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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of FIGs 4A-4C in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Examiner acknowledges that the naming of Species was erroneously listed all as “Species A”. The appropriate naming should be Species A, encompassing FIGs 4A-4C; Species B, encompassing FIGs 4D-4E; Species C, encompassing FIGs 4F-4G; Species D, encompassing FIGs 4H-4I; and Species E, encompassing FIGs 14A-14E.
Upon election of Species A, FIGs 4A-4C, applicant states that claims 2-26 reads on the elected species. Examiner disagrees with this categorization of the claims and notes that claims 7-13 are drawn to non-elected species and thereby are withdrawn from consideration at this time.
Claim 7 – “the sealing membrane is located within the filter body” is shown only in nonelected FIGs 4D-4I
Claim 8-11– first and second sealing members/layers is shown only in nonelected FIGs 4H-4I
Claims 12-13 – the series of petals is shown only in nonelected FIGs 14A-14B
Therefore, claims 2-6 and 14-26 are understood to be directed towards elected Species A/FIGs 4A-4C and are thereby considered for examined below.
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 2, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,21, and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 1, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,020,211. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 2, ‘211 discloses a protection system for reducing migration of emboli within a blood flow of a vessel, the protection system comprising (Col 17 lines 34-36): a filter body having a distal portion and a proximal portion (Col 17 lines 37-38), where the filter body is configured for positioning within the vessel such that the blood flow enters the distal portion (Col 17 lines 38-40), wherein a wall of the filter body is porous to permit passage of the blood flow therethrough while capturing emboli within the blood flow (Col 17 lines 40-42); a sealing membrane located circumferentially on the distal portion (Col 17 lines 43-44), where the sealing membrane comprises a compliant section that deflects from the filter body as a result of blood flow against the compliant section wherein the deflection of the compliant section permits creation of a seal against a wall of the vessel (Col 17 lines 44-51; compliant section is interpreted as equivalent to the expandable portion); and a catheter body configured to navigate through the vessel (Col 17 lines 52-54), where the filter body is configured to re-enter the catheter body such that the filter body and emboli located therein are protected within the catheter body upon removal (The filter body is at least configured such that it can be retracted into a collapsed configuration for removal from the treatment site).
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 17, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Macoviak et al. (US 6,361,545).
Regarding claim 2, Macoviak et al. discloses a protection system (132, FIGs 7-8A) for reducing
migration of emboli within a blood flow of a vessel (Abstract, col 3 lines 19-44), the protection system
comprising: a filter body (144, col 9 lines 36-53) having a distal portion (at 138) and a proximal portion (at 146), where the filter body is configured for positioning within the vessel such that the blood flow enters the distal portion (The device of 132 is configured to be positioned similarly to 102 shown in FIG 1. Col 9 line 63-col 10 line 2 discloses blood flow entering the distal portion), wherein a wall of the filter body (The filter screen 140 of filter pocket 144 forms the wall) is porous to permit passage of the blood flow therethrough while capturing emboli within the blood flow (Abstract, Col 6 lines 44-65 discloses the filtering properties of "this exemplary embodiment and each of the other embodiments described below" are configured such that they capture emboli within blood flow. Col 10 lines 6-15 further disclose that blood is able to flow through the filter screen. Therefore, the filter body is interpreted as having a porosity configured to permit the passage of blood flow while preventing passage of emboli of at least some size); a sealing membrane (Skirt 142, col 6 lines 44-60, and the material is configured to seal to the vessel wall or create a seal between an interior and exterior of the filter device i.e. the membrane material creates a seal which is impermeable to emboli) located circumferentially on the distal portion (142 is located circumferentially around struts 136 of the distal portion of the filter body, FIG 8), where the sealing membrane comprises a compliant section that deflects form the filter body as a result of blood flow against the compliant section (“ Blood flow within the aorta catches the skirt 142 of the filter screen 140 and forces the embolic filter assembly 132 to open into the deployed position shown in FIG. 8”. The skirt is understood to be complaint because to moves freely in response to the forces applied by the blood flow), wherein the deflection of the compliant section permits creation of a seal against a wall of the vessel (“As the embolic filter assembly 132 is passively opened by the blood flow, the skirt 142 of the filter screen 140 naturally and atraumatically seals against the aortic wall”); and a catheter body (134/148) configured to navigate through the vessel (Col 9 lines 55-64 discloses catheter 130, and thus catheter body 134, are positioned within the patients aorta. Therefore, catheter body 134 is interpreted as being at least configured to navigate through the vessel in order to be positioned at the aorta), where the filter body is configured to re-enter the catheter body such that the filter body and emboli located therein are protected within the catheter body upon removal (The filter body is at least configured such that it can be retracted into 148 back to a collapsed configuration for removal from the treatment site).
Regarding claim 3, Macoviak et al. discloses a synching member configured to synch a portion of the filter body (Struts 136 are interpreted as a synching member because they can fold inwardly to a collapsed positioning which closes the distal end of the filter body, col 9 line 36-63).
Regarding claim 4, Macoviak et al. discloses the sealing membrane comprises a fluid impermeable material (col 9 lines 52-54 “the skirt 142 may be made of a nonporous material”).
Regarding claim 5, Macoviak et al. discloses the sealing membrane comprises an expandable portion such that blood flow against the sealing membrane causes expansion of the expandable portion (“Blood flow within the aorta catches the skirt 142 of the filter screen 140 and forces the embolic filter assembly 132 to open into the deployed position shown in FIG. 8” is interpreted as expansion to form the seal).
Regarding claim 17, Macoviak et al. discloses the filter body has a pore size of 40 microns to 200 microns (Col 6 lines 44-46 disclose in "this exemplary embodiment and each of the other embodiments
described below". Therefore, the characteristics of the filter screen disclosed in this section are interpreted as applying to the filter screen of the present embodiment as well, i.e. 144 of the filter body. Col 6 lines 65-67 disclose an exemplary pore size of 50-200 microns, which overlaps the claimed range with sufficient specificity).
Regarding claim 19, Macoviak et al. discloses the filter body comprises a sheet of material with controlled porosity (Col 6 lines 44-460 disclose in "this exemplary embodiment and each of the other
embodiments described below". Therefore, the characteristics of the filter screen disclosed in this
section are interpreted as applying to the filter screen of the present embodiment as well, i.e. 144 of the
filter body. Col 6 line 59-col 7 line 9 disclose the fine mesh material is a textile fabric of a fine wire mesh,
interpreted a "sheet of material", with a uniform pore size and that the porosity is chosen, interpreted
as a "controlled porosity").
Regarding claim 24, Macoviak et al. discloses a proximal portion of the filter body is affixed to a distal portion of the catheter body (FIG 8, col 9 lines 44-45 “The proximal end 146 of the filter screen 140 is sealingly attached to the catheter shaft 134”.
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.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macoviak et al. (US 6,361,545), in view of Lam et al. (US 2014/0288588).
Regarding claims 14-15, Macoviak et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2.
Macoviak et al. further discloses the filter body comprises a mesh (Col 6 lines 44-46 disclose in "this exemplary embodiment and each of the other embodiments described below". Therefore, the characteristics of the filter screen disclosed in this section are interpreted as applying to the filter screen of the present embodiment as well, i.e. 144 of the filter body. Col 6 lines 45-53 disclose the filter screen can be made of a fine mesh of woven or knitted fibers).
Macoviak et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the mesh is braided, and that the mesh braid comprises superelastic Nitinol.
However, Lam et al. teaches a filter (20, FIG 1) for trapping emboli in the aorta (Paragraph [0044]) wherein the filter body comprises a mesh braid (Paragraph [0044] discloses the filter can be made of one or more filaments forming a "mesh/braid" which is interpreted as being the same structure as a mesh braid) comprising superelastic Nitinol (Paragraph [0044] discloses the mesh braid is formed from one or more wires composed of NItinol).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the wire filaments of Macoviak et al. such that they are braided and comprise superelastic Nitinol, as taught by Lam et al., for the purpose of being a biocompatible and hemocompatible material commonly known in the art and performing equally as well at providing a structure and a filament to form a mesh of a filter body for trapping emboli. Furthermore, the modification of the wire filaments to
be a structure commonly known in the art (mesh braid) and a material commonly known in the art (Nitinol) would have resulted in the predictable result of providing a mesh material with shape memory properties to assist in the deployment of the filter body. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 6, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macoviak et al. (US 6,361,545), in view of Richter et al. (US 2014/0277096).
Regarding claim 6, Macoviak et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2.
Macoviak et al. is silent regarding the sealing membrane comprising a thin film polymer or
elastomer.
However, Richter et al. discloses in the same field of endeavor, a protection system (FIG 1) for
reducing migration of emboli within a blood flow of a vessel (Paragraphs [0029 and 0036]), comprising a
filter body (30, paragraph [0036]) and a sealing membrane (33, paragraph [0036]) wherein the sealing
membrane comprises a thin film polymer or elastomer (Paragraph [0036] discloses 33 is radially
compressible and expandable, and can be made of a plastic. This plastic ring is interpreted as a "thin film
polymer" because it is thin enough to be deformable and the claim does not set forth what thickness
would be considered "thin film").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to
modify the expandable portion of the sealing membrane to comprise a thin film polymer, as taught by
Richter, for the purpose of being a biocompatible and hemocompatible material commonly known in
the art and performing equally as well at providing a non-porous material for creating a seal with the
vessel wall. Furthermore, the modification of the sealing membrane material would require only the
simple substitution of materials commonly known in the art and would have resulted in the predictable
result of providing a flexible material capable of forming a seal with the vessel wall so as to not allow
emboli to pass around the filter body. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, Macoviak et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth
above for claim 2.
Macoviak et al. is silent regarding the filter body comprising a thin film polymer or elastomer.
However, Richter et al. discloses in the same field of endeavor, a protection system (FIG 1)
for reducing migration of emboli within a blood flow of a vessel (Paragraph [0029 and 0036]), comprising
a filter body (32, paragraphs [0036 and 0038]) and a sealing membrane (33, paragraph [0036]) wherein
the filter body comprises a thin film polymer or elastomer (Paragraph [0039] discloses filter areas 32 can
be made of the same material of covering 31 but modified to be porous. Paragraph [0037] discloses said
material can be a polymer such as polyether block amides such as PEBAX, silicone polycarbonate
urethane, polyurethane, silicone, nylon, and PET. These materials are interpreted as a thin film polymer
or elastomer)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to
modify the filter body to comprise a thin film polymer, as taught by Richter, for the purpose of being a
biocompatible and hemocompatible material commonly known in the art an providing equally as well at
providing a filter material for trapping emboli. Furthermore, the modification of the filter material would
require only the simple substitution of materials commonly known in the art and would have resulted in
the predictable result of providing a flexible material capable of trapping emboli while allowing the
passage of blood. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 18, Macoviak et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth
above for claim 2. Macoviak et al. further discloses a proximal seal within the filter body and located
adjacent to the proximal portion of the device (Col 9 lines 44-45 disclose proximal end 146 of the filter
body is sealingly attached to the catheter shaft, thus forming a proximal seal. This point of attachment
occurs between an inside of the filter body and an outside of the catheter shaft, therefore it is
interpreted as being located within the filter body and adjacent to a proximal end of the device).
Macoviak et al. is silent regarding the proximal seal being a proximal sealing membrane.
However, Richter et al. discloses in the same field of endeavor, a protection system (FIG 1) for
reducing migration of emboli within a blood flow of a vessel (Paragraph [0029 and 0036]), comprising a
filter body (30, paragraph [0036]) sealingly attached to a catheter shaft (20) at a proximal portion (38) of
the device, wherein the proximal seal is a proximal sealing membrane (Paragraph [0042] discloses the
filter is attached to the catheter by means of gluing or bonding. This glue is interpreted as a proximal
sealing membrane because the glue acts as a membrane which seals the filter body to the catheter
shaft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to
modify the attachment between the filter body and the catheter of Macoviak et al. to be achieved by
means of gluing, as taught by Richter et al., for the purpose of using a means commonly known in the art
for attaching a filter body to a catheter shaft (Richter: Paragraph [0042]). The device as modified meets
the claimed limitation because it comprises a proximal sealing membrane (the glue attachment acts as a
membrane and seals a proximal end of the filter body) within the filter body and at a proximal end of
the device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macoviak et al. (US
6,361,545), in view of Gera et al. (US 2016/0120636).
Regarding claim 20, Macoviak et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2.
Macoviak et al. is silent regarding the filter body being composed of strips of material which
overlay to form a continuous surface.
However, Gera et al. teaches a filter (100, FIGs 1-2, paragraph [0051]) for trapping emboli in the
aorta and allowing the passage of blood (FIG 3, paragraph [0052]) wherein the filter body is composed
of strips of material (108, FIG 1-2, paragraphs [0029 and 0051]) which overlay to form a continuous
surface (Paragraph [0051]; "The overlapping filter leaflets 108 form a continuous filter surface (FIG. 2)").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to
modify the filter body of Macoviak et al. to be composed of strips of material which overlay to form a
continuous surface, as taught by Gera et al., for the purpose of substituting a commonly known means
for creating a continuous wall of a filter body, with the additional benefit of being able to collapse into a
delivery configuration having a smaller diameter with less folding of the filter material. Such a
modification would achieve the predictable result of forming a continuous surface of a filter body for
filtering blood to trap emboli. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macoviak et al. (US
6,361,545).
Regarding claims 21-22, Macoviak et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2.
Macoviak et al. is silent regarding at least one pull wire coupled to the distal portion such that
application of a tensile force on the at least one pull wire urges the distal portion to a closed position
and at least one resilient ring located at a distal end of the filter body to bias the distal end in an open
position in an absence of the tensile force.
However, Macoviak et al. teaches in the embodiment of FIGs 4-6, an alternative means for
passive deployment of the embolic filter comprising at least one pull wire (Any of 118 are interpreted as
a pull wire because they are thin metal struts which are capable of being pulled) coupled to the distal
portion (FIGs 4-6 show wires 118 are coupled to a distal portion of the filter body) such that application
of a tensile force on the at least one pull wire urges the distal portion to a closed position (Col 9 lines 18-
21 disclose "to place the embolic filter assembly 102 in the collapsed position shown in FIG. 4, the struts
118 are folded back in the proximal direction". Therefore, the wires are interpreted as being at least
configured such that application of a tensile force on the wire, i.e. folding back in the proximal direction,
urges the distal portion into a closed position) and at least one resilient ring (116, FIGs 4-6, col 9 lines 11-
18 disclose the hoop/ring is made of an elastic or superelastic metal or polymer, for example a
superelastic nickel/titanium alloy, which is easily deformed into the collapsed state and which expands
passively from the collapsed state to the deployed state. Therefore, it is interpreted as being a resilient
ring) located at a distal end of the filter body (FIGs 4-6) to bias the distal end in an open position in an
absence of the tensile force (Col 9 lines 11-18 and lines 28-31 discloses the hoop/ring 116 expands
passively from the collapsed state to the deployed state and is configured to do so in an absence of a
tensile force of the pull wires which would prevent said passive expansion). Furthermore, col 7 line 62-
col 8 line 1 disclose various passive means of deploying the filter body can include use of filter support
structure 114 (Which col 9 lines 11-15 disclose is wires 118 and ring 116) and/or using pressure from the
blood flow in the aorta to deploy the embolic filter assembly.
Claims 23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macoviak et al. (US 6,361,545), in view of Adams et al. (US 2014/0249568).
Regarding claim 23, Macoviak et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2.
Macoviak et al. teaches use of the filter body to capture emboli within the aorta during heart surgery (abstract) but fails to explicitly teach the catheter body comprising a TAVR guide catheter.
However, Adams et al. teaches a cylindrical shaped filter device (140, FIG 6, [0043]) for permitting passage of blood flow while restricting flow of emboli ([0043]) comprising a TAVR guide catheter (“T”, FIG 6, [0043]) delivered through the filter body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the catheter body of Macoviak to comprise a TAVR guide catheter, as taught by Adams, for the purpose of configuring the device to perform a particular aortic treatment.
Regarding claims 25-26, Macoviak et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2.
Macoviak et al. is silent regarding in a deployment configuration, the filter body is inverted within the catheter body such that the distal portion of the filter body is proximally located to the proximal portion of the filter body within the catheter body and a stabilizing device located within the catheter body, wherein the stabilizing device is configured to support the distal portion of the filter body as the catheter body is withdrawn relative to the filter body, such that withdrawal of the catheter body causes the filter body to evert from a distal end of the catheter body.
However, Adams et al. teaches a cylindrical shaped filter device (100, FIGs 2A-2B, paragraphs [0034-0036]) for permitting passage of blood flow while restricting flow of emboli (Abstract, paragraphs [0003 and 0037]) and a catheter body (“C”, equivalent to 148 in Macoviak), wherein in a deployment configuration (FIG 2B), the filter body is inverted within the catheter body such that the distal portion of the filter body (105) is proximally located to the proximal portion of the filter body within the catheter body (FIG 2B, [0034]) and a stabilizing device (106, equivalent to 134 in Macoviak) located within the catheter body (FIG 2A-2B), wherein the stabilizing device is configured to support the distal portion of the filter body as the catheter body is withdrawn relative to the filter body, such that withdrawal of the catheter body causes the filter body to evert from a distal end of the catheter body ([0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the deployment of the device of Macoviak to comprise inverting the filter body within the catheter body and substituting the stabilizing device for the inner catheter member, as taught by Adams, for the purpose of utilizing a commonly known technique in the art for deploying the filter body at the target treatment site, with the added benefit that, the rolling motion of distal end of the filter body during deployment minimizes the generation of emboli (Adams [0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE N LABRANCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 5712727134. 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.
/BROOKE LABRANCHE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights