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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the drawing and specification objections, applicant’s deletion of the “mechanical flexure” has rendered these objections moot and they are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the claim objections, applicant’s amendments has rendered these objections moot and they are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the 112a written description rejection of claims 9, 15 and 22, applicant’s amendments overcome the rejection which is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the 103 for claim 1, applicant has amended the claim to require that the multiplexer splits the beam into a plurality of beams simultaneously. As pointed out in the previous office action, the examiner is interpreting the acousto-optic deflector (49, Fig. 19) as the multiplexer. While Kittrell is silent as to whether the acousto-optic deflector splits the beams sequentially or simultaneously (as these are the only two options), the examiner takes the position that this simultaneous splitting is either inherent/implicit to the operation of an acousto-optic or electro-optical deflector or is an obvious modification, based on the teachings of a newly-applied reference. See new 103 rejection below.
Regarding the 103 for claim 11, applicant has amended the claim to recite a functional limitation, specifically that the alignment assembly “adjusts the receptacle assembly to align the guide proximal ends with the individual guide beams based on one or more reference features in the images that are identified by applying one or more image processing algorithms to the images”. However, it is important to note that the claims do not explicitly require any image processing algorithms that identify reference features, only an alignment assembly having a camera that is capable of adjusting the receptacle assembly based on a hypothetical/unclaimed image processing algorithm that identifies reference features. If applicant’s intention was to require an imaging processing algorithm that identifies reference features which is then used/sent to the alignment assembly to control/adjust alignment, then applicant needs to explicitly recite a processor configured to perform these image processing algorithms that identify reference features and communicates with the alignment assembly to adjust/control the positioning/alignment based on these identified reference features. As currently claimed, no such processor exists, therefore the amended limitation relates solely to the capability of the alignment assembly. The examiner takes the position that the alignment assembly of Kittrell is structurally capable, i.e. includes all of the necessary structural elements and structural configurations to be inherently capable, of adjusting the receptacle assembly based on identified reference features by applying one or more image processing algorithms (should these image processing techniques be applied). Stated differently, the specific data used (identified reference features of images) and how that data was generated (using image processing algorithms) to adjust the alignment assembly fails to limit the structure of the alignment assembly itself, as the alignment assembly of Kittrell is capable of using any data generated from any image processing technique of the camera images to adjust the receptacle assembly. For example, the claim is broad enough to read on a user/operator obtaining these identified reference features from an image processing algorithm to then control the alignment assembly to adjust the receptacle assembly. Again, it is emphasized that the claim does not actually require an image processing algorithm that identifies reference features in images obtained by the camera. The examiner maintains that the combination of Kittrell and Rink teaches all of the necessary structure to be inherently capable of performing the recited function.
MPEP 2114 states:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 may be appropriate
Regarding the 103 for claim 21, applicant argues that the combination of Kittrell and Sawada fail to the amended limitation of a multiplexer is translatable to adjust which light guides of the plurality of light guides receive the individual guide beams. The examiner takes the position that either 1. The multiplexer of Kittrell is inherently capable of being translated or 2. Such a translatable multiplexer is obvious in view of the newly applied art; see new 103 rejection below. It is also emphasized that applicant originally-filed specification fails to provide sufficient support for the newly claimed subject; see 112a written description below.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “tow axis” should be “two axes”. 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 5, 19 and 21-22 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.
These claims have been amended from a multiplexer that has at least one degree of freedom to a multiplexer that translates. While degrees of freedom CAN include translation, it is not inherently true that at least one degree of freedom necessarily includes/requires translation, as the originally-disclosed “at least one degree of freedom” could relate solely to rotation. Since the originally-filed disclosure provides no explanation, details or guidance on what is meant by these degrees of freedom, the examiner takes the position that there is not sufficient support for the newly claimed translation. Specifically, disclosing the genus of “at least one degree of freedom” does not necessarily mean that applicant possesses the species of translation.
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 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,913,142 to Kittrell et al. in view of US 2017/0354465 to Rink.
[Claim 11] Kittrell discloses a catheter system (10, Fig. 1) for treating a vascular lesion within or adjacent to a vessel wall within a body of a patient (at least Abstract), the catheter system comprising:
a light source (laser 92, Fig. 19) that generates a source beam of light energy;
a receptacle assembly (fiber optic coupler/holder 46);
a first light guide and a second light guide (optical fibers 20a-c’) that are coupled to the receptacle assembly, each light guide having a guide proximal end (40a-c’ seen in Fig. 1 as coupled to the fiber optic coupler 46; Col 7, line 65 to Col 8, line 36. This arrangement is also shown in Fig. 19 with fiber optic coupler retaining the proximal ends of fibers 40);
a multiplexer (acousto-optic or electro-optic deflector 49) that receives the source beam from the light source, the multiplexer directing individual guide beams from the source beam to each of the guide proximal end of the first light guide and the guide proximal end of the second light guide (Col 18, line 63 to Col 19, line 2); and
an alignment assembly (mechanical translator 200, including 3 stages, motor 204 and computer 80) that adjusts the position of the receptacle assembly relative to the individual guide beams (Col 17, lines 13-33), the alignment assembly including a sensor (photodiode 45) that detects light from the guide proximal ends of each light guide and adjusts the receptacle assembly to align the guide proximal ends with the individual guide beams (Col 17, line 62 to Col 18, line 11) based on one or more reference features that are identified by applying one or more image processing algorithms to the images (the alignment assembly taught by Kittrell is inherently capable of operating in the claimed manner; see MPEP 2114 and the response to arguments, above).
While Kittrell teaches a photodiode which is the basic photosensitive component within most image sensors, including both CCD and CMOS sensors, it is not an image sensor/camera on its own. Therefore, Kittrell fails to explicitly teach a camera, as claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rink discloses a similar laser catheter system (see Fig. 10 and Par 0017 of Rink) which includes a camera (160) for aligning the laser beam with an optical fiber (Fig. 3; Par 0025). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the photodiode taught by Kittrell for the camera taught by Rink, as this is a simple substitution of one type of light sensor for another to obtain predictable results, as both types of light sensors are known to be used for the same alignment purposes, i.e. alignment of a laser beam with an optical fiber. In the proposed combination, the camera is located in the same position/location as the photodiode of Kittrell (45, Fig. 19), and therefore inherently/implicitly captures images of the guide proximal ends (40).
[Claim 12] The examiner takes the position that Kittrell teaches all of the necessary structural components to be inherently capable of operating in the claimed manner; see MPEP 2114. If applicant disagrees, see alternative 103 below.
While Kittrell is technically silent as to the specific range/distance at which the alignment assembly can be adjusted, the reference does teach “thus, for example, 100 um core optical fiber must be brought into proper position with an accuracy of approximately 20 micrometers before the shutter is opened and the laser light is allowed to enter the fiber”. Therefore, the examiner takes the position that based on this desired accuracy in the micrometer range, it would have been obvious that the alignment assembly adjusts the receptacle assembly relative to the beams in micrometer level adjustments.
[Claim 13] As seen in Fig. 19, the alignment assembly (translator 200) adjusts the receptacle assembly (46) relative to the multiplexer (49), as the multiplexer remains stationary while the receptacle assembly is adjusted.
[Claim 14] Kittrell discloses “The translator system consists of two small hand-operated mechanical stages 202 which bring the fiber array to the correct elevational position and focus in front of the focal point of the laser. The third translational stage is electrically operated by a motor 204 and computer 80. This stage translates the array of fibers 46 as in FIG. 19 along the horizontal dimension such that one fiber after another is brought to the focal point of the laser”
[Claim 15] As discussed above, in relation to claim 14, either the hand-operated mechanical stages or electrically/motor operated third stage functions to create at least linear displacement. Similarly, the rotation discussed in relation to Fig. 11A (see discussion of claims 16 and 18, below) is angular displacement.
[Claim 16] Kittrell disclose the receptacle assembly (46) rotates the proximal ends of the fiber array about one axis (47, Fig. 11A; Col 12, lines 43-58). The reference fails to teach a second rotational axis, however the examiner takes the position that this is merely duplication of parts and it would be obvious to include an additional rotational axis as a mere duplication of parts and provide a more exact/accurate alignment of the proximal ends of the fibers; MPEP 2144.04. It is emphasized that applicant has no criticality, unexpected results or functional significance to two rotational axes as compared to one. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to substitute the translational receptacle assembly of Figs. 19-20 for the rotational assembly in Fig. 11, including two rotational axes, as a simple substitution of one known receptacle assembly for another to properly align the input ends of the optical fibers, as taught by Kittrell.
[Claim 17] Kittrell discloses that the receptacle assembly is adjustable in three dimensions by the alignment system via the movement of the 3 stages (Col 17, lines 25-33).
[Claim 18] Kittrell disclose the receptacle assembly (46) rotates the proximal ends of the fiber array (Fig. 11A; Col 12, lines 43-58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the translational receptacle assembly of Figs. 19-20 for the rotational assembly in Fig. 11 as a simple substitution of one known receptacle assembly for another to properly align the input ends of the optical fibers, as taught by Kittrell.
[Claim 19] Kittrell discloses a rotating mirror that can be used instead of the acousto-optic deflector (Col 24, lines 13-16), which has at least one degree of freedom, i.e. rotation, but fails to explicitly teach translation. However, Palanker makes it clear that such mirrors can be tilted or translated (Par 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the rotatable mirror taught by Kittrell for the translatable mirror taught by Palanker, as a simple substitution of one known mirror for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,913,142 to Kittrell et al. in view of US 2017/0354465 to Rink and further in view of US 2008/0167642 to Palanker et al.
[Claim 1] Kittrell discloses a catheter system (10, Fig. 1) for treating a vascular lesion within or adjacent to a vessel wall within a body of a patient (at least Abstract), the catheter system comprising:
a light source (laser 92, Fig. 19) that generates a source beam of light energy;
a receptacle assembly (fiber optic coupler/holder 46);
a first light guide and a second light guide (optical fibers 20a-c’) that are coupled to the receptacle assembly, each light guide having a guide proximal end (40a-c’ seen in Fig. 1 as coupled to the fiber optic coupler 46; Col 7, line 65 to Col 8, line 36. This arrangement is also shown in Fig. 19 with fiber optic coupler retaining the proximal ends of fibers 40);
a multiplexer (acousto-optic or electro-optic deflector 49) that receives the source beam from the light source, the multiplexer splitting the source beam into a plurality of individual guide beams and directing individual guide beams of the plurality of individual guide beams to each of the guide proximal end of the first light guide and the guide proximal end of the second light guide (Col 18, line 63 to Col 19, line 2) simultaneously (inherently how an acousto-optic or electro-optic deflector operates; see MPEP 2112. If applicant disagrees; see alternative 103 with Palanker); and
an alignment assembly (mechanical translator 200, including 3 stages, motor 204 and computer 80) that adjusts the position of the receptacle assembly relative to the individual guide beams (Col 17, lines 13-33), the alignment assembly including a sensor (photodiode 45) that detects light from the guide proximal ends of each light guide so that an alignment of the individual guide beams relative to the guide proximal ends can be adjusted (Col 17, line 62 to Col 18, line 11)
While Kittrell teaches a photodiode which is the basic photosensitive component within most image sensors, including both CCD and CMOS sensors, it is not an image sensor/camera on its own. Therefore, Kittrell fails to explicitly teach a camera, as claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rink discloses a similar laser catheter system (see Fig. 10 and Par 0017 of Rink) which includes a camera (160) for aligning the laser beam with an optical fiber (Fig. 3; Par 0025). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the photodiode taught by Kittrell for the camera taught by Rink, as this is a simple substitution of one type of light sensor for another to obtain predictable results, as both types of light sensors are known to be used for the same alignment purposes, i.e. alignment of a laser beam with an optical fiber. In the proposed combination, the camera is located in the same position/location as the photodiode of Kittrell (45, Fig. 19), and therefore inherently/implicitly captures images of the guide proximal ends (40).
Regarding the simultaneous directing of the plurality of light beams, Kittrell and Rink are silent to this simultaneous aspect. The examiner contends that there are only two options, simultaneous and sequential, and it would be obvious to try either as merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; specifically applicant discloses both options and has provided no criticality, unexpected result or functional significance to either option. The examiner’s position is bolstered by the teachings of Palanker (Par 0030) which discloses numerous options/equivalents for known multiplexers/deflectors/beam-splitters, including acousto-optic deflectors and adaptive/active optics that create multiple beams simultaneously. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the acousto-optic deflector or electro-optic deflector taught by Kittrell for the adaptive optics that create/deliver multiple beams simultaneously, as taught by Palanker, as this is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results
[Claim 2] Kittrell disclose the receptacle assembly (46) rotates the proximal ends of the fiber array about one axis (47, Fig. 11A; Col 12, lines 43-58). The reference fails to teach a second rotational axis, however the examiner takes the position that this is merely duplication of parts and it would be obvious to include an additional rotational axis as a mere duplication of parts and provide a more exact/accurate alignment of the proximal ends of the fibers; MPEP 2144.04. It is emphasized that applicant has no criticality, unexpected results or functional significance to two rotational axes as compared to one. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to substitute the translational receptacle assembly of Figs. 19-20 for the rotational assembly in Fig. 11, including two rotational axes, as a simple substitution of one known receptacle assembly for another to properly align the input ends of the optical fibers, as taught by Kittrell.
[Claim 3] Kittrell discloses that the receptacle assembly is adjustable in three dimensions by the alignment system via the movement of the 3 stages (Col 17, lines 25-33).
[Claim 4] Kittrell disclose the receptacle assembly (46) rotates the proximal ends of the fiber array (Fig. 11A; Col 12, lines 43-58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the translational receptacle assembly of Figs. 19-20 for the rotational assembly in Fig. 11 as a simple substitution of one known receptacle assembly for another to properly align the input ends of the optical fibers, as taught by Kittrell.
[Claim 5] Kittrell discloses a rotating mirror that can be used instead of the acousto-optic deflector (Col 24, lines 13-16), which has at least one degree of freedom, i.e. rotation, but fails to explicitly teach translation. However, Palanker makes it clear that such mirrors can be tilted/rotated or translated (Par 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the rotatable mirror taught by Kittrell for the translatable mirror taught by Palanker, as a simple substitution of one known mirror for another to obtain predictable results.
[Claims 6] The examiner takes the position that Kittrell teaches all of the necessary structural components to be inherently capable of operating in the claimed manner; see MPEP 2114. If applicant disagrees, see alternative 103 below.
While Kittrell is technically silent as to the specific range/distance at which the alignment assembly can be adjusted, the reference does teach “thus, for example, 100 um core optical fiber must be brought into proper position with an accuracy of approximately 20 micrometers before the shutter is opened and the laser light is allowed to enter the fiber”. Therefore, the examiner takes the position that based on this desired accuracy in the micrometer range, it would have been obvious that the alignment assembly adjusts the receptacle assembly relative to the beams in micrometer level adjustments.
[Claims 7] As seen in Fig. 19, the alignment assembly (translator 200) adjusts the receptacle assembly (46) relative to the multiplexer (49), as the multiplexer remains stationary while the receptacle assembly is adjusted.
[Claims 8] Kittrell discloses “The translator system consists of two small hand-operated mechanical stages 202 which bring the fiber array to the correct elevational position and focus in front of the focal point of the laser. The third translational stage is electrically operated by a motor 204 and computer 80. This stage translates the array of fibers 46 as in FIG. 19 along the horizontal dimension such that one fiber after another is brought to the focal point of the laser”
[Claims 9] As discussed above, in relation to claim 8, either the hand-operated mechanical stages or electrically/motor operated third stage functions to create at least linear displacement. Similarly, the rotation discussed in relation to Fig. 11A (see discussion of claims 2 and 4, above) is angular displacement.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,913,142 to Kittrell et al. in view of US 2014/0114198 to Sawada et al. and further in view of US 2008/0167642 to Palanker et al.
[Claim 21] Kittrell discloses a catheter system (10, Fig. 1) for treating a vascular lesion within or adjacent to a vessel wall within a body of a patient (at least Abstract), the catheter system including a light source (laser 92, Fig. 19) that generates a source beam of light energy, the catheter system comprising:
a receptacle assembly (fiber optic coupler/holder 46);
a plurality of light guides comprising a first light guide and a second light guide (optical fibers 20a-c’) that are coupled to the receptacle assembly, each light guide having a guide proximal end (40a-c’ seen in Fig. 1 as coupled to the fiber optic coupler 46; Col 7, line 65 to Col 8, line 36. This arrangement is also shown in Fig. 19 with fiber optic coupler retaining the proximal ends of fibers 40);
a multiplexer (acousto-optic or electro-optic deflector 49 or rotating mirror 98) that receives the source beam from the light source, the multiplexer directing individual guide beams from the source beam to each of the guide proximal end of the first light guide and the guide proximal end of the second light guide (Col 18, line 63 to Col 19, line 2 and Col 24, lines 14-16); and
an alignment assembly (mechanical translator 200, including 3 stages, motor 204 and computer 80) that adjusts the position of the receptacle assembly relative to the individual guide beams (Col 17, lines 13-33), the alignment assembly including a sensor (photodiode 45) that detects light from the guide proximal ends of each light guide so that an alignment of the individual guide beams relative to the guide proximal ends can be adjusted (Col 17, line 62 to Col 18, line 11)
wherein the multiplexer is translatable to adjust which light guides of the plurality of light guides receive the individual guide beams (the examiner contends that the multiplexer, as discussed above, is inherently capable of being translated. If applicant disagrees, see alternative 103 with Palanker)
Kittrell fails to explicitly teach that the receptacle assembly includes a receptacle assembly housing, a receptacle ferrule receiver, and a receptacle ferrule retainer; wherein the receptacle ferrule retainer selectively locks each of the first light guide and the second light guide in desired locations within the receptacle ferrule receiver, the receptacle ferrule retainer including a plunger ball spring bridge including a plurality of plunger ball springs that are each configured to selectively lock each of the first light guide and the second light guide in desired locations within the receptacle ferrule receiver. However, in the same/similar field of endeavor, specifically fiber optic connectors/couplers used for optical probes inserted into the body (Par 0029), Sawada discloses the claimed receptacle assembly (best seen in Figs. 8, 11 and 12). Specifically, Sawada discloses a receptacle assembly including a housing (optical connector receptacle 110), a receptacle ferrule receiver (receptacle parts 112) and receptacle ferrule retainer (holding members 50); wherein the receptacle ferrule retainer selectively locks each of the first light guide and the second light guide in desired locations within the receptacle ferrule receiver, the receptacle ferrule retainer including a plunger spring bridge including a plurality of plunger springs (plurality of springs 52) that are each configured to selectively lock each of the first light guide and the second light guide in desired locations within the receptacle ferrule receiver (Figs. 11-12; Pars 0055-70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the receptacle assembly taught by Kittrell for the receptacle assembly taught by Sawada, as this is a simple substitution of one known optical coupler for another to obtain predictable results, i.e. align a plurality of fibers with light beams; Sawada further discloses the benefits of this claimed configuration for an optical coupler (see at least Par 0070 of Sawada).
Regarding the ball springs, Sawada fails to explicitly teach this claimed shape, as the springs in Sawada are differently shaped. However, the examiner contends that such a change in shape is obvious, as a matter of design/engineering choice, as there is no criticality or unexcepted results to this particular type/shape of springs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try/choose any type or shape of spring, including ball spring.
Regarding the limitation “the multiplexer is translatable”, Kittrell discloses a rotating mirror that can be used instead of the acousto-optic deflector (Col 24, lines 13-16), which has at least one degree of freedom, i.e. rotation, but fails to explicitly teach translation. However, Palanker makes it clear that such mirrors can be tilted/rotated or translated (Par 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the rotatable mirror taught by Kittrell for the translatable mirror taught by Palanker, as a simple substitution of one known mirror for another to obtain predictable results.
[Claim 22] See explanation for claims 9 and 15, above.
Conclusion
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