DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/22 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the identification” as stated in claim 1 is broad. It would be more concise to state “the identifies structures of the body lumen”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the processor processes” as stated in claim 2 is vague and would be better stated “processor Configured to process the impedance”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Independent claim 1 (and similarly claim 17) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process The claim recite(s) “wherein the processor operates according to the instructions to: access measurements of: impedance, measured using by one or more electrodes positioned within the heart, and an electrophysiological signal indicative of electrical activity of heart tissue”(observation) “process the impedance to identify tissue according to the positioning of the one or more electrodes, using the electrophysiological signal; and provide the identification as output for guidance of the procedure actions.”(evaluation). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim merely states “processor”, “electrode” and “procedure actions” which are generic high-level computer components and directions respectively and do not amount to significantly more. and in combination processor, electrode, procedure actions, impedance and electrophysiological signal amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-16 (and similarly 18-31) fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 4 introduce the additional element of display. Displays amount to mere generic computer components which a judicial exception is applied Therefore, claims 2-16 and 18-31 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend
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 6,7, 8,11,12, 13, 14,22, 23, 24, 27, 28 and 29 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.
Claims 6, 7, 11, 12, 22, 23 and 27 recite the limitation "the identified tissue" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7, 8, 13, 14, 23, 24, 27, 28 and 29 recite the limitation "the indications" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 11-25 and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Markowitz et al. (US 20090264749 A1) herein referred to as “Markowitz”.
Regarding claim 1, Markowitz teaches: A system configured to identify structures of a body lumen ([Column 4 Lines 57-63]; “A portion of the patient's 26 anatomy can be mapped by identifying a plurality of points within the patient 26 by determining a relative location of an instrument. The plurality of points can be illustrated individually, or sequentially, or a surface can be illustrated over or without the plurality of points to illustrate or identify a portion of the anatomy of the patient 26”) for guidance of procedure actions within the body lumen ([Column 5 Lines 6-7 ];” , a procedure can be guided or navigated using the map data”), the system comprising a processor and memory storing instructions ([column Lines 14-17];” The controller 34 can control the imaging device 28 and can store images generated with the imaging device 28 or transmit data or receive instructions via a data transmission line 36 to or from a processor and/or memory,”), wherein the processor operates according to the instructions to ([Column 39 Lines 50-52]; “can include a processor that is interconnected with a memory system that can store executable instructions for various calculations”): access measurements of: impedance, measured using by one or more electrodes ([Column 39 Lines 52 -54];” The distance D.sub.UC can be a determined distance based only upon the measured distance or measured impedance at the two electrodes”) positioned within the heart ([Column 38 Lines 18-20]; “Each of the electrodes can be used to measure impedance within the volume, such as within the heart 80 of the patient 21.”), and an electrophysiological signal indicative of electrical activity of heart tissue ([Column 5 Lines 57-61]; “The instrument 24 can be moved relative to the patient 26 for various procedures, including lead (e.g. temporary or permanent implantable cardiac pacing leads, with insulated wiring for stimulating and/or recording signals in or on the heart)”); process the impedance to identify tissue according to the positioning of the one or more electrodes ([Column 8 Lines 33-39]; “The instrument 24 can include an electrode, as discussed further herein, which is able to sense the voltage generated within the patient 26 due to the patches 46a-50b positioned on the patient 26. The sensed voltage can be used to calculate an impedance of the tissue in the patient 26 based upon the voltage potential gradient generated between the respective pairs of patches and the corresponding current.”), using the electrophysiological signal; and provide the identification as output for guidance of the procedure actions. ([Column 39 Lines 14-15]; ” The interpolated map data can then be used for navigation or guidance,”)
Regarding claim 2, Markowitz teaches: The system of claim 1. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the processor processes the impedance using timing information in the electrophysiological signal. ([Column 57 Lines 24-26]; “In addition to the various measurements taken with the mapping catheter 100 that can be compared to the ECG timing”)
Regarding claim 3, Markowitz teaches: The system claim1. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the processor processes the impedance using positional information indicated by the electrophysiological signal. ([Column 2 Lines 28-30]; “The calculated impedance is used to determine the position of the electrode as in a patient or other appropriate conducting medium.”)
Regarding claim 4, Markowitz teaches: The system of claim1. Markowitz further teaches: comprising a display; wherein the processor provides the identification as output in the form of a portion of an image displayed on the display. ([Column 8 Lines 1-10]; “The display device 58 can be integral with or separate from the workstation 38. In addition, various interconnected or cooperating processors and/or memory can be provided to process information, each may be a part of the workstation 38 or separate therefrom. The processors can process the signals from the patches 46-52 and instrument 24 to determine the position of the instrument 24, display the determined positions or other data on the display device 58.”)
Regarding claim 5, Markowitz teaches: The system of claim1. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the processor also: operates according to the instructions ([Column 6 lines 14-17]; “The controller 34 can control the imaging device 28 and can store images generated with the imaging device 28 or transmit data or receive instructions via a data transmission line 36 to or from a processor and/or memory,”) to access measurements of spatial position of the one or more electrodes while the impedance was measured; and uses the measurements of spatial position together with the impedance and the electrophysiological signal to identify the tissue. ([Column 28 lines 18-21]; “Each of the electrodes can be used to measure impedance within the volume, such as within the heart 80 of the patient 21. During each cycle of acquisition, the PSU 40 can also determine the measured distance between the two electrodes 108”)
Regarding claim 6, Markowitz teaches: The system of claim1. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the impedance is indicative of motion of the identified tissue. ([Column 8 Lines 44-47]; “As discussed further here, the calculated impedance or sensed voltage can be used to determine a location of the electrode of the instrument 24 relative to a selected reference, such as reference patch 52a or 52b. The reference patches 52a, 52b can be positioned at any appropriate position on the patient 26. “)
Regarding claim 7, Markowitz teaches: The system of claim 6. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the identified tissue comprises tissue of a heart lumenal wall identified based on the indications of its movement in the impedance. ([Column 16 Lines 29-37]; “The landmarks identified in block 193 can be any appropriate anatomical feature used as a landmark for a procedure. For example, an anatomical feature or landmark can include an ostium or opening, a valve, wall, or apex of the heart 80 or other portions of the patient 26 being mapped with the mapping catheter 100”)
Regarding claim 8, Markowitz teaches: The system of claim 7. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the indications of heart lumenal wall movement are identified based further on relative timing of the electrophysiological signal and the impedance. ([Column 22 Lines 16-19]; “The illustration of a decay or timing of the illustration of the data points can be used by the user 22 to identify a most current location of the mapping catheter 100, the lead 120, or any other appropriate reason.”
Regarding claim 9, Markowitz teaches: The system of claim7. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the identification categorizes the heart lumenal wall according to which wall of a heart chamber the at least one electrode is in contact with. ([Column 72 Lines 60-64]; “wherein the area on the expanded surface is substantially defined by an inflatable member; wherein the area of the inflatable member is operable to contact a wall of the cavity to define the map data.”)
Regarding claim 11, Markowitz teaches: The system of claim1. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the impedance is indicative of motion of the identified tissue. ([Column 8 Lines 44-47]; “ As discussed further here, the calculated impedance or sensed voltage can be used to determine a location of the electrode of the instrument 24 relative to a selected reference, such as reference patch 52a or 52b. The reference patches 52a, 52b can be positioned at any appropriate position on the patient 26. “)
Regarding claim 12: The system of claim 6, wherein the identified tissue comprises tissue of a heart valve leaflet, identified based on indications of motion of the leaflet in the impedance. ([Column 19 Lines 35-40]; “12. (Original) The system of claim 6, wherein the identified tissue comprises tissue of a heart valve leaflet, identified based on indications of motion of the leaflet in the impedance.”, [Column 16 Lines 29-36]; “Landmarks identified in block 193 can be any appropriate landmark and can be illustrated such as with a toroid 204 or a selected point, such as a point of a different color or shape 206 in the mapping data 194” , “For example, an anatomical feature or landmark can include an ostium or opening, a valve, wall, or apex of the heart 80 or other portions of the patient 26 being mapped with the mapping catheter 100.”)
Regarding claim 13, Markowitz teaches: The system of claim 12. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the indications of motion of the heart valve leaflet are characterized using relative timing of the electrophysiological signal and the impedance. ([Column 16 line 16-36];” The landmarks identified in block 193 can be any appropriate anatomical feature used as a landmark for a procedure. For example, an anatomical feature or landmark can include an ostium or opening, a valve, wall, or apex of the heart 80 or other portions of the patient 26 being mapped with the mapping catheter 100” , [Column 20 Lines 58-64]; “Accordingly, a movement direction can be determined and illustrated based upon the calculated or determined locations over time of the mapping catheter 100. An arrow 199 can also be illustrated on the display device 58 to represent the movement direction. The arrow 199 can provide an indication to a user 22 of the movement direction in the heart 80 and can assist in determining landmarks.”)
Regarding claim 14, Markowitz teaches: The system of claim12. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the indications of motion of the heart valve leaflet are characterized using positioning of the one or more electrodes relative to a region identified based on the electrophysiological signal. ([Column 34 lines 19-24]; “such as the mapping catheter 100 including the tip 108 and ring 110, can then be positioned in the patient in block 654. It will be understood that the discussion of a tip and ring herein is merely a specific example of an instrument that can include two or more electrodes that are positioned a relatively fixed distance to one another”)
Regarding claim 15, Markowitz teaches: The system of claim 14. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the region identified based on the electrophysiological signal is identified based on its position relative to a heart valve. ([Column 22 Lines 4-9]; “in addition to identifying a selected landmark, also provide additional information to the user 22 regarding the size of the particular area, such as an area of a valve or vessel, and a relative orientation of the valve or vessel to the other acquired data.”)
Regarding claim 16, Markowitz teaches: The system of claim14. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the processor uses positioning of the one or more electrodes relative to a region identified based on the electrophysiological signal to select impedance measurements for use in the identification. ([Column 76 Lines 4-17]; ” a display processor operable to augment the map on the display device, wherein the display processor is operable to at least one of: determine a position of the position elements that are positioned to sense a voltage formed in the patient; determine a position of an input impedance reference electrode and display it on the display device relative to the map; and determine a pseudo position of the axis patch electrodes on the display device relative to the map; a physiological measuring device”)
Regarding claim 17, Markowitz teaches: A method of identifying structures of a body lumen for guidance of procedure actions within the body lumen ([Column 4 Lines 57-63]; “A portion of the patient's 26 anatomy can be mapped by identifying a plurality of points within the patient 26 by determining a relative location of an instrument. The plurality of points can be illustrated individually, or sequentially, or a surface can be illustrated over or without the plurality of points to illustrate or identify a portion of the anatomy of the patient 26”), the method comprising: accessing measurements of: impedance, measured by one or more electrodes ([Column 39 Lines 52 -54];” The distance D.sub.UC can be a determined distance based only upon the measured distance or measured impedance at the two electrodes”) positioned within the heart ([Column 38 Lines 18-20]; “Each of the electrodes can be used to measure impedance within the volume, such as within the heart 80 of the patient 21. “), and an electrophysiological signal indicative of electrical activity of heart tissue tissue ([Column 5 Lines 57-61]; “The instrument 24 can be moved relative to the patient 26 for various procedures, including lead (e.g. temporary or permanent implantable cardiac pacing leads, with insulated wiring for stimulating and/or recording signals in or on the heart)”); processing the impedance to identify tissue according to the positioning of the one or more electrodes ([Column 8 Lines 33-39]; “The instrument 24 can include an electrode, as discussed further herein, which is able to sense the voltage generated within the patient 26 due to the patches 46a-50b positioned on the patient 26. The sensed voltage can be used to calculate an impedance of the tissue in the patient 26 based upon the voltage potential gradient generated between the respective pairs of patches and the corresponding current.”), using the electrophysiological signal; and providing the identification as output for guidance of the procedure actions. ([Column 39 Lines 14-15];” The interpolated map data can then be used for navigation or guidance,”)
Regarding claim 18, Markowitz teaches: The method of claim 17. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the processing uses timing information in the electrophysiological signal. ([Column 57 Lines 24-26]; “In addition to the various measurements taken with the mapping catheter 100 that can be compared to the ECG timing”)
Regarding claim 19, Markowitz teaches: The method of claim17. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the processing uses positional information indicated by the electrophysiological signal. ([Column 2 Lines 28-30]; “The calculated impedance is used to determine the position of the electrode as in a patient or other appropriate conducting medium.”)
Regarding claim 20, Markowitz teaches: The method of claim17. Markowitz further teaches: comprising providing the identification as output in the form of a portion of an image displayed on the display. ([Column 8 Lines 1-10]; “The display device 58 can be integral with or separate from the workstation 38. In addition, various interconnected or cooperating processors and/or memory can be provided to process information, each may be a part of the workstation 38 or separate therefrom. The processors can process the signals from the patches 46-52 and instrument 24 to determine the position of the instrument 24, display the determined positions or other data on the display device 58.”)
Regarding claim 21, Markowitz teaches: The method of claim17. Markowitz further teaches: comprising: accessing measurements of spatial position of the one or more electrodes while the impedance was measured; and using the measurements of spatial position together with the impedance and the electrophysiological signal to identify the tissue. ([Column 28 lines 18-21]; “Each of the electrodes can be used to measure impedance within the volume, such as within the heart 80 of the patient 21. During each cycle of acquisition, the PSU 40 can also determine the measured distance between the two electrodes 108”)
Regarding claim 22, Markowitz teaches: The method of claim17. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the impedance is indicative of motion of the identified tissue. ([Column 8 Lines 44-47]; “As discussed further here, the calculated impedance or sensed voltage can be used to determine a location of the electrode of the instrument 24 relative to a selected reference, such as reference patch 52a or 52b. The reference patches 52a, 52b can be positioned at any appropriate position on the patient 26. “)
Regarding claim 23, Markowitz teaches: The method of claim 22. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the identified tissue comprises tissue of a heart lumenal wall identified based on the indications of its movement in the impedance. ([Column 16 Lines 29-37]; “The landmarks identified in block 193 can be any appropriate anatomical feature used as a landmark for a procedure. For example, an anatomical feature or landmark can include an ostium or opening, a valve, wall, or apex of the heart 80 or other portions of the patient 26 being mapped with the mapping catheter 100”)
Regarding claim 24, Markowitz teaches: The method of claim 23. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the indications of heart lumenal wall movement are identified based further on relative timing of the electrophysiological signal and the impedance. ([Column 22 Lines 16-19]; “The illustration of a decay or timing of the illustration of the data points can be used by the user 22 to identify a most current location of the mapping catheter 100, the lead 120, or any other appropriate reason.”)
Regarding claim 25, Markowitz teaches: The method of claim23. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the identification categorizes the heart lumenal wall according to which wall of a heart chamber the at least one electrode is in contact with. ([Column 72 Lines 60-64]; “wherein the area on the expanded surface is substantially defined by an inflatable member; wherein the area of the inflatable member is operable to contact a wall of the cavity to define the map data.”)
Regarding claim 27, Markowitz teaches: The method of claim 22. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the identified tissue comprises tissue of a heart valve leaflet identified based on the indications of its movement in the impedance. ([Column 19 Lines 35-40]; “12. (Original) The system of claim 6, wherein the identified tissue comprises tissue of a heart valve leaflet, identified based on indications of motion of the leaflet in the impedance.”, [Column 16 Lines 29-36]; “Landmarks identified in block 193 can be any appropriate landmark and can be illustrated such as with a toroid 204 or a selected point, such as a point of a different color or shape 206 in the mapping data 194” , “For example, an anatomical feature or landmark can include an ostium or opening, a valve, wall, or apex of the heart 80 or other portions of the patient 26 being mapped with the mapping catheter 100.”)
Regarding claim 28, Markowitz teaches: The method of claim 27. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the indications of heart valve leaflet movement are characterized using relative timing of the electrophysiological signal and the impedance. ([Column 16 line 16-36];” The landmarks identified in block 193 can be any appropriate anatomical feature used as a landmark for a procedure. For example, an anatomical feature or landmark can include an ostium or opening, a valve, wall, or apex of the heart 80 or other portions of the patient 26 being mapped with the mapping catheter 100”, [Column 20 Lines 58-64]; “Accordingly, a movement direction can be determined and illustrated based upon the calculated or determined locations over time of the mapping catheter 100. An arrow 199 can also be illustrated on the display device 58 to represent the movement direction. The arrow 199 can provide an indication to a user 22 of the movement direction in the heart 80 and can assist in determining landmarks.”)
Regarding claim 29, Markowitz teaches: The method of claim27. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the indications of heart valve leaflet movement are characterized using positioning of the one or more electrodes relative to a region identified based on the electrophysiological signal. ([Column 34 lines 19-24]; “such as the mapping catheter 100 including the tip 108 and ring 110, can then be positioned in the patient in block 654. It will be understood that the discussion of a tip and ring herein is merely a specific example of an instrument that can include two or more electrodes that are positioned a relatively fixed distance to one another”)
Regarding claim 30, Markowitz teaches: The method of claim 29. Markowitz further teaches: wherein the region identified based on the electrophysiological signal is identified based on its position relative to a heart valve. ([Column 22 Lines 4-9]; “in addition to identifying a selected landmark, also provide additional information to the user 22 regarding the size of the particular area, such as an area of a valve or vessel, and a relative orientation of the valve or vessel to the other acquired data.”)
Regarding claim 31, Markowitz teaches: The method of claim29. Markowitz further teaches: comprising using the positioning of the one or more electrodes relative to a region identified based on the electrophysiological signal to select impedance measurements for use in the identification. ([Column 76 Lines 4-17]; ” a display processor operable to augment the map on the display device, wherein the display processor is operable to at least one of: determine a position of the position elements that are positioned to sense a voltage formed in the patient; determine a position of an input impedance reference electrode and display it on the display device relative to the map; and determine a pseudo position of the axis patch electrodes on the display device relative to the map; a physiological measuring device”)
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markowitz in view of KRISHNAN et al. (US 7,815,577 B2) herein referred to as “KRISHNAN”
Regarding claim 10, Markowitz discloses: The system of claim 7, Markowitz does not disclose: wherein the identification distinguishes interatrial septal wall from lumenal wall adjacent to the aorta.
However, KRISHNAN discloses: wherein the identification distinguishes interatrial septal wall from lumenal wall adjacent to the aorta. ([0062]: “A His catheter typically has multiple electrodes along its length, and therefore the series of points representing the electrodes along the length of the His catheter can be used to identify the septal plane. Alternatively, or in addition thereto, the posteroseptal tricuspid annulus may be identified, such as by using the His catheter, and its location marked in the navigation system”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filling date of claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Markowitz with the septal plane identification as disclosed by KRISHNAN the motivation being to mark the location in the navigation system based on user input ([0062]).
Regarding claim 26, Markowitz discloses: The method of claim23. Markowitz does not disclose: wherein the identification distinguishes interatrial septal wall from lumenal wall adjacent to the aorta.
However, KRISHNAN discloses: wherein the identification distinguishes interatrial septal wall from lumenal wall adjacent to the aorta. ([0062]: “A His catheter typically has multiple electrodes along its length, and therefore the series of points representing the electrodes along the length of the His catheter can be used to identify the septal plane. Alternatively, or in addition thereto, the posteroseptal tricuspid annulus may be identified, such as by using the His catheter, and its location marked in the navigation system”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing date of claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Markowitz with the septal plane identification as disclosed by KRISHNAN the motivation being to mark the location in the navigation system based on user input ([0062]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY GEORGE CHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 3032974276. 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.
/CASEY GEORGE CHA/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794