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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 May 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 May 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed 27 May 2026, with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection of 27 Jan 2026 has been withdrawn in view of the amended independent claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed 27 May 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of 27 Jan 2026 have been withdrawn in view of the amended independent claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see 7-9, filed 27 May 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 14-18, 20, and 24-27 are currently under examination. No claim has been newly added, cancelled, nor withdrawn since the Final Office Action of 27 Jan 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-12, 14-18, 20, and 25-26 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 8 recites the limitation “wherein the protrusion projects from the second element”. The antecedent basis for “the second element” in the limitation is unclear. Claims 9-12, 14, and 25 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 8. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the protrusion projects from the remaining portion of the first device”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the protrusion projects from the second element”. First, the antecedent basis for “the protrusion” in the limitation is unclear, particularly between “a first protrusion” and “a second protrusion” recited in claim 15. Second, the antecedent basis for “the second element” in the limitation is unclear. Claims 16-18, 20, and 26 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 15. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the first protrusion and the second protrusion project from the remaining portion of the device”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 14-18, 20, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US PG Pub No. 2012/0226146) in view of Stubbs et al. (US PG Pub No. 2011/0004094, provided by the Applicant in the IDS of 04 May 2023) - hereinafter referred to as Stubbs.
Regarding claim 1, Schwartz discloses a device (at least Fig. 12A-B) comprising:
a first element comprising a protrusion (Fig. 12A-B: hooking portions 308, 310) that is configured to deform to attach the device to an area associated with a surgical cavity (Fig. 12A-B and [0108]: torsional force of the springs 302, 304 force hooking portions 308, 310 downward towards the region 84 to engage with region 84) and to penetrate a portion of the area (Fig. 12A-B: sharp ends of hooking portions 308, 310 overlapping within region 84); and
a second element (Fig. 12A-B: cap 311) comprising an indicator ([0107]: cap 311 includes a unique letter, number or symbol on the top surface of the cap),
wherein the protrusion (Fig. 12A-B: hooking portions 308, 310) projects from the second element (Fig. 12A-B: hooking portions 308, 310 projecting from cap 311).
Schwartz does not disclose:
wherein the indicator is detectable via a radiological scan,
wherein a remaining portion of the second element, other than the indicator, is less detectable via the radiological scan relative to the indicator, and
wherein a first material of the indicator is different from a second material of the remaining portion.
In the same field of marker, Stubbs, however, teaches:
an indicator (Fig. 15E-K: one of letters 224) detectable via a radiological scan ([0102]: each letter 224 formed of radiopaque wire (e.g., titanium, stainless)),
wherein a remaining portion of a second element (Fig. 15E-K: one of circular caps 226/228), other than the indicator, is less detectable via the radiological scan relative to the indicator ([0018]: caps are bioabsorbable; [0062]: bioabsorbable materials include polyglycolic acid (PGA, e.g., Dexon, Davis & Geck); polyglactin material (Vicryl, Ethicon); poliglecaprone (Monocryl, Ethicon); and synthetic absorbable lactomer 9-1 (Polysorb, United States Surgical Corporation); [0102]: each letter 224 formed of radiopaque wire (e.g., titanium, stainless)), and
wherein a first material of the indicator ([0102]: each letter 224 formed of radiopaque wire (e.g., titanium, stainless) is different from a second material of the remaining portion ([0018]: caps are bioabsorbable; [0062]: bioabsorbable materials include polyglycolic acid (PGA, e.g., Dexon, Davis & Geck); polyglactin material (Vicryl, Ethicon); poliglecaprone (Monocryl, Ethicon); and synthetic absorbable lactomer 9-1 (Polysorb, United States Surgical Corporation); Fig. 15E-K).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwartz’s device to include Stubbs’s indicator detectable in a radiological scan and having a different material and detectability relative to the second element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., utilizing differing materials, as disclosed by Stubbs), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Schwartz and Stubbs are directed to marking a region of interest. The motivation for the combination would have been to improve the visibility of the indicator in a radiological scan ([0060] of Stubbs).
Regarding claim 2, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Schwartz further discloses:
wherein the second element (Fig. 12A-B: cap 311) comprises a plurality of surfaces (Fig. 12A-B: cap 311 comprising at least a top surface, side surface onto which hooking portions 308, 310 contact when within tube 314, and bottom surface coupled to springs 302, 304), and
wherein the indicator is configured to be on one or more surfaces of the plurality of surfaces ([0107]: cap 311 includes a unique letter, number or symbol on the top surface of the cap).
Regarding claim 3, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Schwartz further discloses:
wherein the second element (Fig. 12A-B: cap 311) comprises a plurality of surfaces (Fig. 12A-B: cap 311 comprising at least a top surface, side surface onto which hooking portions 308, 310 contact when within tube 314, and bottom surface coupled to springs 302, 304), and
wherein one or more surfaces of the plurality of surfaces include the indicator ([0107]: cap 311 includes a unique letter, number or symbol on the top surface of the cap).
Regarding claim 7, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Schwartz further discloses:
wherein the indicator comprises at least one of: an alphanumeric character, a shape, or a symbol ([0107]: cap 311 includes a unique letter, number or symbol on the top surface of the cap).
Regarding claim 24, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Schwartz discloses:
wherein the first element comprising one or more protrusions that include the protrusion (Fig. 12A-B: hooking portions 308, 310).
Regarding claim 8, Schwartz discloses a system (at least Fig. 4-5, 12A-B), the system comprising:
a plurality of devices (Fig. 4-5, 7B-D: markers 70, 86, 88),
wherein a first device, of the plurality of devices, comprises a first indicator ([0107]: cap 311 includes a unique letter, number or symbol on the top surface of the cap),
wherein a second device, of the plurality of devices, comprises a second indicator ([0107]: cap 311 includes a unique letter, number or symbol on the top surface of the cap),
wherein the first device is configured to attach to a first area associated with a surgical cavity (Fig. 4-5; Fig. 12A-B and [0108]: hooking portions 308, 310 engage with region 84),
wherein the first device comprises a protrusion (Fig. 12A-B: hooking portions 308, 310) that is configured to deform to attach the first device to the first area (Fig. 12A-B and [0108]: torsional force of the springs 302, 304 force hooking portions 308, 310 downward towards the region 84 to engage with region 84) and to penetrate a portion of the first area (Fig. 12A-B: sharp ends of hooking portions 308, 310 overlapping within region 84);
wherein the second device is configured to attach to a second area associated with the surgical cavity (Fig. 4-5; Fig. 12A-B and [0108]: hooking portions 308, 310 engage with region 84), and
wherein the protrusion (Fig. 12A-B: hooking portions 308, 310) projects from the second element (Fig. 12A-B: hooking portions 308, 310 projecting from cap 311).
Schwartz does not disclose:
wherein the first indicator is detectable via a radiological scan,
wherein a remaining portion of the first device is less detectable via the radiological scan relative to the first indicator, and
wherein a first material of the first indicator is different from a second material of the remaining portion.
In the same field of marker, Stubbs, however, teaches:
an indicator (Fig. 15E-K: one of letters 224) detectable via a radiological scan ([0102]: each letter 224 formed of radiopaque wire (e.g., titanium, stainless)),
wherein a remaining portion of a first device (Fig. 15E-K: one of circular caps 226/228) is less detectable via the radiological scan relative to the first indicator ([0018]: caps are bioabsorbable; [0062]: bioabsorbable materials include polyglycolic acid (PGA, e.g., Dexon, Davis & Geck); polyglactin material (Vicryl, Ethicon); poliglecaprone (Monocryl, Ethicon); and synthetic absorbable lactomer 9-1 (Polysorb, United States Surgical Corporation); [0102]: each letter 224 formed of radiopaque wire (e.g., titanium, stainless)), and
wherein a first material of the indicator ([0102]: each letter 224 formed of radiopaque wire (e.g., titanium, stainless)) is different from a second material of the remaining portion ([0018]: caps are bioabsorbable; [0062]: bioabsorbable materials include polyglycolic acid (PGA, e.g., Dexon, Davis & Geck); polyglactin material (Vicryl, Ethicon); poliglecaprone (Monocryl, Ethicon); and synthetic absorbable lactomer 9-1 (Polysorb, United States Surgical Corporation); Fig. 15E-K).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwartz’s first device to include Stubbs’s indicator detectable in a radiological scan and having a different material and detectability relative to a remaining portion of a first device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., utilizing differing materials, as disclosed by Stubbs), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Schwartz and Stubbs are directed to marking a region of interest. The motivation for the combination would have been to improve the visibility of the indicator in a radiological scan ([0060] of Stubbs).
Regarding claim 9, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Schwartz further discloses:
wherein one or more surfaces of the first device comprises a first pattern ([0107]: cap 311 includes a unique letter, number or symbol on the top surface of the cap), and
wherein one or more surfaces of the second device comprises a second pattern ([0107]: cap 311 includes a unique letter, number or symbol on the top surface of the cap).
Regarding claim 10, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Schwartz further discloses:
wherein the first device comprises a plurality of surfaces (Fig. 12A-B: cap 311 comprising at least a top surface, side surface onto which hooking portions 308, 310 contact when within tube 314, and bottom surface coupled to springs 302, 304), and
wherein the first indicator is configured to be on one or more surfaces of the plurality of surfaces ([0107]: cap 311 includes a unique letter, number or symbol on the top surface of the cap).
Regarding claim 11, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Schwartz further discloses:
wherein the first device comprises a plurality of surfaces (Fig. 12A-B: cap 311 comprising at least a top surface, side surface onto which hooking portions 308, 310 contact when within tube 314, and bottom surface coupled to springs 302, 304), and
wherein one or more surfaces of the plurality of surfaces include the first indicator ([0107]: cap 311 includes a unique letter, number or symbol on the top surface of the cap).
Regarding claim 14, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Schwartz does not disclose:
wherein the first indicator is configured to identify a location of the first area.
In the same field of marker, Stubbs, however, teaches:
wherein the first indicator is configured to identify a location of the first area (Fig. 15E-K and [0102]: shapes of letters 224 are A (anterior) P (posterior), S (superior), I (inferior), M (medial), L (lateral or left), and R (right)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwartz’s first device to include Stubbs’s indicator configured to identify a location of a target area. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., providing an orientation indicator, as disclosed by Stubbs), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Schwartz and Stubbs are directed to marking a region of interest. The motivation for the combination would have been to allow “the surgeon [is] able to visually confirm placement (of the marker) in the appropriate orientation because the various elements are labeled with markers relating to anatomic orientation”, as taught by Stubbs ([0102]).
Regarding claim 25, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Schwartz discloses:
wherein the first device comprises one or more protrusions that include the protrusion (Fig. 12A-B: hooking portions 308, 310).
Regarding claim 27, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Schwartz does not disclose:
wherein the indicator is configured to identify a location of the area associated with the surgical cavity.
In the same field of marker, Stubbs, however, teaches:
wherein the indicator (Fig. 15E-K and [0102]: one of letters 224 among A (anterior) P (posterior), S (superior), I (inferior), M (medial), L (lateral or left), and R (right)) is configured to identify a location of the area associated with the surgical cavity ([0102]-[0103]: each letter 224 indicates a direction or orientation relative to the cavity, and each circular cap comprising a letter 224 is encapsulated by the cavity wall).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwartz’s device to include Stubbs’s indicator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., providing an orientation indicator, as disclosed by Stubbs), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Schwartz and Stubbs are directed to marking a region of interest. The motivation for the combination would have been to allow positioning of an indicator relative to the anatomic orientation ([0102] of Stubbs).
Regarding claim 15, Schwartz discloses a device (at least Fig. 12A-B), comprising:
an indicator ([0107]: cap 311 includes a unique letter, number or symbol on the top surface of the cap),
wherein the device is configured to attach to an area associated with a surgical cavity (Fig. 4-5; Fig. 12A-B and [0108]: hooking portions 308, 310 engage with region 84) via:
a first protrusion and a second protrusion (Fig. 12A-B: hooking portions 308, 310), the first protrusion and the second protrusion (Fig. 12A-B: hooking portions 308, 310) being configured to deform to attach the device to the area (Fig. 12A-B and [0108]: torsional force of the springs 302, 304 force hooking portions 308, 310 downward towards the region 84 to engage with region 84) and to penetrate a portion of the area (Fig. 12A-B: sharp ends of hooking portions 308, 310 overlapping within region 84), and
wherein the protrusion (Fig. 12A-B: hooking portions 308, 310) projects from the second element (Fig. 12A-B: hooking portions 308, 310 projecting from cap 311).
Schwartz does not disclose:
the indicator being detectable via a radiological scan,
wherein a remaining portion of the device, other than the indicator, is less detectable via the radiological scan relative to the indicator, and
wherein a first material of the indicator is different from a second material of the remaining portion.
In the same field of marker, Stubbs, however, teaches:
an indicator (Fig. 15E-K: one of letters 224) detectable via a radiological scan ([0102]: each letter 224 formed of radiopaque wire (e.g., titanium, stainless)),
wherein a remaining portion of a first device (Fig. 15E-K: one of circular caps 226/228) is less detectable via the radiological scan relative to the first indicator ([0018]: caps are bioabsorbable; [0062]: bioabsorbable materials include polyglycolic acid (PGA, e.g., Dexon, Davis & Geck); polyglactin material (Vicryl, Ethicon); poliglecaprone (Monocryl, Ethicon); and synthetic absorbable lactomer 9-1 (Polysorb, United States Surgical Corporation); [0102]: each letter 224 formed of radiopaque wire (e.g., titanium, stainless)), and
wherein a first material of the indicator ([0102]: each letter 224 formed of radiopaque wire (e.g., titanium, stainless)) is different from a second material of the remaining portion ([0018]: caps are bioabsorbable; [0062]: bioabsorbable materials include polyglycolic acid (PGA, e.g., Dexon, Davis & Geck); polyglactin material (Vicryl, Ethicon); poliglecaprone (Monocryl, Ethicon); and synthetic absorbable lactomer 9-1 (Polysorb, United States Surgical Corporation); Fig. 15E-K).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwartz’s first device to include Stubbs’s indicator detectable in a radiological scan and having a different material and detectability relative to a remaining portion of a first device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., utilizing differing materials, as disclosed by Stubbs), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Schwartz and Stubbs are directed to marking a region of interest. The motivation for the combination would have been to improve the visibility of the indicator in a radiological scan ([0060] of Stubbs).
Regarding claim 16, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 15, as discussed above, and Schwartz further discloses:
a plurality of surfaces (Fig. 12A-B: cap 311 comprising at least a top surface, side surface onto which hooking portions 308, 310 contact when within tube 314, and bottom surface coupled to springs 302, 304),
wherein the indicator is configured to be on one or more surfaces of the plurality of surface ([0107]: cap 311 includes a unique letter, number or symbol on the top surface of the cap).
Regarding claim 17, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 15, as discussed above, and Schwartz discloses:
a plurality of surfaces (Fig. 12A-B: cap 311 comprising at least a top surface, side surface onto which hooking portions 308, 310 contact when within tube 314, and bottom surface coupled to springs 302, 304).
Schwartz does not disclose:
wherein one or more surfaces of the plurality of surfaces include the indicator.
In the same field of marker, Stubbs, however, teaches:
a plurality of surfaces (Fig. 15E-K: circular caps 226/228 having at least two surfaces, one surface comprising letter 224 and facing away from center 214 and another surface facing center 214), and
wherein one or more surfaces of the plurality of surfaces (Fig. 15E-K: circular caps 226/228 having at least two surfaces, one surface comprising letter 224 and facing away from center 214 and another surface facing center 214) include the indicator (Fig. 15E-K and [0102]: one of letters 224 among A (anterior) P (posterior), S (superior), I (inferior), M (medial), L (lateral or left), and R (right)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwartz’s first device to include Stubbs’s surfaces each including an indicator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., providing an indicator on different surfaces, as disclosed by Stubbs), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Schwartz and Stubbs are directed to marking a region of interest. The motivation for the combination would have been to allow positioning of an indicator relative to the anatomic orientation ([0102] of Stubbs) and the indicator be visible independent of the orientation of the marker.
Regarding claim 18, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 15, as discussed above, and Stubbs further teaches, as discussed above in claim 15:
wherein only the first material is detectable in targeted radiation associated with the radiological scan ([0102]: each letter 224 formed of radiopaque wire (e.g., titanium, stainless)).
It is noted that bioabsorbable material including polyglycolic acid is well known in the art to be radiolucent, as evidenced by Choi (Abstract). Therefore, Stubbs’s circular cap of bioabsorbable material polyglycolic acid is radiolucent, or negative contrast, relative to radiopaque letters that have a positive contrast, or detectable in a targeted radiation.
Regarding claim 20, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 15, as discussed above, and Schwartz does not disclose:
wherein the indicator is configured to identify a location of the area associated with the surgical cavity.
In the same field of marker, Stubbs, however, teaches:
wherein the indicator (Fig. 15E-K and [0102]: one of letters 224 among A (anterior) P (posterior), S (superior), I (inferior), M (medial), L (lateral or left), and R (right)) is configured to identify a location of the area associated with the surgical cavity ([0102]-[0103]: each letter 224 indicates a direction or orientation relative to the cavity, and each circular cap comprising a letter 224 is encapsulated by the cavity wall).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwartz’s first device to include Stubbs’s indicator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., providing an orientation indicator, as disclosed by Stubbs), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Schwartz and Stubbs are directed to marking a region of interest. The motivation for the combination would have been to allow positioning of an indicator relative to the anatomic orientation ([0102] of Stubbs).
Regarding claim 26, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 15, as discussed above, and Schwartz further discloses:
wherein the area associated with the surgical cavity is a surgical margin of the surgical cavity (Fig. 3-4 and [0091]-[0092]).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz in view of Stubbs, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, respectively, as evidenced by Choi et al. (Choi et al. Bioabsorbable bone fixation plates for X-ray imaging diagnosis by a radiopaque layer of barium sulfate and poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid). J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2015 Apr;103(3):596-607. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.33235. Epub 2014 Jun 26. PMID: 24964903. A copy previously provided in the Non-Final Office Action of 08 Dec 2023) - hereinafter referred to as Choi.
Regarding claim 4, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Stubbs further teaches:
wherein only the first material is detectable in a targeted radiation associated with the radiological scan ([0102]: each letter 224 formed of radiopaque wire (e.g., titanium, stainless)).
It is noted that bioabsorbable material including polyglycolic acid is well known in the art to be radiolucent, as evidenced by Choi. Therefore, Stubbs’s circular cap of bioabsorbable material polyglycolic acid is radiolucent, or negative contrast, relative to radiopaque letters that have a positive contrast, or detectable in a targeted radiation.
Regarding claim 12, Schwartz in view of Stubbs discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Stubbs further teaches:
wherein only the first material is detectable in a targeted radiation associated with the radiological scan ([0102]: each letter 224 formed of radiopaque wire (e.g., titanium, stainless)).
It is noted that bioabsorbable material including polyglycolic acid is well known in the art to be radiolucent, as evidenced by Choi. Therefore, Stubbs’s circular cap of bioabsorbable material polyglycolic acid is radiolucent, or negative contrast, relative to radiopaque letters that have a positive contrast, or detectable in a targeted radiation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ogilvie et al. (US Patent No. 6325805) discloses a marker comprising a protrusion configured to deform and penetrate a tissue of interest and an indicator (at least Fig. 6A-E: prongs 502, 504, 506, 508 and bore 550 surrounded by cross plate 501 of titanium or stainless steel);
Phillips et al. (US PG Pub No. 2012/0016232) discloses a biopsy marker comprising a protrusion configured to deform and penetrate a tissue of interest and an indicator (at least Fig. 12: clip 230 and tail 245; Fig. 18: clip 430 and indicator 485);
Zinreich et al. (US Patent No. 5474569) discloses a biopsy marker comprising a protrusion configured to deform and penetrate a tissue of interest and an i
Voegele (US PG Patent No. 6425903) discloses a biopsy marker comprising a protrusion configured to deform and penetrate a tissue of interest (at least Fig. 6-9) .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Younhee Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-7013. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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.
/Y.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
6/15/26
Prosecution Insights