DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 31 March 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 31-32, 34, and 42 have been amended, claims 49 and 50 have been added. Thus claims 31-50 are presently pending in this application, and claims 35-36, 42, and 45-48 remain withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each claim objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 13 March 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 of REMARKS that there is no articulated reason to combine Hagy and Liu. Applicant argues the purposed reasoning to combine the references to shorten the time for establishing pneumoperitoneum and reducing surgical risks are not legitimate explicit reasons to combine, and instead are vague aspirations. Applicant argues that a POSITA already has knowledge of towel clamps used in laparoscopic surgery to grasp and elevate abdominal skin and no further details were provided to indicate how Hagy could be modified to include limitations of Liu.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Hagy discloses all of the limitations in the claim except that the method is performed during a laparoscopic surgery and is silent to tenting abdominal skin specifically. Hagy describes the device is beneficial for medical procedures that involve the puncture of skin [0069]. Liu teaches a medical procedure that benefits from lifting skin is a laparoscopic surgery and the skin to be lifted is abdominal. The motivation to combine is simple but simplicity is not equivalent to a vague aspiration. Shortening the time for establishing pneumoperitoneum and reducing surgical risks are valid reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would want to lift abdominal skin for facilitating needle insertion. Applicant admits that lifting abdominal skin during a laparoscopic surgery is known to a POSITA, therefore, even without the combination with the Liu reference, one of ordinary skill would be able to identify the device and method of Hagy which is used to lift skin during a medical procedure involving insertion of a needle as beneficial in insertion of a needle during a laparoscopic surgery. The modification of Hagy in view of Liu does not change anything about the structure of the device of Hagy or how it functions, instead, the modification results in the medical procedure the device of Hagy is used in being laparoscopic surgery and the type of skin lifted is abdominal skin.
Where the examiner recites “It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the method of Hagy et al. to include the limitations as taught by Liu et al.” this is not to say that ALL of the elements and limitations in the Liu reference are modified into Hagy, instead it is the limitations cited in the rejection that are being incorporated. Specifically the limitations being included are the method is “a procedure in a laparoscopic surgery ([0002] “Establishing pneumoperitoneum is the first step in laparoscopic surgery”) tenting a patient’s abdominal skin ([0002] ”pull the umbilical skin upward”) to expand the abdominal cavity ([0002] “to increase the abdominal space”).“ The structure of the device of Hagy is unchanged by this combination, using the device of Hagy in a laparoscopic surgery to tent abdominal skin is not so complicated that one of ordinary skill would have any trouble understanding how the modification is made.
Applicant argues the only possible basis for modifying Hagy to include the limitations from Liu is the prescribed hindsight application of Applicant’s own disclosure because there is simply no teaching or suggestion in Hagy that its hand held device be used in a laparoscopic procedure and Liu addresses mechanical laparoscopic skin lifting forceps that comprise two toothed jaws.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the devices of Hagy and Liu are clearly different, the modification of Hagy does not rely on the structure of the device of Liu. Liu and Hagy both teach lifting skin to facilitate puncture with a needle during a medical procedure. Liu goes further to describe the medical procedure is laparoscopic surgery and the skin is abdominal skin. The modification of Hagy to incorporate these limitations is straight forward and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues on page 8 of REMARKS that the proposed modification would change the principle of operation of Hagy because the only possible “limitations” that are being included could be the forceps depicted in Fig 1 and this modification would require a substantial reconstruction of Hagy and change the basic principle of operation.
It is unclear to the examiner if is this is an unintentional mischaracterization of the rejection or if it is an argument over the formalities of the structure of the rejection instead of the merits of the rejection. Either way, to clarify what is being incorporated by the combination of Hagy and Liu in the rejection of claim 31, the examiner points to the rejection of claim 31 which cites the limitations from Liu that are being incorporated, that the method is “a procedure in a laparoscopic surgery ([0002] “Establishing pneumoperitoneum is the first step in laparoscopic surgery”) tenting a patient’s abdominal skin ([0002] ”pull the umbilical skin upward”) to expand the abdominal cavity ([0002] “to increase the abdominal space”).“. The structure of the device of Hagy is not changed by the modification in view of Liu in the rejection of claim 31, neither is the basic principle of operation. The only change is that the device of Hagy would be used specifically in a laparoscopic surgery, tenting a patient’s abdominal skin to expand the abdominal cavity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 31-34, 39, 41, 43, 49-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagy et al. (US 2016/0339186 A1) in view of Liu et al. (CN 201542695 U).
Regarding claim 31, Hagy et al. discloses a method of performing a procedure on a patient, comprising the steps of: providing a hand held tissue lifting device ([0033] “The ability to apply a lifting force to the skin can also oppose needle puncture force during a skin puncture procedure”) comprising an anchor (14 Fig 4B) including an upper surface and a lower surface (the top surface of 14 is shown in Fig 4B, the bottom surface is under it), and a layer of adhesive on said lower surface for attachment to abdominal skin of said patient ([0054] “The bottom side of the skin contacting member 14 will contact the skin during use, and a biocompatible adhesive is carried on the bottom side of the skin contacting member 14 for adhering the device to the skin.”), said adhesive being configured to tent the abdomen under a tensile force applied thereto ([0033] “apply a lifting force to the skin can also oppose needle puncture force during a skin puncture procedure”), and a handle (12 Fig 4B) attached to said upper surface (As shown in Fig 4B, the handle attaches to the upper surface, [0046] “the gripping tab 12 can be adhered to the desired location on the surface of the skin contacting member 14”) that is sized and configured to be hand held by a user ([0046] “gripping tab 12”, a gripping tab is sized and configured to be gripped by a user’s hand, also shown in the embodiment in Fig 8); attaching said hand held tissue lifting device to said patient by adhesively securing said adhesive to said patient's skin (Claim 12 “adhering the biocompatible adhesive on the bottom of the skin contacting member of the skin adhesive device of claim 1 to the skin”); manually applying said tensile force to said handle upwardly away from said patient to lift said skin and tent the patient's skin (Claim 12 “maintaining a pulling pressure on the gripping tab during the medical procedure, the pulling pressure pulling the skin adhered to the biocompatible adhesive and maintaining the skin taut.”); and introducing a surgical instrument through said tented skin while said hand held tissue lifting device is attached to said patient and holding said skin in an elevated position ([0032] “the device can be adhered to the skin and can hold the skin taut during insertion of a subdermal device, such as a needle through the taut skin without compression of the subdermal architecture beneath the skin during the insertion”).
However, Hagy et al. fails to disclose the procedure is in a laparoscopic surgery, the tented skin is the patient’s abdominal skin to expand the abdominal cavity.
Liu et al. teaches a procedure in a laparoscopic surgery ([0002] “Establishing pneumoperitoneum is the first step in laparoscopic surgery”) tenting a patient’s abdominal skin ([0002]” pull the umbilical skin upward”) to expand the abdominal cavity ([0002] “to increase the abdominal space”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the method of Hagy et al. to include the limitations as taught by Liu et al. to shorten the time for establishing pneumoperitoneum and reducing surgical risks [0003].
Regarding claim 32, modified Hagy et al. teaches the method of claim 31. The method of modified Hagy et al. would require the manually applying step to be practiced by applying said tensile force, however, the specific range of force applied is not disclosed.
Hagy et al. discloses ([0069]) that the force applied needs to be optimized because ”The upward force on the skin provided by the disclosed device can oppose the puncture or cutting force of a medical device utilized to access subdermal formations and as the subdermal features will be less compressed”. A limited force is applied to tent a portion of the skin, as such the tensile force applied is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the force applied changes the lift of the skin and how it opposed the puncture or cutting force. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the modified Hagy et al. method to have an application of a tensile force in the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the force applied which is disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of modified Hagy et al. by making the tensile force applied be up to 10 pounds as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 33, modified Hagy et al. teaches the method of claim 32. The method of modified Hagy et al. would require the tensile force to be applied for some amount of time, however, the specific amount of time the force is applied is not disclosed.
Hagy et al. discloses ([0007]) that the duration of the tensile force to be applied needs to be as long as the medical procedure of puncturing takes: “The pulling pressure can pull the skin that is adhered to the adhesive and can maintain the skin taut during the medical procedure.” [0007], “The adhesive device can stretch the skin and keep it taut against the medical device throughout the procedure.” [0009] The tensile force needs to be applied for the duration of the procedure, as such the time the tensile force is applied is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the amount of time the force is applied changes the time that can be taken for a puncturing procedure. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the modified Hagy et al. method to have an application of a tensile force in the claimed time range, as it involves only adjusting the time the force is applied which is disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of modified Hagy et al. by making the tensile force applied be up to 30 seconds as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 34, modified Hagy et al. teaches the method of claim 31. The method of modified Hagy et al. would require said tensile force to be applied for some amount of time, however, the specific amount of time the force is applied is not disclosed.
Hagy et al. discloses ([0007]) that the duration of the tensile force to be applied needs to be as long as the medical procedure of puncturing takes: “The pulling pressure can pull the skin that is adhered to the adhesive and can maintain the skin taut during the medical procedure.” [0007], “The adhesive device can stretch the skin and keep it taut against the medical device throughout the procedure.” [0009] The tensile force needs to be applied for the duration of the procedure, as such the time the tensile force is applied is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the amount of time the force is applied changes the time that can be taken for a puncturing procedure. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the modified Hagy et al. method to have an application of a tensile force in the claimed time range, as it involves only adjusting the time the force is applied which is disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of modified Hagy et al. by making the tensile force applied be up to 30 seconds as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 39, modified Hagy et al. teaches the method of claim 31. Hagy et al. further teaches wherein said anchor has a periphery, and wherein said manually applying step is practiced by applying said tensile force centrally of and fully within said periphery (As shown in Fig 4B the gipping tab 12 is attached centrally and fully within the periphery of the anchor 14).
Regarding claim 41, modified Hagy et al. teaches the method of claim 31. Hagy et al. further teaches wherein said providing step is practiced by forming said anchor and said handle as separate components (See the separate components 12 and 14 in Fig 4B to be attached).
Regarding claim 43, modified Hagy et al. teaches the method of claim 31. Hagy et al. further teaches wherein said providing step is practiced by forming said anchor to include a first anchor portion (the portion of the anchor to the left of the handle in Fig 4B) and a second anchor portion (the portion of the anchor to the right of the handle in Fig 4B), each of which has a lower surface including a portion of said layer of adhesive (both sides of the lower surface of anchor 14 includes a layer of adhesive).
Regarding claim 49, Hagy et al. discloses a method of performing a procedure on a patient, comprising: providing a hand held tissue lifting device ([0033] “The ability to apply a lifting force to the skin can also oppose needle puncture force during a skin puncture procedure”) comprising an anchor (14 Fig 4B) including an upper surface and a lower surface (the top surface of 14 is shown in Fig 4B, the bottom surface is under it), and a layer of adhesive on said lower surface for attachment to abdominal skin of said patient ([0054] “The bottom side of the skin contacting member 14 will contact the skin during use, and a biocompatible adhesive is carried on the bottom side of the skin contacting member 14 for adhering the device to the skin.”), said adhesive being configured to tent the abdomen under a tensile force applied thereto ([0033] “apply a lifting force to the skin can also oppose needle puncture force during a skin puncture procedure”), and a handle (12 Fig 4B) attached to said upper surface (As shown in Fig 4B, the handle attaches to the upper surface, [0046] “the gripping tab 12 can be adhered to the desired location on the surface of the skin contacting member 14”) that is sized and configured to be hand held by a user ([0046] “gripping tab 12”, a gripping tab is sized and configured to be gripped by a user’s hand, also shown in the embodiment in Fig 8); attaching said hand held tissue lifting device to said patient by adhesively securing said adhesive to said patient's skin (Claim 12 “adhering the biocompatible adhesive on the bottom of the skin contacting member of the skin adhesive device of claim 1 to the skin”); manually applying a tensile force to said handle upwardly away from said patient to lift said skin and tent the patient's skin (Claim 12 “maintaining a pulling pressure on the gripping tab during the medical procedure, the pulling pressure pulling the skin adhered to the biocompatible adhesive and maintaining the skin taut.”); and introducing a surgical instrument through said tented skin while said hand held tissue lifting device is attached to said patient and holding said skin in an elevated position ([0032] “the device can be adhered to the skin and can hold the skin taut during insertion of a subdermal device, such as a needle through the taut skin without compression of the subdermal architecture beneath the skin during the insertion”).
However, Hagy et al. fails to disclose the procedure is in a laparoscopic surgery, applying the tensile force for at least 30 seconds, and the tented skin is the patient’s abdominal skin to expand the abdominal cavity.
Liu et al. teaches a procedure in a laparoscopic surgery ([0002] “Establishing pneumoperitoneum is the first step in laparoscopic surgery”) tenting a patient’s abdominal skin ([0002]” pull the umbilical skin upward”) to expand the abdominal cavity ([0002] “to increase the abdominal space”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the method of Hagy et al. to include the above limitations as taught by Liu et al. to shorten the time for establishing pneumoperitoneum and reducing surgical risks [0003].
The method of modified Hagy et al. would require said tensile force to be applied for some amount of time, however, the specific amount of time the force is applied is not disclosed.
Hagy et al. discloses ([0007]) that the duration of the tensile force to be applied needs to be as long as the medical procedure of puncturing takes: “The pulling pressure can pull the skin that is adhered to the adhesive and can maintain the skin taut during the medical procedure.” [0007], “The adhesive device can stretch the skin and keep it taut against the medical device throughout the procedure.” [0009] The tensile force needs to be applied for the duration of the procedure, as such the time the tensile force is applied is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the amount of time the force is applied changes the time that can be taken for a puncturing procedure. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the modified Hagy et al. method to have an application of a tensile force in the claimed time range, as it involves only adjusting the time the force is applied which is disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of modified Hagy et al. by making the tensile force applied be up to 30 seconds as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 50, modified Hagy et al. teaches the method of claim 49. The method of modified Hagy et al. would require the manually applying step to be practiced by applying said tensile force, however, the specific range of force applied is not disclosed.
Hagy et al. discloses ([0069]) that the force applied needs to be optimized because ”The upward force on the skin provided by the disclosed device can oppose the puncture or cutting force of a medical device utilized to access subdermal formations and as the subdermal features will be less compressed”. A limited force is applied to tent a portion of the skin, as such the tensile force applied is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the force applied changes the lift of the skin and how it opposed the puncture or cutting force. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the modified Hagy et al. method to have an application of a tensile force in the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the force applied which is disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of modified Hagy et al. by making the tensile force applied be up to 10 pounds as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagy et al. (US 2016/0339186 A1) in view of Liu et al. (CN 201542695 U) and Hoffman et al. (US 2019/0038051 A1).
Regarding claim 37, modified Hagy et al. teaches the method of claim 31. However, modified Hagy et al. fails to teach wherein said providing step is practiced by forming a non-adhesive dead zone on a portion of said lower surface adjacent a periphery thereof.
Hoffman et al. teaches forming a non-adhesive dead zone (39 Fig 3, [0041] “adhesive layer 34 can also extend only as far as end line 38, thereby leaving a portion of panel 26B uncoated by adhesive layer 34. Thus, a portion of panel 26B can form pull tab 39 that can be grasped to peel panel 26B away from surface 40.”) on a portion of said lower surface adjacent a periphery thereof (39 Fig 3 is formed on the edge of the anchor as shown in Fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the device of modified Hagy et al. to include the non-adhesive dead zone with the limitations as taught by Hoffman et al. to aid with removal of the device from the attachment surface [0041].
Regarding claim 38, modified Hagy et al. teaches the method of claim 37. Modified Hagy et al. further teaches further including the step of removing said hand held tissue lifting device from said patient by manually grasping the anchor at said dead zone and pulling said anchor off the abdominal skin of said patient (Hoffman et al. [0041] “Thus, a portion of panel 26B can form pull tab 39 that can be grasped to peel panel 26B away from surface 40. Pull tab 39 can aid with removal of hanger device 10, such as by allowing panel 26B to be pulled up from an edge. Thus, because panel 26B is flexible, panel 26B can be pulled away from surface 40 along a peel front so that only a small amount of adhesive layer 34 needs to be overcome at a time.”).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagy et al. (US 2016/0339186 A1) in view of Liu et al. (CN 201542695 U) and Ghodsian (US 4,650,705 A).
Regarding claim 40, modified Hagy et al. teaches the method of claim 31. However, modified Hagy et al. fails to teach wherein said handle has an opening sized and configured for insertion of one or more fingers of said user, and wherein said manually applying step is practiced by grasping said handle by said user upon insertion of said one or more fingers through said opening.
Ghodsian teaches a handle (14 Fig 5) has an opening (17 Fig 5) sized and configured for insertion of one or more fingers of said user (Col 3 lines 48-49 “capable of permitting the insertion there through of a surgeon's finger”), and wherein said manually applying step is practiced by grasping said handle by said user upon insertion of said one or more fingers through said opening (Col 3 lines 50-51 “achieving mechanical assistance in the pulling up on sterile adhesive sheet 10”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the handle of modified Hagy et al. to include the opening with the limitations as taught by Ghodsian to provide mechanical assistance in pulling up with leverage from a user’s fingers Col 3 lines 50-51.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagy et al. (US 2016/0339186 A1) in view of Liu et al. (CN 201542695 U) and Tokie et al. (US 7,762,398 B2).
Regarding claim 44, modified Hagy et al. teaches the method of claim 43. However, modified Hagy et al. fails to teach wherein said first anchor portion, said second anchor portion and said handle are foldable relative to each other, wherein said hand held tissue lifting device is provided in a folded position, wherein in such folded position said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion are substantially parallel to and face each other, and wherein said handle lies over and closely adjacent to one of said first or second anchor portions.
Tokie et al. teaches said first anchor portion (10 Fig 1a), said second anchor portion (20 Fig 1a) and said handle (56 Fig 1a) are foldable relative to each other (As shown in Figs 1a-1c), wherein said device is provided in a folded position (Fig 1b shows the device in the folded “closed” position), wherein in such folded position said first anchor portion and said second anchor portion are substantially parallel to and face each other (See in Fig 1a, the layers are all substantially parallel and facing each other), and wherein said handle lies over and closely adjacent to one of said first or second anchor portions (the handle 56 lies over the first anchor portion 10 in Fig 1a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the method of modified Hagy et al. to include providing the device with the limitations as taught by Tokie et al. to provide the device in a storage method that is desirable for shipping (Col 1 line 40) in a way that reduces the space the device requires.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna Vargas whose telephone number is (571)270-3873. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 4:00 PM-9:00 PM EST.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/A.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/COURTNEY FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights