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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show:
the self-locking mechanism with the details mentioned as described in the specification along with proper reference characters, e.g. 0041 which lists a circular sleeve, a bottom block, a rotating rod, a friction block, a connecting rod and a fifth telescopic member. Fig 7 is not sufficiently showing the details described and labelling the parts. A drawing which shows the operation before and after actuation should also be provided.
Claim 14: “wherein two universal rotating mechanisms are provided on the laparoscope”. There is no clear figure which depicts both of the rotating mechanisms. Figure 1 shows only a top rotating mechanism.
Claim 14: “a connecting frame, one end of the connecting frame is fixedly connected to the sleeve plate close to the lens of the laparoscope”. There is no figure which clearly shows this. Figures 1 and 4 provide only a partial view and does not clearly delineate what structures make up the connecting frame.
Claim 15: a figure showing the actual changing of a direction by the direction controlling mechanism should be provided to convey how the elements move with respect to each other when actuated. Figs 1, 2, and 4 are all in the neutral position.
Claim 17: “another end of the length adjusting member is hinged to the fixing frame”. No drawing shows the hinged nature of this connection, i.e. the hinge axis, hinge direction, hinge range of motion, etc., nor labels the hinge. Also, fig 2 does not adequately show the claimed fixing frame and its relationship with the other elements, e.g. “the fixing frame is fixedly connected to the direction controlling mechanism, and the fixing frame is fixedly connected to one end of the connecting frame away from the sleeve plate”. It is unclear which structures make up the connecting frame 6 and the fixing frame 54 from the figures. These elements should be clearly marked/labelled to be distinguishable from each other.
Claim 18: “universal wheels are mounted at a bottom of the base”
Claim 20: “a pan-tilt”
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
0030 identifies reference #54 as “fixed frame” but only refers to it as, e.g. at 0038 as a “fixing frame 54”. Consistent nomenclature should be used to avoid confusion.
0041 describing the self-locking mechanism and its components does not have a corresponding figure clearly depicting and labelling the elements and the described operation. The elements are also lacking reference characters which is considered a necessity in light of the complexity of the structure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“direction controlling mechanism” in claim 14;
“moving mechanism” in claim 14;
“supporting mechanism” in claim 14;
“pushing structure” in claim 16;
“height adjusting member” in claim 17;
“length adjusting member” in claim 17;
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 § 112a
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 20 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 20 recites “wherein the self-locking mechanism is provided with a pan-tilt”. It is unclear what this pan-tilt element is and the specification does not detail further structure but only states that it further functionally prevents shaking, i.e. “the self-locking mechanism 8 is provided with the pan-tilt, which can achieves (sic) the anti-shaking function, and prevent the lens of the laparoscope 1 from shaking”. As such, an interpretation will be provided in the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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 14, 15, 17, and dependent claims 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 14 recites “wherein two universal rotating mechanisms are provided on the laparoscope, each of the universal rotating mechanisms comprises a ball sleeve and a sleeve plate, the ball sleeve is slidably sleeved on the laparoscope, the sleeve plate is sleeved in a middle of the ball sleeve”. The bolded recitation of “sleeve plate” is indefinite since two sleeve plates have been recited and it is unclear to which sleeve plate it refers. Additionally, the sleeve plate is not sleeved in the middle of the ball sleeve, i.e. the sleeve plate is not in the middle of the ball sleeve, but rather it is the reverse - the ball sleeve is in the middle of the sleeve plate.
Claim 14 recites “a direction controlling mechanism for controlling the sleeve plate away from a lens of the laparoscope to move in a plane”. The usage of “away” is unclear. It is unclear if it means to define a direction of controlling or to specify one of the two sleeve plates, i.e. control/move the sleeve away from a lens or identify the further of the two sleeve plates from the lens. Neither usage is considered proper grammar and therefore should be edited for clarity. Other claims which use this term in such manner should also be addressed, e.g. claims 15-17.
Claim 14 recites “a connecting frame, one end of the connecting frame is fixedly connected to the sleeve plate close to the lens of the laparoscope”. The use of the term “close” is indefinite since what entails “close” has not been defined and is up to interpretation. It could be viewed that both or neither sleeve plates are considered “close” based on an arbitrary metric. If applicant intends to explicitly distinguish one of the two sleeve plate over the other, concrete and definite language must be used. Other claims which use this term in such manner should also be addressed, e.g. claim 19.
Claim limitation:
“height adjusting member” in claim 17;
“length adjusting member” in claim 17;
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
0039 mentioning the height and length adjusting members do not mention what the adjusting member is or what it is made of.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujie JP2006/271749 and further in view of Zheng CN109171970 and Kim US2010/0274079.
Fujie discloses for claim 14, “A single-operator laparoscope auxiliary operating device, comprising:
a laparoscope (0002 manipulator for holding a surgical tool such as an endoscope and a treatment tool);
universal rotating mechanisms, wherein two universal rotating mechanisms are provided on the laparoscope (gimbal mechanism 48; fig 1-3; 0032 and bracket 43 with black body 45; fig 1-3; 0030);
a direction controlling mechanism (second arm 37; fig 2);
a supporting mechanism for supporting the direction controlling mechanism (first arm 36; fig 2)”.
Fujie does not disclose:
the joints, i.e. the claimed universal rotating mechanisms as a ball sleeve and sleeve plate configuration, i.e. “each of the universal rotating mechanisms comprises a ball sleeve and a sleeve plate, the ball sleeve is slidably sleeved on the laparoscope, the sleeve plate is sleeved in a middle of the ball sleeve, and the ball sleeve is universally rotatable on the sleeve plate;” and a direction controlling mechanism “for controlling the sleeve plate away from a lens of the laparoscope to move in a plane”.
Zheng teaches in the same field of endeavor, a universal joint with a ball and plate setup as seen in figs 6-11 in the same configuration as the claimed invention, including a frame (frame 31 and sliding rail 14; fig 6) to support the joint and a connecting frame (connecting rods 8; fig 8) to connect and support plural joints together. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Zheng into the invention of Fujie in order to configure the operating device e.g. as claimed, specifically replacing Fujie’s joints which depend on large mechanical operating arms with the ball and plate joint of Zheng along with the supporting structures resulting in a cube-like frame supporting the two joints because “it simplifies the structure of the surgical robot” and “improves the portability and the operability of the surgical robot” (abstract).
Fujie does not disclose:
“a moving mechanism for controlling the laparoscope to slide in the ball sleeve”. Kim teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing an advancing and retracting implement (second driver 1600; fig 1, 2, 7; 0059-0062) for a ball sleeved scope. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Kim into the invention of Fujie in order to configure the operating device e.g. as claimed because it provides an additional axis of control.
Modified Fujie further discloses:
“a connecting frame, one end of the connecting frame is fixedly connected to the sleeve plate close to the lens of the laparoscope, and another end of the connecting frame is fixedly connected to the supporting mechanism (Zheng’s connecting rods 8; fig 8 as modified above, to connect and secure dual frames 31 in a vertical configuration instead of horizontal for a cube-like frame supporting the two joints)”.
Fujie does not disclose:
“a foot controller connected to the direction controlling mechanism and the moving mechanism, for controlling operations of the direction controlling mechanism and the moving mechanism”, but does disclose a generic control device, merely lacking the teaching that the control device is a foot controller. Kim teaches in the same field of endeavor, a foot pedal as a control device for a scope universal controller (0074). Since Fujie fails to disclose the nature of the control device it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any control device known in the art, including the one taught by Kim, i.e. a foot controller to achieve drive control of the support robot.
Modified Fujie discloses for claim 15, “The single-operator laparoscope auxiliary operating device according to claim 14, wherein the direction controlling mechanism comprises a rectangular rail (Zheng: frame 31; fig 6), four sliding sleeve (Zheng: sleevings 7; fig 6), a first telescopic member, a second telescopic member, a third telescopic member and a fourth telescopic member (Zheng: four telescopic rods 6; fig 6);
the rectangular rail is fixedly mounted on the supporting mechanism (Zheng: support rod 33; fig 11), and the rectangular rail is formed by four rail edges (fig 6);
the four sliding sleeves are slidably mounted on each of the rail edges of the rectangular rail respectively (Zheng: fig 6); and
the first telescopic member, the second telescopic member, the third telescopic member and the fourth telescopic member are in correspondence with the four sliding sleeves one by one (Zheng: fig 6); one end of each of the first telescopic member, the second telescopic member, the third telescopic member and the fourth telescopic member is fixedly connected to a corresponding sliding sleeve, and another end of each of the first telescopic member, the second telescopic member, the third telescopic member and the fourth telescopic member is fixedly connected to the sleeve plate (Zheng: square plate supporting the ball in fig 6) away from the lens of the laparoscope”.
Modified Fujie discloses for claim 16, “The single-operator laparoscope auxiliary operating device according to claim 14, wherein the moving mechanism (Kim: fig 1, 7, 14) comprises a fixed sleeve (Kim: guide member 1630; fig 1, 7), a motor (Kim: 1610), a threaded rod (Kim: conveyance shaft 1611; fig 7) and a pushing structure (Kim: conveyance block 1620; fig 7);
the fixed sleeve is sleeved on one end of the laparoscope away from the lens of the laparoscope (Kim: fig 7, 14), and the fixed sleeve is fixedly connected to one end of the ball sleeve away from the lens of the laparoscope (Kim: fig 7);
the motor is mounted in the fixed sleeve (Kim: fig 1), the motor drives the threaded rod to rotate, and the foot controller (Kim: 0074) controls the motor to rotate forwards and reversely (fig 7, 14 show advancing and retracting of the scope);
the pushing structure is slidably connected in the fixed sleeve (Kim: 0062), the pushing structure is detachably connected to the laparoscope (Kim: 0061), and the pushing structure is in threaded connection with the threaded rod (Kim: fig 14)”.
Modified Fujie discloses for claim 17, “The single-operator laparoscope auxiliary operating device according to claim 14, wherein the supporting mechanism comprises a base (Fujie: 19; fig 1), a height adjusting member (Fujie: 22; fig 1), a length adjusting member (Fujie: 23; fig 1) and a fixing frame (Zheng: 31; fig 6);
the base is fixedly connected to one end of the height adjusting member (Fujie: fig 1);
another end of the height adjusting member is vertically and fixedly connected to one end of the length adjusting member (Fujie: fig 1);
another end of the length adjusting member is hinged to the fixing frame (Fujie: fig 1); the fixing frame is fixedly connected to the direction controlling mechanism (Zheng: fig 6), and
the fixing frame is fixedly connected to one end of the connecting frame away from the sleeve plate (Zheng: fig 11 shows the frame connected via support rod 33)”.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujie, Zheng, and Kim as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Liu US2020/0046441.
Fujie does not disclose for claim 18, “The single-operator laparoscope auxiliary operating device according to The single-operator laparoscope auxiliary operating device according to wherein universal wheels are mounted at a bottom of the base”. Liu teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing universal wheels on an endoscope manipulator (fig 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Liu into the invention of Fujie in order to configure the operating device e.g. as claimed because it provides mobility.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujie, Zheng, and Kim as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ng US2017/0014193.
Fujie does not disclose for claim 19, “The single-operator laparoscope auxiliary operating device according to The single-operator laparoscope auxiliary operating device according to further comprising a self-locking mechanism, the self-locking mechanism is mounted on the ball sleeve close to the lens of the laparoscope, and when the direction controlling mechanism operates, the self-locking mechanism locks the laparoscope and the ball sleeve close to the lens of the laparoscope; when the moving mechanism operates, the self-locking mechanism releases the laparoscope and the ball sleeve close to the lens of the laparoscope”. Ng teaches in the same field of endeavor, a locking function for a surgical tool within a ball joint (0053: the position of the universal or ball joint compliance 210 is locked and the plunger is actuated by the actuator to hold and insert the surgical tool 212 into the patient's body) which is capable of being operated as claimed, i.e. the claim functionally claims a locking and unlocking at the specified conditions, which can be achieved by hand using a manual step. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Ng into the invention of Fujie in order to configure the operating device e.g. as claimed because allows securing the tool without the use of a hand.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujie, Zheng, and Kim as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Bar-or US2020/0107714.
Fujie does not disclose for claim 20, “The single-operator laparoscope auxiliary operating device according to claim 19, wherein the self-locking mechanism is provided with a pan-tilt”. Bar-or teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing a pan tilt for a joint (0003: the pan-tilt adapter may comprise spherical joints providing with the ability to perform spherical movements). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Petrossian into the invention of Fujie in order to configure the operating device e.g. as claimed because it provides spherical movements with respect to the lock.
Claim(s) 24, 27, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujie, Zheng, and Kim as applied to claim 14, 15, and 16 respectively above, and further in view of Thompson US 5762603.
Fujie does not disclose for claim 24, “The single-operator laparoscope auxiliary operating device according to claim 14, wherein the foot controller is provided with an up key, a down key, a left key, a right key, a zoom-in key and a zoom-out key; the up key and the down key are both connected to the first telescopic member and the second telescopic member; the left key and the right key are both connected to the third telescopic member and the fourth telescopic member; the zoom-in key and the zoom-out key are connected to the motor”, i.e. the specific type of foot controls. Thompson breaches this gap in disclosure by teaching in the same field of endeavor, providing a foot pedal control with the claimed controls (3:58-62). Since Fujie fails to disclose the nature of the foot pedal controls it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any controls known in the art, including the one taught by Thompson to achieve the foot pedal control.
Fujie does not disclose for claim 27, “The single-operator laparoscope auxiliary operating device according to claim 15, wherein the foot controller is provided with an up key, a down key, a left key, a right key, a zoom-in key and a zoom-out key; the up key and the down key are both connected to the first telescopic member and the second telescopic member; the left key and the right key are both connected to the third telescopic member and the fourth telescopic member; the zoom-in key and the zoom-out key are connected to the motor”, i.e. the specific type of foot controls. Thompson breaches this gap in disclosure by teaching in the same field of endeavor, providing a foot pedal control with the claimed controls (3:58-62). Since Fujie fails to disclose the nature of the foot pedal controls it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any controls known in the art, including the one taught by Thompson to achieve the foot pedal control.
Fujie does not disclose for claim 28, “The single-operator laparoscope auxiliary operating device according to claim 16, wherein the foot controller is provided with an up key, a down key, a left key, a right key, a zoom-in key and a zoom-out key; the up key and the down key are both connected to the first telescopic member and the second telescopic member; the left key and the right key are both connected to the third telescopic member and the fourth telescopic member; the zoom-in key and the zoom-out key are connected to the motor”, i.e. the specific type of foot controls. Thompson breaches this gap in disclosure by teaching in the same field of endeavor, providing a foot pedal control with the claimed controls (3:58-62). Since Fujie fails to disclose the nature of the foot pedal controls it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any controls known in the art, including the one taught by Thompson to achieve the foot pedal control.
Claim(s) 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujie, Zheng, Kim, and Thompson as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Nishikori US 5627584.
Fujie does not disclose for claim 25, “The single-operator laparoscope auxiliary operating device according to claim 24, wherein the foot controller is detachably mounted on the supporting mechanism”. Nishikori teaches in the same field of endeavor, a detachably mounted foot pedal control (fig 52). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Nishikori into the invention of Fujie in order to configure the operating device e.g. as claimed because it provides modularity.
Modified Fujie discloses for claim 26, “The single-operator laparoscope auxiliary operating device according to claim 25, wherein the foot controller is connected to the direction controlling mechanism and the moving mechanism via data lines; alternatively, the foot controller is wirelessly connected to the direction controlling mechanism and the moving mechanism (cable 305; fig 52)”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE K WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-0837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-2:30p, 6p-9p.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-4963. 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.
/Jae Woo/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
09/09/2025