ETAILED 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that the claims were amended to emphasize that the laser irradiates the side wall of the needle rather than the end face of the needle in contrast to that which is disclosed in the Thyzel reference. However as noted below there is no disclosure to clearly support this. It is examiner’s position that the laser in the prior art of Thyzel will reflect off the angled distal surface such that it will strike the sidewall surface of the needle.
Applicant states that the Farley reference does make up the deficiencies of the Thyzel reference since the laser bean disclosed in Farley works differently than that which is disclosed in Thyzel since it severs the vitreous fibrils directly and does not generate shockwaves. However Farley is relied on for teaching a laser having a curved orientation not for its function. It is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant states that one of sill would have had no reason to modified the device of Thyzel and Farley to achieve the claimed repetition rates without taking into account a different structure as describe by the ‘611 patent. Examiner again notes that the test for obviousness is what the teaching of the references would have suggested. The disclosure in [0008] does not indicate that the repetition rate is necessarily used only in tandem with the structure disclosed in the ‘611 patent. Rather it provides a suggestion to one of skill that the claimed repetition rates are known in the art and to one of skill in the art to optimize for its intended use. Further, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
There are no additional arguments to any specific dependent claims as such the rejection of claims is maintained.
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 14-22, 27-31, 33-35 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. Independent claim 14 recites in the last paragraph “…the laser pulses emitted within the hollow needle at the light exit surface of the laser light guide strike the inner circumferential wall of the hollow needle at a position proximal from the axial inner face of the distal needle tip and generate shock waves …” Claim 31 recites “…the laser pulses emitted within the hollow needle at the light exit surface of the laser light guide strike an inner surface of the hollow needle at a position proximal to an inner face positioned opposite the distal end of the hollow needle to generate shock waves…” No where in the specification is there a description of where the laser pulses strike the needle and more specifically at a position proximal from the axial inner face or inner face (understood to be the inner surface of the distal end marked by element 11 in Fig. 3 of the instant application). The specification describes the light emitting surface oriented toward the distal end 3 (see [0015] and [0057]). Para [0026] describe the laser pulses emitted from the light-emitting surface as generating shock waves and para [0074] describes the laser pulses emitted cause photolytic fragmentation of the vitreous material. But nowhere does it describe what direction the laser pulses travel or where they strike the inner surface of the needle. While it is understood that the laser pulse would make contact with the needle at a location proximal of the distal end since the inner surface is necessarily proximal of the distal end, there is nothing that describes the laser pulses making contact proximal of axial inner face. The drawings show a curved laser light source, but it does not show the trajectory of the laser pulses. Further the axial inner face (11) is not clearly delineated in the figure such that it is clear what would be proximal of the axial inner surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 14-20, and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyzel (U.S. Pub. No. 20140012186) (in IDS) in view Farley (U.S. Pub No. 20160120699) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 14, Thyzel teaches a vitrectome, comprising a vitrectomy needle (1; Fig. 1) and a laser source (pp. [0021]), the vitrectomy needle (1) comprising: a hollow needle (2; Fig. 2) made from titanium (pp. [0065]) and having a proximal end (see Fig. 2) and a distal end (see Fig. 2), the distal end for insertion into the vitreous body of an eye for performing a vitrectomy (pp. [0011]), the hollow needle (2) comprising a tubular hollow body defined by a circumferential wall (see Fig. 5) extending circumferentially with regard to a middle axis (M) of the hollow needle (see Fig. 4); and
a laser light guide (10; Fig. 4) coupled to the laser source (pp. [0049]) and guided in the hollow needle (2) to the distal end with a light-emitting surface (11; Fig. 4) provided at a distal end of the laser light guide (10) oriented, in the region of the distal end of the hollow needle (2), towards an inner surface of the circumferential wall (13; Fig. 4; it is noted, surface 13 is concavely curved and considered an extension of the circumferential wall as the wall of the needle extends continuously an seamlessly into the dome shaped concave surface 13, which the laser light guide is oriented towards), with the laser light guide (10) provided, at least during operation of the vitrectomy, in a fixed arrangement within the hollow needle (2; pp. [0067]);
wherein: a cavity (22; Fig. 4) is formed in the hollow needle (2) in the region of the light-emitting
surface (11) and the axially inward-facing surface of the distal end (see Fig. 4);
the circumferential wall of the hollow needle (2) has an aperture (8; Fig. 4) in the region of the cavity (22) in which the aperture (8) extends radially with respect to a middle axis (M) of the hollow needle (2);
the laser source is a pulsed laser (pp. [0049]), so that the laser pulses emitted within the hollow needle (2) at the light exit surface (11) of the laser light guide (10) strike the inner circumferential wall of the hollow needle at a position that is proximal from the axial inner face (13) of the distal needle tip (note that the law of reflection states that when a laser beam strikes a surface (in this case angled surface 13), the angle of reflection equals the angle between the incoming beam and the line perpendicular to the surface. As such the beam will reflect off the angled surface toward the inner sidewall of the needle.) to generate shock waves ("S," Fig. 4) in the region of the cavity (22) and the aperture (8), which exit through the aperture (8) and shatter the vitreous body material (pp. [0082]).
the vitrectomy needle (1) has a straight section at the proximal end of the hollow needle (2) (see Fig. 2); the middle axis (M) defines a central axis (Z) ("A," Fig. 2) in the region of the straight section (see Fig. 2).
Additionally, Thyzel teaches the laser source has a pulse frequency of 10 Hz, but discloses higher frequencies are possible (pp. [0102]) and produces a pulse energy in the range of 4 to 12 mJ. Thyzel does not explicitly disclose a pulse frequency of 40 to 60 Hz or a pulse energy in a range of 0.5 to 3 mJ.
However, Thyzel does disclose (pp. [0008], Pat. No. 5,906,611 specifically) a neodymium-YAG laser capable of generating shockwaves with a pulse frequency of 1 to 50 Hz and a pulse energy in the range of 2 to 15 mJ is known in the art. The importance of the pulse frequency and energy levels of the pulse laser centers around providing sufficient energy to generate an optical breakdown in target material and generate a shockwave (pp. [0007]), while also not adversely affecting or damaging surrounding tissue that is not to be treated (pp. [0011]).
It appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the laser light source of Thyzel to have a pulsed frequency and pulse energy in the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the pulse frequency and energy level of a component disclosed to require adjustment (see pp. [0008] discussing adjecting frequency and energy ranges). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Thyzel by making the pulse frequency in the range of 40 to 60 Hz and pulse energy in the range of 0.5 to 3 mJ 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).
Further, Thyzel does not explicitly disclose the middle axis (M) of the hollow needle is spaced apart from the central axis (Z) by a predetermined minimum radial distance (R).
Farley teaches a vitrectomy needle (516; Fig. 5) with a laser light guide (510; Fig. 5) with a curved configuration such that the middle axis (M) of the hollow needle (516) is spaced apart from the central axis (Z) by a predetermined minimum radial distance (R) (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
Farley is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of vitrectomy needles. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the needle and laser light guide of Thyzel to incorporate the teachings of Farley by providing a curved configuration. Doing so would improve maneuverability of the needle by allowing the needle to access more areas in the eye safely, as recognized by Farey (pp. [0041]).
PNG
media_image1.png
631
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Thyzel in view of Farley teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Farley further teaches starting from the straight section (see annotated Fig. 5 above) towards the distal end (see Fig. 5), the hollow needle (516) has a curvature (see annotated Fig. 5 above) with a radius of curvature (K).
Regarding claim 16, Thyzel in view of Farley teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. Farley further teaches the curvature (see annotated Fig. 5 above) extends from the straight section (see annotated Fig. 5 above) substantially to the distal end (see annotated Fig. 5 above) and/or wherein, starting from the straight section to the distal end, the curvature is a continuous curvature (it is noted that the claim is recited in the alternative and does not require the curvature be a continuous curve).
Regarding claim 17, Thyzel in view of Farley teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. Farley further teaches starting from the curvature (see annotated Fig. 5 above) towards the distal end (see annotated Fig. 5 above), the hollow needle (516) has at least one further straight section (see annotated Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 18, Thyzel in view of Farley teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Thyzel further teaches the hollow needle (2) has a length (L), measured along the middle axis of 18 mm to 30 mm (pp. [0063]; it is noted that claim 18 is written in as a "and/or" list, meaning only one of the limitations between the outer diameter, inner diameter, and length of the middle axis (M) needs to be taught to anticipate the claim).
Regarding claim 19, Thyzel in view of Farley teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Farley further teaches the vitrectomy needle (516) with a curved configuration (see Fig. 5) where a middle axis (M) of the hollow needle (516) is spaced apart from a central axis (Z) by a predetermined minimum radial distance (R)(see annotated Fig. 5 above).
However, Farley is silent as to the minimum radial distance (R) is in the range of 5 mm to 30 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the invention of Thyzel to have the minimum radial distance (R) is in the range of 5 mm 30 mm since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the invention of Thyzel operates in the same manner as the claimed invention, and an invention having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the invention of Thyzel.
Further, applicant places no criticality on the dimensions claimed, indicating simply that the ranged dimensions make it "possible to manufacture vitrectomy needles with different action radii with respect to a rotation around the central axis for different applications and/or different eye sizes," (See pp. [0033] of Applicant's Specification). Applicant also teaches the minimum radial distance can be measured from different points (e.g., to the edge of the aperture of the center opening of the aperture; pp. [0062]), further emphasizing a lack of criticality of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 20, Thyzel in view of Farley teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Thyzel further teaches the aperture (8) is formed on a side of the hollow needle (2) facing the central axis (Z)(A; see Fig. 4) or on a side of the hollow needle facing away from the central axis (Z) (it is noted the aperture 8 can be interpreted as both facing towards and away from the central axis (Z) as seen in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 28, Thyzel in view of Farley teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Thyzel further teaches the hollow needle (2) has a length (L), measured along the middle axis of 20 mm to 27 mm (pp. [0063]; it is noted that claim 18 is written in as a "and/or" list, meaning only one of the limitations between the outer diameter, inner diameter, and length of the middle axis (M) needs to be taught to anticipate the claim).
Regarding claim 29, Thyzel in view of Farley teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Thyzel further teaches its laser source broadly as a "laser radiation source" (pp. [0067]). Thyzel does not explicitly disclose its laser source is a Nd:YAG pulse laser. Thyzel does teach a Nd:YAG pulse laser is a known laser source in the art (pp. [0008]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser source of Thyzel to be a Nd:YAG pulse laser. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one known laser source for another to obtain predictable results of providing a vitrectomy needle capable of producing shockwaves with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 30, Thyzel in view of Farley teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Thyzel further teaches the laser light guide (10) has an outer diameter of "approximately 350 µm" (pp. [0086]).
However, Thyzel does not explicitly disclose the laser light guide has an outer diameter in the range from 250 µm to 300 µm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the invention of Thyzel to have the laser light guide have an outer diameter in the range from 250 µm to 300 µm since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the invention of Thyzel operates in the same manner as the claimed invention, and an invention having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the invention of Thyzel.
Further, applicant places no criticality on the dimensions claimed, indicating simply that the "laser light guide may, for example, have an outer diameter of 250 pm to 300 pm, in particular of about 270 pm.," (See pp. [0015] of Applicant's Specification). Applicant also teaches, the "diameter of the laser light guide may be selected depending on the inner diameter and/or outer diameter of the hollow needle, preferably the larger the inner or outer diameter of the hollow needle, the larger the diameter of the laser light guide," (pp. [0015]) further emphasizing a lack of criticality of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 31, Thyzel teaches a vitrectome, comprising a vitrectomy needle (1; Fig. 1) and a laser source (pp. [0021]), the vitrectomy needle (1) comprising:
a hollow needle (2; Fig. 2) made from titanium (pp. [0065]) and having a proximal end (see Fig. 2) and a distal end (see Fig. 2), the distal end for insertion into the vitreous body of an eye for performing a vitrectomy (pp. [0011]), and
a laser light guide (10; Fig. 4) coupled to the laser source (pp. [0049]) and guided in the hollow needle (2) to the distal end with a light-emitting surface (11; Fig. 4) provided at a distal end of the laser light guide (10) oriented towards the distal end of the hollow needle (see Fig. 4), with the laser light guide (10) provided, at least during operation of the vitrectomy, in a fixed arrangement within the hollow needle (2; pp. [0067]);
wherein: a cavity (22; Fig. 4) is formed in the hollow needle (2) in the region of the light-emitting surface (11) and the axially inward-facing surface of the distal end (see Fig. 4);
the wall of the hollow needle (2) has an aperture (8; Fig. 4) in the region of the cavity (22) in which the aperture (8) extends radially with respect to a middle axis (M) of the hollow needle (2);
the vitrectomy needle (1) has a straight section at the proximal end of the hollow needle (2) (see Fig. 2);
the middle axis (M) defines a central axis (Z) ("A," Fig. 2) in the region of the straight section (see Fig. 2); and
wherein: the laser source is a pulsed laser (pp. [0049]), so that the laser pulses emitted within the hollow needle (2) at the light exit surface (11) of the laser light guide (10) strike an inner surface (tapered portion 13) of the hollow needle at a position proximal to an inner face positioned opposite the distal end of the hollow needle (note that the law of reflection states that when a laser beam strikes a surface (in this case angled surface 13), the angle of reflection equals the angle between the incoming beam and the line perpendicular to the surface. As such the beam will reflect off the angled surface toward the inner sidewall of the needle.) to generate shock waves ("S," Fig. 4) in the region of the cavity (22) and the aperture (8), which exit through the aperture (8) and shatter the vitreous body material (pp. [0082]).
Additionally, Thyzel teaches the laser source has a pulse frequency of 10 Hz, and further discloses higher frequencies are possible (pp. [0102]) and produces a pulse energy in the range of 4 to 12 mJ. Thyzel does not explicitly disclose a pulse frequency of 40 to 60 Hz or a pulse energy in a range of 0.5 to 3 mJ.
However, Thyzel does disclose (pp. [0008], Pat. No. 5,906,611 specifically) a neodymium-YAG laser capable of generating shockwaves with a pulse frequency of 1 to 50 Hz and a pulse energy in the range of 2 to 15 mJ is known in the art. The importance of the pulse frequency and energy levels of the pulse laser centers around providing sufficient energy to generate an optical breakdown in target material and generate a shockwave (pp. [0007]), while also not adversely affecting or damaging surrounding tissue that is not to be treated (pp. [0011]).
It appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the laser light source of Thyzel to have a pulsed frequency and pulse energy in the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the pulse frequency and energy level of a component disclosed to require adjustment (see pp. [0008] discussing adjecting frequency and energy ranges). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Thyzel by making the pulse frequency in the range of 40 to 60 Hz and pulse energy in the range of 0.5 to 3 mJ 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).
Further, Thyzel does not explicitly disclose the middle axis (M) of the hollow needle is spaced apart from the central axis (Z) by a predetermined minimum radial distance (R).
However, Farley teaches a vitrectomy needle (516; Fig. 5) with a laser light guide (510; Fig. 5) with a curved configuration such that the middle axis (M) of the hollow needle (516) is spaced apart from the central axis (Z) by a predetermined minimum radial distance (R)(see annotated Fig. 5 above).
Farley is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of vitrectomy needles. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the needle and laser light guide of Thyzel to incorporate the teachings of Farley by providing a curved configuration. Doing so would improve maneuverability of the needle by allowing the needle to access more areas in the eye safely, as recognized by Farey (pp. [0041]).
Claim 21 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyzel in view of Farley, and further in view of Vijfvinkel, et. al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20090036878) hereinafter, "Vijfvinkel."
Regarding claims 21 and 27, Thyzel in view of Farley teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. However, Thyzel does not explicitly disclose the vitrectomy needle detachably attached to a handpiece by means of a screw connector formed at the proximal end of the vitrectomy needle.
Vijfvinkel teaches an ocular laser device (5; Fig. 1) with a light guide (6; Fig. 1) that connects to an eye surgical unit (1; Fig. 1) by means of a screw connector ("modules" 4, 8; pp. [0021]) formed at the proximal end of the eye surgical instrument (8; Fig. 1).
Vijfvinkel is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of ocular laser devices. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Thyzel to incorporate the teachings of Vijfvinkel by providing a handpiece with a detachable screw connection with the needle. Doing so would provide a means for grasping the device as well as a reliable connection between the needle and handpiece that can be coupled together and removed quickly, as recognized by Vijfvinkel (pp. [0009]), which would make cleaning the device easier.
Claim 21-22 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyzel in view of Farley, and further in view of Petillo (U.S. Pat. No. 4940468).
Regarding claims 21, 22, and 33, Thyzel in view of Farley teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. However, Thyzel does not explicitly disclose the vitrectomy needle firmly connected to the handpiece by glue.
Petillo teaches a vitrectomy needle (Fig. 1) with a needle (130; Fig. 1) that is glued to a surgical unit (100, 110, 129; Fig. 1, Col. 6, lines 51-55).
Petillo is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of vitrectomy needles. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Thyzel to incorporate the teachings of Petillo by gluing the needle to the handpiece. Doing so would provide a secure connection between the needle and handpiece which would ensure the needle remains stationary during use.
Claim(s) 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyzel (U.S. Pub. No. 20140012186) in view Farley (U.S. Pub No. 20160120699) as applied to claim 14 and 31 above and further in view of Koch (US 5284476)
Thyzel in view of Farley discloses all the claimed elements as stated above including a needle having a straight section and a section spaced apart from the central axis in the region of the aperture. Thyzel in view of Farley does not disclose the vitrectomy needle has a curvature extending distally of the straight section to the distal end.
However, Koch teaches a needle for use in the eye having a curve that extends from a straight section to the distal end for the purpose of improving manueverability (C2:L50-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the curved structure of Thyzel in view of Farley such that the curve extends to the distal end as taught by Koch since it provides the advantage of improved maneuverability. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp if it yields predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
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 ELIZABETH HOUSTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7134. The examiner can normally be reached generally M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-2180. 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.
/ELIZABETH HOUSTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights