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 .
This Office action is responsive to an amendment filed June 26, 2025. Claims 2-14, 16-17, 22-28 & 31-32 are pending. Claims 2-3, 6-9, 17, 22-23, 27 & 31 have been amended. Claims 1, 15, 18-21 & 29-30 have been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-14, 16-17 & 31-32 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 2, at line 9, the limitations “a coaxial cable running continuous from the power source to the antenna” should apparently read --a coaxial cable running continuously from the power source to the antenna--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-14, 16-17, 22-28 & 31-32 is/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.
In regards to claim 2, at lines 17-18, the limitations “the inflow tube” and “the outflow tube” lack sufficient antecedent basis.
In regards to claim 22, at line 19, the limitations “the inflow tube” and “the outflow tube” lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 7, 13-14, 16, 22, 24-25 & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ladtkow et al. (US 2014/0046316) (“Ladtkow” hereinafter).
In regards to claim 2, Ladtkow discloses an energy-based tumor ablation probe device with an artifact mitigating material shaft: comprising:
an elongated catheter 14 having a proximal end and a distal end defining the shaft and adapted for communication with a soft tissue target (see at least par 0090-0091);
an antenna 42 at the distal end of the catheter 14, the antenna 42 operable at an ablation frequency for tissue destruction of the soft tissue target (see at least fig. 4 and par 0100);
a power source 16 connected to the proximal end for providing energy (see at least fig. 1 and par 0090);
a coaxial cable 36 running continuously from the power source 16 to the antenna 42 for transmitting energy distally to the antenna 42, the coaxial cable 36 having a continuous outer conductor 48 around a continuous dielectric 50 (see at least figs. 4-5 and par 0099-0105);
a choke segment 52 concentrically disposed around the coaxial cable 36 (see at least fig. 4 and par 0102-0105), the choke segment 52 including a concentric sleeve 51 of a conductive surrounding a concentric sleeve 56 of an insulating material surrounding and parallel to the coaxial cable 36 (see at least fig. 5 and par 0102, 0105 & 0131), the choke segment 52 having a diameter for forming a void between the choke segment 52 and an inner circumference of at least one of the inflow tube and the outflow tube for allowing coolant flow (see at least fig. 3B and par 0091 & 0094),
the concentric sleeve 56 of insulating material circumferentially surrounding and in contact with the coaxial cable 36 (see at least figs. 4-5 and par 0099 & 0101),
the concentric sleeve 51 of the conductive material surrounding the concentric sleeve 56 of insulating material at a distal portion nearest the antenna 42, and in contact with the coaxial cable 36 at a proximal end (see at least figs. 4-5 and par 0099 & 0101);
a hypotube 23 circumferentially disposed around the catheter 14 composed of artifact mitigating material (i.e., plastic) (see at least fig. 1 and par 0091); and
a sharp (i.e., relatively pointed) tip (see par 0091 & 0100) at the distal end for engagement with the soft tissue target (see at least figs. 22, 24, 27, 32 & 42 and par 0100 & 0132).
In regards to claim 4, Ladtkow discloses the device of claim 2 wherein the coaxial cable 36 terminates in a dipole antenna 42 for coupling the electric ablation frequency to a ground shield (i.e., outer conductor braid 48) in the coaxial cable 36 (see at least fig. 5 and par 0101).
In regards to claim 5, Ladtkow discloses the device of claim 4 wherein the dipole antenna 42 inherently has a length based on the wavelength of the ablation frequency (see at least fig. 5).
In regards to claim 7, Ladtkow discloses the device of claim 4 wherein the dipole antenna 42 has an exterior surface comprising the artifact mitigating material (i.e., ceramic, copper, silver) (see at least par 0100).
In regards to claim 13, Ladtkow discloses the device of claim 2, further comprising a coolant channel disposed concentrically around the coaxial cable 36 and adapted for transport of a cooling fluid (see at least fig. 3B and par 0091 & 0094).
In regards to claim 14, Ladtkow discloses the device of claim 2, further comprising an inflow tube and an outflow tube concentrically disposed around the coaxial cable 36, the inflow tube and outflow tube each defining a fluidic enclosure (see at least fig. 3B and par 0091 & 0094).
In regards to claim 16, Ladtkow discloses the device of claim 13, further comprising a heat exchange region, the heat exchange region in fluidic communication with the inflow tube and the outflow tube and defined by a void more distal then both the inflow tube and the outflow tube, the void adjacent to the antenna 42 (see at least fig. 3B and par 0091 & 0094).
In regards to claim 22, Ladtkow discloses a method of improving CT-guided, energy-based tumor ablation probe visualization comprising using a low artifact-producing probe, the probe having an artifact mitigating shaft and a ceramic or polymer tip comprising:
providing a catheter 14 adapted for communicating with a soft tissue target; the catheter 14 (see at least par 0090-0091) having:
an antenna 42 at the distal end of the catheter 14, operable at an ablation frequency for soft tissue destruction in the soft tissue target (see at least fig. 4 and par 0100), and
a hypotube 23 circumferentially disposed around the catheter 14 composed of artifact mitigating material for mitigating beam hardening artifacts (i.e., plastic) (see at least fig. 1 and par 0091);
extending a sharp (i.e., relatively pointed) ceramic or polymer tip (see par 0091 & 0100) from a distal end of the probe (see at least figs. 22, 24, 27, 32 & 42 and par 0100 & 0132);
activating a power source 16 at the proximal end for providing energy;
connecting a coaxial cable 36 having an outer conductor 48 running continuously between the power source 16 and the antenna 42 for transmitting energy distally to the antenna 42, the coaxial cable 36 having a choke segment 52 concentrically disposed around the coaxial cable 36, the choke segment 52 including a concentric sleeve 51 of a conductive material surrounding a concentric sleeve 56 of an insulating material surrounding and parallel to the coaxial cable 36, the choke segment 52 having a diameter for forming a void between the choke segment 52 and an inner circumference of at least one of the inflow tube and the outflow tube for allowing coolant flow,
the concentric sleeve 56 of insulating material circumferentially surrounding and in contact with the coaxial cable 36,
the concentric sleeve 51 of the conductive material surrounding the concentric sleeve 56 of the insulating material at a distal portion nearest the antenna 42, and in electrical communication with the outer conductor 48 of the coaxial cable 36 at a proximal end (see at least fig. 1 and par 0090), the concentric sleeve 51 of the conductive material encircling a radius of the outer conductor 48 at the proximal end (see at least par 0102);
the concentric sleeve 56 of the insulating material forming an insulating segment 56 circumferentially disposed between the concentric sleeve 51 of the conductive material and the outer conductor 48 at the distal portion (see at least fig. 5 and par 0102-0105); and
providing energy across the coaxial cable 36 to the antenna 42 to ablate the soft tissue target (see at least fig. 42).
In regards to claim 24, Ladtkow discloses the method of claim 22 further comprising terminating the coaxial cable 36 in a dipole antenna 42 for coupling the electric ablation frequency to a ground shield (i.e., outer conductor braid 48) in the coaxial cable 36 (see at least fig. 5 and par 0101).
In regards to claim 25, Ladtkow discloses the method of claim 24 wherein the dipole antenna 42 inherently has a length based on the wavelength of the ablation frequency (see at least fig. 5).
In regards to claim 32, Ladtkow discloses the device of claim 2 wherein coaxial cable 36 further comprises a central conductor 40 surrounded by a dielectric 50, concentric with the outer conductor 48 (see at least fig. 5 and par 0099-0101).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 10 & 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladtkow et al. (US 2014/0046316) (“Ladtkow” hereinafter).
In regards to claim 10, Ladtkow discloses the device 12 of claim 2 that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the coaxial cable is UT-85 or UT-34 cable. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Ladtkow wherein the coaxial cable 16 is UT-85 or UT-34 cable as claimed since the Examiner takes Official notice that a UT-85 cable or UT-34 cable are only one of a few known cables for ablation or cryogenic catheters.
In regards to claim 31, Ladtkow discloses a device with the choke segment 51 in conductive engagement with the outer conductor 48 for at least a portion and a circumferentially separated from the outer conductor 48 by the insulating segment 56 for a second portion (see at least fig. 5 and par 0102-0105) and Brannan discloses a device wherein the choke segment is copper (see at least par 0085 & 0087), Ladtkow discloses the device of claim 2, that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the insulating segment is alumina. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Ladtkow wherein the insulating segment is alumina as claimed since Ladtkow teaches that the insulating segment may be formed from a ceramic and alumina is a type of ceramic (see at least fig. 27 and par 0012-0013, 0015 & 0161-0162).
Claim(s) 3, 8 & 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladtkow et al. (US 2014/0046316) (“Ladtkow” hereinafter) in view of Brannan (US 2014/0290830).
In regards to claim 3, Ladtkow discloses the device of claim 2 that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the artifact mitigating material includes a material having a lower atomic number than iron. However, Brannan teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein the artifact mitigating material includes a material having a lower atomic number than iron (i.e., silver-plated copper flat-wire braid, silver-coated PET heat shrink, silver-plated copper-clad steel braid) (see at least figs. 2B-D and par 0077, 0085 & 0087). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Ladtkow wherein the artifact mitigating material includes a material having a lower atomic number than iron as taught by Brannan since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Brannan) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Ladtkow) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing a balun shield having high surface conductivity (see at least par 0090 of Brannan)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 8, Ladtkow discloses the device of claim 2 that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the artifact mitigating material is defined by a rigid sleeve of copper or aluminum. However, Brannan teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein the artifact mitigating material is defined by a rigid sleeve of copper (see at least figs. 2B-D and par 0077, 0085 & 0087). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Ladtkow wherein the artifact mitigating material is defined by a rigid sleeve of copper as taught by Brannan since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Brannan) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Ladtkow) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing a balun shield having high surface conductivity (see at least par 0090 of Brannan)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 23, Ladtkow discloses the method of claim 22 that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the artifact mitigating material includes a material having a lower atomic number than iron. However, Brannan teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the artifact mitigating material includes a material having a lower atomic number than iron (i.e., silver-plated copper flat-wire braid, silver-coated PET heat shrink, silver-plated copper-clad steel braid) (see at least figs. 2B-D and par 0077, 0085 & 0087). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Ladtkow wherein the artifact mitigating material includes a material having a lower atomic number than iron as taught by Brannan since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Brannan) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Ladtkow) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing a balun shield having high surface conductivity (see at least par 0090 of Brannan)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 fora discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Claim(s) 6 & 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladtkow et al. (US 2014/0046316) (“Ladtkow” hereinafter) in view of Karmarkar (US 2018/0214204).
In regards to claim 6, Ladtkow discloses the device of claim 2 further comprising a gap between the antenna and a ground shield in the coaxial cable, the ground shield circumferentially disposed around a central conductor, the central conductor transporting the electric ablation signal. However, Karmarkar teaches that it is known to provide a device further comprising a gap between the antenna and a ground shield in the coaxial cable 15, the ground shield circumferentially disposed around a central conductor, the central conductor transporting the electric ablation signal (see at least figs. 2A, 4C & 5A and par 0142, 0170-0171, 0174-0175, 0180, 0183, 0186 & 0188). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was file to provide the device of Ladtkow further comprising a gap between the antenna and a ground shield in the coaxial cable, the ground shield circumferentially disposed around a central conductor, the central conductor transporting the electric ablation signal as taught by Karmarkar in order to ground the coaxial cable and achieve a dipole antenna.
In regards to claim 26, Ladtkow discloses the method of claim 22, that fails to explicitly teach a method further comprising forming a gap between the antenna and a ground shield in the coaxial cable, the ground shield circumferentially disposed around a central conductor, the central conductor transporting the electric ablation signal. However, Karmarkar teaches that it is known to provide method further comprising forming a gap between the antenna and a ground shield 20 in the coaxial cable, the ground shield 20 circumferentially disposed around a central conductor, the central conductor transporting the electric ablation signal (see at least figs. 2A, 4C & 5A and par 0142, 0170-0171, 0174-0175, 0180, 0183, 0186 & 0188). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was file to provide the method of Ladtkow further comprising a gap between the antenna and a ground shield 20 in the coaxial cable, the ground shield circumferentially disposed around a central conductor, the central conductor transporting the electric ablation signal as taught by Karmarkar in order to ground the coaxial cable and achieve a dipole antenna.
Claim(s) 9 & 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladtkow et al. (US 2014/0046316) (“Ladtkow” hereinafter) in view of Drukier (WO 83/03961).
In regards to claim 9, Ladtkow discloses the device of claim 2 that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the low atomic number material is an alloy of aluminum. However, Drukier teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein the low atomic number material is an alloy of aluminum (see at least abstract, fig. 1 and pgs. 6-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the probe of Ladtkow wherein the low atomic number material is an alloy of aluminum as taught by Drukier in order to provide a probe that is viewable under medical imaging without significant being impaired by artifacts.
In regards to claim 27, Ladtkow discloses the method of claim 22 that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the dipole antenna has an exterior surface comprising the artifact mitigating material, the artifact mitigating including aluminum. However, Drukier teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the antenna has an exterior surface comprising the artifact mitigating material, the artifact mitigating including aluminum (see at least abstract, fig. 1 and pgs. 6-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the probe of Ladtkow wherein the dipole antenna has an exterior surface comprising the artifact mitigating material, the artifact mitigating including aluminum as taught by Drukier in order to provide a probe that is viewable under medical imaging without significant being impaired by artifacts.
Claim(s) 11-12 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladtkow et al. (US 2014/0046316) (“Ladtkow” hereinafter) in view of Schroff et al. (WO 2010/048335) (“Schroff” hereinafter).
In regards to claim 11, Ladtkow discloses the device of claim 2 that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the ablation frequency is around 915 MHz or 2450 MHz. However, Schroff teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein the ablation frequency is around 915 MHz or 2450 MHz (see at least par 00110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Ladtkow wherein the ablation frequency is around 915 MHz or 2450 MHz as taught by Schroff since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Ladtkow) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Schroff) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as optimizing the wavelength (frequency) based on the medium upon which the antenna would be operated (see at least par 00110 of Schroff)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 12, Ladtkow discloses the device of claim 2 that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the ablation frequency is between 900-930 MHz or 2350-2550 MHz. However, Schroff teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein the ablation frequency is between 900-930 MHz or 2350-2550 MHz (see at least par 00110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Ladtkow wherein the ablation frequency is between 900-930 MHz or 2350-2550 MHz as taught by Schroff since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Ladtkow) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Schroff) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as optimizing the wavelength (frequency) based on the medium upon which the antenna would be operated (see at least par 00110 of Schroff)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 17, Ladtkow discloses the device of claim 2 that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the sharp tip is a sharp diamond edge point made with ceramic or polyether ether ketone (PEEK) thermoplastic polymer with excellent high tensile strength across a broad temperature range. However, Schroff teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein the sharp tip is a sharp diamond edge point made with polyether ether ketone (PEEK) thermoplastic polymer with excellent high tensile strength across a broad temperature range (see at least figs. 14I & 14J and par 00112 & 00200). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Ladtkow wherein the sharp tip is a sharp diamond edge point made with polyether ether ketone (PEEK) thermoplastic polymer with excellent high tensile strength across a broad temperature range as taught by Schroff since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Schroff) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Ladtkow) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as shaping the microwave field by changing the local dielectric environment in the region adjacent the antenna (see at least par 00112 of Schroff)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladtkow et al. (US 2014/0046316) (“Ladtkow” hereinafter) in view of Trombka et al. (US 2005/0226373) (“Trombka” hereinafter).
Ladtkow discloses the method of claim 20 that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the CT fluoroscopic guidance in the x-ray current range of 20- I00mA.
However, Trombka teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the CT fluoroscopic guidance in the x-ray current range of 20- I00mA (see at least abstract, fig. 3 and par 0009, 0019 & 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Ladtkow wherein the CT fluoroscopic guidance in the x-ray current range of 20- I00mA as taught by Trombka in order to provide a portable in-situ chemical analysis of a biopsy sample.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Ladtkow is not suitable for piercing or treatment of transcutaneous regions requiring a rigid tip. The Office respectfully traverses. First, the Office notes that the instant claims fail to require “rigid tip” suitable “for piercing or treatment of transcutaneous regions” as argued by Applicant. Instead, the instant claims require “a sharp tip at the distal end for engagement with the soft tissue target.” As explained in the Office action, Ladtkow clearly teaches tip 21 that is “relatively pointed” (see par 0091) and “may be utilized to pierce or penetrate the target 68” (see par 0132) contrary to the Applicant’s assertion.
Applicant further contends that Ladtkow fails to teach a concentric sleeve choke structure. The Office respectfully disagrees. As clearly explained in the instant Office action, Ladtkow clearly discloses a choke segment 52 comprised of a plurality of concentric sleeves includes an outer concentric sleeve 51 of the conductive material surrounding an inner concentric sleeve 56 of insulating material, which in turns surrounds the coaxial cable 36 comprised of an outer conductor 48, a dielectric 50 and inner conductor 40 (see at least figs. 4-5 and par 0099-0101).
Moreover, Applicant contrasts differences between Brannan and the instant invention in the absence of a consideration of a combination with Ladtkow. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For example, while Applicant argues that Brannan fails to teach continuous portions such as a continuously running coaxial cable, Applicant fails to consider that such teachings are taught in the primary reference of Ladtkow.
In view of the foregoing, the rejections over at least Ladtkow and Brannan are maintained.
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 RENE T TOWA whose telephone number is (313)446-6655. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached on 571-272-7540. 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.
/RENE T TOWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791