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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 22, 28, 29, 33, and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22: in line 2, “implantable medical device” should read “the implantable medical device”.
Claim 22: in the last line, “anatomical area” should read “anatomical structure” for consistency with claim 21 from which it depends.
Claims 28 and 29: in line 4 of claim 28, “an electrical phenomena” should read “an electrical phenomenon” (in view of “an”). Note that “phenomena” in claim 29 (line 2) should also be changed to “phenomenon” for consistency.
Claim 33: “the recipient” should read “the human” for consistency with claim 28 from which it depends.
Claim 35: in line 6, “haling” should read “halting”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Lines 2-3 of claim 35 recites “of a human of a recipient” which appears to be a typographical error. Because claim 35 later recites “the recipient” (in line 4), while claims 36 and 39 recite “the human” (line 3 of claim 36; lines 3 and 5 of claim 39), it is unclear which limitation (“of a human” or “of a recipient”) is the intended recitation in lines 2-3 of claim 35, noting that the scope of these two terms is different. For purposes of claim interpretation, lines 2-3 of claim 35 is being treated as though it reads “recipient”.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haller et al. (US 2010/0114288). Haller discloses a system (fig. 7) comprising a mechanical assembly (insertion tool 600) configured to move an implantable medical device (e.g., cochlear lead 190, or sensor on lead [0052]; [0054]) relative to an anatomical structure of a recipient, and a control unit (700) configured to receive data obtained from a sensor apparatus that is part of the system or separate from the system (see esp. [0052] – sensors on/within electrode array) and control the mechanical assembly based at least in part on the received data ([0074], [0079]-[0081]; fig. 9).
Regarding clam 22, the implantable medical device (e.g., cochlear lead 190) is a component of a sensory supplement implant (in particular, a cochlear implant), the system is a sensory supplement implant electrode array insertion system, and the mechanical assembly includes an actuator (660) configured to advance and retract an electrode array (195). The control unit of Haller controls actuation of the actuator to at least advance the electrode array into and out of an anatomical area (the cochlea) based on the received data ([0079]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 24, Haller discloses that the mechanical assembly includes an actuator (660) that moves the implantable device and includes an electrode array support (portion of 660 that holds electrode array), wherein the system is configured to insert an electrode array of the implantable medical device into a cochlea via controlled actuation of the actuator, wherein the controlled actuation is at least partially based on the received data.
Regarding claim 26, the implantable medical device is an implantable sensory prothesis (cochlear implant; see abstract and [0050]).
Claim(s) 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patrick et al. (US 2014/0350640; “Patrick”). Patrick discloses a method ([0008]) comprising inserting at least a first portion of an assembly (e.g., electrode array (146)) into an anatomical body part (in particular, cochlea) of a recipient (note 35 USC 112b rejection above) during a first temporal period (“robotic insertion device”; [0115]), monitoring an electrical phenomenon within the recipient at least one of during the first temporal period or during a second temporal period subsequent to the first temporal period ([0046]), and adjusting how the assembly is being advanced and/or halting advancement of the assembly based on the action of monitoring ([0115]: uses signals to halt procedure, change speed, change direction, etc.).
Regarding claim 36, the action of monitoring the electrical phenomenon as disclosed by Patrick is executed using a sensor that is completely outside the cochlea of the human (see sensor placement 202a-e in fig. 2a, all of which are external to the cochlea, noting only region 212 is an intracochlear region; see par. [0046] – proximity sensor measures proximity to cochlear wall by measuring electrical or electro-neural properties).
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.
Claim(s) 23, 25, 27-36, 38, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haller in view of Patrick et al. (US 2014/0350640; “Patrick”).
Regarding claim 28, Haller discloses the invention substantially as stated above with respect to claims 21 and 22, including a mechanical assembly (600) configured to move a component (electrode array) of an implantable medical device relative to an anatomical body part/structure (i.e., cochlea) of a human, and a control unit (700) configured to receive data from the implantable medical device (in particular, a sensor component thereof) and control the mechanical assembly based at least in part on the received data ([0079]-[0083]; fig. 9). Haller does not expressly disclose that the data is based on an electrical phenomenon of the human, and instead discloses force measurements.
Patrick teaches another implantable medical device comprising a component of a cochlear implant. Like the prior art of Haller, the implantable medical device comprises a sensor positioned on or in the lead area of a cochlear implant which is used to assist in robotic insertion of the electrode array by using the signals from the sensor to halt the procedure, change direction (e.g., angle or reverse), or disengage the robot from the device. The implantable sensor is able to gather information about a parameter and output a signal ([0110]) that can be used to control a mechanical insertion assembly ([0112];[0115]). The sensors taught by Patrick sense electrical or electro-neural phenomenon inside the recipient in order to detect when the tip of an electrode array of the cochlear implant contacts or is in close proximity to the wall of the recipient’s cochlea (see at least [0036], [0046], [0101], [0103], [0105], [0106],[ 0108]). The measurements can be used with a control device which executes algorithms to determine if dislocation, tip foldover, etc. has or is likely to occur and to provide a surgeon with real-time feedback. Patrick discloses such electrical measurements as a known alternative to force measurements (see [0044],[0046]; claims 10,11 of Patrick) used to determine positional information about an electrode array during the insertion of a cochlear implant, and further discloses that the different embodiments having different types of sensors may be used in various combinations ([0139],[0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the prior art of Haller to construct the implantable medical device to include a sensor that senses an electrical phenomenon of the human, and to configure the control unit to receive this electrical phenomenon data, in view of the teachings of Patrick in order to further facilitate correct positioning of a cochlear implant during its insertion into the recipient by detecting proximity of the distal tip of the electrode array to a wall of the recipient’s cochlea based on the electrical phenomenon data.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, the system of Haller as modified by Patrick, is configured to evaluate the data (see at least [0079] of Haller) based on the feedback data, which is electrical phenomenon as taught by Patrick, to develop data indicative of a position of the assembly including the component, which includes an electrode of the implantable body (see fig. 8 of Haller; [0064]) relative to the anatomical body part, in particular the cochlea (e.g., how close tip, and therefore electrode array, is to wall of recipient’s cochlea, as taught by Patrick), and the system is configured to control the assembly while moving the component (electrode) into the cochlea based on the developed data indicative of the position of the electrode array ([0052], [0079]-[0082] and fig. 9 of Haller). The mechanical assembly (600, which includes articulated members 610; fig. 6 of Haller) is a means for moving the component, noting “means for moving the component” invokes 35 USC112f, and the corresponding structure in the instant specification includes a support arm and joint (422 and 426 in instant application; see [0248] of the instant application’s printed publication US 2026/0115457).
Regarding claims 23, 25, 27, and 31, see [0021], [0090]-[0092], [0108] of Patrick, noting Haller has been modified in view of Patrick to receive data based on an electrical phenomenon of the human as discussed above, which may be evoked compound action potential according to Patrick. Regarding “evoked compound action potentials”, the stimulating contacts 630(1)-(4) (fig. 6c of Patrick) may also measure compound action potentials. Regarding claims 25 and 27, the received data is the evoked compound action potentials as taught by Patrick, which is responsive to surrounding tissue and thus indicative of, and corresponds to, angular insertion depth of the electrode array in the cochlea. Patrick also teaches that the electrical phenomenon may be the impedance between two electrodes of the electrode array (see [0093] of Patrick), which is also indicative of, and corresponds to, angular insertion depth of the electrode array in the cochlea. Note that claims 25 and 27 do not require that the control unit determines the angular insertion depth based on the monitored electrical phenomenon (action potential or impedance).
Regarding claim 32, Haller discloses that the control unit is configured to control the mechanical assembly to move the component (electrode array) into the cochlea according to a general insertion regime ([0061]), and make micro adjustments (e.g., via micromanipulators 615,620,625) to the general insertion regime (see also [0063],[0074]), wherein the adjustments are based on received data (e.g., adjustment made after circled area 870 in fig. 8 of Haller). According to Patrick, it is known to receive data based on electrical phenomenon inside a recipient, and use this data to change speed or direction of a mechanical insertion device (see at least [0046],[0115]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to base the adjustments on received data, wherein the received data is based on electrical phenomenon inside the recipient as taught by Patrick, since the received data indicates the proximity of the tip of the electrode array to the wall of the cochlea.
Regarding claim 33, the control unit of Haller is configured to evaluate data received from a sensor to determine at least one of whether a deleterious insertion event has occurred or is likely to occur, and to control the mechanical assembly based at least in part on the evaluation (see at least par. [0079]-[0083]). The mechanical assembly (600, which includes articulated members 610; fig. 6 of Haller) is a means for moving the component, noting “means for moving the component” invokes 35 USC112f, and the corresponding structure in the instant specification includes a support arm (422) and joint (426; see [0248] of the instant application’s printed publication US 2026/0115457). As taught by Patrick, the data may be based on electrical phenomenon inside the recipient sensed by the sensor.
Regarding claim 34, see at least [0069] and [0081] of Haller. Haller discloses that insertion must stop if a force exceeds a maximum allowable force, and the mechanical assembly will take corrective action if the deleterious insertion event has occurred or is likely to occur (e.g., force approaches maximum allowable force). See also [0115] of Patrick, which describes halting the procedure based on signals from the implantable sensor.
Regarding claim 35, Haller discloses a method comprising advancing at least a first portion of an assembly including an electrode (e.g., electrode array 195) into an anatomical body part, a cochlea in particular, of a recipient during a first temporal period, monitoring a parameter within the recipient at least one of during the first temporal period or during a second temporal period subsequent to the first temporal period, and adjusting how the assembly is being advanced and/or halting advancement of the assembly based on the action of monitoring ([0052], [0069], [0079]-[0083]; fig. 9). Regarding claim 35, Haller fails to disclose that the parameter is electrical phenomenon associated with the recipient, and instead discloses that the parameter is a force measurement.
Patrick teaches another implantable medical device comprising a component of a cochlear implant. Like the prior art of Haller, the implantable medical device comprises a sensor positioned on or in the lead area of a cochlear implant which is used to assist in mechanical robotic insertion of the electrode array by using the signals from the sensor to halt the procedure, change direction (e.g., angle or reverse), or disengage the robot from the device. The implantable sensor is able to gather information about a parameter and output a signal ([0110]) that can be used to control speed of a fully automated, or combination of handheld and fully automated insertion tool ([0112];[0115]). The sensors taught by Patrick sense electrical or electro-neural phenomenon inside the recipient in order to detect when the tip of an electrode array of the cochlear implant contacts or is in close proximity to the wall of the recipient’s cochlea (see at least [0036], [0046], [0101], [0103], [0105], [0106],[ 0108]). The measurements can be used with a control device which executes algorithms to determine if dislocation, tip foldover, etc. has or is likely to occur and to provide a surgeon with real-time feedback. Patrick discloses such electrical measurements as a known alternative to force measurements (see [0044],[0046]; claims 10,11 of Patrick) used to determine positional information about an electrode array during the insertion of a cochlear implant, and further discloses that the different embodiments having different types of sensors may be used in various combinations ([0139],[0141]). Patrick further discloses that the sensors may monitor parameters continuously or at discrete times ([0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the prior art of Haller to construct the implantable medical device to include a sensor that senses electrical phenomenon inside the recipient, such that the monitoring step of the method of Haller includes monitoring the electrical phenomenon, and to configure the control unit to receive this electrical phenomenon data and control the actuator based on this monitoring, in view of the teachings of Patrick in order to further facilitate correct positioning of a cochlear implant during its insertion into the recipient by detecting proximity of the distal tip of the electrode array to a wall of the recipient’s cochlea based on the electrical phenomenon data.
Regarding claim 36, the action of monitoring the electrical phenomenon as taught by Patrick is executed using a sensor that is completely outside the cochlea of the human (see sensor placement 202a-e in fig. 2a, all of which are external to the cochlea, noting only region 212 is an intracochlear region; see par. [0046] – proximity sensor measures proximity to cochlear wall by measuring electrical or electro-neural properties).
Regarding claim 38, the electrical phenomenon is an electrical phenomenon influenced by impedance between a first electrode of the assembly and a second electrode of the assembly as taught by (see [0093] of Patrick), which can be used to detect tip dislocation as taught by Patrick.
Regarding claim 40, see [0021], [0090]-[0092], [0108] of Patrick.
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 (21, 28), (29,30), 33, 34, 35, and 37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (1), (2), 3, 4, 8, and 11, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,285,314. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims (21, 28), (29,30), 33, 34, 35, and 37 of the instant application are merely broader than claims (1), (2), 3, 4, 8, and 11, respectively, of '314 and are thus "anticipated" by claims (1), (2), 3, 4, 8, and 11 of '314. Note that the "anatomical structure of a recipient" (or anatomical body part of a human) as recited in the instant claims is merely broader than "cochlea" as recited in the claims of '314. Additionally, " a mechanical assembly" and “an assembly” of the claimed system as recited in the instant claims is merely broader than "a robotic assembly" of the system as recited in the claims of '314. Additionally, a “robotic assembly” meets the corresponding 35 USC 112f structure invoked by “a means for moving the component” in instant claims 29 and 33. Regarding the limitations found in claims (1), (2), 3, 4, 8, and 11 of '314 which are not found in claims (21, 28), (29, 30), 33, 34, 35 and 37, respectively, of the instant invention, once an applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, he or she is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without filing a terminal disclaimer (see In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed Cir. 1993)).
Claims 21, 22, 23, (24,26), (25,27), (28,30), 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6, (3), (8), (9), 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 22, and 36, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,268,869. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21, 22, 23, (24,26), (25,27), (28,30), 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the instant application are merely broader than claims 1, 2, 6, (3), (8), (9), 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 22, and 36, respectively, of '869 and are thus "anticipated" by the listed claims of '869. Note that the "anatomical structure of a recipient" (or anatomical body part of a human) as recited in the instant claims is merely broader than "cochlea" as recited in the claims of '869. Additionally, " a mechanical assembly" and “an assembly” of the claimed system as recited in the instant claims is merely broader than "a robotic assembly" of the system as recited in the claims of ‘869. Additionally, a “robotic assembly” meets the corresponding 35 USC 112f structure invoked by “a means for moving the component” in instant claims 29 and 33. Regarding the limitations found in claims 1, 2, 6, (3), (8), (9), 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 22, and 36 of ‘869 which are not found in claims 21, 22, 23, (24,26), (25,27), (28,30), 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37, respectively, of the instant invention, once an applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, he or she is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without filing a terminal disclaimer (see In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed Cir. 1993)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting and under 35 USC 112b as noted above, but would be allowable if a proper terminal disclaimer is filed, and the claim is rewritten to overcome the 35 USC 112b rejection and to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2012/0316454 to Carter discloses that impedance measurements between two electrodes ([0051]) can be used to determine the proximity of an electrode to different physical structures within the cochlea and to determine instantaneous insertion depth [0051] (Carter does not expressly disclose determining angular insertion depth).
US 2015/0314122 to Kabot et al. teaches that the impedance between a first electrode and a second electrode of a cochlear implant assembly electrode array may be measured and used to determine instantaneous insertion depth (though “angular” insertion depth is not disclosed) of the electrode array as well as to determine when a tip fold over occurs during surgical implantation of the electrode array (see [0041], [0051], [0087]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN SONNETT HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5, with alternate Fridays off.
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.
KSH 9/3/2026
/KATHLEEN S HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights