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
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on November 14, 2025. As directed by the amendment, claim 1-2, 5, 13-14 and 22 have been amended, and claims 23-25 have been added. Thus, claims 1-25 are presently pending.
The amendments to the claims noted above are sufficient to overcome claim objections and the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections from the previous Office action. Those objections and rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The presence of reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawing in the pending claims is noted. Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim - see MPEP 608.01(m).
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.
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.
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:
a system for controlling the energy emission probe and the ultrasound imaging probe and configured to …. in claim 1 and 3.
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 Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a focused ultrasound probe integrating in a center thereof” appears to be grammatically incorrect, suggested amendment to “a focused ultrasound probe integrated in a center thereof”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). The recitation “a measurement area (7b) of the ultrasound imaging probe (5) is placed upstream of the treatment area ...” amounts to inferential recitation of a part of a human organism (i.e. treatment area) as the claims recites a configuration that requires a part of the human organism to be present relative to the imaging probe, which renders the claim non-statutory. A phrase such as -- a measurement area (7b) of the ultrasound imaging probe (5) is adapted to be placed upstream of the treatment area ...” is suggested to address the understood intent of the Applicant to avoid this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Carter et al., US 201001620781 A1 (hereinafter "Carter") in view of Schmidt et al., US 20080082026 A1 hereinafter “Schmidt”.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 14 and 19 Carter discloses a device (60 – Fig. 2) and associated method for characterizing an evolution in the fluid flow rate profile at the periphery of a treatment area (Fig. 2 ROI/HIFU focus “86” [0037]), following the emission of energy by an energy emission probe (Fig. 2, “76”, [0036] “Optional icons 74 and 76 indicate the locations of the Doppler ultrasound transducer and the HIFU transducer”, [0033] “HIFU component 62”), thanks to an ultrasound imaging probe (Fig. 2, “74” [0036] “Optional icons 74 and 76 indicate the locations of the Doppler ultrasound transducer and the HIFU transducer”, [0033] “Doppler ultrasound component 64”) whose measurement area is located outside the treatment area (Fig. 2, “92” includes a point or segment of a blood vessel where Doppler data associated with flow is collected or measured, and reads on a measurement area as illustrated in Fig. 6 “b” HIFU focus reads on a treatment area and “string” includes a point or segment of a blood vessel where measurement data associated with flow is collected [0035] “an ultrasound image 92, Doppler data (not specifically shown, noting that Doppler data generally is presented to a user as colorized portions of an ultrasound image, where different colors represent different flow intensities”, [0023], [0033-0034] and illustration Fig. 3, mass of tissue 82 includes a vascular structure 84 that is within 5 to 60 mm from the treatment area, see also illustration Fig. 6, measurement area that includes flow rate profile associated with a point or segment of blood vessel is positioned at a periphery of a HIFU focus), said ultrasound imaging probe (64) comprising a circuit for processing the received Doppler signal ([0007] , [0027] Doppler data is displayed, a circuit to process Doppler signal is an inherent feature), the ultrasound imaging probe (64) being positioned to produce an image plane in which the flow of fluid is observed along its longitudinal axis ([0027] and illustration Fig. 3, [0035] “an ultrasound image 92, Doppler data (not specifically shown, noting that Doppler data generally is presented to a user as colorized portions of an ultrasound image, where different colors represent different flow intensities”, examiner note that Fig. 6 illustrates different colorized portions not shown in Fig. 3), said device (60) including a system (66 – Fig. 2) for controlling the energy emission probe (62) and the ultrasound imaging probe (64) – ([0033] “Controller 66 can be implemented using a computing device (software based) or a custom circuit (hardware based)” is an equivalent thereof system (6) disclosed in [0031] of the specification as filed), configured to:- control the energy emission probe (62) in emission according to successive energy emission phases interspersed with energy emission stop phases ([0007] in incorporated by reference US 7621873 B2 Owen et al., hereinafter “Owen”, discloses in Col. 20: 39-42 a 40% duty cycle, a duty cycle defines energy emission and energy stop phases and falls within the claimed range of duty cycle), drive the ultrasound imaging probe (5) in emission before an energy emission phase in order to measure a reference Doppler signal ([0023] step (A) will measure a reference Doppler signal) and during the energy emission stop phases to measure a received Doppler signal after each energy emission phase (see discussion in Owen Col. 21: 20-24 HIFU was synchronized with an imager), and allow to provide monitoring of the evolution of the fluid flow rate profile resulting from the ultrasound imaging ([0023] step (F).
Carter does not explicitly disclose that the said energy emission stop phases having a duration ranging from 1.5 s to 15 s. However, Schmidt, in the same field of endeavor of tumor treatment [0003] teaches energy emission stop phases having a duration ranging from 1.5 s to 15 s ([0036] “The pulses 202A-D are preferably delivered sequentially, for example, each for a duration of between approximately 0.2 second and 1.0 second, with a delay, e.g., of approximately 1.0 to 3.0 seconds interposed between transmission of each successive ablation energy pulse. In one embodiment, the pulses are delivered for approximately 0.5 second each, with an "off-period" delay of approximately 2.0 seconds between successive pulses”. In view of these teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to have modified Carter to include energy emission stop phases having a duration approximately 1.0 to 3.0 seconds or approximately 2.0 seconds interposed between transmission of each successive ablation energy pulse, because Schmidt exemplifies that such energy emission stop phases interposed between each successive ablation energy pulse are sufficient to treat a tumor.
Regarding claim 2, Carter in view of Schmidt discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, Carter further discloses Doppler data to provide information about blood flow and an ultrasound image of the vascular structure - B-mode ([0027] “Doppler data is displayed to a user in a combined image (see FIG. 2) that includes the Doppler data providing information about blood flow (generally displayed using color), an ultrasound image of the vascular structure feeding the undesired tissue (such as a B-mode image), and the focal point of the HIFU transducer” [0035] “an ultrasound image 92, Doppler data (not specifically shown, noting that Doppler data generally is presented to a user as colorized portions of an ultrasound image, where different colors represent different flow intensities”, [0042] “With Color Doppler enabled, the ultrasound scanner displays a gray-scale B-mode image showing tissue structure along with the superimposed Color Doppler image showing velocity”). It is further noted that Applicant admits that these imaging modalities discussed in [0007-0013] of the specification as filed, are known and commonly used, as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have applied the known and commonly used ultrasound imaging in [0007-0013] of instant specification, to provide information about blood flow and an ultrasound image of the vascular structure in Carter.
Regarding claims 4-5, 7-10, 15-18 and 23-24, Carter in view of Schmidt discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, Carter further discloses in [0009] “HIFU therapy is initiated, and continued until the Doppler data from that vascular structure indicates that the blood flow rate has dropped to a predetermined value. Exemplary, but not limiting predetermined values include a flow rate reduction of 100%, a flow rate reduction of90%, a flow rate reduction of 75%, a flow rate reduction of 50%, and a flow rate reduction of 25% ”, [0010] “The automated HIFU therapy can be considered to utilize a negative feedback loop, in that as the therapy progresses and blood flow at the target location is reduced, that reduction is reflected in the Doppler ultrasound data. Once the reduction matches the predetermined value, the HIFU therapy is automatically halted”, [0025] “F and G would be performed automatically by HIFU therapy algorithms. Such algorithms would terminate therapy when the background Doppler signal, and that in the region of interest, come into arbitrarily close agreement” -- a rate profile of the received Doppler signal is analyzed by the processor , and a comparison to the reference Doppler (i.e., difference) is made to access flow rate reduction, reduction is compared to a threshold, and terminates, i.e. stops energy emission probe when the background Doppler signal and that of the region of interest come into agreement, i.e., reaches a threshold value (Examiner’s note: a module within the processor that uses the algorithm to cut-off power to the HIFU is an inherent feature), the flow rate reduction implies that that the imaging probe is positioned either upstream or downstream of the treatment area.
Even if it is argued that this is not the case (which is not conceded here), it would have been obvious to position the ultrasound imaging probe upstream or downstream of the treatment area to evaluate a flow rate, since it has been held that where there is a limited universe of potential options, the selection of any particular option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1969), in this case, to evaluate flow rate reduction, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention would have recognized two options, either upstream or downstream of the treatment area to position the ultrasound imaging probe, as such, selecting one from the limited options would have been prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Carter in view of Schmidt discloses the invention of claim 5 as discussed above, while Carter does not explicitly disclose comparison between an average of 3 to 5 received Doppler signal curves and an average of 3 to 5 reference Doppler signal curves, however, it is generally known to implement an average in data analysis, to simplify analysis by providing a single representative value of the dataset and also highlight outliers or anomalies that may have been encountered while collecting the data. In view of these, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have considered an average of 3 to 5 Doppler signal curves and 3 to 5 reference Doppler signal curves to obtain an evolution of rate profile, because the use of an average would simplify data analysis and can also highlight anomalies or outliers.
Regarding claims 12 , 21 and 22, Carter in view of Schmidt discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, in Carter the energy emission probe is HIFU in applications on liver kidney, pancreas and opening of blood-brain barrier([0003]).
Regarding claim 20, Carter in view of Schmidt discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, Carter teaches in [0026] “The negative feedback loop from the Doppler data would control the duration of the HIFU therapy” which would at least vary the duration of energy emission phase. Additionally or in the alternative in [0007] Carter incorporates by reference US 20060264748 A1 to Vaezy et al., hereinafter “Vaezy”. In Vaezy [0047], teaches varying duty cycle e.g., from 50% to 95% for the benefit of varying the lesion created, varying the duty cycle would alter both the energy emission phase and energy emission stop phase. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to vary the duty cycle, for the additional benefit of varying the lesion created or result of treatment. By varying the duty cycle, a duration of the energy emission phase and/or energy emission stop phase is varies or is varied.
Regarding claim 25, see illustration Fig. 2-3 the energy emission probe (“62”,”72”) and the ultrasound imaging probe (“64”, “74”) are aligned, and that the energy emission probe is a focused ultrasound probe integrated in a center thereof the ultrasound imaging probe so that their respective acoustic axis coincides (see e.g., illustration Figs. 4-5.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Schmidt as applied to claim above, and further in view of Shelton IV et al., US 20220238216 A1 hereinafter “Shelton”.
Regarding claim 11, Carter in view of Schmidt discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, in view of [0041] and Figure 5 of Carter, the collected Doppler signals are necessarily contained in a database for analysis, however Carter does not explicitly disclose the database determine the threshold value.
However, Shelton discloses s computing system may be provided for applying machine learning to a data collection to improve a surgical procedure ([abstract]) so as to overcome issue of false negatives by lowering a threshold based on collected data ([0537]). In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have further modified Carter in view of Schmidt, to include updating the threshold based on data collected, so as to overcome false positive, thus increasing efficacy in treatment based on an updated threshold.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Schmidt as applied to claim above, and further in view of Li et al., US 20210212743 A1 hereinafter “Li”.
Regarding claim 13, Carter in view of Schmidt discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the energy emission probe is an electroporation, radiofrequency or microwave emission probe. However, Li teaches in [0002] that radiofrequency, microwave or HIFU are known alternative thermal treatment or ablation techniques for treatment widely used for treatment of liver, kidney, lung heart etc. Inasmuch as LI disclose radiofrequency, microwave or HIFU as art recognized alternative techniques for treatment of tissue, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the exercise art to substitute one for the other, In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982), in the instant case, substitute HIFU in Carter in view of Schmidt with either microwave or radiofrequency emission as taught by Li, to perform the same function of treatment of tissue.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot, in part because of new grounds of rejection in view of newly cited reference Schmidt, addressing aspect of stop phase durations ranging from 1.5s to 15s, as such arguments directed to previously cited Quistgaard in regards to “Time Duration” - see page 13-14 of remarks are moot, as the previous arguments directed to Quistgaard reference are not applicable to the new grounds for rejection based on Schmidt that teaches emission stop phase or time associated with successive emission phase.
Now examiner addresses arguments directed to Carter (including incorporated Vaezy et al) and Li. In regards to “Measurement area Outside a Treatment Area” argument in page 10-12 of Remarks, this Office action clarifies that the reference number 92 includes a point or segment of a blood vessel where Doppler data associated with flow is collected and/or measured (hence a measurement area) that is located outside the treatment area as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position that ROI or cross hair “86” reads on a measurement area, as this is the HIFU focus that defines a treatment area and not a point or segment where measurement associated with flow data is measured, because Doppler data associated with blood flow in Carter defines a measurement area that is outside the treatment area (i.e. HIFU focus) e.g. see illustration Fig. 6 “b” HIFU focus reads on a treatment area and “string” defines a measurement area (point or segment) that is outside a treatment area. Examiner further notes that the configuration in Carter for collecting measurement data from an ultrasound probe is similar if not the same with Applicants invention, and will therefore define a substantially similar if not the same measurement area. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC § 102, on prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433-4 (CCPA 1977). (see MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
In regards to argument directed towards “Producing an Image Plane Wherein the Flow of Fluid is Observed Along the Fluid Flow Longitudinal Axis” in page 12-13 of the remarks, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. See [0027], illustration Fig. 3 and [0035] “an ultrasound image 92, Doppler data (not specifically shown, noting that Doppler data generally is presented to a user as colorized portions of an ultrasound image, where different colors represent different flow intensities”, examiner note that Fig. 6 illustrates different colorized portions not shown in Fig. 3 that depicts an image plane with flow of liquid “string” is observed along the fluid flow longitudinal axis.
Regarding to arguments directed to claim 2 that “the combined used of 1D and 2D Doppler techniques, to determine the evolution in a fluid flow rate profile at a periphery of a treatment area, was not known nor obvious considering the prior art” must fail as Carter Fig. 6 illustrates evolution of fluid flow rates (CM/s) at a periphery of a treatment area (see illustration Fig. 6 “b” HIFU focus reads on a treatment area and “string” defines a measurement area that is outside a treatment area indicating a fluid flow rate evolution in CM/s in Fig. 6a).
Regarding argument directed to claim 11 in page 15 of the response, it has been argued that (1) examiner applies hindsight and there is no reason (i.e., lack of motivation) to look into Shelton to modify Carter and (2) Shelton in not related to HIFU treatment (i.e., Shelton is non-analogous art). In response to (1), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the teachings of Shelton of applying machine learning to data collection, to improve surgical procedure by overcoming issues of false negatives which is taught by Shelton. In response to (2), it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Shelton is in the same field of endeavor of surgical procedure and/or the same problem solving area of using machine learning to improve a surgical procedure.
In regards to arguments directed to claim 13 in page 15 to 16 of the response that Li is not related to HIFU at all , examiner respectfully disagrees as Li is related to HIFU by disclosing radiofrequency, microwave and HIFU as art recognized alternative techniques for treatment of tissue.
Arguments directed to claim 20 in page 16 of the response are unpersuasive and unclear, as Vaezy is incorporated in Carter and is ate the very least related to Carter. In any event, examiner believes that even in the absence of teachings of the incorporated Vaezy et al., claim 20 is taught by Carter in view of teaching in [0026] “The negative feedback loop from the Doppler data would control the duration of the HIFU therapy” which would at least vary the duration of energy emission phase. Vaezy et al. further described controlling duration of HIFU treatment by varying duty cycle e.g., from 50% to 95%.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797