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 June 10, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/IB2013/060607, filed on December 3rd, 2013.
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 110-115 and 124-129 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,464,966. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter is an obvious variant of the subject matter claimed in the patent named by the same inventive entity.
Application 19/025,386
Patent 11,464,966
Analysis
Claim 110: A method for using a delivery system to deliver a neurostimulator implant to a target site in the body of a subject, the method comprising:
Claim 1: A method, comprising
966 recites “an implant that includes an electrode” advanced “to a nerve” which creates no distinction for this preamble.
using a cradle of the delivery system to orient the neurostimulator implant at an angle with respect to skin of the subject;
using a tube, advancing an implant that includes an electrode to a nerve of a subject, such that the tube and the implant are arranged at a nonzero angle with respect to a skin surface of the subject
966 requires the angular arrangement but does not name the structure producing it. Instant claim requires a “cradle”. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to explicitly practice 966’s claim 1 using a cradle as structure for establishing and holding an angle. A holder that receives and fixes a delivery took at a predetermined angle is a known technique for maintaining an instrument at a selected angle and would have been an obvious variant.
advancing the neurostimulator implant into the subject's body, at the angle with respect to the skin, toward the target site, by advancing a distal portion of a delivery tool of the delivery system into the subject's body, while the neurostimulator implant is disposed at the distal portion of the delivery tool;
advancing an implant that includes an electrode to a nerve of a subject… while the implant is not parallel to the skin surface of the subject, passing the implant distally from an opening of the tube, in a vicinity of a portion of the nerve
And removing the delivery system from the subject while the neurostimulator implant remains at the target site.
aligning a longitudinal axis of the implant to become generally parallel with the skin surface by proximally withdrawing the tube from the subject.
Claim 111: wherein the distal portion of the delivery tool is shaped to define a space that houses the neurostimulator implant.
Claim 1: further comprising, while proximally withdrawing the tube from the subject, using a delivery manipulator to hold the implant still with respect to the portion of the nerve.
A tube from whose opening the implant is passed distally necessarily defines an interior space housing it beforehand.
Claim 112: wherein using the cradle of the delivery system to orient the neurostimulator implant at an angle with respect to the skin comprises adjusting an angle of the cradle with respect to the skin.
Claim 1: the implant are arranged at a nonzero angle with respect to a skin surface of the subject; while the implant is not parallel to the skin surface of the subject, passing the implant distally from an opening of the tube, in a vicinity of a portion of the nerve
Claims in ‘966 requires the angle to be arranged rather than using arbitrary placing. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to explicitly practice 966’s implantation by making a setting adjustable over the depth is an obvious variant of the same step.
Claim 113: wherein adjusting the angle of the cradle with respect to the skin comprises adjusting the angle of the cradle based on a depth of the target site.
Claim 1: the implant are arranged at a nonzero angle with respect to a skin surface of the subject; while the implant is not parallel to the skin surface of the subject, passing the implant distally from an opening of the tube, in a vicinity of a portion of the nerve; and aligning a longitudinal axis of the implant to become generally parallel with the skin surface by proximally withdrawing the tube from the subject
Claims in ‘966 requires the angle to be arranged rather than using arbitrary placing. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to explicitly practice 966’s implantation by making a setting adjustable over the depth is an obvious variant of the same step.
Claim 114: wherein the method further comprises holding the neurostimulator implant still with respect to tissue at the target site while withdrawing the distal portion of the delivery tool.
Claim 2: while proximally withdrawing the tube from the subject, using a delivery manipulator to hold the implant still with respect to the portion of the nerve
Claim 115: wherein holding the neurostimulator implant comprises holding the neurostimulator implant using a delivery manipulator that is reversibly couplable to the neurostimulator implant.
Claim 2: while proximally withdrawing the tube from the subject, using a delivery manipulator to hold the implant still with respect to the portion of the nerve
Claim 124: wherein the angle is less than 30 degrees.
Claim 4: wherein the nonzero angle is greater than 30 degrees.
Claim 5: wherein the nonzero angle is less than 45 degrees.
A claimed range that is not identical to but abuts or lies close to a patented range establishes a prima facie case absent a showing that the claimed range is critical, since one of ordinary skill in the art would expect substantially the same result on either side. Nothing on record establishes that the 30 degrees is a critical value; see MPEP 2144.05
Claim 125: wherein the angle is greater than 10 degrees.
Claim 4: wherein the nonzero angle is greater than 30 degrees.
Claim 126: wherein the angle is less than 30 degrees.
Claim 6: wherein the nonzero angle is greater than 30 degrees.
Claim 5: wherein the nonzero angle is less than 45 degrees.
A claimed range that is not identical to but abuts or lies close to a patented range establishes a prima facie case absent a showing that the claimed range is critical, since one of ordinary skill in the art would expect substantially the same result on either side. Nothing on record establishes that the 30 degrees is a critical value; see MPEP 2144.05
Claim 127: wherein advancing the neurostimulator implant into the subject's body comprises advancing the neurostimulator implant into a leg of the subject.
Claim 3: wherein the nerve is a tibial nerve of the subject.
Claim 128: wherein advancing the neurostimulator implant into the subject's leg comprises implanting the neurostimulator implant in a vicinity of a tibial nerve of the leg.
Claim 1: passing the implant distally from an opening of the tube, in a vicinity of a portion of the nerve
Claim 3: wherein the nerve is a tibial nerve of the subject.
Claim 129: further comprising stimulating the tibial nerve using the neurostimulator implant.
Claim 1: advancing an implant that includes an electrode to a nerve of a subject
Claim 3: wherein the nerve is a tibial nerve of the subject.
Stimulating is inherent when advancing an electrode to a subject’s nerve for stimulation.
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 110-116, 118 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Glukhovsky ‘402 et al. (US20090182402).
Regarding claim 110, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches a method for using a delivery system to deliver a neurostimulator implant to a target site in the body of a subject ([Method] “A method includes inserting a target probe along a first path within a body such that a portion of the target probe is disposed adjacent a target location within the body” and [0006] “The target location can be, for example, a portion of a nerve”), the method comprising: using a cradle [i.e., coupling member] of the delivery system to orient the neurostimulator implant at an angle with respect to skin of the subject ([0054] “when the medical device 200 is in the first configuration, the coupling member 264 is angularly offset from the target member 210 by a first angle, and the insertion member 240 is angularly offset from the coupling member 264 by a first angle” relative to the skin S); advancing the neurostimulator implant into the subject's body, at the angle with respect to the skin, toward the target site, by advancing a distal portion of a delivery tool of the delivery system into the subject's body, while the neurostimulator implant is disposed at the distal portion of the delivery tool ([0059] “When the medical device 200 is moved between the second configuration (FIG. 5) and the third configuration (FIG. 6), the distal end portion 243 of the insertion member 240 is inserted into the body B through a second incision in the skin S. The distal end portion 243 of the insertion member 240 is moved within the body B via a second passageway such that the distal end portion 243 of the insertion member 240 is adjacent the target tissue T and/or the distal end portion 216 of the target probe 214. When the medical device 200 is moved between the second configuration and the third configuration, the distal end portion 243 of the insertion member 240 remains coupled to the implant 202.”); and removing the delivery system from the subject while the neurostimulator implant remains at the target site. ([0061] “the distal end portion 243 of the insertion member 240 is removed from within the body B via the second passageway and the second incision, while the implant 202 remains within the body”)
Regarding claim 111, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 110. Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches wherein the distal portion of the delivery tool is shaped to define a space that houses the neurostimulator implant. ([0062] “the distal end portion 243 of the insertion member 240 can define a lumen configured to receive the implant 202. In this manner, the side wall insertion member 240 can prevent the implant 202 from contacting portions of the patient's body B during insertion”)
Regarding claim 112, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 110. Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches wherein using the cradle of the delivery system to orient the neurostimulator implant at an angle with respect to the skin comprises adjusting an angle of the cradle with respect to the skin. ([0065] “the insertion member 240 can be rotated relative to the coupling member 264 such that the insertion member 240 is angularly offset from the coupling member 264 by an angle 1 that is different from the angle 2”; see also [0091] and [0096])
Regarding claim 113, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 112. Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches wherein adjusting the angle of the cradle with respect to the skin comprises adjusting the angle of the cradle based on a depth of the target site. ([0060] “the length of the coupling member 264 and/or the angle between the insertion member 240 and the coupling member 264 can be adjusted based on the depth D of the target probe”)
Regarding claim 114, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 110. Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches wherein the method further comprises holding the neurostimulator implant still with respect to tissue at the target site while withdrawing the distal portion of the delivery tool. ([0050] “The proximal end portion 242 of the insertion member 240 includes an actuator 244 configured to selectively couple and/or decouple the distal end portion 243 of the insertion member 240 from the implant”; see optionally [0061] or [0062])
Regarding claim 115, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 114. Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches wherein holding the neurostimulator implant comprises holding the neurostimulator implant using a delivery manipulator that is reversibly couplable to the neurostimulator implant. ([0050] “The proximal end portion 242 of the insertion member 240 includes an actuator 244 configured to selectively couple and/or decouple the distal end portion 243 of the insertion member 240 from the implant”; see optionally [0061] or [0062])
Regarding claim 116, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 110. Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches using an extracorporeal control unit to drive current, via a wire, from the extracorporeal control unit to the target site. ([0021] “The target portion of the implant delivery device is configured to be disposed within the body and convey an electrical signal between a target location within the body and an electrical device disposed outside of the body”; see optionally [0063] “the targeting probe 214 can include an electrode configured to convey an electrical signal between the target tissue T and an electrical device (not shown in FIGS. 4-7) disposed outside of the body B”)
Regarding claim 118, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 116. Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches wherein driving the current, via the wire, from the extracorporeal control unit to the target site comprises driving the current through a channel that is oriented by a guide of the delivery system to face toward the target site. ([0021] “The target portion of the implant delivery device is configured to be disposed within the body and convey an electrical signal between a target location within the body and an electrical device disposed outside of the body” and [0055] “The distal end portion 216 of the target probe 214 is inserted by moving the target probe 214 relative to the target member 210, as shown by arrow CC. In this manner, the insertion of the target probe 214 is guided by the target member”)
Regarding claim 124, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 110. Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches wherein the angle is less than 30 degrees. ([0144] “Although the insertion members are shown and described above as being inserted into the body at an angle of between 30 and 60 degrees (see e.g., FIGS. 11-13, in other embodiments, an insertion member can be inserted into the body at any suitable angle. For example, in some embodiments, an insertion member can be inserted into the body at an angle less than 30 degrees”)
Regarding claim 125, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 110. Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches wherein the angle is greater than 10 degrees. ([0144] “Although the insertion members are shown and described above as being inserted into the body at an angle of between 30 and 60 degrees (see e.g., FIGS. 11-13, in other embodiments, an insertion member can be inserted into the body at any suitable angle. For example, in some embodiments, an insertion member can be inserted into the body at an angle less than 30 degrees”)
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 119-123 and 126 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glukhovsky et al. (US20090182402), hereafter Glukhovsky ‘402.
Regarding claim 119, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 118. Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches repositioning the guide multiple times until a target site is identified ([0057] “locating the target tissue T with the target probe 214 can be an iterative process. Accordingly, in some embodiments, the distal end portion 216 can be inserted into the body before the distal end portion 213 of the targeting member 210 is disposed against the body B. In this manner, the target tissue T can be located before the contact surface 220 is placed against and/or anchored to the skin S. In such embodiments, after the distal end portion 216 of the target tissue 214 is disposed adjacent the target tissue T, the target member 210 is moved about the target probe”) In another embodiment, Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches at which the current has an effect on a detected physiological parameter of the subject. ([0138] “The implant is moved within the body in response to the distance measured”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Glukhovsky’s method to explicitly reposition the needle after physiological measurements until the probe is at Target tissue T, as taught by an embodiment in Glukhovsky. This would have provided iterative location adjustments for the purpose of accurate nerve stimulation.
Regarding claim 120, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 110. Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches wherein the target site is a test target site, and wherein the method further comprises: detecting a physiological parameter of the subject based on the driving of the current from the extracorporeal control unit to the test target site; [0057] “locating the target tissue T with the target probe 214 can be an iterative process. Accordingly, in some embodiments, the distal end portion 216 can be inserted into the body before the distal end portion 213 of the targeting member 210 is disposed against the body B. In this manner, the target tissue T can be located before the contact surface 220 is placed against and/or anchored to the skin S. In such embodiments, after the distal end portion 216 of the target tissue 214 is disposed adjacent the target tissue T, the target member 210 is moved about the target probe”) and identifying the test target site as the target site for delivering the neurostimulator implant thereto based on the detected physiological parameter of the subject. ([0028] “A distance between the distal end portion of the target probe and the implant is measured after the distal end portion of the target probe is inserted and the implant is inserted. The implant is moved within the body in response to the measuring.”)
Regarding claim 121, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 120. Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches anchoring the neurostimulator implant at the target site identified as the target site for delivering the neurostimulator implant thereto, subsequently to the step of identifying the test target site as the target site. ([0060] “target member 210, the coupling member 264 and/or the insertion member 240 allows the distal end portion 243 of the insertion member 240 to be inserted into the body B along multiple different passageways, each of which can terminate at the target tissue T.” and [0057] “locating the target tissue T with the target probe 214 can be an iterative process. Accordingly, in some embodiments, the distal end portion 216 can be inserted into the body before the distal end portion 213 of the targeting member 210 is disposed against the body B. In this manner, the target tissue T can be located before the contact surface 220 is placed against and/or anchored to the skin S. In such embodiments, after the distal end portion 216 of the target tissue 214 is disposed adjacent the target tissue T, the target member 210 is moved about the target probe” and [0028] “A distance between the distal end portion of the target probe and the implant is measured after the distal end portion of the target probe is inserted and the implant is inserted. The implant is moved within the body in response to the measuring.”)
Regarding claim 122, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 120. Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches wherein detecting the physiological parameter of the subject based on the driving of the current from the extracorporeal control unit to the test target site comprises detecting the physiological parameter of the subject based on driving the current from the extracorporeal control unit to multiple test target sites. [0060] “target member 210, the coupling member 264 and/or the insertion member 240 allows the distal end portion 243 of the insertion member 240 to be inserted into the body B along multiple different passageways, each of which can terminate at the target tissue T.”)
Regarding claim 123, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 122. Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches wherein at least some of the multiple test target sites are at different respective depths. [0060] “the length of the coupling member 264 and/or the angle between the insertion member 240 and the coupling member 264 can be adjusted based on the depth D of the target probe”)
Regarding claim 126, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 125. Glukhovsky ‘402 also teaches wherein the angle is less than 30 degrees. ([0144] “Although the insertion members are shown and described above as being inserted into the body at an angle of between 30 and 60 degrees (see e.g., FIGS. 11-13, in other embodiments, an insertion member can be inserted into the body at any suitable angle. For example, in some embodiments, an insertion member can be inserted into the body at an angle less than 30 degrees”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the advancement of the neurostimulator to be at an angle between 10 and 30 degrees, 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] (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 117 and 127-129 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glukhovsky et al. (US20090182402), as applied to claim 110 above, and further in view of Glukhovsky et al. (US20090326602), hereafter Glukhovsky ‘602.
Regarding claim 117, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 116. Glukhovsky ‘402 does not explicitly teach, as taught by Glukhovsky ‘602 wirelessly powering the neurostimulator implant following the removing of the delivery system from the subject. ([0045] “Power can be provided to the stimulator either through a wire connection or through a wireless connection”) It would have been prima facie obvious before ethe effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Glukhovsky ‘402 with a wireless power source, as taught and suggested by Glukhovsky ‘602, for the purpose of wirelessly treating urinary incontinence using nerve stimulation with a reasonable expectation of success. Glukhovsky ‘402 and Glukhovsky ‘602 both are within the same field of endeavor of treating nerve stimulation.
Regarding claim 127, Glukhovsky ‘402 teaches all of the limitations of claim 110. Glukhovsky ‘402 does not explicitly teach, as taught by Glukhovsky ‘602 advancing the neurostimulator implant into the subject's body comprises advancing the neurostimulator implant into a leg of the subject. ([0008] “The implant includes a passive electrical conductor of sufficient length to … to the tibial nerve”) It would have been prima facie obvious before ethe effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Glukhovsky ‘402 to explicitly be placed within the tibial nerve located in the leg, as taught and suggested by Glukhovsky ‘602, for the purpose of treating urinary incontinence using nerve stimulation with a reasonable expectation of success. Glukhovsky ‘402 and Glukhovsky ‘602 both are within the same field of endeavor of treating nerve stimulation.
Regarding claim 128, Glukhovsky ‘402- Glukhovsky ‘602 as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 127. Glukhovsky ‘602 also teaches wherein advancing the neurostimulator implant into the subject's leg comprises implanting the neurostimulator implant in a vicinity of a tibial nerve of the leg. ([0008] “The implant includes a passive electrical conductor of sufficient length to … to the tibial nerve”)
Regarding claim 129, Glukhovsky ‘402- Glukhovsky as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 128. Glukhovsky ‘602 also teaches stimulating the tibial nerve using the neurostimulator implant. ([0008] “The implant includes a passive electrical conductor of sufficient length to … to the tibial nerve”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bonde et al. (US20080269716) describes a way to place a medical device near nerves in the head and neck, especially the occipital nerves and trigeminal nerve. A clinician uses an implant tool that has a bendable needle inside a shape-memory cannula. The needle can be manually reshaped during the procedure to fit the patient’s anatomy, such as the curve of the neck or path around the ear.
Glukhovsky (Pat. 8494650) describes tools and methods for placing a small electrical implant inside a patient’s body. The implant has a stimulation end that sits near a target tissue, and a terminal end that sits under the skin.
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