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 Amendment
The present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on 06/29/2026. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the specification and the claims. There was not any change being made to the abstract and the drawings.
A) Regarding the specification, applicant has made changed to paragraph [0034]; and
B) Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 1-3, 12-13 and 16.
Response to Arguments
3. The amendments to the specification and the claims as provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, and applicant's arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 9-11, have been fully considered and resulted in the following conclusions.
A) Regarding the claims, because applicant has canceled claims 18 and 20 and has not added any claim into the application, thus the pending claims are claims 1-17 and 19 in which claims 1-3, 14-17 and 19 are examined in the present office action, and claims 4-13 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected Inventions.
Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 4-13 will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
B) Regarding the objection(s) to the drawings set forth in the office action of 02/18/2026, the amendment to the specification as provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, page 9, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objection(s) to the drawings set forth in the mentioned office action.
C) Regarding the Claim Interpretation set forth in the office action of 02/18/2026, because applicant has not amended the claim(s) or provided any argument to overcome the generic placeholders thereof “an assistive image” and “the operation unit”, thus the Claim Interpretation of such generic placeholders are repeated in the present office action.
D) Regarding the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, set forth in the office action of 02/18/2026, the cancelation of claim 18 as provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, page 9, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, set forth in the mentioned office action.
E) Regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soji et al (Japanese reference No. 2004-12622), the rejection of claims 1-3 and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyagi (US Patent No. 5,601,549), and the rejection of claims 1-3, 14-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata et al (US Publication No. 2021/0215923) in view of Lowe (US Patent No. 10,183,231) set forth in the office action of 02/18/2026, the amendment to the claims as provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 10-11, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement, hereafter, IDS, filed on 03/12/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
In particular, applicant has not a copy of the Chinese reference No. CN 215219313 listed in the IDS filed on 03/12/2026.
Drawings
5. The drawings contain sixteen sheets of figures 1-16 were received on 03/13/2024. These drawings are approved by the examiner.
Specification
6. The lengthy specification which was amended by the amendment of 06/29/2026 has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
8. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
9. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are “an assistive image” and “an operation unit” as recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-3, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for the following reasons.
a) Claim 1 is 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.
The claim is rejected because the disclosure, as originally filed, does not provide support for an ocular tube having a superimposition device, an operation portion provided on a front face of the ocular tube and an operation unit located on a same side of a central line between a pair of ocular lenses attached to the ocular tube as recited in the claim 1.
Applicant is respectfully invited to review the disclosure, as originally filed, which disclose that the superimposition device (210) has a projector and the operation portion (230) are located on a same side of a central line between a pair of ocular lenses attached to the ocular tube. The disclosure, as originally field, does not disclose an ocular tube having both an operation portion and an operation unit (examiner’s emphasis) as claimed.
For the purpose of examination, the so-called “the operation unit” recited in the claim on line 17 is understood as “an operation portion” recited in the claim on line 8.
b) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiency thereof.
12. Claims 1-3, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for the following reasons.
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claim is rejected because the disclosure does not provide support for an ocular tube having a superimposition device, an operation portion provided on a front face of the ocular tube and an operation unit located on a same side of a central line between a pair of ocular lenses attached to the ocular tube as recited in the claim 1.
Applicant is respectfully invited to review the disclosure which disclose that the superimposition device (210) having a projector and the operation portion (230) are located on a same side of a central line between a pair of ocular lenses attached to the ocular tube. The disclosure, as originally field, does not disclose an ocular tube having both an operation portion and an operation unit (examiner’s emphasis) as claimed.
For the purpose of examination, the so-called “the operation unit” recited in the claim on line 17 is understood as “an operation portion” recited in the claim on line 8.
b) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiency thereof.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-3, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons
a1) the claim is rejected because each of the features thereof “the face” (line 9) and “the operation unit” (line 17) lacks a proper antecedent basis;
a2) the features thereof “an operation portion … superimposition device” (lines 8-11) and “the operation unit … superimposition device” (lines 17-18) make the claim indefinite. It is unclear about the structural relationship(s) between the so-called “an operation portion” and “the operation unit”. Are those mentioned components different from each other?
For the purpose of examination, the so-called “the operation unit” recited in the claim on line 17 is understood as “an operation portion” recited in the claim on line 8.
b) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiency thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
16. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
17. Claims 1, 17 and 19, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soji et al (Japanese reference No. 2004-12622) and Wuerfel (US Patent No. 4,784,481) (both of record).
Soji et al discloses a microscopic system having a microscope with an ocular tube (1) attached to a support (2) and a probe device wherein the image/data of an operation area of a patient is guided to a projection optical system.
a) Regarding present claims 1 and 17, the ocular tube (1) is a single casing supporting two ocular lens systems (11) and a projection optical system having a display (14) wherein the projection optical system is configured to superimpose an assistive image on an image plane on which an optical image is formed with light from the microscope, see attached (machine) English translation in paragraphs [0012]-[0039], in particular, paragraphs [0021]-[0023] and [0034] and figs. 1-2.
It is noted that the projection optical system is positioned/located at a position offset from a central line between two ocular lens systems and on the left side of the central line, see figs. 1-2.
The only feature missing from the microscopic system provided by Soji et al is that Soji et al does not disclose an operation portion provided on a front face of the ocular tube wherein the operation portion being operable by a user to input an instruction to the superimposition device. However, a microscopic system having an ocular tube supporting a pair of ocular lenses and an operation portion provided on a front face of the ocular tube and on either a left side or a right of the ocular tube is known to one skilled in the art as can be seen in the microscopic system provided by Wuerfel. In particular, Wuerfel discloses a microscopic system (66) having an ocular tube (3) wherein an operation portion (45) is provided on a front face of the ocular tube and on each left side and right side of the ocular tube, see column 6 and fig. 20.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microscopic system provided by Soji et al by installing an operation portion (45) is provided on a left side of a front face of the ocular tube as suggested by Wuerfel for the purpose of providing a user with a tool/mean for inputting instruction to the superimposition device.
b) Regarding present claim 19, the microscopic system further comprises a processing device (19) connected to the probe device (3) and the projection optical system wherein connectors for a cable for signal exchange with the projection optical system being provided on a back face of the ocular tube (1), see fig. 2.
18. Claims 1-3, 15-17 and 19, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyagi (US Patent No. 5,601,549) in view of Wuerfel (US Patent No. 4,784,481).
Miyagi discloses a microscopic system having a microscope (10) having an ocular tube (11) constituted by two ocular tube portions (11a, 11b) and a base portion (11x), and an endoscope (20) wherein the image/data of from the endoscope is guided to a projection optical system.
a) Regarding present claims 1 and 17, as described in columns 2-4 and shown in figs. 1-2, the ocular tube portion (11a) of the ocular tube (11) is a single casing supporting an ocular lens system (15) and a projection optical system (30-32) having a display (30) wherein the projection optical system is configured to superimpose an assistive image on an image plane on which an optical image is formed with light from the microscope, see columns 2-3 and figs. 1-2.
It is noted that the projection optical system (30-32) is positioned/located at a position offset from a central line between two ocular lens systems, see fig. 1.
The only feature missing from the microscopic system provided by Miyagi is that Miyagi does not disclose an operation portion provided on a front face of the ocular tube wherein the operation portion being operable by a user to input an instruction to the superimposition device. However, a microscopic system having an ocular tube supporting a pair of ocular lenses and an operation portion provided on a front face of the ocular tube and on either a left side or a right of the ocular tube is known to one skilled in the art as can be seen in the microscopic system provided by Wuerfel. In particular, Wuerfel discloses a microscopic system (66) having an ocular tube (3) wherein an operation portion (45) is provided on a front face of the ocular tube and on each left side and right side of the ocular tube, see column 6 and fig. 20.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microscopic system provided by Miyagi by installing an operation portion (45) is provided on a left side of a front face of the ocular tube as suggested by Wuerfel for the purpose of providing a user with a tool/mean for inputting instruction to a the superimposition device.
b) Regarding present claim 2, the projection optical system (30-32) comprises the following features:
b1) a first optical element (30) configured to cause light (X) from the projection optical system (30-32) to join an optical path for the light (A) of the microscope;
b2) a folded optical system (10a, 16a) to fold a travel direction of the light (X) from the projection optical system and the light (A) from the microscope;
b3) an image-forming lens (31) disposed between the first optical element (30) and the folded optical system (10a, 16a); and
b4) the projection optical system (30-32) serves as a projector to project the assistive image provided by the endoscope (20) on the image plane.
c) Regarding present claim 3, the ocular tube portion (11b) of the ocular tube (11) is a single casing supporting an ocular lens system (15), a digital camera (40) and an optical element (16b) which optical element is configured to divide light (A) from the microscope into light to the ocular lens (15) and light (Y) to the digital camera (40) wherein the ocular tube (11) serves as a trinocular device to which the digital camera (40) is to be attached.
d) Regarding present claim 15, the image-forming lens (31) is provided in a casing of the ocular tube (11a) such that the image-forming lens (31) is not exposed outward from the casing.
e) Regarding claim 16, the ocular lens system (15) comprises a concave lens, see the meniscus lens attached to a biconvex lens as shown in fig. 1.
g) Regarding present claim 19, the microscopic system further comprises a processing device (25) connected to the endoscope (20) and the projection optical system (30-32) located inside the ocular tube (11a) wherein connectors for a cable for signal exchange with the projection optical system on its back face of the ocular tube (11a), see fig. 1.
19. Claims 1-3, 14-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata et al (US Publication No. 2021/0215923, of record) in view of Lowe (US Patent No. 10,183,231, of record) and Wuerfel (US Patent No. 4,784,481).
Nakata et al discloses microscopic system having a microscope (1) having an ocular tube (120) supporting an ocular lens, an intermediate tube (130) supporting a projecting system, and an imaging tube (140) supporting an imaging system wherein the intermediate tube and the imaging tube are attached to the ocular tube.
a) Regarding present claims 1 and 17, the ocular tube (120) is a single casing supporting an ocular lens system (104) and the intermediate tube (130) supporting a projection optical system (131-133) having a display (131) wherein the projection optical system is configured to superimpose an assistive image on an image plane on which an optical image is formed with light from the microscope, see [0041]-[0044] and [0065]-[0070] and figs. 1 and 4.
There are two features missing from the microscope provided by Nakata et al as follow: First, Nakata et al does not disclose that the projection optical system is formed inside the ocular tube or in other words, there is only one tube for supporting both the ocular lens and the projection optical system; and Second, Nakata et al does not disclose that their microscope
comprises an operation portion provided on a front face of the ocular tube wherein the operation portion being operable by a user to input an instruction to the superimposition device.
Regarding the first feature missing from the microscope provided by Nakata et al, it is noted that a microscope having only a single tube for supporting an ocular lens and a projection optical system is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the microscope provided by Lowe. In particular, in columns 4-7 and 14-16 and shown in figs. 1-2 and 9-11, Lowe discloses a microscope (20) having a single tube (30) for supporting both an ocular lens (102) and a projection optical system (60) having a projector (62), a screen (66) acting as a beam splitter for combining light from the projector (60) and light from an object to be viewed by the microscope. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microscope system having separate ocular tube supporting an ocular lens and intermediate tube supporting a projection optical system into a single tube supporting both an ocular lens and a projection optical system as suggested by Lowe for the purpose of reducing the weight of the microscope and to meet a particular application.
The combined product provided by Nakata et al and Lowe does not disclose that the combined product has an operation portion. However, a microscopic system having an ocular tube supporting a pair of ocular lenses and an operation portion provided on a front face of the ocular tube and on either a left side or a right of the ocular tube is known to one skilled in the art as can be seen in the microscopic system provided by Wuerfel. In particular, Wuerfel discloses a microscopic system (66) having an ocular tube (3) wherein an operation portion (45) is provided on a front face of the ocular tube and on each left side and right side of the ocular tube, see column 6 and fig. 20.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined product provided by Nakata et al and Lowe by installing an operation portion (45) is provided on a left side of a front face of the ocular tube as suggested by Wuerfel for the purpose of providing a user a tool/mean for inputting instruction to a the superimposition device.
b) Regarding present claim 2, the projection optical system (131-133) comprises the following features:
b1) a first optical element (132) configured to cause light from the projection optical system (131-133) to join an optical path for the light of the microscope;
b2) a folded optical system, see the prism system disposed inside the tube (120) to fold a travel direction of the light from the projection optical system and the light from the microscope;
b3) an image-forming lens, see the lens (103), disposed inside the tube (120) which lens is located between the first optical element (132) and the folded optical system; and
b4) the projection optical system (131-133) serves as a projector to project the assistive image on the image plane.
c) Regarding present claim 3, the folded optical system, i.e., the prism system located in the tube (120) acts as a beam splitter configured to divide light from the microscope into light to the ocular lens (104) and light to the digital camera (141) wherein the ocular tube as resulted of the combined product serves as a trinocular device to which the digital camera (141) is to be attached.
d) Regarding present claim 14, the first optical element (132) serves as a beam splitter that forms transmitted light and reflected light wherein the characteristic of the beam splitter are variable in transmittance and reflectance to meet a particular application, see paragraph [0043].
e) Regarding present claim 15, the image-forming lens (103) is provided in a casing of the ocular tube (120) such that the image-forming lens (103) is not exposed outward from the casing.
f) Regarding present claim 18, the projection optical system (131-133) is positioned/located at a position offset from a central line between two ocular lens systems, see fig. 1.
g) Regarding present claim 19, the microscopic system further comprises a processing device (10) connected to projection optical system (131-133) located inside the single ocular tube as a result of the combined product wherein connectors for a cable for signal exchange with the projection optical system being provided on its back face of the ocular tube, see fig. 1.
h) Regarding present claim 20, it would have been obvious to install/affix/form a control panel on the front side/wall of the single ocular tube for the purpose of creating/providing an easy way for a user to control the operation of the microscope, see examples of a control panel located in a front face/wall of an ocular tube provided by the US Patent No. 4,784,481 and the Chinese reference No. CN 179122 A listed in the form PTO-892 attached with the present office action.
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
21. 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.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights