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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-8 & 10-18 are pending and rejected.
Claim 9 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed January 30, 2026, with respect to the objections to Claims 1, 4 & 11-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to the claims.
The objections to Claims 1, 4 & 11-12 have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is still invoked for “an evaluation unit... configured to evaluate” and “a display unit… configured for… display” in Claims 13 & 14, respectively.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed January 30, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of Claims 1-8 & 10-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to the claims.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of Claims 1-8 & 10-14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-10, filed January 30, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103 of Claims 1-8 & 10-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “different spectral regions of the the first and second images” on Lines 20-21. This appears to be a drafting error. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites the limitation “the respective first and second image are” on Lines 4-5. This appears to be a typographical error and should read “the respective first and second images are”. 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 limitations 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 limitations are:
“an evaluation unit… configured to evaluate” in Claim 13, as described in Para. [0052] of Applicant’s specification.
“a display unit… configured for…display” in Claim 14, as described in Para. [0054] of Applicant’s specification.
“an evaluation unit configured to reconstruct disparity, apply a projection rule… and generate additional image information” in Claim 18, as described on Paras. [0052] & [0062].
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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(b)
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 1-8 & 10-18 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 Claims 1-2 & 13, the phrase "in particular" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (See MPEP § 2173.05(d)). For the purpose of examination, limitations including the phrase “in particular” are being interpreted as optional limitations.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites the limitation “a piece of additional information” on Line 5. It is unclear whether this “piece of additional information” is the same as the “piece of additional information” previously recited on Lines 21-22 of Claim 1, are a separate, different piece of information. For the purpose of examination, “a piece of additional information” is being interpreted as “the piece of additional information”.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 recites the limitation “the first filter and/or the second filter have or has a filter spectrum which is adapted to a light spectrum emitted by the excited adjuvant” on Lines 5-7. It is unclear whether this “filter spectrum [of the first filter]” and this “filter spectrum [of the second filter]” are the same as the “first filter spectrum” (previously recited on Line 18 of Claim 1) and the “second filter spectrum” (previously recited on Line 19 of Claim 1), respectively, or separate different filter spectra. For the purpose of examination, “the first filter and/or the second filter have or has a filter spectrum which is adapted to a light spectrum emitted by the excited adjuvant” is being interpreted as “the first filter spectrum and/or the second filter spectrum is or are adapted to a light spectrum emitted by the excited adjuvant [emphasis added]”.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 recites the limitation “the illumination of the observation region” on Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the illumination of the observation region” is being interpreted as “an illumination of the observation region”.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 recites the limitations “one of the images is transferred to the other image” and “both images” on Lines 3-4 & 5, respectively. It is unclear whether these “images” are the “first image” previously recited on Line 11 of Claim 1, the “second image” previously recited on Line 12 of Claim 1, or separate different images. For the purpose of examination, “one of the images is transferred to the other image” and “both images” are being interpreted as “one of the first or second images is transferred to [[the]] an other of the first or second images” and “[[both]] the first and second images”, respectively.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 recites the limitation “intensity differences between the channels” on Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “intensity differences between the channels” is being interpreted as “intensity differences between the [[channels]] first and second optical paths”.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 recites the limitation “generate additional image information relating to physiological parameters” on Line 4. It is unclear whether this “additional image information” and “physiological parameters” are the same as the “piece of additional image information” previously recited on Lines 21-22 of Claim 1 and the “physiological parameters of the observation region” previously recited on Line 16 of Claim 1, respectively, or a separate, different additional information and separate, different physiological parameters, respectively. For the purpose of examination, “generate additional image information relating to physiological parameters” is being interpreted as “generate the piece of additional image information relating to the physiological parameters”.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 recites the limitation “the respective images” on Line 5. It is unclear whether these “respective images” are the same as the first image (previously recited on Line 11 of Claim 1) and the second image (previously recited on Line 12 of Claim 1), or separate, different images. For the purpose of examination “the respective images” is being interpreted as “the first and second images”.
Regarding Claims 3-4, 6-8, 10 & 13-16, Claims 3-4, 6-8, 10 & 13-16 are rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-8, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (hereinafter "Yao") (US 2018/0153408) in view of Scott et al. (hereinafter "Scott") (US 2020/0093357).
Regarding Claim 1, Yao discloses a medical imaging apparatus (Fig. 11, 1100; [0104]), the medical imaging device being a stereo endoscope or stereo exoscope ([0040]), the medical imaging apparatus comprising:
a first light source (Fig. 11, a blue LED of 605; [0059]) with a first light spectrum (blue light; [0075]);
a second light source (Fig. 11, 607; [0059]) with a second light spectrum (UV light and IR light; [0069]);
a first optical path (Fig. 11, a first path comprising 609 and 611; [0059]) with a first optical unit (Fig. 11, 609; [0059]) and a first image sensor (Fig. 11, an image sensor (not shown) of 609; [0064]) having a first sensor filter (Fig. 11, an image-sensor filter (not shown) is positioned in front of the image sensor of 609; [0064]);
a second optical path (Fig. 11, a second path comprising 1109 and 1111; [0104]) with a second optical unit (Fig. 11, 1109; [0104]) and a second image sensor (Fig. 11, an image sensor (not shown) of 1109; [0064] & [0104]) having a second sensor filter (Fig. 11, an image-sensor filter (not shown) is positioned in front of the image sensor of 1109; [0064] & [0104]);
wherein the first and second optical paths extends between an observation region (Fig. 11, 610; [0104]) and the respective first (the first path extends from 610 to 609; see Fig. 11) and second image sensors respectively (the second path extends from 610 to 1109; see Fig. 11), and the first optical path and the second optical path are arranged spatially offset from one another ([0104]) such that the first image sensor records a first image of the observation region by means of the first optical path (Fig. 11, a first image acquired by 609; [0111]) and the second image sensor records a second image of the observation region by means of the second optical path (Fig. 11, a second image acquired by 1109; [0111]), and
the first image and the second image are assigned to one another in an overlaid image for the purpose of forming a piece of dual image information (a single merged image; [0111]),
wherein the first and second light source are configured to illuminate the observation region with the corresponding first and second light spectra (Fig. 11, the blue LED of 605 and 607 illuminate 610 with blue light and UV/IR light, respectively; [0070] & [0075]) such that physiological parameters of the observation region are determinable on the basis of the respective light spectrum (Fig. 11, illuminating 610 with blue light determines blood oxygenation and illuminating 610 with IR light determines blood flow; [0089] & [0091]), characterized in that
the first optical path comprises a first filter (Fig. 11, 611; [0059]) with a first filter spectrum (Fig. 11, 611 transmits light between 400 nm to 700 nm; [0100]) and/or the second optical path comprises a second filter (Fig. 11, 1111; [0104]) with a second filter spectrum (Fig. 11, 1111 transmits light from 820 nm to 860 nm; [0104]),
with the result that, from a piece of filtered image information in the first image (first image data; [0074]) and/or a piece of filtered image information in the second image (second image data; [0074]), different spectral regions of the first and second images are evaluable in order to obtain a piece of additional image information or a plurality of pieces of additional image information in relation to the physiological parameters in the observation region (Fig. 11, illuminating 610 with blue light determines blood oxygenation based on the first image data and illuminating 610 with IR light determines blood flow based on the second image data; [0074], [0089] & [0091]); and
wherein forming of the piece of dual image information comprises reconstructing a correlation between the first image and the second image on the basis of pieces of filtered image information ([0111]).
Yao fails to explicitly disclose wherein the forming the piece of dual image information comprises the reconstructing the correlation between the first image and the second image so that corresponding picture elements are associated and an offset between the first image and the second image is removed by calculation.
However, Scott teaches a medical imaging apparatus (Fig. 3A, 300; [0103]), the medical imaging apparatus being a stereo endoscope or stereo exoscope ([0103]), the medical imaging apparatus comprising:
a first light source (Fig. 3C, 311A; [0113]) with a first light spectrum (525 nm; [0115]);
a second light source (Fig. 3C, 312A; [0113]) with a second light spectrum (white light; [0113]);
a first optical path (a fluorescence optical path; [0124]) with a first optical unit (Fig. 3A, 301; [0105]) and a first image sensor (Fig. 3A, 331A; [0128]);
a second optical path (a visible optical path; [0124]) with a second optical unit (Fig. 3A, 302; [0105]) and a second image sensor (Fig. 3A, 332A; [0126]);
wherein the first and second optical paths extends between an observation region and the respective first ([0128]) and second image sensors respectively ([0125]), and the first optical path and the second optical path are arranged spatially offset from one another ([0131]) such that the first image sensor records a first image of the observation region by means of the first optical path (Fig. 3A, 335; [0128]) and the second image sensor records a second image of the observation region by means of the second optical path (Fig. 3A, 336; [0126]), and
the first image and the second image are assigned to one another ([0140]) in an overlaid image (Fig. 3A, 341; [0141]) for the purpose of forming a piece of dual image information (Fig. 3A, 350; [0146]),
the first optical path comprises a first filter (Fig. 3A, 333A; [0128]) with a first filter spectrum ([0128]) to form a piece of filtered image information in the first image (Fig. 3D, 370; [0137]) and the second optical path comprises a second filter (Fig. 3A, 334A; [0125]) with a second filter spectrum ([0125]) to form a piece of filtered image information in the second image (Fig. 3D, 371; [0137]); and
wherein forming the piece of dual image information comprises reconstructing a correlation between the first image and the second image on the basis of pieces of filtered image information (Fig. 3A, 392; [0136]) so that corresponding picture elements (Fig. 3D, 373; [0139]) are associated and an offset between the first image and the second image is removed by calculation ([0131]).
The advantage of the spatial image registration system is to ensure proper alignment of.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the medical imaging apparatus as disclosed by Yao, to include the spatial image registration system taught by Scott, to ensure proper alignment of the composite image captured from the two optical paths (Scott; [0131]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yao, as previously modified by Scott, teaches the medical imaging apparatus as set forth in Claim 1. Yao further discloses a third light source (Fig. 11, a red LED of 605; [0059]) with a third light spectrum (red light; [0085]), a fourth light source (Fig. 11, a green LED of 605; [0059]) with a fourth light spectrum (green light; [0085]) and/or further light sources with further light spectra, wherein the third and fourth light sources are configured such that the third and fourth light source illuminates the observation region with the third and fourth light spectra (Fig. 11, the green LED of 605 and the red LED of 605 illuminate 610 with green light and red light, respectively; [0075]), the third and fourth light spectra are been adapted to the physiological parameters in particular.
Regarding Claim 3, Yao, as previously modified by Scott, teaches the medical imaging apparatus as set forth in Claim 1. Yao further discloses wherein the first filter spectrum and the second filter spectrum differ from one another, with the result that the first filter and the second filter have different filter spectra (Fig. 11, 611 transmits light between 400 nm to 700 nm and 1111 transmits light from 820 nm to 860 nm; [0100] & [0104]).
Regarding Claim 4, Yao, as previously modified by Scott, teaches the medical imaging apparatus as set forth in Claim 3. Yao further discloses wherein the first filter spectrum or the second filter spectrum is designed to be substantially completely transmissive for the first image recordable by the first image sensor or for the second image recordable by the second image sensor (Fig. 11, the image-sensor filter of 609 must be transmissive to the first image given that the image is formed, as not being transmissive would result in no image being formed; [0064]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yao, as previously modified by Scott, teaches the medical imaging apparatus as set forth in Claim 1. Yao further discloses wherein the first filter spectrum and/or the second filter spectrum corresponds to the first sensor filter and/or to the second sensor filter, with the result that, by means of a sensor-filter-dependent sensitivity in different spectral regions, different spectral regions of the first and second image are evaluable to obtain a piece of additional image information from the observation region (Fig. 11, the image-sensor filter of 609 must correspond to 611 given that the first image is captured, as not corresponding would result in no light being transmitted to the image sensor of 609; [0064]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yao, as previously modified by Scott, teaches the medical imaging apparatus as set forth in Claim 1. Yao further discloses wherein the first filter and/or the second filter is an edge filter or a bandpass filter (611 is a bandpass filter; see Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 7, Yao, as previously modified by Scott, teaches the medical imaging apparatus as set forth in Claim 1. Yao further discloses wherein at least one of the first and second light spectra has a wavelength of 400 nm to 940 nm, 400 nm to 700 nm (Fig. 11, 611 transmits light between 400 nm to 700 nm; [0100]), 790 nm to 850 nm, 400 nm to 500 nm, and/or 740 nm to 780 nm.
Regarding Claim 8, Yao, as previously modified by Scott, teaches the medical imaging apparatus as set forth in Claim 1. Yao further discloses an additional light source (Fig. 11, a red LED of 605; [0059]) for illuminating the observation region with white light (Fig. 11, the red LED emits red light which, when combined with blue light and green light, form white light; [0059]).
Regarding Claim 10, Yao, as previously modified by Scott, teaches the medical imaging apparatus as set forth in Claim 1. Yao further discloses wherein the formation of the piece of dual image information comprises a stereoscopic formation of a piece of spatial image information for the observation region ([0104] & [0111]).
Regarding Claim 11, Yao, as previously modified by Scott, teaches the medical imaging apparatus as set forth in Claim 1. Scott further teaches wherein one of the first and second light sources or a plurality of the first and second light sources illuminates the observation region with a light spectrum corresponding to an adjuvant (Fig. 3A, 311A emits at 525nm which corresponds to an excitation wavelength of antibody fluorophores; [0115]), with the result that an optical excitation of an adjuvant is made possible with the aid of the light spectrum corresponding to the adjuvant ([0115]), wherein the first filter and/or the second filter have or has a filter spectrum which is adapted to a light spectrum emitted by the excited adjuvant (Fig. 3A, 333A has a spectrum that permits transmission of fluorescence wavelengths; [0128]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yao, as previously modified by Scott, teaches the medical imaging apparatus as set forth in Claim 11. Scott further teaches an excitation filter (Fig. 3C, 318; [0121]) assigned to at least one of the first light source, the second light source (Fig. 3C, 318 is assigned to 312A; [0120] – [0121]), a third light source and a fourth light source, wherein the excitation filter filters light emitted by the respective first light source, second light source ([0121]), third light source and fourth light source such that the illumination of the observation region with the light spectrum corresponding to the adjuvant is made possible ([0121]).
Regarding Claim 13, Yao, as previously modified by Scott, teaches the medical imaging apparatus as set forth in Claim 1. Yao further discloses an evaluation unit (Fig. 11, 615; [0110]) which is configured to evaluate the first image and/or the second image in relation to an OHI, TWI, StO2 and/or NIR index, with the result that a hemoglobin content, a water content, an oxygen concentration (Fig. 11, 615 determines blood oxygenation based on the first image data; [0074] & [0110]) and/or a presence of an adjuvant, in particular a fluorescent substance, is determinable.
Regarding Claim 14, Yao, as previously modified by Scott, teaches the medical imaging apparatus as set forth in Claim 1. Yao further discloses a display unit (Fig. 11, 613; [0059]) which is configured for simultaneous, superimposed and/or correlated display of the piece of first image information, the piece of second image information, the piece of dual image information, a stereoscopically formed piece of spatial image information and/or the piece of additional image information ([0082]).
Regarding Claim 15, Yao, as previously modified by Scott, teaches the medical imaging apparatus as set forth in Claim 11. Scott further teaches wherein the excited adjuvant is a fluorescent substance ([0115]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 16, Yao, as previously modified by Scott, teaches the medical imaging apparatus as set forth in Claim 1.
Yao, Scott, or any other prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or suggest, alone or in combination, wherein, based on the reconstructed correlation, spectral components filtered out by the first filter are computationally transferred from the second image to the first image and/or spectral components filtered out by the second filter are computationally transferred from the first image to the second image, such that, within a single frame period with white-light illumination, both the first image and the second image comprise a completed white-light image that enables a complete stereo/dual image presentation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
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.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights