DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This action is Non-Final.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
-Figure 3 contains text that is not all oriented in the same direction which is a requirement for Rule 1.84(p)(1)
-Figure 14 element ‘5000’ should not be underlined but have a lead line/arrow instead as set forth in Rules 1.84(p)(3),(q),(r).
-Figure 16 element ‘5300’ should not be underlined but have a lead line/arrow instead as set forth in Rules 1.84(p)(3),(q),(r).
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figure 14 ‘5017’; Figure 15 ‘5065’; Figure 15 ‘5040’. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the drawing elements and specification are not in agreement, see drawing objections above.
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:
a bleeding detection unit configured to in claims 1, 8-10, 14
a light source control unit configured to in claims 2-3, 5-6, 15-16
an image processing unit configured to in claim 11
a display device configured to in claims 18-19
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.
Based on review of the disclosure as followed, the corresponding structures from the disclosure are:
a bleeding detection unit configured to in claims 1, 8-10, 14
-based on PGpub paragraph 52, such corresponding structures amount to generic CPU computer processor elements and equivalents where the different functions on the same hardware is the distinguishing element, i.e. programming
a light source control unit configured to in claims 2-3, 5-6, 15-16
-based on PGpub paragraph 52, such corresponding structures amount to generic CPU computer processor elements and equivalents where the different functions on the same hardware is the distinguishing element, i.e. programming
an image processing unit configured to in claim 11
-based on PGpub paragraph 52, such corresponding structures amount to generic CPU computer processor elements and equivalents where the different functions on the same hardware is the distinguishing element, i.e. programming
a display device configured to in claims 18-19
-based on PGpub paragraph 57, such corresponding structures amount to LCD, EL and equivalents
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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1:
detect a bleeding portion in a body based on a detection result of an event detection unit including a plurality of first pixels, each of the first pixels receiving light reflected in the body irradiated by a light source, the event detection unit detecting, for each of the first pixels, that a luminance change amount due to the light incident on the first pixel exceeds a predetermined threshold value depending on a change in a wavelength or an irradiation direction of the light source (mental process, mathematical concepts using results from inferenced processes and structures related to data gathered for such detecting)
Claim 14:
detect a bleeding portion in the body based on a detection result of the event detection unit (mental process, mathematical concepts using results from data gathered for such detecting)
Claim 20:
detecting a bleeding portion in a body based on a detection result (mental process, mathematical concepts using results from data gathered for such detecting)
These claim limitations fall within the identified groupings of abstract ideas:
Mathematical Concepts:
mathematical relationships
mathematical formulas or equations
mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Under the step 2A, analysis is conducted on the additional features of the claim. Under this analysis, the additional features beyond the judicial exception are:
Claim 1
a bleeding detection unit configured to (computer structures used as a tool)
Claim 14
a light source (structures related to data gathering, insignificant extra solution details)
an event detection unit including a plurality of first pixels, each of the first pixels receiving light reflected in a body irradiated by the light source, the event detection unit being configured to detect, for each of the first pixels, that a luminance change amount due to the light incident on the first pixel exceeds a predetermined threshold value depending on a change in a wavelength or an irradiation direction of the light source (structures related to data gathering, insignificant extra solution details)
a bleeding detection unit configured to (computer structures used as a tool)
Claim 20
by a medical information processing apparatus (computer structures used as a tool)
an event detection unit including a plurality of first pixels, each of the first pixels receiving light reflected in the body irradiated by a light source, the event detection unit detecting, for each of the first pixels, that a luminance change amount due to the light incident on the first pixel exceeds a predetermined threshold value depending on a change in a wavelength or an irradiation direction of the light source (structures related to data gathering, insignificant extra solution details)
These features in the claim do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as the additional elements in the claim do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Limitation concepts that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitation concepts that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Under Step 2B, the claim limitations are evaluated for an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. Analyzing the additional claim limitations individually, the additional limitation that is not directed to the abstract idea are the same as those identified above in step 2A. Such limitations related to the data gathering including light source and pixels of image detection structures are known in endoscopy as being routine such as evidence from US20130169843, and in general such sensors are recognized by the courts as routine data gathering in order to input data to the mathematical algorithm/mental process, and thus, do not add a meaningful limitation to the method/product as it would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the mathematical algorithm/mental process. The computer structures cited above are claimed as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims are directed to further details of data processing (A more specific abstraction is still an abstraction). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Therefore, analyzing the claims as an ordered combination under the Mayo/Alice analysis the features claimed are directed to patent ineligible limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirakawa (US 2007/0195165).
Regarding claim 1, Hirakawa teaches a medical information processing apparatus comprising:
a bleeding detection unit configured to detect a bleeding portion in a body (see at least Figures 2 and 4, [0046]-[0078]) based on a detection result of an event detection unit including a plurality of first pixels, each of the first pixels receiving light reflected in the body irradiated by a light source, the event detection unit detecting, for each of the first pixels, that a luminance change amount due to the light incident on the first pixel exceeds a predetermined threshold value depending on a change in a wavelength or an irradiation direction of the light source (these limitations after “based on” are an intended result of functions of structures outside the required elements(i.e. mere inference), and do not bear patentable weight, but such data generated reasonably reads on endoscopic data gathered and processed: see at least [0059] endoscope, where such has capabilities as claimed such as in [0049] comparing values calculated to threshold, including luminance difference in pixels).
Regarding claim 7, Hirakawa teaches wherein the bleeding detection unit detects a position and a region of the bleeding portion (claimed as intended use: see also at least Figures 2 and 4, [0046]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 8, Hirakawa teaches wherein the bleeding detection unit detects movement of blood related to the bleeding portion (claimed as intended use: see also at least Figures 2 and 4, [0046]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 9, Hirakawa teaches wherein the bleeding detection unit compares a waveform of the luminance change amount depending on the change in the wavelength with a waveform of an absorption characteristic of blood depending on the change in the wavelength (claimed as intended use: see also at least Figures 2 and 4, [0046]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 10, Hirakawa teaches wherein the bleeding detection unit detects that the luminance change amount depending on the change in the irradiation direction changes with lapse of time (claimed as intended use: see also at least Figures 2 and 4, [0046]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 11, Hirakawa teaches further comprising: an image processing unit configured to generate an image in the body including the bleeding portion (see at least Figures 8, 19 [0077], [0117]).
Regarding claim 12, Hirakawa teaches wherein the image includes a figure indicating a position and a region of the bleeding portion (see at least Figures 8, 19 [0077], [0117]).
Regarding claim 13, Hirakawa teaches wherein the image includes an image indicating that the bleeding portion is present in the body (see at least Figures 8, 19 [0077], [0117]).
Regarding claim 20, Hirakawa teaches a medical information processing method comprising:
by a medical information processing apparatus, detecting a bleeding portion in a body based on a detection result of an event detection unit including a plurality of first pixels, each of the first pixels receiving light reflected in the body irradiated by a light source, the event detection unit detecting, for each of the first pixels, that a luminance change amount due to the light incident on the first pixel exceeds a predetermined threshold value depending on a change in a wavelength or an irradiation direction of the light source (see at least Figures 2 and 4, [0046]-[0078], [0059] endoscope, where such has capabilities as claimed such as in [0049] comparing values calculated to threshold, including luminance difference in pixels).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakawa (US 2007/0195165) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ono et al. (Ono, US 2013/0169843).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations are met by Hirakawa, except the limitations of further comprising: a light source control unit configured to control the light source (this structure is not positively recited in claim 1 (mere inference)) so as to change the wavelength of the light source is not directly taught.
Ono teaches a related system for measuring images from endoscope systems including blood (see at least title, abstract, [0057]), and teaches such endoscope system can include a light source (see at least Figures 1, 3, 11, 15, 17, 21) and a light source control unit configured to control the light source so as to change the wavelength of the light source (see at least [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including a light source controller in an endoscope in order to control light emissions to gather desired information on a subject being examined.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations are met by Hirakawa in view of Ono, where Ono teaches wherein the light source control unit controls the light source so as to limit the wavelength of the light source within a predetermined range (claimed as intended use, see also at least [0006], [0067], [0069], [0079], [0098]).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations are met by Hirakawa in view of Ono, where Ono teaches wherein the predetermined range is set based on an absorption characteristic of blood depending on the change in the wavelength (further limits intended use, see also at least [0006], [0067], [0069], [0079], [0098]).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations are met by Hirakawa, except the limitations of further comprising: a light source control unit configured to control the light source (this structure is not positively recited in claim 1 (mere inference)) so as to change the irradiation direction of the light source is not directly taught.
Ono teaches a related system for measuring images from endoscope systems including blood (see at least title, abstract, [0057]), and teaches such endoscope system can include a light source (see at least Figures 1, 3, 11, 15, 17, 21) and a light source control unit configured to control the light source so as to change the irradiation direction of the light source (see at least [0057], [0060]-[0066] programming to control light emission timing/direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including a light source controller in an endoscope in order to control light emissions to gather desired information on a subject being examined.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations are met by Hirakawa in view of Ono, where Ono teaches wherein the light source control unit controls the light source so as to limit the irradiation direction of the light source within a predetermined range (claimed as intended use: see also at least [0057], [0060]-[0066] programming to control light emission timing/direction).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakawa (US 2007/0195165) in view of Ono et al. (Ono, US 2013/0169843).
Regarding claim 14, Hirakawa teaches a medical observation system comprising:
an event detection unit including a plurality of first pixels, each of the first pixels receiving light reflected in a body irradiated by the light source, the event detection unit being configured to detect, for each of the first pixels, that a luminance change amount due to the light incident on the first pixel exceeds a predetermined threshold value depending on a change in a wavelength or an irradiation direction of the light source (pixels are the required structure, all other features appear to be claimed as intended use of the pixel structure data gathered and thus are met by the structures present: see at least [0059] endoscope, where such has capabilities as claimed such as in [0049] comparing values calculated to threshold, including luminance difference in pixels); and
a bleeding detection unit configured to detect a bleeding portion in the body based on a detection result of the event detection unit (see at least Figures 2 and 4, [0046]-[0078]);
however, while Hirakawa teaches an endoscope, the limitation of a light source is not directly taught. Ono teaches a related system for measuring images from endoscope systems including blood (see at least title, abstract, [0057]), and teaches such endoscope system can include a light source (see at least Figures 1, 3, 11, 15, 17, 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including a light source in an endoscope in order to control light emissions to gather desired information on a subject being examined.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations are met by Hirakawa in view of Ono, where Ono teaches further comprising: a light source control unit configured to control the light source so as to change the wavelength of the light source (see at least [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including a light source controller in an endoscope in order to control light emissions to gather desired information on a subject being examined.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are met by Hirakawa in view of Ono, where Ono teaches further comprising: a light source control unit configured to control the light source so as to change the irradiation direction of the light source (see at least [0057], [0060]-[0066] programming to control light emission timing/direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including a light source controller in an endoscope in order to control light emissions to gather desired information on a subject being examined.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations are met by Hirakawa in view of Ono, where Ono teaches further comprising: an image detection unit including a plurality of second pixels, each of the second pixels receiving the light reflected in the body irradiated by the light source, the image detection unit being configured to detect an image in the body based on the light incident on each of the plurality of second pixels (see at least [0041] matrix with different pixels based on color filters, one filter is first structure, one filter is the second structure, where luminance is detected as well as incident light as seen in [0041], [0058], [0063], Figures 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including a light source in an endoscope in order to control light emissions to gather desired information on a subject being examined.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakawa (US 2007/0195165) in view of Ono et al. (Ono, US 2013/0169843) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (Zhao, US 2018/0125333).
Regarding claim 18, the limitations are met by Hirakawa in view of Ono, where Hirakawa teaches further comprising: a display device configured to display the bleeding portion (see at lest Figures 1, 19, where a marker of interest is superimposed on the display above a body image, [0058], [0099]), but does not directly teach display the bleeding portion while superimposing the bleeding portion on an image in the body.
Zhao teaches a related system for detecting bleeding (see title and abstract), and teaches displaying bleeding portion markers superimposed on an image in the body (see at least Figures 4A-4F, [0081], [0083], [0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known process to improve similar devices in the same way to include markers of bleeding superimposed on images to the bleeding portions in order to bring attention to bleeding detection sites to a physician or surgeon.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are met by Hirakawa in view of Ono and Zhao, where Zhao teaches wherein the display device displays a position and a region of the bleeding portion on the image in the body (see at least Figures 4A-4F, [0081], [0083], [0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known process to improve similar devices in the same way to include markers of bleeding superimposed on images to the bleeding portions in order to bring attention to bleeding detection sites to a physician or surgeon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791