarge further discloses that low friction coefficient coatings can also be applied to reduce friction (paragraph 0122-0123, 0151).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the vaso-occlusive device disclosed by Sarge to have a braid angle in the expanded configuration such that a frictional force with the delivery catheter is less than 0.06 lbs., 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. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range in making the modification based on the teachings of Sarge.
Regarding claim 22, Sarge teaches that the mesh body when having the collapsed configuration inside the delivery catheter, has a sufficient columnar strength that allows the mesh body to be pushed through a lumen of the delivery catheter (paragraph 0131). NOTE: the delivery catheter is not positively recited.
Regarding claim 23, Sarge teaches that the mesh body is constrained within a delivery a delivery catheter in a constrained configuration. Sarge further teaches that the mesh body has the sufficient columnar strength that allows the mesh body to be pushed through the lumen of the delivery catheter. Sarge teaches that the delivery catheter (102) may have an inner diameter between about 0.015 inches and about 0.100 inches (paragraph 0106). Sarge discloses that the cross-sectional dimension of the mesh body in the constrained configuration is a result effective variable in that reducing the diameter of the mesh body in the constrained configuration allows the vaso-occlusive device to be delivered to the treatment locations through smaller profile delivery catheters (paragraph 0151).
However, Sarge fails to explicitly disclose that the first-cross sectional dimension of the mesh body is less than 0.025 inches when constrained within the delivery catheter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first-cross sectional dimension of the mesh body to be less than 0.025 inches in order to be delivered to the treatment locations through a small profile delivery catheter (Sarge, paragraph 0151), 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. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range in making the modification based on the teachings of Sarge.
Regarding claim 29, Sarge teaches (Figure 11) first and second helically wound coil portions (1104, 1105) disposed at respective opposite ends of the mesh body (1102; paragraph 0143).
Regarding claim 32, Sarge teaches that the mesh body has a wire count in a range of 8-96 wires (paragraph 0117).
Regarding claim 33, Sarge teaches that the mesh body has a wire count in a range of 8-96 wires (paragraph 0117).
However, Sarge fails to explicitly teach that the mesh body has a wire count in a range of 16-32 wires.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mesh body of Sarge to have a wire count from between 8-96 wires to between 16-32 wires, since it has been held that ‘[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range, stating: “In the illustrated embodiment, the mesh portion 40 is formed by braiding or weaving wires 42 (e.g., having a wire count in the range of 8-96 wires, typically in the range of 16-32 wires)” See paragraph 0044 of Specification.
Regarding claim 34, Sarge teaches that the mesh body has a braid angle in a range of 35-90 degrees when the mesh body is in the expanded configuration (paragraph 0040).
However, Sarge fails to explicitly teach that the mesh body has a braid angle in a range of 20-60 degrees when the mesh body is in the expanded configuration.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the braid angle of the mesh body of Sarge from between 35-90 degrees to between 20-60 degrees, since it has been held that ‘[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range, stating: “If the mesh is a braid portion, the braid portion may have an unconstrained braid angle in the range of 20º-130º, preferably in the range of 20º-60º” (see paragraph 0016 of Specification).
Regarding claim 35, Sarge teaches (Figures 15A-15C) that the mesh body has a tubular cross-section (paragraph 0163).
Regarding claim 36, Sarge teaches that the mesh body has an elongated cross-section when in the expanded configuration (paragraphs 0040, 0131).
Regarding claim 37, Sarge teaches that the mesh body has an elongated cross-section when in the expanded configuration with a width in a range of 0.75 mm to about 5.0 mm (paragraphs 0040, 0131).
However, Sarge fails to explicitly teach that the elongated cross-section has a width in a range of 1.0 mm - 2.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of Sarge from a range of about 0.75 mm to about 5.0 mm to a range of 1.0 mm to 2.0 mm, since it has been held that ‘[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range, stating: “The mesh portion may have an expanded geometry, e.g., having a circular cross-section or a flat cross-section (e.g., having a width in the range of 0.5mm-5.0mm, preferably in the range of 1.0mm-2.0mm)” (see paragraph 0016 of Specification).
Regarding claim 38, Sarge teaches (Figures 1-3A, 4A-10A, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17) a vaso-occlusive assembly, comprising: the vaso-occlusive device of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above); and a pusher member (103) to which the vaso-occlusive device is detachably coupled (paragraph 0104).
Regarding claim 39, Sarge teaches (Figures 1-20) a vaso-occlusive treatment system, comprising:
a vaso-occlusive device, comprising: an elongate vaso-occlusive structure comprising a mesh body (104/200/301/401/504/601/901/1001/1102/1202, 1203/1401/1501/1601/1702,1703/1800/1901/2001) configured for implantation in an aneurysm sac (paragraph 0131); wherein the mesh body has a collapsed configuration having a first cross-sectional dimension when constrained within a delivery catheter (102; paragraphs 0101, 0131); wherein the mesh body is biased to self-expand with an expansion force from the collapsed configuration into an expanded configuration having a second cross-sectional dimension greater than the first cross-sectional dimension when deployed out of the delivery catheter into the aneurysm sac (paragraph 0131); wherein the mesh body is sufficiently soft (i.e., laterally flexible or conformable, as defined in paragraph 0006 of the Specification) to limit a normal force exerted by the mesh body towards the delivery catheter (paragraphs 0151-0153).
a pusher member (103) to which the vaso-occlusive device is detachably coupled (paragraph 0104); and
and the delivery catheter (102) in which the vaso-occlusive assembly is disposed.
Sarge fails to explicitly disclose that a frictional force between the vaso-occlusive device and the delivery catheter is less than 0.06 lbs when the mesh body is within the delivery catheter. Sarge teaches that the frictional force between the vaso-occlusive device and the delivery catheter is a result effective variable. Sarge teaches that reducing the braid angle as small as possible when in the expanded configuration creates lower radial outward forces and consequently less friction when the braid is delivered through the delivery catheter (paragraphs 0152). Sarge further teaches that low friction coefficient coatings can also be applied to reduce friction (paragraph 0122-0123, 0151).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the vaso-occlusive device disclosed by Sarge to have a braid angle in the expanded configuration such that a frictional force with the delivery catheter is less than 0.06 lbs., 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. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range in making the modification based on the teachings of Sarge.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarge et al. (US 2017/0035437 A1) (“Sarge”) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Porter (US 2017/0189035 A1) and Divino et al. (US 2013/0190801 A1) (“Divino”).
Regarding claim 24, Sarge teaches that the mesh body comprises a braided mesh having (1) a longitudinal length, (2) wires made from nitinol (NiTi, paragraph 0152), and (3) a wire-count between 8-96 (paragraph 0040) with each of the wires having a cross-sectional dimension between 0.0005 inches and 0.005 inches (paragraph 0152).
Sarge fails to explicitly teach: a longitudinal length of at least 5 cm, a material with a Young’s modulus less than 25x106 pounds per square inch (psi), and a cross-sectional dimension of each of the wire being between 0.0008"-0.004", and wherein the softness (i.e., laterally flexible or conformable, as defined in paragraph 0006 of the Specification) of the mesh body and the columnar strength of the mesh body are countervailing requirements that are simultaneously achieved by a combination of the longitudinal length of the braided mesh being at least 5 cm, the material of the wires with the Young's modulus less than 25x106 psi, the wire-count of the braided mesh being between 8-96, and the cross-sectional dimension of each of the wires being between 0.0008"-0.004".
In the same field of endeavor, Porter teaches (Figures 1-7B) a vaso-occlusive device, comprising a mesh body (40, 50; paragraph 0037) configured for implantation in an aneurysm sac (paragraph 0037). Porter teaches that the mesh body is capable of collapsing to have a first cross-sectional dimension when constrained within a delivery catheter, wherein the mesh body is biased to self-expand from the collapsed configuration (paragraph 0003) into an expanded configuration having a second cross-sectional dimension greater than the first cross-sectional dimension (radially expanded; paragraph 0005) when deployed out of the delivery catheter into the aneurysm sac, and wherein the mesh body has a length greater than 5 cm (paragraph 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mesh body disclosed by Sarge to have a longitudinal length of at least 5 cm, as taught by Porter. This modification would provide a mesh body with a length sufficient to fill and occlude an aneurysm (paragraph 0003).
Divino teaches (TABLE 2) that it is known in the art that Nitinol has a Young’s Modulus of 75-83 GPa (approximately 10.9x106 psi to approximately 12x106 psi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the nitinol forming the mesh body disclosed by Sarge is a material with a Young’s modulus less than 25x106 pounds per square inch (psi), in view of the teachings of Divino (TABLE 2).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-sectional dimension of the wires disclosed by Sarge from between 0.0005 inches and 0.005 inches to between 0.0008"-0.004", since it has been held that ‘[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range, stating: “The mesh portion may comprise at least one wire (e.g., 8-96 wires), each having, e.g., a minimum cross-sectional dimension in the range of 0.0008”-0.004” (see paragraph 0016 of Specification).
These modifications would provide a vaso-occlusive device with the softness of the mesh body and the columnar strength countervailing requirements that are simultaneously achieved by a combination of the longitudinal length of the braided mesh being at least 5 cm, the material of the wires with the Young's modulus less than 25x106 psi, the wire-count of the braided mesh being between 8-96, and the cross-sectional dimension of each of the wires being between 0.0008"-0.004".
Claims 25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarge et al. (US 2017/0035437 A1) (“Sarge”) as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Okubo (EP 3 391 833 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Sarge teaches the invention substantially as claimed. However, Sarge fails to teach at least a part of the mesh body is made out of gold-platinum (AuPt) alloy, the AuPt alloy comprising platinum within a range of 25%-40% by weight.
In the same field of endeavor, Okubo teaches (Figure 3) a vaso-occlusive device made out of a gold-platinum (AuPt) alloy wire, wherein the AuPt alloy comprises platinum within the range of 24%-34% by weight (paragraph 0016). Okubo teaches that this alloy is artifact-free (paragraph 0008). An artifact refers to a phenomenon that an MRI image is distorted (false images) by a difference between the magnetic susceptibility of a metal in a magnetic field and the magnetic susceptibility of a biological tissue in a region around the magnetic field. An artifact can hinder accurate diagnoses and accurate surgeries (paragraph 0004).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least a part of the mesh body taught by Sarge to be made out of braided gold-platinum (AuPt) alloy wires, wherein the AuPt alloy comprises platinum within the range of 25%-40% by weight, as taught by Okubo. Okubo teaches that an AuPt alloy is a beneficial material for forming wires of a vaso-occlusive device. This modification would provide a braided mesh formed of wire that has biocompatibility, excels in anticorrosion, and is artifact-free (Okubo, paragraph 0008). NOTE: the claimed range is 25%-40% platinum by weight. Okubo teaches a range of 24%-34%, which substantially overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range, stating: “At least portion of the vaso-occlusive structure is composed of a gold-platinum (AuPt) alloy, e.g., comprising platinum within the range 25%-40% by weight…” See paragraph 0015 of Specification.
Regarding claim 27, Sarge teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sarge teaches the mesh body comprises wires coupled in a braided configuration. However, Sarge fails to teach that the wires are AuPt alloy wires.
In the same field of endeavor, Okubo teaches (Figure 3) a vaso-occlusive device made out of a gold-platinum (AuPt) alloy wire, wherein the AuPt alloy comprises platinum within the range of 24%-34% by weight (paragraph 0016). Okubo teaches that this alloy is artifact-free (paragraph 0008). An artifact refers to a phenomenon that an MRI image is distorted (false images) by a difference between the magnetic susceptibility of a metal in a magnetic field and the magnetic susceptibility of a biological tissue in a region around the magnetic field. An artifact can hinder accurate diagnoses and accurate surgeries (paragraph 0004).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wires of the mesh body taught by Sarge to be made out of braided gold-platinum (AuPt) alloy wires, wherein the AuPt alloy comprises platinum within the range of 25%-40% by weight, as taught by Okubo. Okubo teaches that an AuPt alloy is a beneficial material for forming wires of a vaso-occlusive device. This modification would provide a braided mesh formed of wire that has biocompatibility, excels in anticorrosion, and is artifact-free (Okubo, paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 28, Sarge as modified by Okubo teaches that each of the wires has a cross-sectional dimension between 0.0005 inches and 0.005 inches (Sarge, paragraph 0152).
However, Sarge as modified by Okubo fails to explicitly teach the AuPt wires each having a minimum cross-sectional dimension anywhere from 0.0008"-0.004".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-sectional dimension of the wires taught by Sarge from between 0.0005 inches and 0.005 inches to anywhere from 0.0008"-0.004", since it has been held that ‘[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range, stating: “The mesh portion may comprise at least one wire (e.g., 8-96 wires), each having, e.g., a minimum cross-sectional dimension in the range of 0.0008”-0.004” (see paragraph 0016 of Specification).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarge et al. (US 2017/0035437 A1) (“Sarge”) as applied to claim 29 above and further in view of Okubo (EP 3 391 833 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Sarge teaches the invention substantially as claimed. However, Sarge fails to teach that each of the first and second helically wound coil portions is composed of AuPt alloy.
Okubo teaches that AuPt alloy is artifact-free (paragraph 0008). An artifact refers to a phenomenon that an MRI image is distorted (false images) by a difference between the magnetic susceptibility of a metal in a magnetic field and the magnetic susceptibility of a biological tissue in a region around the magnetic field. An artifact can hinder accurate diagnoses and accurate surgeries (paragraph 0004).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the helically wound coil portions taught by Sarge to be composed of gold-platinum (AuPt) alloy, as taught by Okubo. Okubo teaches that an AuPt alloy is a beneficial material for a vaso-occlusive device. This modification would provide a material that has biocompatibility, excels in anticorrosion, and is artifact-free (Okubo, paragraph 0008).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarge et al. (US 2017/0035437 A1) (“Sarge”) as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Divino et al. (US 2013/0190801 A1) (“Divino”).
Regarding claim 26, Sarge teaches that the mesh body is made from nitinol (NiTi; paragraph 0152). However, Sarge fails to explicitly teach a material of the mesh body has a Young's modulus less than 25x106 pounds per square inch (psi).
Divino teaches (TABLE 2) that it is known in the art that Nitinol has a Young’s Modulus of 75-83 GPa (approximately 10.9x106 psi to approximately 12x106 psi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the nitinol forming the mesh body taught by Sarge is a material with a Young’s modulus less than 25x106 pounds per square inch (psi), in view of the teachings of Divino (TABLE 2).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarge et al. (US 2017/0035437 A1) (“Sarge”) as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Porter (US 2017/0189035 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Sarge teaches the invention substantially as claimed. However, Sarge fails to explicitly teach the mesh body has a length greater than 5 cm.
In the same field of endeavor, Porter teaches (Figures 1-7B) a vaso-occlusive device, comprising a mesh body (40, 50; paragraph 0037) configured for implantation in an aneurysm sac (paragraph 0037). Porter teaches that the mesh body is capable of collapsing to have a first cross-sectional dimension when constrained within a delivery catheter, wherein the mesh body is biased to self-expand from the collapsed configuration (paragraph 0003) into an expanded configuration having a second cross-sectional dimension greater than the first cross-sectional dimension (radially expanded; paragraph 0005) when deployed out of the delivery catheter into the aneurysm sac, and wherein the mesh body has a length greater than 5 cm (paragraph 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mesh body taught by Sarge to have a longitudinal length of at least 5 cm, as taught by Porter. This modification would provide a mesh body with a length sufficient to fill and occlude an aneurysm (paragraph 0003).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN D KNAUSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:30-8:30.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/C.D.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/DIANE D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights