DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-22, 24-26, 28, 30, 32-38 and 41-46 have been 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.
Claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f):
The remarks have been found persuasive, by replacement of the term “attachment mechanism” with connector, claim 38 fails prong (a) of the three-prong analysis, therefore claim 38 is no longer interpreted under 112(f).
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b):
Pages 8-9 of the remarks have been found persuasive, therefore the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 103
The previous grounds of rejection has been overcome by amendment, however upon a new interpretation of Cadwalader in view of Gordon the claims are still obvious as discussed below. Specifically, Cadwalader does teach the claimed neck as the claims do not structurally distinguish the claimed neck from the vertical flexible members of Cadwalader. Under the new interpretation, Cadwalder teaches a base (bracket 70) as seen in figure 11. Paragraph [0064] teaches the bracket is positioned under the patient cushion 80 on the patient table, thus configured to be positioned beneath the patient. The bracket clearly has two planar surfaces (i.e. one interpreted as the claimed a planar surface). Cadwalader further shows the base 70 couples to the shield device 50 to the patient table via fasteners as described in paragraph [0065], which refers to fastening techniques mentioned through this disclosure, such as hook and loop fasteners, grommets, pins, snaps clips (see paragraph [0045]).
It is noted that the claim does not actually require the base to be coupled to the operating table, but instead requires the base to couple the shield mounting device to the operating room table. Since the base couples to the shield mounting device and the base is held beneath the patient, the shield is coupled to the table via being coupled to the base. This is commensurate with the instant disclosure which suggests coupling the support to the base and positioning the base underneath the patient (see for instance paragraph [0011] of the published application)
Therefore, by amendment, the claims are anticipated by Cadwalader.
Alternatively, in a second interpretation, the claimed base is interpreted to be the first portion 56 of the flap 50 of Cadwalader coupled to the drape as discussed in paragraph [0045], wherein paragraph [0064] teaches the flap of figures 1-7 may be attached to a bracket. Here, the modification would be to attach the base (i.e. first portion 56) of the removable flap to a patient table. See full discussion in the rejection herein below.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 43-44 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 43-44 are directed towards a separate species (see figure 7 and paragraph [0091] of the published application) previously unclaimed. The species of figure 7 has the mutually exclusive characteristic of size of the base in comparison the shield. Examination of claims 43-44 would raise undue burden because there would be issues with respect to 112(a) as the base of figure 7 is not disclosed to be positionable under a patient and as the neck protrudes from the middle of the base this would not appear reasonable to conclude. Moreover, it would raise additional search burden as the relative size would require additionally searching with keywords including the relative size of the base to the shield and synonyms thereof. Moreover, as evidenced below, the found art does not disclose this feature, thus providing evidence that prior art suggesting the claimed species would not be applicable to these new claims.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 43-44 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim 42 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.
Claim 42 lacks written description for requiring “wherein the base has a generally rectangular shape defining a length and a width, and the length and the width are less than a length and a width of the horizontal crossbar, respectively.” Specifically, there is no disclosure of the length and width of the base being less than a length and width of the horizontal crossbar. Indeed, the specification is devoid of any teaching of the length and width of the crossbar. As can best be seen in figure 2a, the width of the crossbar appears to be the same as the shield 106 however the length appears much smaller than the length of the base. Further the figures are not clear as to whether the width of the crossbar 108 is greater or smaller than the width wb of the base.
PNG
media_image1.png
714
1434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MPEP 2163 (I)(B) recites:
“the written description requirement prevents an applicant from claiming subject matter that was not adequately described in the specification as filed. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. “
Here, there is no support for the length and width of the base to be less than the length and width of the cross-bar, therefore claim 42 fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 USC § 112(a).
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 28 and 46 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.
Claim 28 is vague and indefinite because it depends on cancelled claim 27. For the purposes of examination it will be interpreted that claim 28 depends upon claim 21.
Claim 46 is dependent upon itself. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that claim 46 was intended to be dependent upon claim 21.
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.
Claims 21-22, 24-26, 28, 30 and 33-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cadwalader et al. (US pgPub 2008/0164425) (first interpretation) (submitted with IDS of 13 March 2015).
Regarding claim 21, Cadwalader et al. teach a radiation shielding device (fig. 1) configured to block at least a substantial portion of scatter radiation that emanates from a radiation device that is imaging through a patient positioned on an operating room table ([0002] teaches lateral radiographic imaging wherein radiation is emitted at a lateral side of the patient and directed through an opposite side of the patient, wherein the radiation beam is emitted in a direction relatively horizontal and substantially parallel to a support surface of the object (i.e. patient). Paragraph [0022] teaches radiation shields or barriers attenuating the primary beam during lateral radiographic imaging, thus blocking the primary beam radiation) and towards a healthcare provider adjacent the patient ([0030] teaches shield medical personnel and possibly the patient, thus adjacent to patient), the radiation shielding device comprising:
a base (fig. 11, 70) configured to couple the shield mounting device to the operating room table (50 is coupled to 74 of 70 which is positioned under the patient P see paragraphs [0064] and [0065] for fastening techniques. Since the shield is fastened to the bracket (i.e. base) and held to the table by patient pad, the base couples (via fasteners between shield and bracket) the shield to the table. Note there is no requirement that the base is coupled to the table); the base comprising a planar surface (72) configured to be positioned beneath the patient (72 under patient P as seen in figure 11)
a shield mounting device (elements 60) comprising:
a flexible horizontal crossbar (horizontal support member 60 is flexible ([0049]), see crossbar in annotated figure 1 below); and
a flexible elongate neck (vertical support members 60, see paragraph [0049] for flexible) having a first end and a second end, the first end coupled to the horizontal crossbar and the second end coupled to the base(see annotated figure below, note in paragraph [0064] figure 11 teaches the system is similar to figure 1 but is supported by a separate support frame including a bracket. Therefore figure 1 applied to figure 11 would have second end coupled to bracket 70 via fastening techniques discloses in paragraph [0065]);
PNG
media_image2.png
866
852
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and
a sterilized flexible radiation shield (50, [0044], [0065])) comprising:
a first portion (58 see paragraph [0045]) and a second portion (56, see paragraph [0045]), the first portion flexibly connected to the second portion (via fold line 62, see paragraph [0046]);
wherein an edge of the first portion is removably attachable to the horizontal crossbar ([0053] 60 coupled to flap using mechanical fasteners, thus horizontal cross-bar 60 is removably attached to an edge of the first portion 58) such that the first portion hangs downward from the horizontal crossbar ([0053] teaches fasteners between 60 and 50 and paragraph [0043] teaches 60 provides rigidity to flap 50 and support or move flap to the extended position (i.e. first portion 58 hangs on support members 60)) in a direction along a vertical plane perpendicular to a plane of a top surface of the operating room table ([0049] teaches flap 50 in a position that is substantially perpendicular to drape 30. Since drape is on table (see figure 2), the flap 50 is perpendicular to the table (vertical plane defined to be perpendicular to the plate)), the horizontal crossbar positioned at or above a lower edge of the radiation device (since the lateral radiographic imaging is performed through the patient ([0002] and [0067]) and the flap is perpendicular to the drape, the flap 50 (i.e. portion 58) is above the lower edge of the radiation device) while the second portion lays atop the patient (56 lays flat on the drape via coupling [0045] and drape is over the patient ([0056]), thus second portion lays atop the patient); and
wherein at the coupling of the first end of the flexible elongate neck and the horizontal crossbar, the flexible elongate neck extends in a direction transverse to the vertical plane (members 60 are reconfigurable due to their flexible, pliable nature ([0049]), thus neck portion 60 at the first end and the horizontal crossbar indicated in the annotated figure above may extend in a direction traverse to the vertical plane perpendicular to the patient).
Regarding claim 22, Cadwalader teaches wherein the horizontal crossbar comprises a first crossbar end and a second crossbar end, and the first end of the neck is coupled to the horizontal crossbar between the first crossbar end and the second crossbar end (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
517
1196
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and wherein the vertical plane is transverse to a second plane that extends through the second end of the flexible elongate neck and the first and second crossbar ends (vertical plane (i.e. along shield portion 58 when in perpendicular orientation) is transverse to a plane that extends through second end (see annotated figure in claim 21 above) and two ends of the horizontal bar when the vertical supports (necks 60) are bent relative to the perpendicular orientation. That is, by reorienting upper portion 58 from a perpendicular angle to greater or less than a perpendicular a second plane exists that is transverse to the perpendicular plane. Note paragraph [0049] teaches the shield is reconfigurable as desired).
Regarding claim 24, Cadwalader et al. teach wherein the second portion of the radiation shield is configured to lie at least partially in a plane transverse to the vertical plane (56 attached to drape thus perpendicular to vertical plane (i.e. drape is horizontal)).
Regarding claim 25, Cadwalader et al. teach wherein at least a portion of the flexible elongate neck is configured to extend perpendicularly from an attachment point where the first end and the horizontal crossbar are coupled (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
482
951
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Cadwalader et al. teach wherein a plane including the at least a portion of the flexible elongate neck and the attachment point is parallel to the top surface of the operating room table (when flap is closed over drape, the plane is parallel to the drape and thus the operating table ([0048] for flattening the flap 50)).
Regarding claim 28, Cadwalader et al. teach wherein the base comprises an attachment portion for coupling the second end of the flexible elongate neck (fig. 11 and paragraph [0065] teaches flap 50 coupled to bracket 70 using any of the disclosed fastening techniques, [0053] teaches an unlimited number of examples, thus second end (i.e. as seen in annotated figure above in claim 21 is coupled to the bracket via a fastener)), the attachment portion extending laterally from the planar surface (70 is positionable under the cushion 80 or removable ([0064]), thus the attachment portion (i.e. fastener) of 70 may be positioned to extend laterally from the planar surface by reorienting the bracket), the attachment portion configured to be positioned on the operating room table adjacent to the patient (since the bracket is removable the bracket (i.e. base) may be positioned such that the attachment mechanism is on the table 80 adjacent to the patient P. Note there is no requirement that the attachment portion attach to the table).
Regarding claim 30, Cadwalader et al. teach wherein the first portion is removably attachable to the horizontal crossbar by a snap fit fastener, button, hook-and-loop fastener, or adhesive ([0053]) and wherein the first portion comprises a first non-shape stable portion and the second portion comprises a second non-shape stable portion ([0044] teaches flap is generally light and flexible, thus both portions 56/58 are non-shape stable).
Claim 33 is commensurate in scope with claim 21 and is taught as discussed in the citations above. Moreover, Cadwalader teaches the second portion coupled to the first portion at a folded region (fold line 62)
Claim 34 is a combination of claims 25-26 and is taught as discussed above
Claim 35 is taught above with respect to citations in claim 22
Regarding claim 36, Cadwalader et al. teach wherein the vertical plane is transverse to a second plane that extends through the second end of the flexible elongate neck and the first and second crossbar ends (vertical plane perpendicular to patient, bending flexible elements 60 ([0049]) allows for the plane extending through the second end of the flexible neck and ends of cross-bar (see first annotated figure above)).
Claim 37 is taught above with respect to the citations in claim 25.
Regarding claim 38, Cadwalader teaches wherein the first portion of the radiation shield further comprises a first connector configured to releasably engage a second connector of the flexible crossbar ([0053], hook and loop, clips, snaps would require attachment on both the shield and the members 60).
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.
Claims 21, 45 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Cadwalader et al. (US pgPub 2008/0164425) (second interpretation) (submitted with IDS of 13 March 2015) view of Gordon et al. (US pgPub 2016/0027540) (submitted with IDS of 13 March 2015).
Regarding claim 21, Cadwalader et al. teach a radiation shielding device (fig. 1) configured to block at least a substantial portion of scatter radiation that emanates from a radiation device that is imaging through a patient positioned on an operating room table ([0002] teaches lateral radiographic imaging wherein radiation is emitted at a lateral side of the patient and directed through an opposite side of the patient, wherein the radiation beam is emitted in a direction relatively horizontal and substantially parallel to a support surface of the object (i.e. patient). Paragraph [0022] teaches radiation shields or barriers attenuating the primary beam during lateral radiographic imaging, thus blocking the primary beam radiation) and towards a healthcare provider adjacent the patient ([0030] teaches shield medical personnel and possibly the patient, thus adjacent to patient), the radiation shielding device comprising:
a shield mounting device (elements 60) comprising:
a base (56), the base comprising a planar surface (56 is planar as seen in figure 1) configured to be positioned beneath the patient (a patient could lay on top of the second portion 56 and thus configured to be beneath the patient)
a flexible horizontal crossbar (horizontal support member 60 is flexible ([0049]), see crossbar in annotated figure 1 below); and
a flexible elongate neck (vertical support members 60, see paragraph [0049] for flexible) having a first end and a second end, the first end coupled to the horizontal crossbar and the second end coupled to the base (see annotated figure below, note second end is coupled to 56);
PNG
media_image2.png
866
852
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and
a sterilized flexible radiation shield (50, [0044], [0065])) comprising:
a first portion (upper portion of 58 see paragraph [0045]) and a second portion (lower portion of 58, see annotated figure below), the first portion flexibly connected to the second portion ([0049] teaches support members are selectively reconfigurable and support 50, thus upper portion of 58 is flexibly connected to lower portion via support members 60. Moreover, paragraph [0044] teaches 50 is flexible thus upper portion is flexibly connected to lower portion);
PNG
media_image5.png
752
1214
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein an edge of the first portion is removably attachable to the horizontal crossbar ([0053] 60 coupled to flap using mechanical fasteners, thus horizontal cross-bar 60 is removably attached to an edge of the first portion 58) such that the first portion hangs downward from the horizontal crossbar ([0053] teaches fasteners between 60 and 50 and paragraph [0043] teaches 60 provides rigidity to flap 50 and support or move flap to the extended position (i.e. first portion 58 hangs on support members 60)) in a direction along a vertical plane perpendicular to a plane of a top surface of the operating room table ([0049] teaches flap 50 in a position that is substantially perpendicular to drape 30. Since drape is on table (see figure 2), the flap 50 is perpendicular to the table (vertical plane defined to be perpendicular to the plate)), the horizontal crossbar positioned at or above a lower edge of the radiation device (since the lateral radiographic imaging is performed through the patient ([0002] and [0067]) and the flap is perpendicular to the drape, the flap 50 (i.e. portion 58) is above the lower edge of the radiation device) while the second portion lays atop the patient (lower portion of 58 can lay flat on the drape via coupling [0045] and drape is over the patient ([0056]), thus second portion lays atop the patient); and
wherein at the coupling of the first end of the flexible elongate neck and the horizontal crossbar, the flexible elongate neck extends in a direction transverse to the vertical plane (members 60 are reconfigurable due to their flexible, pliable nature ([0049]), thus neck portion 60 at the first end and the horizontal crossbar indicated in the annotated figure above may extend in a direction traverse to the vertical plane perpendicular to the patient).
While Cadwalader et al. teaches a base (56) connected to the drape or alternatively to a bracket (see figure 11), Cadwalader fails to disclose the base configured to couple the shield mounting device to the operating room table.
Gordon teaches attaching the base of the shield to a table as an alternative to other objects such as a body part of the patient or a bed rail ([0029]).
Gordon modifies Cadwalader by suggesting mount the shield (i.e. flap 50 with base 56 attached to the drape 30) to a table, therefore having the second end of the neck coupled to a table.
Since both inventions are directed towards vertical shields with bases, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alternatively attach the flap shield 50 of Cadwalader to a table as suggested by Gordon because it would be lead to predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art of providing shielding at a closer proximity to the user. That is, Cadwalader envisioned repositioning the shield about the drape ([0061]) which is on the patient. Gordon is evidence that a similar vertical shield with a base may be positioned and coupled to the patient or to the table. Therefore, coupling the shield of Cadwalader to the table would lead to predictable results of shielding the medical provider at a different location. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
Regarding claim 45, Cadwalader teaches wherein the first portion of the sterilized flexible radiation shield hangs downward from the horizontal crossbar in a direction along a vertical plane that is transverse to a width of the base (note the members 60 are flexible therefore may be reconfigured so as to be in a plane transverse of the base 56).
Regarding claim 46, Cadwalader teaches wherein the base width ranges between 15 cm to 30 cm, and the base length ranges between 20 cm and 50 cm ([0043] teaches an exemplary embodiment where the flap has a length of 14 inches (35.56 cm) and a width of 11 inches (27.94 cm). Figure 1 shows the base having ~half the length of the shield thus a length of ~17.78 cm. Therefore interpreting the length to be the claimed width and the width to be the claimed length the limitation is met (i.e. W= 17.78 cm and L= 27.94 cm)).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Cadwalader et al. (US pgPub 2008/0164425) (first interpretation) or second interpretation (submitted with IDS of 13 March 2015) in view of Cadwalader et al. (US pgPub 2005/0213712) (herein C2).
Regarding claim 32, Cadwalader et al. fails to teach wherein the radiation shield includes an opening defined through a thickness of the radiation, the opening configured to allow passage of an interventional tool from a first side of the radiation shield to a second side of the radiation shield.
However, C2 teaches wherein the radiation shield includes an opening defined through a thickness of the radiation (fig. 7c, 342), the opening configured to allow passage of an interventional tool from a first side of the radiation shield to a second side of the radiation shield ([0048]).
C2 modifies Cadwalader by suggesting an opening in the shield so as to allow medical personnel to insert medical instrumentation when conducting various invasive procedures.
Since both inventions are directed towards radiation shielding devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an opening through the shield of Cadwalader as suggested by C2 so as to allow for the passage of instruments and control thereof while remaining behind the shield to protect the medical personnel from hazardous radiation.
Claims 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Cadwalader et al. (US pgPub 2008/0164425) (first interpretation) (submitted with IDS of 13 March 2015) in view of Rees (US pgPub 2012/0132217).
Regarding claim 41 Cadwalader et al. fails to disclose wherein the base is radio transparent.
However, Rees teaches wherein the base is radio transparent (fig. 23, base 98 of board 99 see paragraph [0100], wherein paragraph [0107] teaches the base of each non-radiopaque arm board (i.e. radio transparent)).
Rees modifies Cadwalader et al. by suggesting a transparent base for slipping under patient.
Since both inventions are directed towards bases that are provided under the patient, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the base be radiotransparent because it would allow for unobstructed imaging to be taken of the patient ([0111]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gordon (US pgPub 2019/0336088) teaches a vertical shield with a horizontal base coupled to a table (see figure 9 and [0092]).
Yadegari et al. (US pgPub 20210401383) teaches a crossbar and neck where one end is connected to the table and the second end is connected to the top of the radiation shield. Yadegari could be modified by EggNest below and Cawdawalder above to make obvious at least claims 21 and 33 (i.e. goose neck of EggNest and flexible support members of Cawdawalder)
EggNest (submitted herewith) teaches a gooseneck attached to a radiation shield see figure 17 on page 11.
Additional prior art is discussed in the office actions of parent application 17/085594.
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 MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights