DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-10, 12-14, 17-25 are pending; claims 2, 5, 10, 18 are withdrawn.
This action is Non-Final.
Specification
The use of the terms Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, which each is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
No claims are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 12-14, 17, 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant amended claim 1 to recite “an external device comprising a magnet” which is rejected for being new matter. While the structure of a magnet is certainly supported, the inclusion of an external device comprising such magnet is not scope apprised by the disclosure as filed. In fact, the structure of an external device is exclusive to the functions recited in claim 8, and not to a device including a magnet. As addressed in the 112(b) below, it is not clear if these are the same or different as claimed, but the disclosure does not provide support that these structures are the same. As such, one of skill in the art would not have recognized applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Am amendment to replace “an external device comprising a magnet” with “an external magnet” would be sufficient in overcoming both the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections related to this issue (as well as correcting the terms in the remaining elements of the claim(s)). The dependent claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein the control logic is configured to send the recorded EEG to an external device” renders the claim indefinite in view of the amendments to claim 1. It is not clear whether the “an external device” each set forth in both claims is the same or different. This makes the metes and abounds of the claim unclear which renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, the structures are interpreted as not being the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 14, 17, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osorio et al. (US 7,346,391) in view of Pless et al. (Pless, US 2003/0004428) and Giftakis et al. (Giftakis, US 2006/0229686) and Libbus et al. (Libbus, US 2006/0241697) and Cerruti et al. (Cerruti, US 2016/0374583) with evidence from Wingeier et al. (Wingeier, US 2016/0235991).
Regarding claim 1, Osorio teaches a system, comprising:
an implantable device (see at least Figures 1-4, 7, abstract, col. 8 lines 49-53) comprising:
(a) a container enclosing an energy storage module, control logic, memory (see at least Figures 4A, 11, container interpreted to read on the structure formed of 178, 68, 182 forming container of Figure 11, or 68, 221 219 of Figure 5A, wherein the containers 68 can include 86 control mechanism and 100 power mechanism. Figure 13B, col. 3 lines 44-49, col. 4 lines 18-45 storage mechanism, see also similar structures of Figures 16A. In addition, col. 12 lines 14-67, col. 14 lines 5-24 which explains that any of circuitry type elements can be located in element 68 the container for interpretation purposes), the container being shaped and configured to be implanted extracranially between a scalp and a skull of the person and rest flat on the skull of the person (see at least Figures 5A 9A-9B, 11, the components interpreted as reading on the “container” meet the shape and intended use of such capabilities of such implantation location and interaction between surface of skull and container);
(b) an extracranial electrode (see at least col. 19 lines 53-55 “It is to be understood that the housing mechanism 41 may be equipped with various types of sensors/sensing devices designed to sense electrical, chemical, mechanical, thermal, magnetic, optical, or other activity indicative of brain, organ, or body state.” col. 4 lines 50-62 “Output mechanisms may include, but are not limited to, devices that may be activated by the control mechanism (or any other device in communication with the output mechanism), such as electrodes placed in or over (intracranially, cranially, or extracranially) the brain, or, in or over the spinal cord, its roots or nerves for delivery of electrical currents, catheters connected to a medicament injector such as a pump, a warning mechanism providing any type of sensory stimulus (including light, audio, vibration, or low-voltage stimulation), a mechanism configured to deliver sound, ultrasound, electromagnetic waves, or some other interactive phenomena, including biofeedback.” col. 25 lines 16-24 “One skilled in the art will also appreciate that the sensors that obtain signals representative of brain or body state of the subject may also be located outside of the brain 56, possibly inside the housing mechanism 41 itself (e.g., an accelerometer), elsewhere in the subject's body (e.g., a heart monitor), or may even be external and attached to (e.g., a scalp electrode) or separate from the subject's body (e.g., an infrared motion sensor, video or audio recordings, or thermographic images).”), and operatively coupled to the energy storage module, control logic, memory (see at least Figure 11 which includes 86 control mechanism and 100 power mechanism. Figure 13B, col. 3 lines 44-49, col. 4 lines 18-45 storage mechanism, see also similar structures of Figures 16A; operatively coupled to allow data gathering and handling);
(c) a subcranial probe coupled to the container and configured to pass through an opening of the skull of the person when the container rests flat on the skull of the person, the subcranial probe comprising a subcranial electrode (see at least Figure 11 and Figures 16A-D, any one or more section or structure in element 43 couple to/with electrodes is interpreted to read on probe and which is coupled to element 178 directly or indirectly though other structures. see also Figure 13, using like structures from Figure 16A of at least one of 216 elements 220, 218. col. 20 lines 21-24 “The recording and or stimulating contacts 216 may include one or more penetrating-type contacts 218, surface-type contacts 220, or combination surface/depth contacts 228.” see also like structures of Figure 16A-D), and operatively coupled to the energy storage module, control logic, memory (see at least Figure 11 which includes 86 control mechanism and 100 power mechanism. Figure 13B, col. 3 lines 44-49, col. 4 lines 18-45 storage mechanism, see also similar structures of Figures 16A; operatively coupled to allow data gathering and handling): and
(d) a seal disposed around and entirely surrounding a portion of the subcranial probe within the opening (see at least abstract sealing mechanism, see example Figure 3 element 55, col. 12 lines 14-27 implies sealing means surrounds the component 43 which is interpreted to form part of the claimed element c as explained prior: “sealing means 55 structured and configured to provide a fluid-tight seal between the intraosseous housing mechanism 43 and the subject's skull 47, dura mater 139, brain 56, and/or scalp 150”) wherein the seal is configured to provide electrical insulation between the subcranial probe and the extracranial electrode and is adapted to prevent electric current from passing between the extracranial electrode and the subcranial electrode, (these properties claimed are a natural result of sealing means 55 at the location of the Burr hole, which is the same location of the claimed seal for the claimed intended functions at the burr hole location, i.e., the art and claimed structures for seal are equivalent based on the disclosure are art teachings: see at least col. 9 lines 15-17 “includes a sealing mechanism for providing a fluid-tight seal between a housing mechanism thereof and the subject's skull”, col. 12 lines 14-27 “To the extent presently feasible or necessary for a particular application, an interface system 40 of the present invention includes at least one housing mechanism 41 for interfacing with the brain and/or other organs of the subject as generally shown in FIGS. 1 through 19. The housing mechanism 41 generally includes an intraosseous housing mechanism 43 configured and structured to be spaced in a cavity 45 formed in a subject's skull 47; attaching means 53 configured and structured to attach the intraosseous housing mechanism 43 to the subject's skull 47; sealing means 55 structured and configured to provide a fluid-tight seal between the intraosseous housing mechanism 43 and the subject's skull 47, dura mater 139, brain 56, and/or scalp 150;” the fluid tight seal structurally meets the claimed seal and thus also naturally provides for the intended result to prevent electric current from passing around the intercranial portion; col 6 lines 6-10 “The sealing mechanism may include or consist of a bio-compatible coating, caulking, and/or a layer of resilient bio-compatible materials such as silicon, polyurethane, or plastic encircling the housing mechanism, etc.”, where polyurethane is a known insulating material);
However, the limitations of an external device comprising a magnet, the container enclosing an electroencephalograph (EEG) amplifier, and a magnetic switch operatively coupled to the control logic, and presence to be operatively coupled to electrodes, and the extracranial electrode disposed on an exterior surface of the container, and wherein, when the magnet of the external device is positioned near the implantable device during a neurological event, the magnetic switch triggers the control logic of the implantable device to record an EEG between the subcranial electrode and the extracranial electrode and to record a marker with the EEG to indicate a time when the neurological event occurred are not directly taught.
Pless teaches a related system for seizure sensing and detecting as well as EEG sensing (see at least title and abstract, Figures 1-2, [0013], [0040]), and teaches the application of a extracranial housing containing electronics, including an EEG amplifier to amplify signals (see at least Figures 2, 4-6 420/422, [0087], [0095], [0097]), and further Pless teaches similar electronic components to Osorio, such that its inclusion would be operatively coupled to other data handling and electronic structures including those similar structures of an energy storage module (see at least Figure 4 432), control logic (see at least Figure 4 428), memory (see at least Figure 4 426), and that teaches different mechanisms for sensing and stimulation, which preferably is bipolar sensing although monopolar is still possible (see [0086], [0095], [0097]); lastly, Pless teaches that housing can be different shapes or sizes, and that known alternative locations for implanting a housing exist (see [0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including an EEG amplifier structure in order to allow for low level signals to be amplified and allow for further processing as is common is EEG and other physiological signal processing applications.
Giftakis teaches a related system for sensing EEG and stimulating therapy (see abstract), and teaches that it is common and known to have a reference electrode on an exterior case of an implanted housing to act as an indifferent electrode such that the device is configured to record EEG between the subcranial electrode and the extracranial electrode (see [0006]-[0007], Figure 2 reference 14, [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including an electrode on an external surface of the implanted housing in order to allow for a reference electrode as is known in the art to make EEG measurements of an implanted system. In addition, as the art suggests different location, a rearrangement of a parts is prima facie obviousness. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Osorio does teach a means for recording the EEG (see at least col. 4 lines 18-45 storage mechanism); Libbus teaches a similar system related to measuring nervous system signals and providing stimulation to a patient (see at least Figure 7), and teaches a technique to record user triggered markers along with sensed data via processor functions based on proximity of a magnet which reasonably teaches the limitations an external device comprising a magnet, the container enclosing a magnetic switch operatively coupled to the control logic, and wherein, when the magnet of the external device is positioned near the implantable device during a neurological event, the magnetic switch triggers the control logic of the implantable device to record a marker with the EEG to indicate a time when the neurological event occurred (see at least Figure 7, Figure 4, [0055] In various embodiments, the neural markers 433 are stored in a memory 444 in preparation for later display or other manipulation. Some embodiments store neural markers in response to a trigger. For example, the neural markers can be stored periodically or intermittently based on preprogrammed time intervals. The illustration includes a user trigger 445 which is used to trigger a storage of a neural marker. Within an implantable device, an example of a user trigger is a reed switch capable of being actuated by placing a magnet outside of the body proximate to the implantable device. The illustration also includes a trigger 446 in the feature extractor 431, which is used to trigger storage of a neural marker in response to a predetermined extracted feature, such as amplitude, for example. In some embodiments, the memory 444 is adapted to store a neurogram that is associated with the neural marker. The neurogram can be derived from a waveform memory or buffer 435. For example, the recorded neurogram can be for a predetermined or user-selected period of time, and can include waveforms associated with the time immediately before and/or immediately after a neural marker. The neural marker, and neurogram if available, can be displayed 442 or transmitted via transceiver 443 to another device at a later date.). Based on the teaching of Libbus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to improve Osorio in view of Pless and Giftakis, as modified, with a trigger to acquire neurological markers along with EEG signals when a user feels an adverse condition such as a seizure to allow for further review by the patient or clinician caring for the patient. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way in order to record user input of an event trigger with the physiological signal occurring during such event.
Cerruti teaches a related system for monitoring bioelectric signals of a body (see title and abstract), and similar to Libbus, teaches the usage of functions being initiated by magnets and magnetic switches, which can include marking (see at least abstract), and which teaches that systems can include multiple functions including starting and stopping of recordings for selective control of the monitoring period of a battery powered device, which reasonably teaches the features the magnetic switch triggers the control logic to record an EEG (see at least [0014] The electronic unit is provided with a recording module and a wireless transceiver and includes a Hall-effect magnetic sensor configured to selectively start and stop recording of an ECG on a memory module, as well as to send ECG registrations to a telecommunications network through an external gateway, and to mark an electrocardiogram e.g. in case of a sudden illness.). While Cerruti is concerned with ECG signals, the same process of using magnetic actuations is applicable to other bioelectric signals to allow for selective control of monitoring periods, such as EEG as taught by Libbus or Wingeier cited as evidence, providing that the proposed modification to include multiple functions with magnetic actuation or control would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for such controls of EEG signals. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way in order to allow for selective control on recording periods by usage of a magnetic actuator.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations are met by Osorio in view of Pless and Giftakis and Libbus and Cerruti, where Osorio teaches where the energy storage module is a battery (see at least col. 5 lines 12-16).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations are met by Osorio in view of Pless and Giftakis and Libbus and Cerruti, where Osorio teaches wherein the control logic is configured to send the recorded EEG to an external device (see at least Figure 4, Figure 13B, col. 17 line 66-col. 18 line 17 “For example, an antenna arrangement 190 as shown in FIG. 4, may be used in a manner as known to those skilled in the wireless communication art.”).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations are met by Osorio in view of Pless and Giftakis and Libbus and Cerruti, where Osorio teaches the container further enclosing wireless telemetry in communication with the control logic, the wireless telemetry being configured to transmit the recorded EEG (see at least Figures 4, 5A, 11, 13B, col. 17 line 66-col. 18 line 17 “For example, an antenna arrangement 190 as shown in FIG. 4, may be used in a manner as known to those skilled in the wireless communication art.”; In addition, col. 12 lines 14-67, col. 14 lines 5-24 which explains that any of circuitry type elements can be located in element 68 the container for interpretation purposes, this includes communications elements).
Regarding claim 14, the limitations are met by Osorio in view of Pless and Giftakis and Libbus and Cerruti, where Osorio teaches the device comprises a removable anchor shaft that allows for stereotactic implantation of the device (see at least Figures 5A, 8A-B, 16A elements 132, 144, 134, 271 reasonably read on removable anchor shafts which allow for the stereotactic implantation).
Regarding claim 17, the limitations are met by Osorio in view of Pless and Giftakis and Libbus and Cerruti, where Osorio teaches where the subcranial probe is configured to proceed a distance into the person's brain (see at least Figures 11, 16A, structure 217 and one element of 218 or 228).
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are met by Osorio in view of Pless and Giftakis and Libbus and Cerruti, where Osorio teaches where the probe is configured to penetrate the person's dura (see at least Figures 11, 16A, one element of 218 or 228 capable of penetrating the dura).
Regarding claim 20, the limitations are met by Osorio in view of Pless and Giftakis and Libbus and Cerruti, where Osorio teaches the device is configured to be used to localize seizure focus (intended use, the device of Osorio is capable of such focused localization of seizure sensing and responsive stimulation, see at least col. 3 lines 3-13, col. 8 lines 49-53, col. 20 lines 10-24, col. 20 lines 52-66).
Regarding claim 21, the limitations are met by Osorio in view of Pless and Giftakis and Libbus and Cerruti, where Osorio teaches wherein the container is generally disk-shaped (see Figure 11 and 16, the container structures are round and have flat portion which reasonably meets the claimed shape). In addition, generally a change in shape is recognized as prima facie obviousness as a matter of choice. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding claim 22, the limitations are met by Osorio in view of Pless and Giftakis and Libbus and Cerruti, where Osorio teaches wherein the subcranial probe is generally transversely oriented with respect to the container (see Figure 11 and 16).
Regarding claim 23, the limitations are met by Osorio in view of Pless and Giftakis and Libbus and Cerruti, where Osorio teaches wherein the extracranial electrode is integral to the container (see Figure 11 and 16).
Regarding claim 24, the limitations are met by Osorio in view of Pless and Giftakis and Libbus and Cerruti, where Osorio teaches wherein the subcranial probe comprises a plurality of subcranial electrodes (see at least, especially Figures 11 and 16, Figure 13, using like structures from Figure 16A of at least one of 216 elements 220, 218. col. 20 lines 21-24 “The recording and or stimulating contacts 216 may include one or more penetrating-type contacts 218, surface-type contacts 220, or combination surface/depth contacts 228.” see also like structures of Figure 16A-D).
Regarding claim 25, the limitations are met by Osorio in view of Pless and Giftakis and Libbus and Cerruti, where Osorio teaches wherein a lower surface of the disk-shaped container is configured to rest flat against the outer surface of the skull of the person (see at least Figures 5A, 11, where the components interpreted to read on the container indeed are capable of such intended use as claimed as the figures show the section flat against the skull).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osorio et al. (US 7,346,391) in view of Pless et al. (Pless, US 2003/0004428) and Giftakis et al. (Giftakis, US 2006/0229686) and Libbus et al. (Libbus, US 2006/0241697) and Cerruti et al. (Cerruti, US 2016/0374583) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mirro et al. (Mirro, US 2013/0261706).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are met by Osorio in view of Pless and Giftakis and Libbus and Cerruti, as proposed above, except the limitations of the device comprises a speaker configured to deliver audible information is not directly taught in the proposed modification above.
Mirro teaches a similar system that can sense and stimulate neural tissue (see at least Figure 7, [0046]), and includes teaching the usage of a perceivable stimulus in addition to a stimulator which may include a speaker, which reasonably reads on the limitations of the device comprises a speaker configured to deliver audible information (see at least Figure 6, [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including a speaker in the implantable device in order to notify a patient or clinician caring for a patient of an adverse alarm condition associated with the patient. Although not the basis for the rejection, further support for obviousness is that Cerruti also teaches that a loudspeaker may be used for sending information to a user (see at least [0058]).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations are met by Osorio in view of Pless and Giftakis and Libbus and Cerruti and Mirro, where Mirro teaches the speaker is configured to indicate recording start, recording stop, battery level, or EEG marker set (speaker is merely an output device, such that what is claimed is an intended use of the speaker and is met by the speaker structure being present as such structure is capable of outputting such indications; see at least Figure 6, [0060] e.g. low power).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s submission of amendments to the claims filed 12/22/2025; and IDS filed 12/29/2025.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims in view of prior art have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejections necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wingeier et al. (Wingeier, US 2016/0235991) teaches methods known to use magnetic sensors to control device functions (“Alternatively or additionally, the neurostimulator 106 may be configured to store selected signals of the sensed signals according to certain programmed instructions. Such storage may occur periodically, whenever an event is detected, or upon command from an external component, such as a patient remote monitor 126, a physician's programmer 120A, 120B, 120C, or 120D (each of which may wirelessly communicate with the implant), or a magnet (see the magnet 220 in FIGS. 2 and 3) (the presence of which may be detected by a magnet sensor in the implant).”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791