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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-25 are pending, claims 20-25 have been withdrawn from consideration (see paragraph below), and claims 1-19 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, readable on claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 02/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that inventions do not have materially different uses and therefore would not impose a serious search and/or examination burden.
Regarding Applicant’s argument for Groups I and III (Adapter and Method) of “The adapter as claimed in claim 1….The hypothetical “warning signal” use cited by the Examiner would require additional structural elements not claimed… represent speculative functionality not disclosed in the specification” (p. 9 of Remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The product or adapter can be used in a materially different process, such as the production of light of different intensity (and/or color) sensed by the sensor. The light of different intensity may be for a variety of functions, such as an indication (i.e., a parameter, a warning, etc.), or dependent on the parameters of the endoscope. In summary, the adapter can be used differently than the method as claimed in claims 20-25.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “The method of claims 20-285 describes the intended and practical use of the adapter as claimed….this directly corresponds to the adapter’s converter function in claim 1” (p. 9 of Remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 20 recites “to generate light of equivalent intensity sensed by the sensor” which differs from “generating light with a light generator of an endoscope” recited in claim 1. The scope of these claims are different, as “equivalent intensity” is not specified as a feature in Group I.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Prior art relevant to adapters that convert light sensor readings into light generator control signals would be equally applicable to both the apparatus and method claims. No separate search burden exists.” (p. 9 of Remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Group I and Group III can be used in different process and have differing scopes that require a different search (i.e., different text queries and search classes, such as for specific sensors and process/analysis with the sensors).
Regarding Applicant’s argument for Groups II and III (System and Method) of “The system as claimed in claim 12 includes…The method of claims 20-25 describes the natural operation of the claimed system. The specification consistently describes…not alternative warning or signaling functions” (p. 9 of Remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to above, the product or endoscope system can be used in a materially different process, such as the production of light of different intensity (and/or color) sensed by the sensor. The light of different intensity may be for a variety of functions, such as an indication (i.e., a parameter, a warning, etc.), or dependent on the parameters of the endoscope. In summary, the system can be used differently than the method as claimed in claims 20-25.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of “The same prior art relating to light sensor-based control systems for endoscope illumination would be applicable to both system and method claims. No additional search burden would result from examining these claims together” (p. 10 of Remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to above, Group II and III can be used in different processes and have differing scopes that require a different search (i.e., different text queries and search classes, such as for specific sensors and process/analysis for those sensors).
Regarding Applicant’s argument for Groups I and II (p. 10 of Remarks), the Examiner finds the argument persuasive. Restriction between Groups I and II is withdrawn on 04/03/2026. Claims 1-19 will be examined, while claims 20-25 are withdrawn as non-elected claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, “associated with of the light waves” should read “associated with the light waves”.
In claims 10 and 19, “for communication the” should read “for communicating the”.
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.
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: “an imaging and control system” in claim 7; “a light conducting element” in claims 7 and 13; “a wireless communication device” in claims 10 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4, and 16-17 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.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “a color sensor” is unclear. It is unclear if the color sensor is a separate feature to the sensor recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “to generate a light color associated with of the light waves emitted from the light source” is unclear. It is unclear how a light generator would be controlled with instructions from the converter if there is both a sensor and a color sensor.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “to compensate for diminishment of a light generate of the light source” is unclear. It is unclear what a light generate is with respect to the light source.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a light color sensor” is unclear. It is unclear if the color sensor is a separate feature to the light sensor recited in claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2017/0003164), in view of Henley (US 2014/0288365).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses an adapter (see 201d, figure 1b) for an endoscope system (see figure 1b), the adapter comprising: a housing (see housing of 201d, figure 1b); a sensor (50, figure 1a) to receive light waves emitted from a light source (see 101, figure 1a) that can be connected to the adapter (detects the primary light [0047]); and a converter (205, figure 1a) connected to the sensor to convert a light intensity reading from the sensor into a signal comprising instructions for generating light (calculates the light intensity of the primary light… controls a drive current amount of the light source [0071]). Tanaka is silent regarding the adapter comprising the converter, the signal comprising instructions for generating light with a light generator of an endoscope, wherein the adapter is configured to output the signal to the endoscope.
Henley teaches a system (figure 6) with an imaging device (200, figure 2), an imaging device controller (220, figure 6), a light source comprising a light source controller (230, figure 6), and an image sensor (240, figure 6 | located in the tip of the endoscope [0042]). A shutter for the light source may be controlled by an electric communication signal from the controller (claim 63). The shutter may be placed at any interface in the light path from the source to the distal tip of the endoscope ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the system of Tanaka to have the converter/controller ([0038]; claim 63) in the adapter to control a shutter ([0038]) in the distal end of the endoscope as taught by Henley ([0038]). Doing so would provide a light source that is kept in a constant on-state ([0038]). The modified adapter would have the adapter comprising the converter (the modified adapter would comprise the converter so as to send the signal to the shutter, that is located at the distal tip of an endoscope; [0038] Henley), the signal comprising instructions for generating light with a light generator (broadly interpreted “a light generator” as a component that generates/impact light | shutter [0038]; Henley) of an endoscope (distal tip of the endoscope [0038]), wherein the adapter is configured to output the signal to the endoscope ([0038]).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka further discloses the sensor comprises a light intensity sensor (light intensity…detector 50 [0070]); and the converter comprises a lookup table for correlating a sensed light intensity to a power setting for the light generator of the endoscope (correlation…calculated in advanced….controls the light source [0071]; Tanaka | shutter…controlled [0038]; signal…shutter; claim 63 of Henley).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka further discloses the converter comprises: a processor (105, figure 1a; calculates….acquire information…[0070]; Tanaka); and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (205a, figure 1a | interpreted 205a to be a non-transitory storage medium because it stores/records the correlation data and is not a temporary storage) with having the lookup table stored therein (correlation recorded in the recording unit 205a…[0071]).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka further discloses a filter (filter…[0124]; Tanaka) for reducing an intensity of light waves impinging the sensor from the light source.
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka further discloses a plug body (see 201d and 203, figure 1b; Tanaka) configured to be inserted into a socket (see arrows between 201d and 203, figure 1b) of an imaging and control system (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a light source | 203 has 101, figures 1); a light conducting element (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a light pipe or fiber | see 101a, figures 1a and 2a) extending into the plug body to receive the light waves from the light source; and an outlet in the plug body for the light conducting element (see 11, figures 1a and 2a).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka further discloses the plug body further comprises electrical leads (see connections between 203 and 205 with 201, figure 1a; Tanaka | the plug 201d appears to have multiple places around it that can connect to external devices, see figure 1b) for connecting to electrical contacts in the socket of the imaging and control system (see 201d, figure 1b).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka and Henley further disclose an electrical coupler (see connection between 50 and 205, figure 1a of Tanaka | the modified device has the controller 205 in the adapter, which is connected to the shutter located in the distal end of the endoscope [0038] of Henley) connected to the converter and accessible through the housing configured to convey the signal of the converter and output of the electrical contacts to a control cable of an endoscope (there would be a coupler/wire that connects the modified controller in the adapter to the shutter in the distal end of the endoscope through the control cable 201c of the endoscope, see figure 1b of Tanaka).
Claim(s) 12-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2017/0003164), in view of Henley (US 2014/0288365) and Futami (US 2023/0181008).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka discloses a surgical endoscope system (see figures 1) comprising: an imaging and control system (see 203, figures 1) comprising a light source (101, figures 1) communicating with having a first socket (see arrows between 201d and 203, figure 1b | interpreted 201d can be inserted into 203); an endoscope (201, figure 1b) comprising: a shaft (201a, figure 1b) comprising a proximal end portion (see proximal end of 201a, figure 1b); and an adapter (201d, figure 1b) configured to be connected to the first socket, the adapter comprising: a light sensor (50, figure 1a) configured to receive light waves from the light source when the adapter is connected to the first socket (detects the primary light [0047]); and a converter (205, figure 1a) configured to transform light intensity readings from the light sensor into instructions (calculates the light intensity of the primary light…controls a drive current amount of the light source [0071]). Tanaka is silent regarding an imaging device at a distal end portion; a working channel extending at least partially through the shaft; and a light generator configured to emit light proximate the distal end portion; and the adapter comprising the converter, the converter configured to transform light intensity readings from the light sensor into instructions for operating the light generator.
Henley teaches a system (figure 6) with an imaging device (200, figure 2), an imaging device controller (220, figure 6), a light source comprising a light source controller (230, figure 6), and an image sensor (240, figure 6 | located in the tip of the endoscope [0042]). A shutter for the light source may be controlled by an electric communication signal from the controller (claim 63). The shutter may be placed at any interface in the light path from the source to the distal tip of the endoscope ([0038]).
Futami teaches an endoscope system (1, figure 3) with a connector (2c1, figure 3) and an endoscope (2, figure 3). The endoscope has an operation portion (2b, figure 3) with a treatment instrument insertion port (2b4, figure 3). The treatment instrument insertion port is an opening on the proximal end side of the treatment instrument channel, where the distal end portion of a treatment instrument would project through an opening on the distal end side of the treatment instrument channel ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the system of Tanaka to have the converter/controller ([0038]; claim 63) in the adapter to control a shutter ([0038]) and an image sensor in the distal end of the endoscope as taught by Henley ([0038]; [0042]). Doing so would provide a light source that is kept in a constant on-state ([0038]) and an image sensor in the distal tip of the endoscope ([0042]). Further, it would have been obvious to modify the system to have a treatment instrument insertion port (2b4, figure 3) and a treatment instrument channel as taught by Futami ([0067]). Doing so would provide a treatment instrument that can perform various treatments on a subject ([0067]). The modified system would have an imaging device at a distal end portion ([0042]; Henley); a working channel extending at least partially through the shaft (treatment instrument channel [0067]; Futami); and a light generator (broadly interpreted “a light generator” as a component that generates/impacts light | shutter [0038]; Henley) configured to emit light proximate the distal end portion; and the adapter comprising the converter (the modified adapter would comprise the converter so as to send the signal to the shutter, that is located at the distal tip of an endoscope; [0038] Henley), the converter configured to transform light intensity readings from the light sensor into instructions for operating the light generator (correlation…calculated in advanced….controls the light source [0071]; Tanaka | shutter…controlled [0038]; signal…shutter; claim 63 of Henley).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka further discloses the adapter comprises: a light conducting element (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a light pipe or fiber | see 101a, figures 1a and 2a; Tanaka) configured to receive light waves from the light source and transmit the light waves to the light sensor when the adapter is connected to the first socket (see figure 1a and 2a).
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka and Henley further disclose the converter comprises: a memory device (205a, figure 1a) comprising a lookup table correlating light intensity values for the light source of the imaging and control system with power input values for the light generator of the endoscope (correlation…calculated in advanced….controls the light source [0071]; Tanaka | shutter…controlled [0038]; signal…shutter; claim 63 of Henley); and a processor (105, figure 1a; calculates….acquire information…[0070]; Tanaka) configured to receive an output from the light sensor and generate a command signal for the light generator using values in the lookup table (controls the light source [0071]; Tanaka).
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka further discloses the adapter further comprises a light intensity filter (filter…[0124]; Tanaka) configured to reduce intensity of the light before impinging the light sensor.
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka and Henley further disclose the converter is configured to generate instructions for the light generator (the modified system would generate instructions for the shutter | controls the light source [0071]; Tanaka | shutter…controlled [0038]; signal…shutter; claim 63 of Henley) that scales-up light intensity of light waves (increased…output amount [0071]; Tanaka) emitted from the light source to compensate for diminishment of a light generate of the light source due to use (leakage light…increased output amount [0071]).
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka further discloses the adapter further comprises: electrical leads (see connections between 203 and 205 with 201, figure 1a; Tanaka | the plug 201d appears to have multiple places around it that can connect to external devices, see figure 1b) configured to connect to electrical contacts in the first socket; and a second socket (see 13 which connects to 103a, figure 2a; Tanaka) configured to receive a coupler (103a, figure 2a) located at the proximal end portion of the shaft of the endoscope.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2017/0003164) and Henley (US 2014/0288365) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ouyang (US 2015/0157387).
Tanaka and Henley disclose all of the features in the current invention as shown above in claim 5. They are silent regarding the filter comprises a pair of at least one polarizing lens.
Ouyang teaches a polarizer located in front of a sensor ([0187]). An integrated illuminator and camera/sensor may have stray or unintended light interfering with a sensor ([0240]). A filtering system can control the incidence of light on the sensor ([0240]). The polarized member may be a cover lens ([0187]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the adapter, specifically the filter, of Tanaka and Henley to have a polarizer ([0187]) as taught by Ouyang. Doing so would control the stray or unintended light from interfering with the sensor ([0240]). The modified adapter would have the filter comprises a pair of at least one polarizing lens (polarized member…lens [0187]; Ouyang).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2017/0003164) and Henley (US 2014/0288365) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishio (US 2019/0110663).
Tanaka and Henley disclose all of the features in the current invention as shown above in claim 1. They are silent regarding a wireless communication device for communication the signal out of the adapter.
Nishio teaches an endoscope system (100c, figure 9) with a wireless transmitter (2e, figure 9) and a wireless receiver (12g, figure 9) to wireless transmit the light-amount control signal output from an adjuster (2b, figure 9) to a light source controller (12b, figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the adapter to have a wireless transmitter (2e, figure 9) wireless transmit the signal as taught by Nishio. Doing so would provide wireless communication for the endoscope ([0098]). The modified adapter would have a wireless communication device (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a Bluetooth, wifi, IR, NFC, etc. [0076] | radio waves, infrared rays…[0098]; Nishio) for communication the signal out of the adapter (the modified adapter would wireless transmit the signal to the shutter, located at the distal end of the endoscope).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2017/0003164) and Henley (US 2014/0288365) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Futami (US 2023/0181008).
Tanaka and Henley disclose all of the features in the current invention as shown above in claim 1. They are silent regarding a fluid passage extending through the housing, the fluid passage having including an inlet and an outlet accessible from the housing.
Futami teaches an endoscope system (1, figure 3) with a connector (2c1, figure 3). The connector is connected to an air and water feeding tube (7a, figure 3). Liquid and pressurized air can be fed to an air and water feeding channel inside the endoscope ([0081]).
It would have been obvious to modify the adapter to be able to connect with an air and water feeding tube (7a, figure 3) as taught by Futami. Doing so would provide liquid or air to an air and water feeding channel in the endoscope ([0081]). The modified adapter would have a fluid passage (air and water feeding channel [0080]; Futami) extending through the housing, the fluid passage having including an inlet (see connection from 7a to 2c1, figure 3) and an outlet (air and water feeding channel between 2c1 and 2c, figure 3) accessible from the housing.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2017/0003164) and Henley (US 2014/0288365) and Futami (US 2023/0181008) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nishio (US 2019/0110663).
Tanaka and Henley and Futami disclose all of the features in the current invention as shown above in claim 12. They are silent regarding the adapter further comprises: a wireless communication device for communication the instructions to the endoscope.
Nishio teaches an endoscope system (100c, figure 9) with a wireless transmitter (2e, figure 9) and a wireless receiver (12g, figure 9) to wireless transmit the light-amount control signal output from an adjuster (2b, figure 9) to a light source controller (12b, figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the system to have a wireless transmitter (2e, figure 9) wireless transmit the signal as taught by Nishio. Doing so would provide wireless communication for the endoscope ([0098]). The modified adapter would have a wireless communication device (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a Bluetooth, wifi, IR, NFC, etc. [0076] | radio waves, infrared rays…[0098]; Nishio) for communication the instructions to the endoscope (the modified adapter would wireless transmit the signal to the shutter, located at the distal end of the endoscope).
Claims 4 and 17 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: Niwa (US 2020/0154982) and Miyazaki (US 2018/0263470).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA F WU whose telephone number is (571)272-9851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4 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, Michael Carey can be reached at 571-270-7235. 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.
PAMELA F. WU
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
April 3, 2026
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795