DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 13 January 2026. Claims 1-22 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-17, 20-22.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 12 recites “the instructions” in lines 4 and 5. Examiner recommends amending to –the computer-executable instructions—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 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.
-Claim 15 recites “an area…in a different area of the brain of the subject” in lines 3-4. It is unclear from this recitation what different area is relative to. Further clarification should be provided to identify if the target area referenced in this claim is different from the target area referenced in claim 12, different from the area affected by tumor or blood vessel abnormality, or a distinct area from those recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gordon (U.S. 4622952).
Regarding Claim 1, Gordon teaches a method of treating a subject comprising: measuring a frequency associated with a target area of a brain of the subject [Col 6, lines 44-57] ; determining whether the measured frequency is normal relative to an expected value of the measured frequency [Col 7, lines 21-24]; selecting, in response to a determination that the measured frequency is abnormal [Col 3, lines 39-47], a therapeutic frequency based on the measured frequency to cause the measured frequency to approach the expected value of the measured frequency [Col 3, lines 39-47]—specifically “tuned to the frequency which has been calculated to be closest to the resonant frequency” and “closest to the resonant frequency of the cancer cells” and [Col 4, lines 47-56]; generating, via at least one magnetic source [Col 4-5, lines 65-1], a magnetic field having the therapeutic frequency [Col 5, lines 1-7]; and applying the magnetic field with a uniform distribution across a head of the subject to provide a therapeutic treatment within the target area of the brain of the subject [Col 8, lines 17-21].
Regarding Claim 2, Gordon teaches wherein the target area of brain of the subject corresponds to a location of a tumor in the brain of the subject [Col 3, lines 19-23] and [Col 5, lines 37-44].
Regarding Claim 3, Gordon teaches wherein the target area of the brain of the subject corresponds to a location of an abnormality in at least one blood vessel of the brain of the subject [Col 3, lines 19-23] and [Col 5, lines 37-44]. In this interpretation, atherosclerotic lesions or tumor abnormalities are interpreted to be within the carotid arteries or vascular network leading to or within the brain.
Regarding Claim 8, Gordon teaches wherein each of the at least one magnetic source includes an electromagnet [Abstract]—reference to electromagnetic energy.
Regarding Claim 9, Gordon teaches wherein the therapeutic frequency is greater than or less than the measured frequency [Col 3, lines 39-47].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (U.S. 4622952) in view of Maggiore (WO 03020196).
Regarding Claim 4, Gordon is silent on wherein the target area of the brain of the subject corresponds to an area of the brain of the subject affected by a tumor or blood vessel abnormality. Maggiore teaches wherein the target area of the brain of the subject corresponds to an area of the brain of the subject affected by a tumor or blood vessel abnormality [Pg 37, lines 12-16].
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 target an area of the brain affected by a tumor or blood vessel abnormality as taught by Maggiore to provide the therapeutic treatment to as suggested by Gordon which discusses a method that utilizes the use of a specific frequency to cause damage to cancer cells and to avoid damage to normal cells [Col 3, lines 51-57] with Maggiore because Maggiore teaches consideration of factors for delivering energy through healthy tissue without collateral damage to this tissue [Pg 3, lines 21-23].
Regarding Claim 6, Gordon is silent on wherein applying the magnetic field with the uniform distribution across the head of the subject to provide the therapeutic treatment within the target area of the brain of the subject includes positioning a plurality of magnetic sources around the head of the subject. Maggiore teaches wherein applying the magnetic field with the uniform distribution across the head of the subject to provide the therapeutic treatment within the target area of the brain of the subject includes positioning a plurality of magnetic sources around the head of the subject [Fig. 5, element 520, and Pgs. 13-14, lines 32-2].
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 utilize a plurality of magnetic sources as taught by Maggiore to provide a uniform distribution of therapeutic treatment as suggested by Gordon which discusses the use of a sweeping energy transmitter to deliver a frequency to a patient on a moving axis where various parameters for delivery can be varied or repeated [Col 8, lines 15-33] with Maggiore because Maggiore teaches the use of magnets to design beam configurations to optimize delivery towards the patient on the table [Pg 20, lines 18-19].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (U.S. 4622952) in view of Rohan (U.S. 20020169355).
Regarding Claim 5, Gordon is silent on wherein applying the magnetic field with the uniform distribution across the head of the subject to provide the therapeutic treatment within the target area of the brain of the subject includes positioning the at least one magnetic source above the head of the subject. Rohan teaches wherein applying the magnetic field with the uniform distribution across the head of the subject to provide the therapeutic treatment within the target area of the brain of the subject includes positioning the at least one magnetic source above the head of the subject [0027].
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 include magnetic source positioning parameters as taught by Rohan to provide the therapeutic treatment to the head and brain of the subject as suggested by Gordon which discusses the delivery of a magnetic field on a circular axis [Col 8, lines 17-21] with Rohan which teaches delivery of a magnetic field in a substantially uniform and unidirectional over the head and brain [0008].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (U.S. 4622952) in view of Spiegel (CA 2703988).
Regarding Claim 7, Gordon is silent on wherein each of the at least one magnetic source includes a rotatable permanent magnet. Spiegel teaches wherein each of the at least one magnetic source includes a rotatable permanent magnet [Fig. 1, elements 1 and 3, and 0150; “As embodied herein, the permanent magnets 3 mounted on disk 1 rotate on bearings 32.”]
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include a rotatable permanent magnet as taught by Spiegel to provide the therapeutic treatment via the magnetic source as suggested by Gordon which discusses a magnetic field being delivered on a circular rotating axis [Col 8, lines 17-21] with Spiegel because Spiegel teaches why permanent magnets are mounted on a rotatable member to achieve single direction magnetic field delivery and to maintain attractive forces at all times [0150].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (U.S. 4622952) in view of Lee (KR 20070090412).
Regarding Claim 10, Gordon is silent on wherein the therapeutic frequency is equal to the measured frequency. Lee teaches wherein the therapeutic frequency is equal to the measured frequency [Pg 16, lines 9-12].
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 consider matching the therapeutic and measured frequencies as taught by Lee to provide the therapeutic treatment to the brain of the subject as suggested by Gordon which discusses delivering a frequency as close as possible to that of the measured frequency [Abstract] with Lee because Lee teaches analog to digital conversion considerations for adjusting the delivered frequency to that of the reference frequency while also factoring in measurement environment parameters and unique frequencies of the biosensor [Pg 16, lines 15-20].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (U.S. 4622952) in view of John (U.S. 20070142874).
Regarding Claim 11, Gordon is silent on wherein determining whether the measured frequency is normal relative to the expected value of the measured frequency includes comparing the measured frequency to an average frequency from a database of a population of people deemed to be healthy. John teaches wherein determining whether the measured frequency is normal relative to the expected value of the measured frequency includes comparing the measured frequency to an average frequency from a database of a population of people deemed to be healthy [0034].
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 utilize historical and database data as taught by John to compare the measured frequency to normal and abnormal values as suggested by Gordon which discloses the use of a computer program [Col 8, lines 21-25] with John because John teaches the use of this system to evaluate and adjust treatment [0034].
Claim(s) 12-14, 16, 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascual-Leone (WO 20070103475) in view of Gordon (U.S. 4622952).
Regarding Claim 12, Pascual-Leone teaches a system for providing treatment to a subject, the system comprising: at least one magnetic source [Abstract]; at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions [Pg 137, lines 21-24]; and at least one processor for executing the instructions stored on the at least one memory [Pg 137, lines 12-17], wherein execution of the instructions causes the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: measuring a frequency associated with a target area of a brain of the subject [Pg 15, lines 5-6],
Pascual-Leone is silent on determining whether the measured frequency is normal relative to an expected value of the measured frequency, selecting, in response to a determination that the measured frequency is abnormal, a therapeutic frequency based on the measured frequency to cause the measured frequency to approach the expected value of the measured frequency, and operating the at least one magnetic source to generate a magnetic field having the therapeutic frequency, wherein the magnetic field is applied with a uniform distribution across a head of the subject to provide a therapeutic treatment within the target area of the brain of the subject.
Gordon teaches determining whether the measured frequency is normal relative to an expected value of the measured frequency [Col 7, lines 21-24], selecting, in response to a determination that the measured frequency is abnormal [Col 3, lines 39-47], a therapeutic frequency based on the measured frequency to cause the measured frequency to approach the expected value of the measured frequency [Col 3, lines 39-47]—specifically “tuned to the frequency which has been calculated to be closest to the resonant frequency” and “closest to the resonant frequency of the cancer cells” and [Col 4, lines 47-56], and operating the at least one magnetic source to generate a magnetic field having the therapeutic frequency [Col 4, lines 47-56], wherein the magnetic field is applied with a uniform distribution across a head of the subject to provide a therapeutic treatment within the target area of the brain of the subject [Col 8, lines 17-21].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have incorporated programmable code and generic computer components as taught by Pascual-Leonne to provide the method as suggested by Gordon which discusses teaches the disclosed limitations as well as the use of a computerized system to aid in determining frequency and time parameters of treatment [Col 8, lines 27-30] with Pascual-Leone because Pascual-Leone teaches the use of TMS in a therapeutic capacity to treat neuropsychiatric disorders safely, effectively, comfortably, accessibly, and cost-effectively [Pg 23, lines 26-31;].
Regarding Claim 13, Pascual-Leone is silent on wherein the target area of the brain of the subject corresponds to a location of a tumor in the brain of the subject. Gordon teaches wherein the target area of the brain of the subject corresponds to a location of a tumor in the brain of the subject [Col 3, lines 19-23].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have targeted tumors and other abnormal areas of the patient as taught by Gordon in conjunction with the system as suggested by Pascual-Leone which discusses applying TMS to tissue inhomogeneities such as tumors [Pg. 37, lines 20-25] with Gordon because Gordon teaches the TMS treatment of lesions and tumors [Col 3, lines 19-23] and [Col 5, lines 37-44].
Regarding Claim 14, Pascual-Leone is silent on wherein the target area of the brain of the subject corresponds to a location of an abnormality in at least one blood vessel of the brain of the subject. Gordon teaches wherein the target area of the brain of the subject corresponds to a location of an abnormality in at least one blood vessel of the brain of the subject [Col 3, lines 19-23] and [Col 5, lines 37-44]. In this interpretation, atherosclerotic lesions or tumor abnormalities are interpreted to be within the carotid arteries or vascular network leading to or within the brain.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have targeted tumors and other abnormal areas of the patient as taught by Gordon in conjunction with the system as suggested by Pascual-Leone which discusses applying TMS to tissue inhomogeneities such as tumors [Pg. 37, lines 20-25] with Gordon because Gordon teaches the TMS treatment of lesions and tumors [Col 3, lines 19-23] and [Col 5, lines 37-44].
Regarding Claim 16, Pascual-Leone further teaches wherein the at least one magnetic source is configured to be positioned above the head of the subject [Pg 67, lines 14-19].
Regarding Claim 17, Pascual-Leone further teaches wherein the at least one magnetic source includes a plurality of magnetic sources configured to be positioned around the head of the subject [Pg 8, lines 4-8].
Regarding Claim 19, Pascal-Leone is silent on wherein the at least one magnetic source includes at least one electromagnet. Gordon teaches wherein the at least one magnetic source includes at least one electromagnet [Abstract].
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 included an electromagnet as taught by Gordon to accompany the system described by Pascual-Leonne which discusses the use of a TMS device that utilizes and coil to deliver electromagnetic energy to a user’s head [Pg 2, lines 6-8] with Gordon because Gordon teaches a similar principle of placing a subject within a coil and energizing that coil by utilizing a high frequency generator [Col 4-5, lines 65-1].
Regarding Claim 20, Pascual-Leone is silent on wherein the therapeutic frequency is greater than or less than the measured frequency. Gordon teaches wherein the therapeutic frequency is greater than or less than the measured frequency [Col 3, lines 39-47].
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 vary the therapeutic frequency as taught by Gordon to accompany the system described by Pascual-Leonne which discusses varying parameters of treatment such as positioning and current densities [Pg. 110, lines 7-9] with Gordon because Gordon teaches the use of different resonant frequencies to target differences between cancer and normal cells [Col 4, line 34-40].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascual-Leone (WO 20070103475) in view of Gordon (U.S. 4622952) and in further view of Maggiore (WO 03020196).
Regarding Claim 15, Pascual-Leone and Gordon are silent on wherein the target area of the brain of the subject corresponds to an area of the brain of the subject affected by a tumor or blood vessel abnormality in a different area of the brain of the subject. Maggiore teaches wherein the target area of the brain of the subject corresponds to an area of the brain of the subject affected by a tumor or blood vessel abnormality in a different area of the brain of the subject [Pg 37, lines 12-16].
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 target an area of the brain affected by a tumor or blood vessel abnormality as taught by Maggiore to provide the therapeutic treatment to as suggested by Gordon and Pascual-Leone, as Gordon which discusses a method that utilizes the use of a specific frequency to cause damage to cancer cells and to avoid damage to normal cells [Col 3, lines 51-57] and Pascual-Leone which discloses considerations for providing precise targeting of treatment to avoid side effects [Pg. 18, lines 15-16] with Maggiore because Maggiore teaches consideration of factors for delivering energy through healthy tissue without collateral damage to this tissue [Pg 3, lines 21-23].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascual-Leone (WO 20070103475) in view of Gordon (U.S. 4622952) and in further view of Spiegel (CA 2703988).
Regarding Claim 18, Pascual-Leone and Gordon are silent on wherein the at least one magnetic source includes at least one rotatable permanent magnet. Spiegel teaches wherein the at least one magnetic source includes at least one rotatable permanent magnet [Fig. 1, elements 1 and 3, and 0150].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include a rotatable permanent magnet as taught by Spiegel to provide the therapeutic treatment via the magnetic source as suggested by Gordon and Pascual-Leone, as Gordon discusses a magnetic field being delivered on a circular rotating axis [Col 8, lines 17-21] and Pascual-Leone discloses rotating the conductive system while delivering treatment [Pg. 51, lines 27-30] with Spiegel because Spiegel teaches why permanent magnets are mounted on a rotatable member to achieve single direction magnetic field delivery and to maintain attractive forces at all times [0150].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascual-Leone (WO 20070103475) in view of Gordon (U.S. 4622952) and in further view of Lee (KR 20070090412).
Regarding Claim 21, Pascual-Leone and Gordon are silent on wherein the therapeutic frequency is equal to the measured frequency. Lee teaches wherein the therapeutic frequency is equal to the measured frequency [Pg 16, lines 9-12].
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 consider matching the therapeutic and measured frequencies as taught by Lee to provide the therapeutic treatment to the brain of the subject as suggested by Gordon and Pascual-Leone, as Gordon which discusses delivering a frequency as close as possible to that of the measured frequency [Abstract] and Pascual-Leone which discloses using equal values for parameter settings [Pg. 55, lines 8-12] with Lee because Lee teaches analog to digital conversion considerations for adjusting the delivered frequency to that of the reference frequency while also factoring in measurement environment parameters and unique frequencies of the biosensor [Pg 16, lines 15-20].
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascual-Leone (WO 20070103475) in view of Gordon (U.S. 4622952) and in further view of John (U.S. 20070142874).
Regarding Claim 22, Pascual-Leone and Gordon are silent on wherein determining whether the measured frequency is normal relative to the expected value of the measured frequency includes comparing the measured frequency to an average frequency from a database of a population of people deemed to be healthy. John teaches wherein determining whether the measured frequency is normal relative to the expected value of the measured frequency includes comparing the measured frequency to an average frequency from a database of a population of people deemed to be healthy [0034].
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 utilize historical and database data as taught by John to compare the measured frequency to normal and abnormal values as suggested by Gordon and Pascual-Leone, as Gordon which discloses the use of a computer program [Col 8, lines 21-25] and Pascual-Leone which discloses using recorded values from databases [Pg. 134, lines 12-13] with John because John teaches the use of this system to evaluate and adjust treatment [0034].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 January 2026 with respect to the drawing, specification and claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 13 January 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive however, new rejections are
presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 13 January 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. New rejections citing Gordon are presented above in light of the amendments for claims 1, 3, 8 and 9. Regarding Claim 1, applicant contends that Gordon is not concerned with treating mental disorders by adjusting a brain’s resonant neuronal firing frequency. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., treating mental disorders, a brain’s resonant neuronal firing frequency) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the dependent claims reference targeting of areas with tumorous abnormalities, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would infer that the application to an area with an abnormality would be for the purpose of treating or applying a therapy to that abnormality.
The applicant further contends that Gordon is silent about selecting a therapeutic frequency based on a measure frequency to cause the measured frequency to approach an expected value of the measured frequency. The examiner presents reference to Gordon [Col 3, lines 39-47] with specific reference to “tuned to the frequency which has been calculated to be closest to the resonant frequency” and “closest to the resonant frequency of the cancer cells” and [Col 4, lines 47-56] in response to the amended limitation. The reference teaches calculating a resonant frequency and applying a frequency that is as close as possible to the calculated frequency. This resonant frequency is interpreted to be the expected, “calculated” frequency and therefore fulfills the requirement set forth by the limitation. In view of the foregoing, the previously presented rejections citing Gordon are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 13 January 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. New rejections citing Pascual-Leone in view of Gordon are presented above in light of the amendments for claims 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20.
Regarding claim 12, the applicant contends that Pascual-Leone and Gordon fail to teach “the selection of a therapeutic frequency based on a measure frequency to cause the measured frequency to approach an expected value of the measure frequency.” The examiner presents reference to Gordon [Col 3, lines 39-47] with specific reference to “tuned to the frequency which has been calculated to be closest to the resonant frequency” and “closest to the resonant frequency of the cancer cells” and [Col 4, lines 47-56] in response to the amended limitation. The reference teaches calculating a resonant frequency and applying a frequency that is as close as possible to the calculated frequency. This resonant frequency is interpreted to be the expected, “calculated” frequency and therefore fulfills the requirement set forth by the limitation. In view of the foregoing, the previously presented rejections citing Pascual-Leone in view of Gordon are maintained.
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 BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791