DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 04/08/2026. Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending in the application. Claims 16-21 have been withdrawn and claims 1-9 and 11-15 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
4. All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
5. In the arguments presented on p.8 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that the amended limitation of an “energized duration of use” is not met by the prior office action’s rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wodecki et al. (US 20170296142 A1), further in view of Agarwal (US 20200368379 A1), further in view of Deshays (US 20100145721 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
7. Claims 1-4, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wodecki et al. (US 20170296142 A1, cited in prior office action), further in view of Agarwal (US 20200368379 A1, cited in prior office action), further in view of Deshays (US 20100145721 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wodecki teaches an ultrasound-imaging system (140, Fig. 7-8), comprising: an ultrasound probe (110, Fig. 7-8) having a probe body extending between a proximal end (probe handle 143, Fig. 7) and a distal end (probe head 117, Fig. 7), the probe body defining an external surface (exterior of probe 110, where probe body is between said handle and head, Fig. 7);
a disinfection module (probe storage compartments 115, Fig. 7-8) configured to apply a disinfection process to at least a portion of the external surface (“an ultraviolet light source disposed within the housing and configured to irradiate and sterilize the probe head”, abstract), the disinfection module including a disinfection housing defining a cavity configured to receive the ultrasound probe therein (“There is an ultraviolet light source disposed within the housing 102 and configured to illuminate the probe head 117 when the probe 110 is positioned in the respective probe storage compartment 115”, Fig. 7-8, [0037], to which a cavity is within the compartment, as the probe head occupies said cavity space); and
a system module (housing 102, Fig. 1 and 7, where “The housing 102 may adapted to be hand-carried, or according to other embodiments, the housing 102 may be part of a laptop or a cart-based ultrasound imaging system” as shown in Fig. 7-8, [0018]), comprising: a display (screen 104, Fig. 7-8); and a console coupled with the ultrasound probe (processor in housing 102 and separate processor and memory for probe 110, see [0019-0020] and Fig. 7-8) and the disinfection module ([0007]), the console including one or more processors (processor in housing and processor within probe, [0019]) that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes operations, including activating the disinfection process to disinfect the at least a portion of the external surface (“an ultraviolet light source disposed within the housing and configured to irradiate and sterilize the probe head when the probe head is placed in the probe storage compartment”, [0006], where “The probe 110 is in electronic communication with one or more components, such as the processor inside the housing 102”, [0019]).
Wodecki fails to teach a console having a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon logic to cause operation of the disinfection.
Agarwal teaches a medical device UV disinfection system (system 100, Fig. 1), where the medical device can be an ultrasound probe ([0002]), further teaching a system controller device (Fig. 5) having a processor (520, Fig. 5) and memory (530, Fig. 5) in order to “store information and instructions, for execution by processor” ([0041]).
Wodecki and Agarwal are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection of ultrasound probes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing having a processor configured to execute instructions of Wodecki by incorporating a memory as part of the housing processor as taught by Agarwal in order to “store information and instructions, for execution by processor” (Agarwal, [0041]).
The Wodecki/Agarwal combination teaches wherein the ultrasound probe is electronically connected to the processor (Wodecki, [0019]) and the processor activates the disinfection process when the probe is inserted (Wodecki, “an ultraviolet light source disposed within the housing and configured to irradiate and sterilize the probe head when the probe head is placed in the probe storage compartment”, [0006]), but fails to teach wherein the operations further include: comparing a usage parameter of the ultrasound probe with a usage threshold stored in the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the usage parameter includes a duration of use of the ultrasound probe; and as a result of the comparison, activating the disinfection process according to (i) a first disinfection level when the usage parameter is less than the threshold or (ii) a second disinfection level when the usage parameter exceeds the threshold, the second disinfection level greater than the first disinfection level.
Deshays teaches a ultraviolet sterilization system and method for an ultrasound probe (Fig. 1-2) controlled by a processing unit (D, Fig. 1-2) based on specific usage parameters ([0052]), wherein the operations further include: comparing a usage parameter (storage time of probe, [0045]) of the ultrasound probe with a usage threshold stored in the non-transitory computer-readable medium (threshold stored in the acquisition and processing system of the data processing unit D, Fig. 1-2 and [0012]), and as a result of the comparison, activating the disinfection process according to (i) a first disinfection level when the usage parameter is less than the threshold ([0048]) or (ii) a second disinfection level when the usage parameter exceeds the threshold ([0047]), the second disinfection level greater than the first disinfection level (disinfection stage A when exceeding threshold is greater than no disinfection required when less than threshold), in order to “prohibit the use of the medical apparatus if using it is not legitimate from the standpoint of hygiene” ([0011]).
The Wodecki/Agarwal combination and Deshays are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems for ultrasound probes, utilizing processors to control disinfection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor controlling the UV disinfection compartment of the Wodecki/Agarwal combination by incorporating an acquisition and processing system for an ultrasound probe as taught by Deshays in order to record probe usage parameters such as out-of-use storage time and compare it to a threshold level to consequently allow or “prohibit the use of the medical apparatus if using it is not legitimate from the standpoint of hygiene” (Deshays, [0011]).
The Wodecki/Agarwal/Deshays combination, however, fails to teach wherein the usage parameter includes an energized duration of use of the ultrasound probe.
Deshays further teaches one of the usage parameters also including a duration of use of a probe ([0017]), further mentioning the distinction between an activated use of the probe and an activated but no use of the probe ([0051]), where the true activated use of the probe is recorded by the probe use tracking system ([0051]) that is in operative connection with the acquisition and processing system of the data processing unit ([0019]).
Given the usage parameters not only include the out-of-use storage time, but also the activated/energized usage of the probe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the acquisition and processing system responsible for comparing an out-of-use storage time of the probe to a threshold value to cause/not cause a disinfection step of the Wodecki/Agarwal/Deshays combination by incorporating a usage parameter such as the activated/energized usage of the probe as further taught by Deshays in order to allow or “prohibit the use of the medical apparatus if using it is not legitimate from the standpoint of hygiene” (Deshays, [0011]) based on the additional “activated probe use” parameter.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wodecki teaches wherein the disinfection module and the system module are attached to a rolling stand (cart system of Fig. 7-8).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wodecki teaches wherein the disinfection housing is at least one of (i) directly coupled with or (ii) incorporated into a housing of the system module (compartment 115 is part of housing 102, Fig. 7-8).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wodecki teaches wherein the cavity (compartment 115, Fig. 7-8) includes a slot extending downward from a top end of the disinfection housing (the space that is formed by the cavity of the compartment 115 extends vertically downward relative from the top end/entrance of the compartment, Fig. 7-8), the slot configured to receive the ultrasound probe therein such that the at least a portion of the external surface is disposed within the cavity (“The probe storage compartments 115 may each be sized to fit the entire probe 110, or each probe storage compartment 115 may be configured to receive the probe head 117”, [0037] and Fig. 7-8), and the distal end of the probe body is directed toward a bottom end of the disinfection housing (the probe head 117 is positioned bottom-facing of the compartment relative to the top end/entrance of compartment 115, Fig. 7-8).
Regarding claim 9, modified Wodecki teaches wherein the operations include activating the disinfection process upon receiving input from a clinician, the input including one or more of a pushing of a button, a touching of a user interface screen, or an issuing of a voice command (“the screen 104 may be configured to receive touch-based inputs and/or gestures from a user to control imaging parameters, to adjust or control display settings, to manipulate acquired images, to control a sterilization process”, [0021]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wodecki teaches wherein activating the disinfection process includes exposing the at least a portion of the external surface to an ultraviolet light ([0007]) having a wavelength between about 100 nm and 400 nm (UV light source 113 can be a “short-wave UV lamp”, [0025], which emits in the UV-C range of 200-280 nm).
8. Claims 5-6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wodecki et al. (US 20170296142 A1), further in view of Agarwal (US 20200368379 A1), further in view of Deshays (US 20100145721 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Coles (US 20160303265 A1, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wodecki teaches wherein the disinfection housing (compartments 115, Fig. 7-8) comprises a cavity (“There is an ultraviolet light source disposed within the housing 102 and configured to illuminate the probe head 117 when the probe 110 is positioned in the respective probe storage compartment 115”, Fig. 7-8, [0037], to which a cavity is within the compartment, as the probe head occupies said cavity space) that has a sleeve (145, Fig. 7-8 and [0038]), but fails to teach wherein the disinfection housing includes a drawer defining the cavity.
Coles teaches a disinfection unit for an ultrasound probe (10, Fig. 1A), wherein the disinfection compartment comprises a drawer (vertical sliding drawer 14, Fig. 1A) “for accommodating at least one ultrasound probe therein” ([0042]).
Modified Wodecki and Coles are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ultrasound probe disinfection chambers/modules.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the disinfection compartment having a sleeve of Wodecki with the vertical sliding drawer of Coles because the substitution of this feature yields the predictable result of storing an ultrasound probe within the cavity.
Regarding claim 6, modified Wodecki teaches the disinfection module (compartments 115, Fig. 7-8) and the activation of the disinfection process of the ultrasound probe ([0007]), but fails to teach wherein: at least one of the disinfection module or the ultrasound probe includes a presence sensor configured to detect the presence of the ultrasound probe within the cavity, and the operations include activating the disinfection process based a signal from the presence sensor.
Coles teaches a disinfection unit for an ultrasound probe (10, Fig. 1A), wherein the disinfection compartment holding the ultrasound probe has a sensor to detect that the probe is installed (i.e., not in use and ready for disinfection, [0079]) for disinfection ([0082]).
Modified Wodecki and Coles are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ultrasound probe disinfection chambers/modules.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasound probe compartment of Wodecki by incorporating a sensor that detects whether or not the probe is installed/present within the compartment as taught by Coles in order to start a disinfection cycle when the probe is detected (Coles, [0079-0082]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wodecki teaches wherein the operations further include activating the disinfection process includes exposing the at least a portion of the external surface to ultraviolet light ([0037]), but fails to teach wherein the operations further include activating the disinfection process includes exposing the at least a portion of the external surface to a hydrogen peroxide solution.
Coles teaches a disinfection unit for an ultrasound probe (10, Fig. 1A), wherein the disinfection compartment holding the ultrasound probe utilizes UV light to disinfect the probe ([0011]), but also mentions within the background that “another method of disinfecting ultrasound probes is by placing a probe into a chamber that is pressurized and flooded with a nebulized hydrogen peroxide” ([0007]) in order to disinfect specific types of ultrasound probes (i.e., vaginal and rectal, [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UV-light disinfection compartment of Wodecki by incorporating nebulized hydrogen peroxide within the disinfection compartment during the disinfection process in order to disinfect specific types of ultrasound probes (i.e., vaginal and rectal, Coles, [0007]).
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wodecki et al. (US 20170296142 A1), further in view of Agarwal (US 20200368379 A1), further in view of Deshays (US 20100145721 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CS Medical (cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wodecki teaches wherein the cavity is configured to orient the ultrasound probe (probe 110, Fig. 8), but fails to teach wherein the cavity is configured to orient the ultrasound probe such that the distal end of the probe body is directed vertically upward.
CS Medical teaches that TEE ultrasonic probes are to be stored “vertically in a clean, well-ventilated, and dust-free area” in order to “prevent probe contamination after disinfection” (see p.3, 1st paragraph).
Modified Wodecki and CS Medical are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ultrasound probe placement when not in active use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the probe storage compartment of Wodecki by positioning the compartment on the housing so that the distal end of the probe faces a vertically upward direction as taught by CS Medical in order to “prevent probe contamination after disinfection” (see CS Medical, p.3, 1st paragraph).
10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wodecki et al. (US 20170296142 A1), further in view of Agarwal (US 20200368379 A1), further in view of Deshays (US 20100145721 A1), further in view of CS Medical as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Coles (US 20160303265 A1), and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 104873219 A, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wodecki teaches the probe storage compartment (115, Fig. 7-8) being positioned so that the distal end of the probe faces a vertically upward direction (for purposes stated in the claim 7 rejection above), but fails to teach wherein the ultrasound probe includes an orientation sensor, including at least one of a gyroscope or an accelerometer, configured to determine when the distal end of the probe body is directed vertically upward, and the operations include activating the disinfection process based on a signal from the orientation sensor.
Coles teaches a disinfection unit for an ultrasound probe (10, Fig. 1A), wherein the disinfection compartment holding the ultrasound probe has a sensor to detect that the probe is installed (i.e., not in use and ready for disinfection, [0079]) for disinfection ([0082]).
Chen teaches a wireless ultrasound probe (410, Fig. 4B) with a gyroscope sensor to determine whether or not the user is operating the probe (p.13, last paragraph of English translation).
The Wodecki/Agarwal/Deshays/CS Medical combination, Coles, and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ultrasound probes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the probe storage compartment (positioned so that the distal probe end is facing vertically upward) of the Wodecki/Agarwal/Deshays/CS Medical combination by incorporating a gyroscope sensor on the ultrasound probe as taught by Chen in order to determine that the user is not operating the probe (Chen, p.13, last paragraph of English translation), and thus, is ready for disinfection as taught by the sensor-detection-to-disinfection teaching of Coles (Coles, [0079-0082]).
11. Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wodecki et al. (US 20170296142 A1), further in view of Agarwal (US 20200368379 A1), further in view of Coles (US 20160303265 A1), further in view of Deshays (US 20100145721 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wodecki teaches an ultrasound probe (110, Fig. 1 and 7-8), comprising: a probe body extending between a proximal end (probe handle 143, Fig. 7) and a distal end (probe head 117, Fig. 7), the probe body defining an external surface (external surface of probe 110, Fig. 7), wherein: the ultrasound probe is configured for disinfection of at least a portion of the external surface via a disinfection process when the ultrasound probe is disposed within a cavity of a disinfection module ([0007]), and the ultrasound probe and the disinfection module are coupled with an ultrasound system module (Fig. 8 shows probe 110 inserted into disinfection compartment 115 that is part of an ultrasound imaging system 140).
Modified Wodecki fails to teach wherein the ultrasound probe includes a presence sensor configured to provide a presence signal to the ultrasound system module indicating that the ultrasound probe is disposed within the cavity, and the ultrasound system module is configured to activate the disinfection process based on the presence signal.
Modified Wodecki teaches the disinfection module (compartments 115, Fig. 7-8) and the activation of the disinfection process of the ultrasound probe ([0007]), but fails to teach wherein the ultrasound probe includes a presence sensor configured to provide a presence signal to the ultrasound system module indicating that the ultrasound probe is disposed within the cavity, and the ultrasound system module is configured to activate the disinfection process based on the presence signal.
Coles teaches a disinfection unit for an ultrasound probe (10, Fig. 1A), wherein the disinfection compartment holding the ultrasound probe has a sensor to detect that the probe is installed (i.e., not in use and ready for disinfection, [0079]) in order to automatically trigger a disinfection cycle ([0082]). It is important to note that the sensor detection of the probe directly triggers the disinfection cycle, because without this condition being satisfied, the disinfection cycle will not occur.
Modified Wodecki and Coles are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ultrasound probe disinfection chambers/modules.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasound probe compartment of Wodecki by incorporating a sensor that detects whether or not the probe is installed/present within the compartment as taught by Coles in order to automatically and directly start a disinfection cycle when the probe is detected (Coles, [0079-0082]).
Wodecki teaches that the processor (disposed in housing 102, Fig. 1, 7-8 and [0019]) is in electronic communication with the probe (110, Fig. 7-8). Thus, it would have also been obvious to rearrange the presence sensor of Coles installed within the housing to a location such as on the probe, because shifting the position of the presence sensor would not change the functionality (i.e., detecting the probe within the housing of Wodecki) of the sensor with respect to the ultrasound sterilization apparatus of the Wodecki/Agarwal combination (“shifting the position… would not have modified the operation of the device”, MPEP 2144.04.VI.C).
The Wodecki/Agarwal/Coles combination fails to teach wherein the ultrasound system is configured to activate the disinfection process at a defined disinfection level based on an energized duration of the ultrasound probe.
Deshays teaches a ultraviolet sterilization system and method for an ultrasound probe (Fig. 1-2) controlled by a processing unit (D, Fig. 1-2) based on specific usage parameters ([0052]), wherein the operations further include: comparing a usage parameter (storage time of probe, [0045]) of the ultrasound probe with a usage threshold stored in the non-transitory computer-readable medium (threshold stored in the acquisition and processing system of the data processing unit D, Fig. 1-2 and [0012]), and as a result of the comparison, activating the disinfection process at a defined disinfection level (disinfection step A, Fig. 1 and [0047]), collectively in order to “prohibit the use of the medical apparatus if using it is not legitimate from the standpoint of hygiene” ([0011]).
The Wodecki/Agarwal/Coles combination and Deshays are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems for ultrasound probes, utilizing processors to control disinfection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor controlling the UV disinfection compartment of the Wodecki/Agarwal combination by incorporating an acquisition and processing system for an ultrasound probe as taught by Deshays in order to record probe usage parameters such as out-of-use storage time and compare it to a threshold level to consequently allow or “prohibit the use of the medical apparatus if using it is not legitimate from the standpoint of hygiene” (Deshays, [0011]).
Deshays further teaches one of the usage parameters also including a duration of use of a probe ([0017]), further mentioning the distinction between an activated use of the probe and an activated but no use of the probe ([0051]), where the true activated use of the probe is recorded by the probe use tracking system ([0051]) that is in operative connection with the acquisition and processing system of the data processing unit ([0019]).
Given the usage parameters not only include the out-of-use storage time, but also the activated/energized usage of the probe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the acquisition and processing system responsible for comparing an out-of-use storage time of the probe to a threshold value to cause/not cause a disinfection step of the Wodecki/Agarwal/Deshays combination by incorporating a usage parameter such as the activated/energized usage of the probe as further taught by Deshays in order to allow or “prohibit the use of the medical apparatus if using it is not legitimate from the standpoint of hygiene” (Deshays, [0011]) based on the additional “activated probe use” parameter.
Regarding claim 14, the Wodecki/Agarwal/Coles/Deshays combination teaches wherein the ultrasound system module (Wodecki, 140, Fig. 7-8) is configured to automatically activate the disinfection process (Coles, [0082]) based on a in direct response to the presence signal from the presence sensor (Coles, [0079], the sensor detection of the probe directly triggers the disinfection cycle, because without this condition being satisfied, the disinfection cycle will not occur), for the modification purposes stated in the claim 13 rejection above.
12. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wodecki et al. (US 20170296142 A1), further in view of Agarwal (US 20200368379 A1), further in view of Coles (US 20160303265 A1), further in view of Deshays (US 20100145721 A1), as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of CS Medical, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 104873219 A).
Regarding claim 15, modified Wodecki teaches wherein the cavity is configured to orient the ultrasound probe (probe 110, Fig. 8), but fails to teach wherein the cavity is configured to orient the ultrasound probe such that the distal end of the probe body is directed vertically upward.
CS Medical teaches that TEE ultrasonic probes are to be stored “vertically in a clean, well-ventilated, and dust-free area” in order to “prevent probe contamination after disinfection” (see p.3, 1st paragraph).
Modified Wodecki and CS Medical are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ultrasound probe placement when not in active use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the probe storage compartment of Wodecki by positioning the compartment on the housing so that the distal end of the probe faces a vertically upward direction as taught by CS Medical in order to “prevent probe contamination after disinfection” (see CS Medical, p.3, 1st paragraph).
Modified Wodecki in view of CS Medical teaches wherein the ultrasound system module (Wodecki, 140, Fig. 7-8) is configured to activate the disinfection process based on a signal from the presence sensor (Coles, [0079], for the modification purposes as stated in claim 13 rejection above), and the probe storage compartment (Wodecki, 115, Fig. 7-8) being positioned so that the distal end of the probe faces a vertically upward direction (for purposes stated in the instant claim rejection above), but fails to teach wherein the orientation sensor includes at least one of a gyroscope or an accelerometer, configured to determine when the distal end of the probe body is directed vertically upward, and the operations include activating the disinfection process based on a signal from the orientation sensor.
Chen teaches a wireless ultrasound probe (410, Fig. 4B) with a gyroscope sensor to determine whether or not the user is operating the probe (p.13, last paragraph of English translation).
The modified Wodecki/CS Medical combination, Coles, and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ultrasound probes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the probe storage compartment (positioned so that the distal probe end is facing vertically upward) of the Wodecki/CS Medical combination by incorporating a gyroscope sensor on the ultrasound probe as taught by Chen in order to determine that the user is not operating the probe (Chen, p.13, last paragraph of English translation), and thus, is ready for disinfection as taught by the sensor-detection-to-disinfection teaching of Coles (Coles, [0079-0082]).
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris R. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights