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
Regarding the previous 112 rejections, applicant’s amendments and related arguments are considered persuasive and the previous 112 rejections are hereby withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments have created new 112 rejections; see below.
Regarding the 103 rejection, applicant’s amendments and related arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. While the examiner agrees that Grace is silent to the specific/claimed effect that the pulse duration has when it interacts with the fluid, i.e. a pulse duration that is less than a time required for the one or more pulses of light to create a bubble in the fluid that reaches equilibrium, the reference nonetheless teaches a controller inherently configured to configure the light pulses to have such a pulse duration. From applicant’s own specification (Par 0048), it’s clear that the claimed effect is an inherent result/effect of a pulse duration in the range of 1 ns to 30 ns. Therefore, any controller that is capable/configured to set the pulse duration within this disclosed range of 1 ns to 30 ns is inherently capable of achieving the claimed result/effect in the fluid.
MPEP 2112 states:
[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (rejecting the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the critical date and allowing expert testimony with respect to post-critical date clinical trials to show inherency); see also Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.").
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.
MPEP 2114 states:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 may be appropriate… Conversely, computer-implemented functional claim limitations may narrow the functionality of the device, by limiting the specific structure capable of performing the recited function.
Since Grace discloses an overlapping range for the pulse durations, specifically 10 nanoseconds to 200 nanoseconds (At least Par 0019), that can be selected by the controller, the examiner takes the position that it would be obvious to select any pulse duration within the disclosed range, including 10 ns to 30 ns, as a prima facie case of obviousness. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05). It is emphasized that the selected pulse duration of 10 ns to 30 ns inherently results in the claimed effect occurring in fluid. Therefore, the examiner contends that the newly amended claim language is still taught/suggested by the combination of Grace and Bukesov, as explained in the new grounds of rejection below. It is emphasized that just because Grace is silent to the claimed effect, does not mean that the device is not capable of providing such an effect.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the optical switching device, including an optical switch, a filter wheel or a filtering device, as recited in new claim 47 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 7, 9-11, 14-17, 20-22, 25, 26 and 41-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The new limitation of “a controller configured to… configure, based on the selected light setting, each of the one or more pulses of light to have a pulse width that is less than a time required for the one or more pulses of light to create a bubble in the fluid that reaches equilibrium”. While Par 0048 generally discloses providing pulses of light that have specific pulse durations, and explains that these durations “may be less than the time required for a bubble to reach equilibrium in the fluid contained in enclosure 104 if the fluid was free (e.g., not enclosed)”, this is not the same as what is currently claimed. First and foremost, the claims are seemingly broader than what is disclosed. Specifically, the claims are missing the disclosed portion that states “if the fluid was free (e.g. not enclosed)”. By leaving this portion of the specification out of the claim language, there is seemingly a significant distinction between what is recited in the spec and what is recited in the claims. Secondly, nowhere in this paragraph does it disclose configuring this pulsed width “based on the selected light setting” which has been previously selected based on the determined tissue type, or how such a configuration would be achieved. In particular, paragraph 0048 which discloses pulse duration having the claimed effect in no way discussed or provides any guidance as to how these pulse durations which provide this effect are also based on the tissue type, or how a controller is specifically configured to account for both the tissue type and the claimed effect.
MPEP 2161.01 states:
Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV
Therefore, the examiner contends that the newly claimed computer-implemented functionality is not sufficiently supported/described by applicant’s specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 7, 9-11, 20, 22, 25, 26, 41-45 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0008348 to Grace in view of US 2021/0044079 to Bukesov et al.
[Claims 1 and 25] A laser intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) system (best seen in Figs. 1-4) comprising:
at least one light energy source (laser apparatus 130; Fig. 1; Par 0345);
a catheter (laser delivery system 120 including laser catheter 170; Fig. 1; Pars 0346) comprising:
an elongate sheath (outer sheath 182; Figs. 2A-D; Pars 0351-354);
an enclosure (conical tip 180; Figs. 2B-C) fillable with fluid (Pars 0360-362 discloses a partially solid and hollow or shell-type configurations for the tip which are capable of being filled with a fluid. See also Pars 0353-356 which discuss introducing a liquid medium into the catheter 170) and comprising:
a proximal base sealed to a distal end of the elongate sheath (as seen in Figs. 2B-C, the outer sheath is sealed/connected to the proximal base of the conical tip 180. “the distal end of the outer sheath 182 is directly coupled to the tip 180.”; Par 0352. The examiner contends that this connection/coupling inherently/implicitly requires a seal, otherwise the device would not operate in the disclosed manner), the proximal base having a first diameter (the first diameter relates to the base of the cone) and
a distal end having a second diameter smaller than the first diameter (the second diameter relates to the tip of the cone; clearly, as shown in the figures and by definition of a cone, the diameter at the tip of a cone is smaller than the diameter at the base of the cone); and
at least one optical fiber (one or more optical fibers 186; Fig. 2C) contained within the elongate sheath (Par 0351) and configured to:
receive one or more pulses of light from the at least one light energy source (Par 0356; 940, Fig. 9 and Par 0377); and
transmit the one or more pulses of light via a light emitting region of the at least one optical fiber into a distal region of the catheter within the enclosure to generate, in the fluid, shock waves (Par 0356), directed through an outer surface of the enclosure in a forward-biased, distal direction towards a target (Par 0357; see also the three curved lines and two arrows near tip 180 in Fig. 2C); and
a controller (175, Fig. 1) configured to:
configure each of the one or more pulses of light to have a pulse width that is less than a time required for the one or more pulses of light to create a bubble in the fluid that reaches equilibrium (Pars 0345-349, 0400-407, 0413 and 0539).
Regarding the controller, the examiner contends that the paragraphs cited, especially Pars 0407, 0413 and 0539, which explicitly disclose modulating laser parameters, tuning a wavelength and adjusting laser settings, specifically pulse durations (Pars 0401 and 0403), teach or suggest the claimed controller. While Grace never explicitly ties these functions to the laser controller 175, it is the examiner’s position that such a connection would be readily apparent to a POSITA, especially when considering Grace teaches that the laser controller controls the laser (Pars 0345-349). Therefore, the examiner takes the position that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill, when considering the entirety of the Grace reference, to configure the laser controller (175) taught by Grace to specifically control the laser parameters, specifically pulse width/duration, as controlling a laser encompasses controlling the laser parameters emitted by the laser source. If applicant disagrees that it is obvious/suggested by Grace to have a laser controller that controls the pulse duration, then an alternative 103 is presented below; see additional explanation of Bukesov below.
Regarding the claimed effect of creating a bubble in the fluid that does not reach equilibrium, Par 0048 of applicant’s specification makes it clear that such a result is achieved by a pulse duration in the range of 1 ns to 30 ns. Grace teaches pulse durations in the range of 10 nanoseconds to 200 nanoseconds (at least Par 0019). Therefore, Grace either teaches a controller that is inherently capable of providing this claimed result or such a controller would be obvious, as it would be obvious to choose/try/select any of the pulse durations in the disclosed range of 10 ns to 200 ns, including 10 ns to 30 ns, as this is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success or optimization of a result effective variable. MPEP 2144.05 makes it clear that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” It is emphasized that the claimed result/effect is inherently achieved with a pulse duration of 1 ns to 30 ns, therefore a controller that is configured to emit pulse durations in this range is inherently capable of providing the claimed result/effect. See cited MPEP sections 2112 and 2114 above.
Grace fails to teach a controller configured to receive, via an interface associated with the IVL system, input indicating determine a tissue type associated with the target; select, based on the tissue type, a light setting from a plurality of preprogrammed light settings associated with a plurality of tissues types, respectively and configure, based on the selected light setting, each of the one or more pulses of light to have specific laser parameters. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bukesov disclose a similar laser treatment device that determines the tissue type or composition of the target and adjust laser settings based on this determination (at least Pars 0060-63 and 0133). Specifically, Par 0133 states “The feedback analyzer 1730 may receive inputs from various sources including spectroscopic response data from a spectrometer to suggest or directly adjust laser system operating parameters. In an example, the feedback analyzer 1730 may compare the spectroscopic response data to an available database library of target composition data. Based on the spectroscopic system feedback, the signal analyzer detects target material composition, and suggests a laser operating mode (also referred to as a laser setup), such as operating parameters for at least one laser module, to achieve effective tissue treatments for the identified tissue composition. Examples of the operating parameters may include at least one laser wavelength, pulsed or continuous wave (CW) emission mode, peak pulse power, pulse energy, pulse rate, pulse shapes, and the simultaneous or sequenced emission of pulses from at least one laser module”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the controller taught by Grace to be configured to determine tissue type and control the laser parameters based on the determined tissue type, as taught by Bukesov, in order to more effectively irradiate the desired target while at the same time avoiding irradiating non-treatment tissue neighboring the target (Par 0058 of Bukesov). Additionally, this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
[Claim 7] Fig. 2C shows a light emitting region of the fiber as a distal end of the fiber; See also Pars 0357 and 0359.
[Claim 9] As shown in Fig. 2D, the optical fiber (186) is proximal (situated nearer the center) to an inner surface of the elongate sheath (182). i.e. the sheaths surround the optical fiber.
[Claims 10-11] Pars 0069-70 explicitly discloses two optical fibers. Fig. 6B (fibers 686’; Par 0371) and Fig. 10 (plurality of optical fibers 1016; Par 0378) show at least two fibers that have a radially symmetric spatial arrangement.
[Claims 20 and 22] Grace discloses light pulses, including a pulse duration of 10 ns to 500 ns which falls within applicant’s claimed range (Par 0403).
[Claim 26] Grace discloses saline (Par 0355) which is the same fluid used by applicant and therefore inherently has the same properties; MPEP 2112. Furthermore, Grace discloses “any liquid medium can be used, as long as the liquid medium is coupled with a light source, such as emitters coupled to the one or more optical fibers, which emits light at a suitable wavelength such that the liquid absorbs the light, produces laser-induced pressure waves, vapor bubbles and cavitation events that produce additional resultant pressure waves” (Par 0355).
[Claims 41 and 43] Bukesov makes it clear that the laser settings can either be automatically set by the controller or that they can be provided as a suggestion or recommendation to the user, i.e. semi-automatically set, based on the determined tissue type (at least Par 0061, 0117, 0133-134 and 0145-148; Figs. 17-18) via a user interface (input 1850 and display 1860, Fig. 18; see also Pars 0084 and 0097). As discussed above, the laser settings include “at least one laser wavelength, pulsed or continuous wave (CW) emission mode, peak pulse power, pulse energy, pulse rate, pulse shapes, and the simultaneous or sequenced emission of pulses from at least one laser module”
[Claim 42] Bukesov discloses inputting data indicating the tissue type (at least Pars 0062 and 0133). It is noted that the feedback analyzer (1730/1830; Figs. 17-18) can be considered an interface.
[Claim 44] Bukesov discloses determining information about the target including a characteristic of the target (e.g. carbonized versus non-carbonized tissue; at least Par 0078), a location of the target (e.g. distance between target and endoscopic treatment device; at least Par 0112) or a characteristic of an anatomy associated with the target (e.g. lesions, tumors, vasculature, etc.; at least Par 0079) and determine the laser parameters based on this information; see discussion above.
[Claim 45] Bukesov discloses using sensor data and machine learning together to identify tissue type (at least Par 0151)
[Claim 48] Grace discloses an enclosure (180) formed from a polymer membrane (biopolymer; Pars 0360). The examiner takes the position that the same material inherently has the same properties/characteristics; MPEP 2112. Specifically, the examiner takes the position that the acoustic impedance of biopolymers match (to some degree) an acoustic property of the fluid. It is emphasized that “an acoustic property of the fluid” is incredibly broad, as 1. The claims do not require a fluid, just an enclosure fillable with a fluid, so this could be any/all hypothetical fluids 2. There are many acoustic properties, so this claim language encompasses any/all acoustic properties.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace and Bukesov as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2024/0099773 to Schabert.
Grace and Bukesov are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach a controller that independently adjusts the light properties for each of the two optical fibers. However, in the same field of endeavor, Schabert discloses a controller that independently controls/adjusts the parameters generated by the energy source for each of the individual emitters (Pars 0008, 0013, 0027, 0029, 0033 and 0043). While most of the examples disclosed by Schabert relate to electrical energy, it is clear that the energy source can be light/laser and the emitters can be optical fibers (Pars 0029-30). The examiner takes the position that based on this disclosure, Schabert at least suggests a controller that independently adjusts light parameters for each of the optical fibers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Grace and Bukesov to include a controller that independently controls/adjusts the energy source, i.e. light/laser source of Grace, for each of the individual fibers, as taught by Schabert, in order to provide selective/distinct treatments to different target areas with a single device (Schabert; Pars 0027 and 0033).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace and Bukesov as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2021/0153939 to Cook.
Grace and Bukesov are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach using two separate light sources for each of the two fibers. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cook discloses that the system can include more than one energy source, e.g. a separate energy source for each of the optical fiber fibers (Par 0074). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Grace and Bukesov to include a separate light source for each of the optical fibers, as taught by Cook, as this is a known way to control laser emission using a plurality of fibers in order to generate plasma/shockwaves and provide effective/desired treatment in similar vascular laser treatment systems.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace and Bukesov as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2007/0078500 to Ryan et al.
Grace and Bukesov are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach an elongate support member, as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, specifically laser catheters, Ryan discloses a configuration/embodiment (Figs 6A-B) including an elongate support member (movable fiber holder 133) including longitudinal channels (grooves 1120) where the optical fibers 112/113 are disposed/positioned (Par 0226). As seen/disclosed in Figs. 6A-B, the central lumen (130) is a guidewire lumen. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Grace and Bukesov to include the elongate support member, as taught by Ryan, as this is a known element used to position radially spaced-apart optical fibers within a similar laser catheter.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace and Bukesov as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2023/0190373 to Hutchens et al.
Grace and Bukesov are discussed above, but are silent to the peak power of the laser source. However, in the same field of endeavor, specifically laser-induced pressure wave devices, Hutchens discloses the use of laser having a peak power of up to 500 W (Par 0084), which is “on the order of hundreds of watts”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Grace and Bukesov to use/try/choose a light source having a peak power of up to 500W, including 325 W to 375 W, as this is a known laser parameter that produces the desired result, i.e. plasma/bubble/shockwave formation, as taught by Hutchens. Furthermore, there is no criticality to applicant’s claimed peak power and it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace and Bukesov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0275247 to Schultheis et al.
Grace and Bukesov are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach a controller that is configured to determine the pressure associated with the shock wave and determine a laser parameter based on this determined pressure. As discussed above in relation to claim 1, Grace explicitly teaches the generation of a shockwave, but fails to teach any detection of this pressure shockwave. However, in the same field of endeavor, Schultheis discloses a pressure sensor (acoustic sensor) that determines a pressure associated with a shockwave which is then used as feedback to control/adjust the laser treatment (Abstract and at least Pars 0037-39 and 0089). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser device taught by Grace and Bukesov to include a pressure sensor and associated feedback controller, as taught by Schultheis, as a known configuration to enhance safety and provide valuable feedback to similar laser treatment devices.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace and Bukesov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,939,336 to Meyer
Grace and Bukesov are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach an optical switch coupled between the light source and the optical fiber, wherein the controller is configured to actuate the optical switch in a first or second mode that allows or blocks transmission of light to the fiber. However, in the same field of endeavor, Meyer discloses a similar laser system (Figs. 1 and/or 11) including a light source (laser 1) an optical fiber (6) and an optical switch (2) coupled between the light source and fiber and a controller (logic circuits 10) that controls the optical switch to either transmit or block light from the light source to the fiber (Col 3, lines 9-28 and Col 5, lines 8-42). Additionally, the examiner takes the position that an optical switch, by definition, inherently operates in two modes: one that allows transmission of the light and one that blocks transmission of the light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Grace and Bukesov to include the optical switch and controller taught by Meyer, as a known mechanism to control/adjust, i.e. either allow or block, the laser output from the source to the fiber, as is desired in any laser treatment procedure.
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 Lynsey C Eiseman whose telephone number is (571)270-7035. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternating Fridays 7 to 4 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796