DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112 rejections, while applicant’s amendments resolve part of the issue, the examiner maintains that the specification does not provide sufficient support for the entire breadth of specifically targeting melanin, as only one example/species is ever disclosed. Applicant points to a single sentence that relates to “the major chromophores of skin” and cites a very broad range of wavelengths (500-1100), but never specifically discloses anything about these wavelengths being used to target or being absorbed by melanin. Furthermore, as pointed out by the examiner in the NF and unaddressed by applicant, Par 0129 explicitly states that the wavelength of 1064 is weakly absorbed by the skin/melanin. The examiner maintains that a POSITA, when reading applicant’s original specification, would not readily recognize that applicant possessed the genus of targeting melanin. Again, as explained in the rejection, applicant has a single example of using the wavelength of 755 to target melanin, but there is no evidence (within the specification itself) that applicant’s invention encompassed any/all ways melanin can be targeted. Of particular note are dependent claims 28 and 29, as there is no evidence that applicant ever contemplated the wavelengths of 500-600 nm or 1064 nm to target melanin. Specifically, while these wavelengths may have been disclosed in applicant’s specification, they are never disclosed as being specifically used to target melanin, as required by the claims. Furthermore, as pointed out above, 1064 is specifically mentioned as being “weakly absorbed”. This constitutes mixing mutually exclusive embodiments, which fails the written description requirement. MPEP 2163.03 states “An original claim may lack written description support when… a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated.” To summarize, while applicant has possession of a single species of using 755 to target melanin, no other wavelengths are ever contemplated as being used to specifically target melanin and 1064 is specifically mentioned as a separate embodiment that is NOT absorbed by melanin. Therefore, this portion of the 112a written description rejection is maintained. Similarly, the 112b rejections of claims 28 and 29 are maintained due to the conflicting/contradictory nature.
Regarding the 103, applicant’s remarks amount to general allegation that the examiner failed to provide evidence of their position of inherency. This is unpersuasive, as the examiner has provided ample evidence as to the inherency of the effect the light has in tissue; see the claim interpretation section and the explanation/mapping of the 103 rejection, specifically Pars 0005-6 and 0033-35. Again it emphasized that the photomechanical response that is explicitly taught by Sierra, along with the specific light parameters (which are the exact same as applicant’s disclosed parameters) inherently provide the same effect in tissue. This claim interpretation is being repeated in the current rejection; see below. None of applicant’s arguments refute this position or provide any evidence as to why the photomechanical response that is explicitly taught by Sierra isn’t inherently the same response/effect claimed or how/why the same light parameters wouldn’t inherently provide the same response in tissue. As made clear in the previous office actions and the parent application, applicant’s claim language related to initiating electron ionization, laser induced optical breakdown and avoiding a scarring thermal injury is merely the natural details of what happens in a photomechanical response. None of applicant’s arguments address this position. Therefore, the examiner has met the initial burden of providing an explanation/details of their position on inherency, therefore the burden has shifted to applicant as to why these effects in tissue are not inherent; applicant has failed to do so.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Sierra fails to teach a plurality of foci, this is addressed with the secondary reference of DeBenedictis, as the benefits of fractional treatment are known/obvious as taught by DeBenedictis (Pars 0015 and 0099) and additionally Sierra explicitly teaches the use of any conventional focusing components (Par 0066). The examiner takes the position that the photomechanical effect taught by Sierra is maintained in this combination, as the plurality of foci merely serve to treat multiple spaced apart locations simultaneously; the laser parameters remained unchanged in the combination and therefore their effect in tissue remains the same as applicant’s claimed effect. Stated differently, the plurality of foci are merely a duplication of spots, i.e. instead of treating a single location/spot with light that causes a photomechanical response, a plurality of spots are being treated simultaneously that cause a photomechanical response in tissue.
Applicant arguments seemingly argue that the references are somehow required to teach “the interplay” of 1. initiating electron ionization 2. laser induced optical breakdown and 3. avoiding a scarring thermal injury with an array of foci/lens array. This is simply not the burden for a 103 rejection. See MPEP 707.07(f) and 2112 below. In fact, applicant’s own specification never specifically details/addresses any interplay between these factors. If such explanation is a requirement by the prior art in order to teach/suggest the claim language then applicant’s own specification would fail this test. The examiner maintains that modifying Sierra with the plurality of foci taught by DeBenedictis is obvious, based on the numerous reasons taught by both DeBenedictis and Sierra.
MPEP 2145: One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually.
MPEP 707.07(f): The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
MPEP 2112: There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.
MPEP 2112.02: Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process.
Therefore, the examiner maintains that the photomechanical response in tissue (as taught by Sierra) inherently results in the claimed effects, and such a response remains to be taught/suggested even when Sierra is modified with a plurality of foci. Therefore, the 103 rejection is substantially maintained with updated claim mapping to address the amendments. See also the Van Hall reference, included in the conclusion section and cited in the parent application. To advance prosecution the examiner recommends that applicant claim the specific method steps, i.e. laser parameters, that provide/cause the claimed effect instead of focusing solely on the effect the light has when it interacts with the skin.
Claim Interpretation
The majority of applicant’s claims relate to the inherent/implicit/natural effects and/or results of light (having specific parameters) interacting with skin tissue. This position has been made clear in the parent application 14/209270, specifically the final rejection mailed 5/2/2022, pages 3-8. This same position of inherency is maintained in the current application; see MPEP sections 2111.04, 2112, 2112.02 and 2114. Furthermore, the examiner takes the general position that light having the same parameters as claimed/disclosed by applicant will have the same effect on tissue.
Claim Objections
Claim 46 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a plurality of lens” should be “a plurality of lenses”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-25, 27-30 and 44-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
[Claim 19] The claims encompass any laser having a wavelength absorbed by melanin, such a breadth is not supported by the specification. The only time melanin is recited in the specification is in Par 0126 which states:
In one embodiment, the picopulse laser is at 755 nm and is absorbed in melanin and hemoglobin. A purpura like effect was observed upon use of a picopulse laser on tissue. Large voids are not observed in the treated tissue. The red blood cells are dispersed throughout the tissue and the temporal dimension of the red blood cells is larger (e.g., at a depth) than that of melanin which is in a local area of the tissue. The dispersal of the red blood cells throughout the tissue could magnify the mechanical part of the effect, which due to the hemoglobin being a target of the 755 nm wavelength, occurs throughout the tissue at the location of the red blood cells in the target. The red blood cells provide an absorptive target which, at sufficient fluence, may breakdown and serve as the LIOB center. High temperatures imparted to the target red blood cells by the treatment are substantially confined within the ablation volume whereas outside the ablation volume of the bubble the rapid LIOB expansion coverts energy to shock and/or pressure waves (mechanical effect)
While this paragraph discloses a single laser wavelength (755 nm) that is absorbed by melanin, it does not provide sufficient/adequate support for any/all lasers that have a wavelength that is absorbed by melanin, as currently claimed. Furthermore, when reading this paragraph, it’s clear that 755 nm is used to target hemoglobin/blood cells and not melanin, as currently recited in the claims.
MPEP 2163.03 IV states “an original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).”
[Claim 28] The specification lacks adequate/sufficient support for the wavelengths 500 nm to 600 nm being used in the method recited in claim 19, as these wavelengths are never discussed once. Furthermore, there is no evidence that these wavelengths are absorbed by melanin
[Claim 29] The specification lacks adequate/sufficient support for the wavelength 1064 being used in the method recited in claim 19. In fact, the specification seemingly contradicts this, as it states that 1064 is weakly absorbed (Par 0129)
[Claims 46 and 47] The independent claim requires “concentrating the treatment beam through the array of foci to a plurality tissue targets, wherein each tissue target comprises epidermal tissue comprising melanin”. However, dependent claims 46 and 47 require a parabolic lens focused on a common spot (best seen in Fig. 2B of applicant’s specification). This is mixing mutually exclusive embodiments, as the independent claim requires that the array of foci are delivered to a plurality of target, but the current claims that require a parabolic lens and a common spot, which is the opposite of a plurality of tissue targets.
Additionally, the specification fails to sufficiently describe/detail the claimed “lens array comprising a plurality of lenses, wherein each lens is a parabolic lens”. As made clear from applicant’s disclosure, each lens is not a parabolic lens, but the lens array or lens cluster (which is made up of 4 lenses) forms a parabolic shape, i.e. it is the shape of the 4 lenses that is parabolic and not each individual lens. This is best seen in Fig. 3B, where lenses 315 make up a lens cluster 312 and form a parabolic shape when all four lenses are positioned together. This is seemingly different than each lens 315 being a parabolic lens, which is what is claimed.
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 28-29, 46 and 47 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.
[Claims 28-29] There is no evidence, within applicant’s specification, that these claimed wavelengths are absorbed by melanin, as required by the independent claim. As pointed out above, applicant’s specification states that 1064 nm is a separate embodiment from 755 nm and is weakly absorbed by melanin. Therefore, this contradictory and conflicting nature makes the claim indefinite.
[Claims 46 and 47] As explained above, in relation to the 112a written description requirement, these claim limitations are contradictory/conflicting with the plurality of tissue targets required by the independent claim and are therefore indefinite.
Additionally, it’s unclear what is meant by each lens is a parabolic lens, as this seemingly contradicts the specification, as discussed above in the 112a written description. MPEP 2173.03 states “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.”
It is noted that no prior art rejection is currently applied to claim 47 based on these 112 issues. MPEP 2173.06 states “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 19-25, 27-30, 44 and 45 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2008/0031288 to Sierra in view of US 2005/0049582 to DeBenedictis.
[Claim 19] Sierra discloses a method of targeting melanin (natural skin pigmentations, e.g. birthmarks; Abstract and Par 0011) for enhanced dermal treatment comprising:
generating, from a laser, a treatment beam having a fluence (at least Par 0037; inherent property of all lasers) and a wavelength (at least Pars 0041-42 and 0070; inherent property of all lasers), the treatment beam comprising one or more pulses, each pulse having a pulse width (at least Pars 0017and 0036), wherein the wavelength is absorbed by melanin (Par 0070 discloses wavelengths 700-950 which are primarily absorbed by melanin);
transmitting the treatment beam to an optical system (“reflecting components” and “focusing components” Par 0066) comprising a foci (implicit/inherent to focusing components);
concentrating the treatment beam through the optical system to a plurality of tissue targets (targeted/pigment particles; at least Pars 0005-6 and 0010), wherein each tissue target comprises epidermal tissue comprising melanin (Sierra discusses targeting birthmarks, which exist naturally in both the epidermis and dermis. Therefore, the epidermis is anticipated; MPEP 2131.02. If applicant disagrees, see alternative 103 rejection below;
initiating electron ionization in each of the tissue targets in response to melanin absorbing concentrated treatment beam (inherent/natural response/reaction/effect of the light with skin in a photomechanical process; see Pars 0005-6 and 0033-35; See MPEP 2112);
vaporizing a volume (targeted structures/particles; inherently having a three-dimensional volume. If applicant disagrees, see alternative 103 below) of epidermal tissue below the foci of the array foci in response to LIOB (Laser Induced Optical Breakdown) initiated by the electron ionization in each of the tissue targets, wherein one or more LIOB injuries are generated in the epidermis in response to the epidermal tissue vaporization (inherent/natural response/reaction/effect of the focused light with skin in a photomechanical process; see Pars 0005-6 and 0033-35; See MPEP 2111.04 and 2112); and
initiating a tissue effect in the dermis in response to the LIOB injuries generated in the epidermis, wherein the tissue effect avoids a scarring thermal injury (inherent/natural response/reaction/effect of the focused light with skin in a photomechanical process; see Pars 0005-6 and 0033-35; See MPEP 2111.04 and 2112. It’s abundantly clear throughout Sierra that there is a distinction between a photothermal process and a photomechanical process; therefore it’s clear that a photomechanical process would inherently avoid a scarring thermal injury, as there is no thermal injury in a photomechanical process; Pars 0005-6. See additional explanation below).
Sierra explicitly discloses photomechanical disruption, through the use of sound (or pressure) waves, to remove pigmented particles (See Pars 0033-35). This is the same laser induced optical breakdown described by applicant in Pars 0048-49, with the pressure/sound waves of Sierra being equivalent to the shockwaves disclosed by applicant. Sierra is merely silent as to the scientific explanation as to how these soundwaves are created, nonetheless it is inherent to the photomechanical disruption explicitly disclosed by Sierra; see MPEP 2112 ("The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.). Similarly, as will be described in more detail below, Sierra discloses the same/overlapping parameters of light as disclosed/claimed by applicant. Therefore, the same parameters of light will inherently have the same effect on the skin; see MPEP 2112.02 (“Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process”). Lastly, it is emphasized that applicant’s own claim language, e.g. “in response”, and specification (Pars 0048-49), make it clear that these steps are an inherent/natural response to light having a specific pulse duration, fluence and wavelength.
Regarding targeting melanin in the epidermis, Sierra explicitly discloses treating natural pigmentation, e.g. birthmarks, which are inherently/implicitly located in both the dermis and epidermis. While the examiner contends that, in this circumstance, the genus of teaching the skin, anticipates both species (dermis and epidermis). However, if applicant disagrees, then either skin layer would be obvious, as natural skin pigmentation and birthmarks are known to exist in both the epidermis and dermis, and it would be obvious to treat them at any known location in either the dermis or epidermis.
Sierra is discussed above, but fails to explicitly teach a lens array, i.e. an optical system comprising a plurality of foci. DeBenedictis discloses a similar laser treatment method that uses a lens array having a plurality of foci (Par 0020; Fig. 21a-b) to create a plurality of treatment/tissue targets. specific spacing between the spots (pitch 1006; Fig 10), as well as varying focal depths (Par 0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the lens array taught by DeBenedictis in the method taught by Sierra to create separate treatment spots, as fractional treatment is a known technique within the art that provides improved/effective results for treating the skin and other tissues, as taught by DeBenedictis (at least Pars 0015 and 0099). Furthermore, Sierra itself provides motivation to use any conventional focusing components (Par 0066). The examiner takes the position that the lens array taught by DeBenedictis is a known/conventional focusing component and would therefore be obvious to include in the laser system of Sierra.
Regarding the claimed volume, the examiner takes the position that a targeted particle or structure, as taught by Sierra, is inherently a 3D structure that implicitly has a volume. However, if applicant disagrees, the examiner takes the position that this is an obvious change in shape as applicant has no criticality or unexpected result; see MPEP 2144.04. Furthermore, DeBenedictis makes it clear that treatment spots of any shape, including spheres, can be used in similar laser dermatological treatments (Par 0017). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Sierra to include spots that have a volume, as this is an obvious change in shape or as a simple substitution of one known spot/beam shape for another, as taught by DeBenedictis.
[Claim 20] Sierra discloses a fluence from about 1 to about 10 J/cm2 (Par 0037). The examiner considers these ranges to be overlapping/touching, as “about” 10 (as taught by Sierra) is interpreted to be “about” 11 (as claimed by applicant). MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists… Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”. Furthermore, applicant has no unexpected result or criticality to the claimed range, as the specification never even mentions 11 J/cm2.
[Claims 21-23 and 30] These are inherent/natural responses/reactions/effects of the focused light with skin in a photomechanical process; see Pars 0005-6 and 0033-35; See MPEP 2111.04 and 2112. See discussion above, in relation to claim 19.
[Claim 24] Applicant discloses a fluences of 0.08 to 50 J/cm2 that will provide the claimed effect (Par 0004 of applicant’s specification). Therefore, Sierra which discloses a fluence from about 1 to about 10 J/cm2 (Par 0037) will inherently provide the same effect/response/result.
[Claim 25] Sierra discloses a pulse width of at most 500 ps and more specifically a range of 100 ps to 300 ps (Par 0036), which overlaps with applicant’s claimed range and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists; MPEP 2144.05.
[Claim 27] Sierra discloses a wavelength range of 700 to 950 nm (Par 0070), and specifically discloses an alexandrite laser which normally/inherently operates at 755 nm (Pars 0041, 0044 and 0070)
[Claim 28] Sierra discloses numerous laser sources that can be used (Par 0041) and explicitly discloses wavelengths in the visible range (Par 0042). These lasers sources/wavelengths overlap or approach applicant’s claimed range of about 500 nm to 600 nm and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists; MPEP 2144.05. Additionally or alternatively, the examiner takes the position that the chosen/desired wavelength is merely routine optimization of a result effective variable. It is emphasized that these wavelengths have no criticality or unexpected results, as the specification fails to even mention these wavelengths.
[Claim 29] Sierra discloses an Nd:YAG laser that operates at 1064 nm (Par 0042).
[Claims 44 and 45] DeBenedictis discloses an embodiment (Fig. 23) with a scanner and a lens array. The scanner, by definition/inherently, selects the arrival time for the LIOB formation, based on when the light is delivered to the lens and then subsequently into the tissue; see at least Par 0104 which discusses a scanner that determines a sequence for the delivery of light to different tissue sites; this predetermined sequence decides/determines/selects the arrival time of the LIOB formation in tissue.
Claim 46 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sierra and DeBenedictis as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US 2008/0058904 to Hillis et al.
Sierra and DeBenedictis are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach that the lenses in the lens array are each parabolic lenses. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hillis discloses a list of known/common lenses used in electromagnetic treatment devices, including parabolic lenses (Par 0008). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute each lens in the lens array taught by DeBenedictis for a parabolic lens, as taught by Hillis, as this is a simple substitution of one known type of lens for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2006/0178659 to Van Hal (Par 0006 “In general, laser induced optical breakdown (LIOB) occurs in media, which are transparent or semi-transparent for the wavelength of a pulsed laser beam, when the power density of the laser beam in the focal spot exceeds a threshold value which is characteristic for the particular medium. Below the threshold value, the particular medium has relatively low linear absorption properties for the particular wavelength of the laser beam. Above the threshold value, the medium has strongly non-linear absorption properties for the particular wavelength of the laser beam, which are the result of ionization of the medium and the formation of plasma. This LIOB phenomenon results in a number of mechanical effects, such as cavitation and the generation of shock waves, which damage the medium in positions surrounding the position of the LIOB phenomenon.”)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lynsey C Eiseman whose telephone number is (571)270-7035. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternating Fridays 7 to 4 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796