Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/29/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan et al. (WO 2018125925 A1; cited in the IDS filed 04/26/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Fan teaches an imaging system (abstract; Fig. 19) comprising:
a laser cavity (Fig. 19, scanning cavity 254) configured to receive a biological sample (interpreted as a functional limitation of the cavity, MPEP 2114; Fig. 19 and paragraph [0119], shows cavity 254 receiving tissue sample 264), the biological sample is treated with a dye (note that the biological sample and dye are not positively recited structurally; paragraphs [0103],[0118] teach tissue samples are stained or labeled with dyes);
an excitation light source (Fig. 19, laser 252) configured to direct energy at the laser cavity causing an emission from the biological sample (interpreted as a functional limitation of the light source, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 19 and paragraph [0119]), the emission including a laser emission at a first spectral band and a fluorescence emission at a second spectral band (interpreted as a functional limitation of the light source, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 19 and paragraph [0120] teach detection of multiplexed emissions from the sample, therefore the light source is capable of causing an emission as claimed; note that the biological sample is not positively recited structurally);
a first detector (Fig. 19, CCD 274) configured to measure the laser emission generated by the biological sample (Fig. 19 and paragraph [0120] teach the CCD 274 measures laser emission from the sample, i.e. LEM image);
a second detector (Fig. 19, spectrometer 278) configured to measure the fluorescence emission generated by the biological sample (paragraph [0200] teaches emission light is analyzed by the spectrometer, thus is capable of measuring fluorescence emission from the sample);
a splitter (Fig. 19, beam splitters 280) configured to direct the laser emission to the first detector and the fluorescence emission to the second detector (Fig. 19 and paragraph [0120] teaches multiplexed emissions from at least two distinct fluorophores from tissue sample 264 are detected since the emission are directed to CCD 274 and spectrometer 278 via beam splitters 280; Fig. 19 shows emissions from tissue sample 264 are directed to CCD imager unit 274 and spectrometer 278 by the beam splitters 280 and the CCD detecting a LEM image, i.e. laser emission microscopy image); and
a controller (Fig. 19, computer processing unit 258) interfaced with the excitation light source, the first detector, and the second detector (paragraph [0120] teaches detectors are outputted to a computer processing unit; paragraph [0172] teaches control of laser signals; therefore, it is inherent that the controller interfaces the light source and detectors in order for the system to properly control and receive information from the light source and detectors).
Regarding claim 2, Fan further teaches wherein the laser cavity (Fig. 19, scanning cavity 254) is defined by a first mirror (Fig. 19 and paragraph [0119], second reflection surface 262) and a second mirror (Fig. 19 and paragraph [0119], first reflection surface 260) and the biological sample is disposed between the first mirror and the second mirror (Fig. 19 and paragraph [0119], tissue sample 264 is between elements 260,262).
Regarding claim 3, Fan further teaches wherein the first mirror is arranged parallel to the second mirror (Fig. 19 teaches the second reflection surface 262 is parallel to the first reflection surface 260).
Regarding claim 4, Fan further teaches wherein a reflectivity of the first mirror (Fig. 19 and paragraph [0119], second reflection surface 262, i.e. top mirror) is greater than a first threshold (Fig. 19 and paragraph [0120] teach the reflectivity of the second reflection surface is 90.80%, which is interpreted as greater than a threshold; paragraph [0094]) so as to allow the first detector to detect the laser emission (interpreted as an intended use, MPEP 2114; Fig. 19 shows the reflectivity of the second reflection surface 262 allows laser emission to be detected by CCD 271), and wherein a transmission of the first mirror is above a second threshold (paragraph [0198] teaches the top mirror has a high transmission for light to pass through, therefore is interpreted to be above a threshold; paragraph [0094]) so as to allow the second detector to detect the fluorescence emission (Fig. 19 and paragraph [0198] teaches the top mirror has a high transmission for light to pass through, and emission light is directed towards the spectrometer 278, therefore is capable of detecting fluorescence emission).
Regarding claim 6, note that the “biological sample” and therefore “first spectral band” and “second spectral band” are not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed system. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (“biological sample) worked upon by a structure (system) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Fan teaches an excitation light source (Fig. 19, laser 252) configured to direct energy at the laser cavity causing an emission from the biological sample (interpreted as a functional limitation of the light source, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 19 and paragraph [0119]), the emission including a laser emission at a first spectral band and a fluorescence emission at a second spectral band (interpreted as a functional limitation of the light source, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 19 and paragraph [0120] teach detection of multiplexed emissions from the sample, therefore the light source is capable of causing an emission as claimed; note that the biological sample is not positively recited structurally). Therefore, the laser is capable of causing an emission of a biological sample wherein the first spectral band is between 524 nm and 570 nm, and the second spectral band is greater than 590 nm at a later time. Note that Fan teaches obtaining laser emission images, fluorescent images, and bright field images (paragraph [0141]).
Regarding claim 8, Fan further teaches the imaging system of claim 1, further comprising: a motorized stage (Fig. 19 and paragraph [0119], scanning stage 256), wherein the laser cavity is disposed on the motorized stage (Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 9, Fan further teaches wherein the controller (Fig. 19, computer processing unit 254) further interfaces with the motorized stage (Fig. 19 and paragraph [0119]) and the controller is configured to adjust a position of the laser cavity relative to the excitation light source using the motorized stage (Fig. 19, paragraph [0119]).
Regarding claim 10, Fan further teaches wherein the controller is configured to align a first location of the laser cavity with the excitation light source, and subsequently, to align a second location of the laser cavity with the excitation light source (paragraphs [0119]-[0120] teaches the scanning stage can be translated or moved, thus translating the scanning cavity with respect to the laser source; paragraph [0145] teaches generating a two-dimension scan of the tissue sample; therefore, the controller is configured to align the cavity with the light source at at least two locations subsequently for scanning of the tissue sample).
Regarding claim 11, Fan further teaches wherein the splitter is a first splitter (Fig. 19, first beam splitter 280 below CCD 274) and the imaging system further comprises: at least one of a beam expansion lens set (not required due to “at least one”), a mirror (not required due to “at least one”), a mirror scanning system (not required due to “at least one”), a scanning lens set (not required due to “at least one”), a second splitter (Fig. 19, second beam splitter 280 below element 282), and an objective lens (Fig. 19, objective lens 284) configured to direct the energy at the laser cavity (Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 12, Fan further teaches wherein the splitter is a first splitter (Fig. 19, second beam splitter 280 below element 282) and the imaging system further comprises: at least one of a second splitter (Fig. 19, first beam splitter 280 below CCD 274), a tube lens (not required due to “at least one”), and an objective lens (Fig. 19, objective lens 284) configured to direct the emission to the first splitter (Fig. 19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Engelhardt et al. (US 20020027202 A1; cited in the IDS filed 04/26/2024).
Regarding claim 5, Fan further teaches wherein the splitter (Fig. 19, beam splitters 280) is configured to separate the fluorescence emission and the laser emission included in the emission from the biological sample (Fig. 19 and paragraph [0120] teaches the beam splitters 280 separate and direct laser emission and fluorescence emission to the CCD and spectrometer respectively).
Fan fails to explicitly teach the splitter is a dichroic mirror.
Engelhardt teaches an apparatus for detection of fluorescent light in scanning microscopy (abstract). Engelhardt teaches a canning mirror 9, mounted tiltably and configured as a dichroic beam splitter, reflects the three partial illuminating beams 8 and deflects them as a result of the tilting, so that specimen 1 can be scanned by the deflection of scanning mirror 9 (Fig. 1; paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the splitter of Fan to incorporate the teachings of a dichroic mirror of Engelhardt (Fig. 1; paragraph [0041]) to provide: the splitter is a dichroic mirror. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully utilizing known beam splitters for improving reflecting and deflecting desired wavelengths towards optical components.
Regarding claim 7, Fan fails to explicitly teach wherein the excitation light source is configured to perform at least one of single-photon excitation and multi-photon excitation.
Engelhardt teaches an apparatus for detection of fluorescent light in scanning microscopy using multi-photon excitation (abstract). Engelhardt teaches the invention provides a method so that the fluorescent photon yield of the fluorescing materials that are excited to fluoresce by multi-photon excitation is optimized or increased in order to enable optimum specimen detection (paragraph [0006]). Engelhardt teaches a lasers as the light source for multi-photon excitation of fluorescing materials (paragraphs [0027]-[0031]). Engelhardt teaches in very particularly advantageous fashion, to prevent saturation of the excitation of fluorescing materials at a single specimen point, provision is made for simultaneous illumination or excitation of multiple specimen regions; wherein in this fashion, the excitation light output made available by the light source to the multi-photon light source can be distributed simultaneously to multiple specimen points, so that the fluorescing materials located there are simultaneously excited to fluoresce (paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the excitation light source of Fan to incorporate the teachings of fluorescent scanning microscopy using multi-photon excitation of Engelhardt (abstract; paragraphs [0006],[0027]-[0031],[0033]) to provide: wherein the excitation light source is configured to perform at least one of single-photon excitation and multi-photon excitation. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully optimizing or increasing specimen detection as discussed by Engelhardt (paragraphs [0006],[0033]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of 09/29/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-8, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Fan does not disclose “a splitter configured to direct the laser emission to the first detector and the fluorescence emission to the second detector” since Fan’s disclosure only relate to the use of a splitter to direct a laser energy beam and not specific direction of fluorescence emissions (Remarks, page 6), the examiner disagrees.
Fan teaches: a splitter (Fig. 19, beam splitters 280) configured to direct the laser emission to the first detector and the fluorescence emission to the second detector (interpreted as a functional limitation of the splitter, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 19 and paragraph [0120] teaches multiplexed emissions from at least two distinct fluorophores from tissue sample 264 are detected since the emission are directed to CCD 274 and spectrometer 278 via beam splitters 280). Since Fan teaches detection of multiplexed emissions of fluorophores, i.e. fluorescence emissions, using a spectrometer 278 and CCD imager unit 274 (paragraph [0120]), wherein Fig. 19 shows the emissions are directed from the tissue sample 264 to the spectrometer 278 and CCD imager unit 274 by the beam splitters 280 and the CCD detecting a LEM image, i.e. laser emission microscopy image, Fan’s splitter reads on the claimed limitations.
Additionally, note that a functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional limitations, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. The apparatus of Fan is identical to the presently claimed structure. Fan discloses the claimed splitter, first detector, and second detector and therefore, would have the ability to perform the functional limitations recited in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In response to applicant’s argument that Fan does not disclose the need for simultaneous measurement of laser emission and fluorescence emission, there would be no advantage in directing fluorescence emission and laser emission to multiple detectors simultaneously, and therefore Fan does not provide any motivation or suggestion to arrive at claim 1 (Remarks, pages 6-7), the examiner notes that claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and not under 35 U.S.C. 103. Therefore, the argument is considered moot, since Fan is not modified under an obviousness rationale under 35 U.S.C. 103. As discussed above, Fan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
In response to applicant’s argument that Fan fails to anticipate claim 4, since Fan does not disclose “altering the reflectivity and transmissivity to be greater than a first and second threshold respectively and simultaneously, the thresholds being such that the detectors are able to detect both laser and fluorescence emission” (Remarks, page 7), the examiner disagrees. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “altering the reflectivity and transmissivity to be greater than a first and second threshold respectively and simultaneously, the thresholds being such that the detectors are able to detect both laser and fluorescence emission”, Remarks, page 7; “high transmissivity required for the detection and measurement of fluorescence…allows for the simultaneous measurement of both laser emission and fluorescent emissions”, Remarks, page 7; “reflectivity and transmission conditions of the first mirror ensures that the transmittance is sufficient for a fluorophore to be excited through the first mirror, whilst the reflectivity is high enough for laser emission to be achieved”, Remarks, page 8; “tuning of the reflectivity and transmittance within specific spectral windows, allowing the transmittance of the fluorophore at the first spectral window and the reflection and generation of laser emission within a lasing band and second spectral window”, Remarks, page 8) 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).
Fan teaches: wherein a reflectivity of the first mirror (Fig. 19 and paragraph [0119], second reflection surface 262, i.e. top mirror) is greater than a first threshold (Fig. 19 and paragraph [0120] teach the reflectivity of the second reflection surface is 90.80%, which is interpreted as greater than a threshold; paragraph [0094]) so as to allow the first detector to detect the laser emission (interpreted as an intended use, MPEP 2114; Fig. 19 shows the reflectivity of the second reflection surface 262 allows laser emission to be detected by CCD 271), and wherein a transmission of the first mirror is above a second threshold (paragraph [0198] teaches the top mirror has a high transmission for light to pass through, therefore is interpreted to be above a threshold; paragraph [0094]) so as to allow the second detector to detect the fluorescence emission (Fig. 19 and paragraph [0198] teaches the top mirror has a high transmission for light to pass through, and emission light is directed towards the spectrometer 278, therefore is capable of detecting fluorescence emission). Additionally, Fang teaches a spectrometer allows for mapping fluorescent emissions within a sample (paragraphs [0117]-[0118]), where Fig. 19 shows emission from sample 264 is transmitted through top mirror 262 and directed towards spectrometer 278. Therefore, fluorescent emission from the sample is capable of being detected via transmission through the first mirror, i.e. second reflection surface 262, by the spectrometer. Note that the claim does not further specify or limit the “reflectivity”, “first threshold”, “second threshold”, “laser emission”, or “fluorescence emission”.
Additionally, note that a functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional limitations, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. The apparatus of Fan is identical to the presently claimed structure. Fan discloses the reflectivity of the first mirror and the transmission of the first mirror (see above) as claimed and therefore, would have the ability to perform the functional limitations recited in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In response to applicant’s argument that a skilled person would not be motivated to adapt the mirror of Fan to have a transmission above a second threshold for the detection of the fluorescence emission as required by claim 4 (Remarks, page 8), the examiner notes that claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and not under 35 U.S.C. 103. Therefore, the argument is considered moot, since Fan is not modified under an obviousness rationale under 35 U.S.C. 103. As discussed above, Fan teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-10, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Fan and Engelhardt fails to disclose claim 5, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (Remarks, pages 9-10), and the references fails to teach or suggest the use of a dichroic mirror for separation and direction of both fluorescence and laser emissions (Remarks, pages 9-10), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Fan further teaches wherein the splitter (Fig. 19, beam splitters 280) is configured to separate the fluorescence emission and the laser emission included in the emission from the biological sample (Fig. 19 and paragraph [0120] teaches the beam splitters 280 separate and direct laser emission and fluorescence emission to the CCD and spectrometer respectively). Additionally, Fang teaches a spectrometer allows for mapping fluorescent emissions within a sample (paragraphs [0117]-[0118]), where Fig. 19 shows emission from sample 264 is split and directed spectrometer 278 via beam splitters 280. Therefore, the beam splitters at least splits and directs light from the sample 264 towards both CCD 274 and spectrometer 278. Since Fan teaches detection of multiplexed emissions of fluorophores, i.e. fluorescence emissions, using a spectrometer 278 and CCD imager unit 274 (paragraph [0120]), wherein Fig. 19 shows the emissions are directed from the tissue sample 264 to the spectrometer 278 and CCD imager unit 274 by the beam splitters 280 and the CCD detecting a LEM image, i.e. laser emission microscopy image, Fan’s splitter is configured to separate the fluorescence emission and the laser emission included in the emission from the biological sample.
Fan fails to explicitly teach the splitter is a dichroic mirror.
Engelhardt provides teachings of a canning mirror 9, mounted tiltably and configured as a dichroic beam splitter, reflects the three partial illuminating beams 8 and deflects them as a result of the tilting, so that specimen 1 can be scanned by the deflection of scanning mirror 9 and detected by detectors 12 (Fig. 1; paragraph [0041]).
Since Engelhardt teaches detection of fluorescent light in microscopy, similar to Fan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the splitter of Fan to incorporate the teachings of a dichroic mirror of Engelhardt (Fig. 1; paragraph [0041]) to provide: the splitter is a dichroic mirror. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully utilizing known beam splitters for improving reflecting and deflecting desired wavelengths towards optical components.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art (i.e. dichroic mirror as a splitter for fluorescent light microscopy) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. the splitter is a dichroic mirror) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. transmitting and reflecting desired light to desired locations), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing the splitter as a dichroic mirror would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of transmitting and reflecting desired light to desired locations, such as to the first and second detectors to detect LEM image and fluorescence emission respectively). See MPEP 2143(A).
Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fan’s splitter, that is configured to separate the fluorescence emission and the laser emission included in the emission from the biological sample, to be a dichroic mirror in view of Engelhardt.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gourley (US 5793485 A) teaches an imaging system (Fig. 1) comprising a laser cavity (12), laser (26), two detectors (36,38), splitter (40), display with a computer (42), and sample (100) between two mirrors of the cavity (14,16); wherein emission spectra is recorded with spectrometer 38 and laser mode images is recorded with CCD camera 36 (column 18, lines 22-26). Gourley a beamsplitter or otherwise a dichroic mirror that reflects a beam while transmitting a portion of the beam (column 6, lines 23-28).
Kwok et al. (US 20210239590 A1; effectively filed 02/03/2020) teaches analysis of a sample population (abstract). Kwok teaches a dichroic beam splitter was employed to separate the NIR emission of laser particles from fluorescence emission of fluorescent probes (paragraph [0102]).
Cutrale (US 20190287222 A1) teaches a hyperspectral imaging system (abstract). Cutrale teaches a dichroic mirror/beam splitter may filter the illumination source radiation from the target and may substantially prevent the illumination source radiation reflected from the target reaching the detector (paragraph [0104]).
Loney (US 20040201844 A1) teaches a system for providing a wavelength of light (abstract). Loney teaches an excitation beam proceeds to beam splitter that may include a Dichroic Mirror, Geometric beam Splitter, or other type of means of optically separating particular wavelengths of light or other characteristics of light known to those of ordinary skill in the related art (paragraph [0095]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758