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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/21/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because Non-Patent Literature Document Citation Number 2 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.98(b)(5) which requires “each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication”. The publisher, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication have not been identified for this document. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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: “reflective element” in claims 1, 8 and 16.
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 8-20 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.
Independent claim 8 recites, in pertinent part, “an imaging device configured to operate at an angle of operation” and “an image processor configured to process the angle of operation of the imaging device”. It is not clear how the processor processes the angle of operation of the imaging device. A structure for determining the degree/value/amount of the angle of operation of the imaging device has not been claimed. It is not clear how the angle of operation of the imaging device is calculated and communicated to the processor. Accordingly, claim 8, and claims 9-15 depending therefrom, are rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites that the image processor is configured to automatically perform stereoscopic image rotation by choosing a desired horizon. It is not clear how the image processor chooses a desired horizon without an input for selecting the horizon/angle or some other provided instruction. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural connection between the imaging device and the reflective element. The claim recites “obtaining a plurality of images from a plurality of perspectives from a reflective element”, but does not recite a structural relationship between the reflective element and the imaging device. Is the reflective element directly connected to the imaging device? Is it separate from the imaging device? How does the imaging device receive the images from a plurality of perspectives from the reflective element? The omission of the essential structural connection between the imaging device and the reflective element renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, claim 16, and claims 17-20 depending therefrom, are rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites, wherein both the left image and the right image includes a first image and a second image. Independent claim 16 recites that the one of the left image and the right image corresponds to a central image and the other of the left image and the right image is one of a plurality of images corresponding to the orientation of the imaging device. As independent claim 16 recites that the left and right images are single images, it is unclear how they each include first and second images as recited in dependent claim 18. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumada et al. (JP 3791899 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kumada discloses an imaging device (Fig. 1) for obtaining an image of an interior portion of a patient, the imaging device comprising: a body (1; Fig. 1; par. [0028]) having a proximal end and a distal end (7; par. [0028]; Fig. 1) configured to be inserted into the patient; an optical system (28/31; Figs. 4-5; par. [0042]) including an image sensor (31; par. [0042]) and an optical lens (28; par. [0042]) configured to capture images along an optical axis defined by a longitudinal axis of the body (Fig. 4-5; par. [0044]); and a reflective element (24; Figs.4-5; par. [0019] and [0042]-[0043]) surrounding at least a portion of the optical axis (Figs. 4-5), wherein the reflective element is cylindrically or conically shaped (par. [0033]), and wherein the optical lens 28) is interposed between the image sensor (31) and the reflective element (24; Figs. 4-5) and configured to transmit light from the reflective element onto the image sensor (par. [0044]).
Regarding claim 5, Kumada discloses the imaging device of claim 1, wherein the reflective element (24) is at least partially disposed within the distal end (7; Figs. 1 and 4-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Themelis (US 2019/0278069 A1) in view of Kuthirummal et al. (US 2006/0050386 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Themelis discloses an imaging device (Fig. 1) for obtaining an image of an interior portion of a patient, the imaging device comprising: a body (10/22; Figs. 1-2; par. [0047] and [0050]) having a proximal end and a distal end configured to be inserted into the patient (Fig. 1); an optical system (8/16/12; Fig. 1; par. [0047]) including an image sensor (8; par. [0047]) and an optical lens (12; par. [0047]) configured to capture images along an optical axis (18; Fig. 1; par. [0052]) defined by a longitudinal axis of the body (22; Fig. 1); and a reflective element (20; Figs. 1-2; par.[0008] and [0050]-[0052]) surrounding at least a portion of the optical axis (18; Figs. 1-2; par. [0052]), and wherein the optical lens (12) is interposed between the image sensor (8) and the reflective element (20; Fig. 1) and configured to transmit light from the reflective element onto the image sensor (par. [0050]-[0051]).
Although Themelis discloses that the reflective element can have a variety of shapes such as convex, (hemi-) spherical, parabolic, hyperbolic, ellipsoid, or any other shape which allows the interior of the surgical cavity be surveyed (par. [0052] and [0063]), it does not specifically disclose wherein the reflective element is cylindrically or conically shaped. Kuthirummal teaches an analogous device (par. [0052] and [0130]-[0131]) wherein the reflective element (Figs. 1 and 9; par. [0052], [0080] and [0130]-[0131]) is cylindrically (par. [0052] and [0130]-[0131]) or conically shaped (par. [0080] and [0130]-[0131]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a cylindrically or conically shaped reflective element, as taught by Kuthirummal, in the device of Themelis in order to view the interior of the surgical cavity, as Themelis teaches that the reflective element can be any shape that allows the interior of the surgical cavity be surveyed.
Regarding claim 2, Themelis in view of Kuthirummal disclose the imaging device of claim 1, wherein the reflective element (20) is attached to the distal end of the body (22; Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Themelis in view of Kuthirummal disclose the imaging device of claim 1, wherein the reflective element (20) is configured to be moveable between a collapsed position and an extended position (when 22 is collapsed and extended; par. [0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Themelis in view of Kuthirummal disclose the imaging device of claim 1, wherein the reflective element is a cylindrical mirror (Kuthirummal: par. [0052] and [0130]-[0131]).
Regarding claim 7, Themelis in view of Kuthirummal disclose the imaging device of claim 1, wherein the reflective element is a conical mirror (Kuthirummal: par. [0080] and [0130]-[0131]).
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasushi et al. (JP 2010-099178 A) in view of Tanaka (US 2012/0296220 A1) in view of Kuthirummal et al. (US 2006/0050386 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yasushi discloses an imaging device (20; Figs. 1 and 3) for obtaining an image of an interior portion of a patient, the imaging device comprising: a body (20; Fig. 3) having a proximal end and a distal end configured to be inserted into the patient; an optical system (200; Fig. 1; page 4, ll. 5-10) including an image sensor (200) configured to capture images along an optical axis (Figs. 1, 3 and 6-8) defined by a longitudinal axis of the body (20; Fig. 1); and a reflective element (112; Figs. 4-7; page 3, ll. 41-47 and page 4, ll. 11-16) surrounding at least a portion of the optical axis (Figs. 4-7).
Although Yasushi teaches the imaging device (20) comprising an image sensor (200), it does not specifically disclose it comprising an optical lens and wherein the optical lens is interposed between the image sensor and the reflective element and configured to transmit light from the reflective element onto the image sensor. It is generally known in the art that endoscopic image sensors use an optical lens to focus light onto the image sensor. Tanaka is cited as one of several references that disclose an optical lens (15; Fig. 1) attached to the distal end of the endoscope that focuses light onto the image sensor (16; par. [0030]; Fig. 1) for viewing the surgical field. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include an optical lens in front of (distal to) the image sensor of Yasushi in order to focus reflected light onto the image sensor for viewing the surgical field, as taught by Tanaka and well-known in the art. Such inclusion provides a configuration wherein the optical lens (distal to camera 200) is interposed between the image sensor (200) and the reflective element (112) and configured to transmit light from the reflective element (112) onto the image sensor (200).
Yasushi discloses that the reflective element is hyperbolic (page 4, ll. 17-18), such that it does not specifically disclose wherein the reflective element is cylindrically or conically shaped. Kuthirummal teaches an analogous device (par. [0052] and [0130]-[0131]) wherein the reflective element (Figs. 1 and 9; par. [0052], [0080] and [0130]-[0131]) can include a variety of shapes such as cylindrical (par. [0052] and [0130]-[0131]) or conical (par. [0080] and [0130]-[0131]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a conically shaped reflective element, as taught by Kuthirummal, in the device of Yasushi in order to view the interior of the surgical cavity, as a simple substitution of one known reflective element shape for another providing the predictable result of reflecting incident light from a wide angle visual field to the sensor, as contemplated by Yasushi.
Regarding claim 3, Yasushi in view of Tanaka in view of Kuthirummal disclose the imaging device of claim 1, wherein the reflective element (112) is spaced apart from the distal end (via 111; Figs. 1 and 5).
Claim(s) 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuthirummal et al (US 2006/0050386 A1) in view of Kumada et al. (JP 3791899 B2) in view of Draxinger et al. (US 2007/0060792 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kuthirummal discloses imaging system for obtaining images of an interior portion of a patient, the imaging system comprising: an imaging device (12; Fig. 22; par. [0130]-[0131]); an optical system (Figs. 22-23; par. [0130]-[0131]) including an image sensor (par. [0131] – camera) and an optical lens (12b; Fig. 23; par. [0131]) configured to capture images along an optical axis defined by a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1; z-axis); and a reflective element (12c; Fig. 22-23; par. [0131]) configured to surround the optical axis (Fig. 1), the reflective element (12c) being one of a cylindrical or conical shape (par. [0130]) so as to generate a plurality of images from a plurality of perspectives, the plurality of images captured by the image sensor (par. [0131] – camera); an image processor (13; par. [0129]; Fig. 22) configured to select one of the plurality of images (Fig. 8 – right virtual view or left virtual view; par. [0076]-[0078]), the selected image and a central image (Fig. 8 – central view; par. [0076]-[0078]) is processed to generate a three-dimensional image (par. [0076]-[0078]); and a display (17; Fig. 22; par. [0129]) configured to display the three-dimensional image.
Kuthirummal discloses that the camera can include a film-based camera, a digital camera, a video camera using a magnetic recording medium, a video camera using a digital recording medium, and variants thereof (par. [0131]), but does not specifically disclose the imaging device including: a body having a proximal end and a distal end configured to be inserted into the interior portion of the patient. Kumada is cited as one of several references that teach endoscopes comprising analogous optical systems and reflective elements disposed within its body (see Figs. 1-11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the optical system and reflective element of Kuthirummal in a body of an endoscope for imaging the interior portion of a patient, as taught by Kumada.
Kuthirummal does not specifically disclose the imaging device configured to operate at an angle of operation and the image processor configured to process the angle of operation of the imaging device. Draxinger teaches an analogous imaging device (Fig. 1) device configured to operate at an angle of operation (par. [0059]-[0060]) and the image processor (46; par. [0066]-[00668]) configured to process the angle of operation of the imaging device. Draxinger teaches that the position and orientation of the endoscope when images are captured is used when creating the three-dimensional image (par. [0068] and [0071]-[0074]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to operate and process the angle of operation of the imaging device in order to provide an accurate three-dimensional view of the target area that can be viewed by the operator and stored for viewing during later examinations, as taught by Draxinger (par. [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, Kuthirummal in view of Kumada in view of Draxinger disclose the imaging system of claim 8, further including an inertial sensor configured to sense the angle of operation of the imaging device (Draxinger: 32; par. [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 10, Kuthirummal in view of Kumada in view of Draxinger disclose the imaging system of claim 8, wherein the image processor is configured to select the pair of images according to a desired angle of operation of the imaging device (Draxinger: par. [0071]-[0073] – the position and orientation of the imaging device).
Regarding claim 11, Kuthirummal in view of Kumada in view of Draxinger disclose the imaging system of claim 8, further including an input for setting a desired perspective wherein the image processor is configured to process the desired perspective and the angle of operation to select the pair of images (Draxinger: desired perspective from point 42; par. [0062] and [0069]).
Regarding claim 12, Kuthirummal in view of Kumada in view of Draxinger disclose the imaging system of claim 8, wherein the image processor is configured to process a difference in images between at least a pair of successive image frames to determine the pair of images corresponding to the angle of operation (Draxinger: par. [0071]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 13, Kuthirummal in view of Kumada in view of Draxinger disclose the imaging system of claim 8, wherein the image processor is configured to automatically perform stereoscopic image rotation by choosing a desired horizon and then determining the pair of images that correspond to the desired horizon (Draxinger: image with the same orientation of the endoscope with respect to point 42; par. [0070]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 14, Kuthirummal in view of Kumada in view of Draxinger disclose the imaging system of claim 8, wherein the image processor is configured to extract dimensions of an object using triangulation (par. [0077]-[0078]; Draxinger: par. [0062]-[0063]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuthirummal in view of Kumada in view of Draxinger as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kono et al. (US 2018/0114319).
Regarding claim 15, Kuthirummal in view of Kumada in view of Draxinger disclose the imaging system of claim 8, but does not specifically disclose wherein the image processor is further configured to detect an illumination in plurality of images and select the pair of images that do not have a specular reflection and correspond to the angle of operation. Kono teaches an analogous device and that it is known in the art to delete low-quality images containing blurring, specular reflection, and the likes in which these images are unnecessary for diagnosis, and therefore to improve image quality (par. [0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to delete images containing specular reflection, such that they are not selected for image processing, in order to improve image quality.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuthirummal et al (US 2006/0050386 A1) in view of Draxinger et al. (US 2007/0060792 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kuthirummal discloses a method of displaying an image from an imaging device having a body, the method comprising the steps of: obtaining a plurality of images from a plurality of perspectives from a reflective element (12c; Fig. 23; par. [0052]-[0054] and [0076]-[0077]), the reflective element being one of a cylindrical or conical shape (12c; par. [0130]-[0131]); selecting a left image and a right image from the plurality of images, wherein one of the left image and the right image corresponds to a central image (Fig. 8b; par. [0076]) and the other of the left image and the right image is one of the plurality of images corresponding to the orientation of the imaging device (Fig. 8c or 8d; par. [0076]-[0077]); and displaying the left image and the right image on a display (par. [0129]).
However, Kuthirummal does not specifically disclose determining an orientation of the imaging device; and processing the orientation of the imaging device. Draxinger teaches an analogous imaging device (Fig. 1) device configured to determine an orientation of the imaging device (par. [0059]-[0060]) and an image processor (46; par. [0066]-[00668]) configured to process the orientation of the imaging device. Draxinger teaches that the position and orientation of the endoscope when images are captured is used when creating the three-dimensional image (par. [0068] and [0071]-[0074]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to operate and process the angle of operation of the imaging device in order to provide an accurate three-dimensional view of the target area that can be viewed by the operator and stored for viewing during later examinations, as taught by Draxinger (par. [0067]).
Regarding claim 17, Kuthirummal in view of Draxinger disclose the method of claim 16, wherein the step of processing the left image (Fig. 8b; par. [0076]) and the right image (Fig. 8c or 8d; par. [0076]-[0077]) includes superimposing the left image onto the right image to create a three-dimensional image (par. [0076]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 19, Kuthirummal in view of Draxinger disclose the method of claim 16, further comprising the step of analyzing the left image (Fig. 8b; par. [0076]) and the right image (Fig. 8c or 8d; par. [0076]-[0077]) using triangulation to extract dimensions of an object (par. [0076]-[0078] and [0132]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuthirummal in view of Draxinger as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kono et al. (US 2018/0114319).
Regarding claim 20, Kuthirummal in view of Draxinger disclose the method of claim 16, but does not specifically disclose it further comprising the step of processing the plurality of images to select the left image and right image, wherein the selected left image and right image have an illumination that is not reflected directly into an optical lens. Kono teaches that it is known in the art to delete low-quality images containing blurring, specular reflection, and the likes in which these images are unnecessary for diagnosis, and therefore to improve image quality (par. [0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to delete images containing specular reflection, such that images where light is reflected directly into an optical lens are not selected for image processing, in order to improve image quality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yasushi et al. US 2008/0045797 A1 Endoscope Attachment and Endoscope
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYNAE E BOLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3620. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYNAE E BOLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
01/10/26