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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5-7, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 10-15 and 19-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pg. 6-7 of remarks that the invention is integrated into a practical application since the number of scans and therefore radiation received by the patient during the procedure will be reduced, as described in specification [0006]. However, controlling the amount of radiation and/or the number of scans is not in the claims. Independent claims 10 and 19, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes/mathematical concepts of determining and displaying needle depth/angle differences.
Applicant additionally argues on pg. 7 of remarks that the claims represent an unconventional combination of features. There is nothing on the record to point to unconventionality. As such, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 10, 13-15, and 19-20 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-11, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-20 and 9 and 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments to independent claims 1, 10, and 19 to include “a distance sensor configured to measure a current depth of the needle relative to an entry point of the needle” and “a display driven by the controller and configured to indicate a first difference between an ideal angle and a current angle of the needle and a second difference between an ideal depth and the current depth of the needle” overcomes the prior art of record. The examiner disagrees.
Xu teaches a display (Fig. 4) that can display insertion depth [0012] and instrument orientation/position [0087], along with differences in insertion depth [0092].
Applicant further argues on pg. 9 of remarks that Xu does not disclose or suggest a distance sensor, and instead “generally describes an IMU that provides data that is capable of estimating or inferring positional information”. Xu discloses a magnetometer 134, Fig. 12, and further discloses in [0067]:
“Magnetometer 134 is configured and adapted to measure magnetism—either magnetization of magnetic material like a ferromagnet, or the direction, strength, or the relative change of a magnetic field at a particular location. In certain embodiments magnetometer 134 has solid state devices cooperatively defining a miniature Hall-effect sensor, which detects the Earth's magnetic field along three perpendicular axes X, Y and Z. The Hall-effect sensor in turn produces a voltage which is proportional to the strength and polarity of the magnetic field along the axis each sensor is directed… In addition to providing rotational information, magnetometer 134 can provide information for detecting the relative orientation of instrument tracker 100 relative to the Earth's magnetic north.”
Xu additionally discloses in [0085]:
“The computer device may send, receive, and/or manipulate data regarding the location, position, orientation, or coordinate(s) of a position indicating element (e.g., sensor coils or other position indicating elements), or one or more other elements, received by tracking device.”
It is the examiner’s position that most measurements are estimations, as there is typically some degree of error in a measurement. For example, if a person “measures” the distance between two objects with a tape measure, they are actually making an approximation of the distance by analyzing the tape measurer tick marks. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that a well-informed estimation/approximation is equivalent to a measurement.
In the instant case, the magnetometer of Xu is indeed approximating/estimating positional information; however, this approximation is well-informed and based on scientific principles (the Hall effect). Applicant’s specification additionally discloses [0046]: “In an embodiment, the distance sensor 212 can be a pressure sensor or transducer that could indicate an increase in pressure as the needle 240 is being inserted.” The distance sensor uses an increase in pressure as an estimation/approximation of distance. This can be interpreted as equivalent to a measurement.
Therefore, the magnetometer of Xu’s ability to estimate or approximate distance based on magnetic fields reads on the distance sensor of the instant application.
The 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-5, 9-10, 13-17, and 19-20 are maintained. See prior art rejections below for additional details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Dependent claim 20 does not further limit independent claim 19 from which it depends. The limitations of claim 20 have been amended into claim 19 and thus fail to further limit claim 19.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 10, 13-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter of abstract ideas under the mental processes and mathematical concepts groupings, without significantly more.
The framework for establishing a prima facie case of lack of subject matter eligibility requires that the examiner determine: (1) Does the claim fall within the four categories of patent eligible subject
matter; (2a) Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon and (2a) Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; and (2b) Does the claim recite additional elements that amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step (1)
The claimed invention in claims 10, 13-15, and 19-20 are directed to a system or a method, and thus, the claims fall under one of the four patent eligible categories.
Step (2a) Prong 1 (Judicial Exception)
Regarding claims 10, 13-15, the recited steps are directed to mental processes of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper and utilizing mathematical concepts (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2) subsections (I) and (III)).
Independent claim 10 recites:
determining an ideal angle from an entry point of a needle of a needle guide in a patient to a target position of the needle for treatment of the patient;
determining an ideal depth from the entry point of the needle of the needle guide in the patient to the target position of the needle for treatment of the patient;
measuring a current depth of the needle relative to the entry point of the needle…; and
displaying an icon on the needle guide that indicates a first difference between a current angle of the needle guide and the ideal angle and a second difference between the ideal depth and the current depth of the needle.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations require determining an ideal angle of entry of a needle into a patient, determining an ideal depth of a needle, and displaying the difference between the current angle of entry/depth and the ideal angle of entry/depth. These limitations are processes that, as drafted, cover that which can be wholly performed in a person’s mind via a series of mental observations and judgments and utilizing mathematical concepts. In particular, a person can determine the ideal angle of entry for a needle/depth of a needle, observe/measure the current angle of entry of a needle/depth of a needle, then calculate/display the difference between the two pairs of measurements. These are data gathering and processing steps (determining, measuring, finding the difference) that reflect mental processes and mathematical relationships/clinical decision rules.
Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to a judicial exception including one or more abstract ideas, specifically mental processes and mathematical concepts.
The dependent claims recite additional limitations for determining differences between the current needle position and the ideal needle position, including other ways of displaying the data. These limitations also fall within the judicial exceptions of one or more mental processes and/or mathematical calculations.
Regarding claims 19-20, the recited steps are directed to mental processes of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper and utilizing mathematical concepts (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2) subsections (I) and (III)).
Independent claim 19 recites:
determining a difference between an ideal angle that is an angle from an entry point of a needle of a needle guide in a patient to a target position of the needle for treatment of the patient;
determining an ideal depth from the entry point of the needle of the needle guide in the patient to the target position of the needle for treatment of the patient;
measuring a current depth of the needle relative to the entry point of the needle…; and
driving a display to display an icon on the needle guide that indicates a first difference between a current angle of the needle guide and the ideal angle and a second difference between the ideal depth and the current depth of the needle.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations require determining an ideal angle of entry of a needle into a patient, determining an ideal depth of a needle, and displaying the difference between the current angle of entry/depth and the ideal angle of entry/depth. These limitations are processes that, as drafted, cover that which can be wholly performed in a person’s mind via a series of mental observations and judgments and utilizing mathematical concepts. In particular, a person can determine the ideal angle of entry for a needle/depth of a needle, observe/measure the current angle of entry of a needle/depth of a needle, then calculate/display the difference between the two pairs of measurements. These are data gathering and processing steps (determining, measuring, finding the difference) that reflect mental processes and mathematical relationships/clinical decision rules.
Accordingly, claim 19 is directed to a judicial exception including one or more abstract ideas, specifically mental processes and mathematical concepts.
The dependent claim 20 limitations that also fall within the judicial exceptions of one or more mental processes and/or mathematical calculations.
Step (2a) Prong 2 (Integration into a Practical Application)
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
For claims 10, 13-15, 19-20, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding claim 10, the additional element of “displaying an icon on the needle guide that indicates a difference between a current angle of the needle guide and the ideal angle and a second difference between the ideal depth and the current depth of the needle” is directed to outputting data to a generic needle guide. Merely outputting the result of the mathematical processing to generic hardware is “post-solution activity” and does not integrate the abstract idea. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978) (updating alarm limits after calculation is still abstract).
Claim 10 also recites a distance sensor, but this additional element merely defines the field of use of the current claim. This additional element does not practically integrate the judicial exception because this element does not provide improvements to the technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claims 14-15 further limit the abstract ideas of claim 10 without introducing any additional elements.
Claim 13 also recites the additional elements of “a gyroscope” and “an accelerometer,” but these additional elements merely define the field of use of the current claim. These additional elements do not practically integrate the judicial exception because these elements do not provide improvements to the technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a).
Regarding claim 19, the additional element of “driving a display to display an icon on the needle guide that indicates a first difference between a current angle of the needle guide and the ideal angle and a second difference between the ideal depth and the current depth of the needle” is directed to outputting data to a generic needle guide. Merely outputting the result of the mathematical processing to generic hardware is “post-solution activity” and does not integrate the abstract idea. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978) (updating alarm limits after calculation is still abstract).
Claim 19 also recites a distance sensor, but this additional element merely defines the field of use of the current claim. This additional element does not practically integrate the judicial exception because this element does not provide improvements to the technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 19 also recites the additional element of a “processor,” but these additional elements merely define the field of use of the current claim. These additional elements do not practically integrate the judicial exception because these elements do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any the technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a). Furthermore, when the claims, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind. Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Step (2b) (Inventive Concept)
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of a needle guide, distance sensor, gyroscope, accelerometer, and processor in the field of needle guiding methods are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry as indicated in the following references:
Xu et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0197099) teaches a needle guide ([0069] instrument tracker 100 has a needle guide), distance sensor (magnetometer 134, Fig. 12, [0067], detects relative orientation), gyroscope (130), an accelerometer (132), and processor (34).
Lampotang et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0133284) teaches a needle guide (guidance application 220, needle guide [0039]), distance sensor ([0140], 1 DOF sensor 560, Fig. 22, measures depth of insertion), gyroscope [0048], an accelerometer [0048], and processor ([0155], the computing device 115 has processor circuit).
Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 10, 13-15, and 19-20 are thus rejected under 35 USC 101 for reciting patent-ineligible subject matter- abstract ideas.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10, 13, 15-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0197099), hereinafter ‘Xu’.
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a needle guide device ([0069], instrument tracker 100 (Fig. 4) has a needle guide), further comprising:
a needle ([0041], instrument 20 (Fig. 4) can be a needle);
a controller (controller 106 (Fig. 12));
a distance sensor (magnetometer 134, Fig. 12) configured to measure a current depth of the needle relative to an entry point of the needle ([0067], detects relative orientation of instrument tracker); and
a display driven by the controller ([0050], display device 26 (Fig. 4)) and configured to indicate a first difference between an ideal angle and a current angle of the needle (angular orientation information 48, Fig. 4) (divergence 56, Fig. 7) and a second difference between an ideal depth and the current depth of the needle (Fig. 4, [0092], insertion depth).
Regarding claim 2, Xu teaches the device according to claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the needle is replaceable ([0070], device can be clipped onto any needle).
Regarding claim 3, Xu teaches the device according to claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the display indicates the current angle (Fig. 7, instrument 20) ([0048], angular orientation information 48 of instrument 20, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Xu teaches the device according to claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the current angle is based on data from a gyroscope (gyroscope 130) of the needle guide device [0064].
Regarding claim 5, Xu teaches the device according to claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the difference between the ideal angle and the current angle is based on data from a gyroscope (gyroscope 130, Fig. 12) and an accelerometer (accelerometer 132, Fig. 12) of the needle guide device [0064].
Regarding claim 10, Xu teaches a method of guiding a needle ([0041], instrument 20 can be a needle) [0098], the method further comprising:
determining an ideal angle from an entry point (entry point 44, Fig. 4) of a needle of a needle guide in a patient ([0069], instrument tracker 100 has a needle guide) to a target position (region of interest 14, Fig. 7) of the needle for treatment of the patient (angular orientation information 48, Fig. 4);
determining an ideal depth from the entry point of the needle of the needle guide in the patient to the target position of the needle for treatment of the patient ([0092], insertion depth relative to region of instrument and insertion path);
measuring a current depth of the needle relative to the entry point of the needle via a distance sensor (magnetometer 134, Fig. 12) ([0067], detects relative orientation of instrument tracker); and
displaying (display 26, Fig. 4) an icon on the needle guide that indicates a difference between a current angle of the needle guide and the ideal angle (divergence 56, Fig. 7) and a second difference between the ideal depth and the current depth of the needle (Fig. 4, [0092], insertion depth).
Regarding claim 13, Xu teaches the method according to claim 10, further comprising:
wherein the current angle is determined based on data from a gyroscope (gyroscope 130, Fig. 12) and an accelerometer (accelerometer 132, Fig. 12) of the needle guide [0064].
Regarding claim 15, Xu teaches the method according to claim 10, further comprising:
wherein the icon changes size to indicate the difference between the current depth and the ideal depth (Fig 7, Fig. 8, corrective adjustment 58, divergence 56 shrinks as correction is made, [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 16, Xu teaches a needle guide system (claim 17) comprising:
the needle guide according to claim 1 ([0069], instrument tracker 100 has a needle guide) ([0041, instrument 20 can be a needle) (controller 106, display device 26, angular orientation information 48, divergence 56, Figs. 4, 7, 12); and
a computer in communication with the needle guide and capable of determining the ideal angle (predetermined insertion path 42, Fig. 4) and transmitting the ideal angle to the needle guide ([0075], computer device).
Regarding claim 17, Xu teaches the system according to claim 16, further comprising:
wherein the computer ([0075], computer device) is further capable of determining the ideal depth of the needle of the needle guide between the entry point (entry point 44, Fig. 4) of a needle of the needle guide in a patient to a target position (region of interest 14, Fig. 3) of the needle for treatment ([0040], intervention procedures) of the patient ([0053], insertion depth) (Figs. 22B, 22C, alignment to target position).
Regarding claim 19, Xu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium [0008] further comprising:
executable instructions that when executed by a processor (processor 34, Fig. 3) cause the processor to perform the steps of:
determining a difference between an ideal angle that is an angle from an entry point (entry point 44, Fig. 3) of a needle of a needle guide in a patient to a target position (region of interest 14, Fig. 3) of the needle for treatment of the patient (angular orientation information 48, Fig. 4);
determining an ideal depth from the entry point of the needle of the needle guide in the patient to the target position of the needle for treatment of the patient ([0092], insertion depth relative to region of instrument and insertion path);
measuring a current depth of the needle relative to the entry point of the needle via a distance sensor (magnetometer 134, Fig. 12) ([0067], detects relative orientation of instrument tracker); and
driving a display (display 26, Fig. 4) to display an icon on the needle guide that indicates a first difference between a current angle of the needle guide and the ideal angle (divergence 56, Fig. 7) and a second difference between the ideal depth and the current depth of the needle (Fig. 4, [0092], insertion depth).
Regarding claim 20, Xu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 [0008] further comprising:
causing the processor to drive the display to display the icon to indicate a difference between a current depth of the needle in the patient and an ideal depth of the needle to the target position ([0053], insertion depth) (Figs. 22B, 22C, alignment to target position).
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.
Claims 9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0197099) in view of Lampotang et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0133284), hereinafter ‘Lampotang’.
Regarding claim 9, Xu teaches the device according to claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the display indicates the ideal angle as an icon (predetermined insertion path 42, Fig. 4).
Xu does not teach the current angle being displayed as a reticle.
Lampotang teaches a biopsy guidance and tracking system (Fig. 1), further comprising:
wherein the display indicates the current angle as a reticle (Fig. 14, needle guide exit) ([0067], needle guide exit moves as probe moves).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xu to incorporate the teachings of Lampotang to include the current angle displayed as a reticle. Doing so would provide a cognitive aid to the user during insertion of a needle, as recognized by Lampotang [0068].
Regarding claim 14, Xu teaches the method according to claim 10, but does not teach that the current angle is displayed as a reticle.
Lampotang teaches a biopsy guidance and tracking method (claim 11), further comprising:
wherein the current angle is displayed as a reticle (Fig. 14, needle guide exit) ([0067], needle guide exit moves as probe moves).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xu to incorporate the teachings of Lampotang to include the current angle displayed as a reticle. Doing so would provide a cognitive aid to the user during insertion of a needle, as recognized by Lampotang [0068].
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0197099) in view of Carpenter et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2003/0014010), hereinafter ‘Carpenter’.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Xu teaches the device/method of claims 1/10, but does not explicitly teach a mechanical distance sensor.
Carpenter teaches a handle mounted needle actuator (Fig. 1, [0021]), further comprising:
wherein the distance sensor comprises a mechanical distance sensor (stopper 29, Fig. 2, [0034], distance of travel of needle can be directly measured by distance of travel until travel is stopped by the depth stop).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xu to incorporate the teachings of Carpenter to include a mechanical distance sensor. Doing so would allow the operator to precisely and easily control the insertion depth, as recognized by Carpenter [0060].
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yilmaz et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2016/0143693) teaches a system for performing navigation-assisted medical procedures.
Black et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0161612) teaches a holographic needle guide system.
Green et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0197357) teaches a system for providing guidance for placement of medical devices.
Shepherd et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0303559) teaches a position guidance device for attachment to a medical device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH L OKONAK whose telephone number is (571)272-1594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at (571) 270-5213. 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.
/E.L.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/SHIRLEY X JIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights