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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As for claim 3, in line 1 of the claim, the phrase “The dosimeter of one of claim 1” should be amended to read “The dosimeter of claim 1”.
As for claim 11, in line 4 of the claim, the phrase “the one or more long pass filters” should be amended to read “the one or more longpass filters” to be consistent with the claiming of the limitation throughout the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“An electrical signal receiving device . . . configured to receive the electrical output signals from the photoreceiver . . .” in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5-6, 10, and 19-20 are 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 5 recites the limitation "the second wavelength" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What second wavelength is being referred to here? Claim 1, the claim on which claim 5 depends, recites a first wavelength for the first light, but no second wavelength, so it is unclear as to whether the second wavelength refers to the light of the photosensitizer or the singlet oxygen or some other wavelength. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will treat the second wavelength as the spectral range for the detection channel of the InGaAs detector.
Claim 6 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 5, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which it depends.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second wavelength" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What second wavelength is being referred to here? Claims 1, 8, and 9, the claims on which claim 10 depends, recite a first wavelength for the first light (see claim 1), but no second wavelength, so it is unclear as to whether the second wavelength refers to the light of the photosensitizer or the singlet oxygen or some other wavelength. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will treat the second wavelength as the spectral range for the detection channel of the InGaAs detector.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the controller" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What controller is being referred to? Claim 1, the claim on which claim 19 depends, fails to set forth a controller. Should claim 19 be dependent on claim 17, the claim which first sets forth a controller, instead?
Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 19, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which it depends.
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.
Claims 1-7, 14-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moritz et al (“Multispectral singlet oxygen and photosensitizer luminescence dosimeter for continuous photodynamic therapy dose assessment during treatment”).
As a note regarding Moritz, while the enclosed copy of the reference has a June 2020 publication date on it, the article published online on March 13, 2020, making it eligible as prior art for this application.
Regarding claim 1, Moritz (Fig. 1a) discloses a dosimeter for photodynamic therapy, the dosimeter comprising: a variable optical filter system (filter wheel which has a plurality of filters as per the first paragraph of section 2.1 on page 3) configured to receive a second light, the second light comprising luminescence produced by singlet oxygen and one or more background signals (“The long wavelength range measures the spectrum of the combined PS luminescence and 1O2 phosphorescence signal that is collected by a liquid light guide and detected by a thermoelectrically cooled InGaAs detector” as per section 2.1 on page 3; that section also discloses that the PS signal is the background signal – “The 1O2 spectrum . . . has a peak around 1270 nm that is superimposed onto the broadband PS background.”), each of which are based on irradiating a sample (sample in Fig. 1a) with a first light (from cw diode laser) comprising a first wavelength within an excitation range of a photosensitizer applied to the sample (the wavelength of the cw laser is 690 nm as per section 2.1 on page 3, this is within an excitation range of Verteporfin, the photosensitizer used by Moritz), wherein activating the photosensitizer produces the singlet oxygen (see the introduction section at the bottom of page 1 into page 2 for a discussion as to how the activation of the photosensitizer generates singlet oxygen during the treatment process), and selectively transmit the luminescence and the one or more background signals as a third light (as seen in Fig. 1a and section 2.1, the light emitted by the sample passes through a dichroic mirror, a lens, and a liquid light guide, then passes through the selected filter of the filter wheel before reaching the detector), the variable optical filter system comprising a plurality of optical bandpass filters that are switchable to selectively transmit the luminescence and the one or more background signals (as seen in section 2.1, the filter wheel has 9 different filters); and a photoreceiver (InGaAs detector) configured to receive the third light and configured to generate electrical output signals corresponding to the luminescence and the one or more background signals (“We used a solid-state InGaAs detector to monitor both the PS and the 1O2 luminescence, with the PS signal being the background), the electrical output signals being indicative of an amount of the singlet oxygen produced based on activating the photosensitizer (see the discussion in section 2.5, discussing plotting the change in growth rate of tumors against measured singlet oxygen values, and section 3.4, showing the correlation between the change in tumor growth rate to the amount of 1O2 and PS measured during treatment).
As for claim 2, Moritz discloses that the excitation range includes an excitation peak of the photosensitizer that is between 250 and 900 nm (the excitation wavelength of the light source used is 690-nm as discussed in paragraph 2 of section 2.1 on page 3; this is inside the claimed range).
As for claim 3, Moritz discloses that the photosensitizer is Verteporfin (see the approach section of the abstract on page 1).
As for claim 4, Moritz discloses that the singlet oxygen is 1O2 (see the significance section of the abstract on page 1) and the luminescence has a wavelength of between approximately 1260 and 1280 nm (see the first paragraph of section 2.1 on page 3, stating that the singlet has a peak around 1270 nm).
As for claim 5, Moritz discloses that each of the plurality of optical bandpass filters comprises a central wavelength within a predetermined range of the second wavelength (the InGaAs spectral range is between 1190-1330 nm, each of the filters is centered at a wavelength that is part of that range as per paragraph 1 of section 2.1 on page 3).
As for claim 6, Moritz discloses that the upper end of the predetermined range is based on a maximum detectable wavelength of the photosensitizer (see the first paragraph of section 2.1 on page 3, “The long wavelength range measures the spectrum of the combined PS luminescence and 1O2 phosphorescence signal”).
As for claim 7, Moritz discloses 9 filters in section 2.1 on page 3.
As for claim 14, Moritz discloses that the photoreceiver is an InGaAs photoreceiver (see paragraph 1 of section 2.1 on page 3 and Fig. 1a).
As for claims 15 and 16, Moritz discloses a light source (cw diode laser in Fig. 1a) that emits the first light to irradiate the sample comprising the photosensitizer applied thereto, where the light source emits light at 690 nm, which falls in the claimed wavelength range of claim 16 of 250 – 900 nm.
As for claim 19, Moritz discloses a method for measuring dosage for photodynamic therapy treatment, the method comprising deploying a dosimeter system according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1a and the discussion set forth above regarding claim 1); iteratively selecting each optical bandpass filter of the plurality of optical bandpass filters to selective filter the second light (see section 2.2 on page 4 which states that the spectra are measured by observing the optical emissions through the nine bandpass filters from section 2.1); for each optical bandpass filter, measuring, by the photoreceiver, an optical signal of the filtered second light (see section 2.2 on page 4) and outputting the electrical output signal corresponding to the respective optical bandpass filter to the controller (see Fig. 1a, which shows the detector outputting signals to a computer, which is considered the controller here); and determining an amount of singlet oxygen produced by activating the photosensitizer by the light source based on the electrical output signals (see the discussion in section 2.5, discussing plotting the change in growth rate of tumors against measured singlet oxygen values, and section 3.4, showing the correlation between the change in tumor growth rate to the amount of 1O2 and PS measured during treatment).
As for claim 20, Moritz discloses that the singlet oxygen is 1O2 (see the significance section of the abstract on page 1) and the electrical output signal is a voltage signal, wherein voltages in the voltage signal correspond to a number of 1O2 molecules (see Fig. 5, showing quantitation of generated 1O2 during PDT treatment of mice, with voltage being the Y-axis of Fig. 5a in particular).
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.
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 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moritz et al (“Multispectral singlet oxygen and photosensitizer luminescence dosimeter for continuous photodynamic therapy dose assessment during treatment”).
As for claim 8, Moritz discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 1, but fails to disclose a first lens configured to focus the first light onto the sample and to collect the second light emitted from the sample.
However, in Fig. 1a, Moritz discloses a lens that collects the second light emitted from the sample. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, the skilled artisan would only need to rearrange elements so that the emitted light from the cw diode laser passes through the lens in addition to the collected light passing through the lens.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first lens of Moritz both focus the first light onto the sample and collect the second light from the sample, the motivation being to ensure that light from the cw diode laser is focused on the specific spot undergoing treatment on the sample while requiring only a single lens to both transmit light to and collect light from the sample.
As for claim 9, Moritz discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 8, but fails to disclose an optical shortpass filter configured to receive the first light and transmit filtered light to the sample, the optical shortpass filter configured to block infrared spectrum light.
However, the examiner takes Official notice as to the well known use of shortpass filters to block infrared light in optical measurement instruments, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add a shortpass filter between the cw diode laser and the sample in Moritz, the motivation being to ensure that only excitation light of the photosensitizer reaches the sample so that the infrared luminescence detected by the detectors does not feature unwanted infrared wavelengths, thereby ensuring accurate measurements are obtained.
As for claim 10, Moritz discloses a dichroic mirror (see Fig. 1a) positioned between the sample and the variable optical filter system to receive the second light from the sample and direct light to the filter system. However, Moritz’s mirror transmits the desired second light to the filter system rather than being of a material to reflect the second wavelength.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Moritz already selects a dichroic mirror that reflects light of certain IR wavelengths to a separate USB camera, so the skilled artisan would know to select a different material for the dichroic mirror so that it reflects the wavelengths of the combined photosensitizer and singlet oxygen luminescence rather than the shorter infrared wavelengths. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This would simply require swapping the locations of the USB camera and the InGaAs detector in Moritz.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the dichroic mirror of Moritz with one that reflects the wavelengths that are to be detected by the InGaAs detector rather than transmitting them, and to rearrange the detector so that it is on the reflection side of the dichroic mirror, the motivation being that such rearrangement and replacement of elements will not change the functionality of the Moritz device, only the location of detectors and the specific direction certain wavelengths travel.
As for claims 11-13, Moritz discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 1, but fails to disclose one or more optical longpass filters, the one or more optical longpass filters being positioned such that the variable optical receiver system is between the one or more longpass filters and the photoreceiver, the one or more optical longpass filters having cutoff wavelengths based on the plurality of optical bandpass filters, where the one or more optical longpass filters comprises at least two optical longpass filters (claim 12), and wherein the cutoff wavelengths of the one or more optical longpass filters are at or below a lowest central wavelength of the plurality of optical bandpass filters (claim 13).
However, the examiner takes Official notice as to the well known use of longpass filters to transmit infrared wavelengths in optical measurement systems. Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Given the fact that the plurality of bandpass filters in Moritz are directly adjacent to the camera, the skilled artisan would know to place the longpass filters so that the bandpass filters are between the longpass filters and the camera as claimed, and the skilled artisan would also know to choose the cutoff wavelengths of the bandpass filters to be at or below the 1193 nm wavelength of the lowest wavelength filter in the filter wheel of Moritz so as to make sure the full spectral range of the luminescence of the photosensitizer and the singlet oxygen can reach the detector as shown in section 2.1 of Moritz.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a pair of longpass filters to the detection arm of Moritz that have cutoff wavelengths at or below the lowest central wavelength of the plurality of optical bandpass filters, the motivation being to ensure that only the photosensitizer and singlet oxygen luminescence reach the InGaAs detector for proper monitoring of generated singlet oxygen due to that molecule’s toxicity to a patient. Additionally, these filters will ensure that the photobleaching of the PS fluorescence background is only monitored by the separate USB camera and is not present in the luminescence spectrum.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moritz et al (“Multispectral singlet oxygen and photosensitizer luminescence dosimeter for continuous photodynamic therapy dose assessment during treatment”) in view of Konig (2022/0079446).
Regarding claim 17, Moritz (Fig. 1a) discloses a dosimeter for photodynamic therapy, the dosimeter comprising: a variable optical filter system (filter wheel which has a plurality of filters as per the first paragraph of section 2.1 on page 3) configured to receive a second light, the second light comprising luminescence produced by singlet oxygen and one or more background signals (“The long wavelength range measures the spectrum of the combined PS luminescence and 1O2 phosphorescence signal that is collected by a liquid light guide and detected by a thermoelectrically cooled InGaAs detector” as per section 2.1 on page 3; that section also discloses that the PS signal is the background signal – “The 1O2 spectrum . . . has a peak around 1270 nm that is superimposed onto the broadband PS background.”), each of which are based on irradiating a sample (sample in Fig. 1a) with a first light (from cw diode laser) comprising a first wavelength within an excitation range of a photosensitizer applied to the sample (the wavelength of the cw laser is 690 nm as per section 2.1 on page 3, this is within an excitation range of Verteporfin, the photosensitizer used by Moritz), wherein activating the photosensitizer produces the singlet oxygen (see the introduction section at the bottom of page 1 into page 2 for a discussion as to how the activation of the photosensitizer generates singlet oxygen during the treatment process), and selectively transmit the luminescence and the one or more background signals as a third light (as seen in Fig. 1a and section 2.1, the light emitted by the sample passes through a dichroic mirror, a lens, and a liquid light guide, then passes through the selected filter of the filter wheel before reaching the detector), the variable optical filter system comprising a plurality of optical bandpass filters that are switchable to selectively transmit the luminescence and the one or more background signals (as seen in section 2.1, the filter wheel has 9 different filters); a photoreceiver (InGaAs detector) configured to receive the third light and configured to generate electrical output signals corresponding to the luminescence and the one or more background signals (“We used a solid-state InGaAs detector to monitor both the PS and the 1O2 luminescence, with the PS signal being the background), the electrical output signals being indicative of an amount of the singlet oxygen produced based on activating the photosensitizer (see the discussion in section 2.5, discussing plotting the change in growth rate of tumors against measured singlet oxygen values, and section 3.4, showing the correlation between the change in tumor growth rate to the amount of 1O2 and PS measured during treatment); and a controller (the computer in Fig. 1a) communicatively coupled to the photoreceiver (as per the line between the controller and the detector) to receive the electrical output signals from the photoreceiver.
Moritz fails to disclose that the photoreceiver generates a dosage measurement indicative of the amount of oxygen radicals produced based on activating the photosensitizer.
Konig, however, discloses in the background portion of the disclosure that photosensitizers that are used in the course of photodynamic therapy, such as what Moritz has disclosed in the dosimetry system, generates not only singlet oxygen, but also oxygen radicals. Oxygen radicals, like singlet oxygen, are cell-destructive (see paragraph 0008 of Konig). Therefore, it follows that if an activated photosensitizer releases singlet oxygen that luminesces and is detected, released oxygen radicals will luminesce so they can be detected by the device of Moritz as well.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dosimetry system of Moritz to also perform dosage measurement indicative of the amount of oxygen radicals produced based on activating the photosensitizer as indicated by Konig’s teaching of oxygen radical and singlet oxygen release using a photosensitizer, the motivation being to obtain a full picture of the damage being done to healthy tissue during photodynamic therapy treatment of, for instance, cancer, thereby minimizing the damage caused to healthy tissue during such treatments (see paragraph 0008 of Konig).
As for claim 18, while the combination of Moritz and Konig fails to disclose an electrical signal receiving device communicatively coupled to the photoreceiver and configured to receive the electrical output signals from the photoreceiver and communicate the received electrical output signals to the controller, the examiner takes Official notice as to the well known use of oscilloscopes, which the instant application discloses as an example of an electrical signal receiving device as per the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of the limitation, as an intermediate device for receiving electrical output signals from a photodetector.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an electrical signal receiving device to the combination of Moritz and Konig, the motivation being to add an initial visual indicator to the device to allow for instant analysis of the received data prior to it being sent to the controller for further use or analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0001193 to Zhu et al. teaches methods and systems for implementing photodynamic therapy (see abstract);
US 2019/0033468 to Liu et al. teaches a dosimeter for measuring radiation dosage (see abstract);
US Pat. 8,480,405 to Oki et al. teaches a photodynamic diagnosis apparatus that seeks to subtract out a background signal from the average fluorescence waveform (see Col. 2, lines 12-19);
WO 2007/111408 to Kang et al. teaches a light source for fluorescence diagnosis and photodynamic therapy (see abstract); and
US 2007/0060804 to Thompson et al. teaches a system and method for therapy and diagnosis via distribution of radiation (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 January 16, 2026