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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed June 25, 2024.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as December 30, 2021, the date of the earliest priority application (Europe 21218293.5) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the parent application.
The same is similarly true for the following United States provisional, non-provisional, or international PCT patent application(s):
PCT international application number PCT/EP2022/087693 filed December 23, 2022.
The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as June 25, 2024, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing provisional or non-provisional application(s).
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s) (some redundancy may be present):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
CN
202280092937
12/23/2022
CN 118785863 A
10/15/2024
EP
22844130
12/23/2022
EP 4456811 A1
EP 4456811 B1
EP 4456811 C0
11/06/2024
02/04/2026
02/04/2026
CN
202280092939
12/23/2022
CN 118829402 A
10/22/2024
CN
202280092938
12/23/2022
CN 118785864 A
10/15/2024
US
18724171
12/23/2022
US 20250064518 A1
02/27/2025
EP
PCT/EP2022/087717
12/23/2022
WO 2023126344 A1
07/06/2023
EP
PCT/EP2022/087719
12/23/2022
WO 2023126345 A1
07/06/2023
EP
22835084
12/23/2022
EP 4456809 A1
EP 4456809 B1
11/06/2024
04/29/2026
EP
26155636
12/23/2022
EP 4714384 A2
EP 4714384 A3
03/25/2026
04/15/2026
US
18724167
12/23/2022
US 20250064517 A1
02/27/2025
EP
22844128
12/23/2022
EP 4456810 A1
11/06/2024
JP
2024539626
12/23/2022
JP 2025501963 A
01/24/2025
JP
2024539625
12/23/2022
JP 2025501258 A
01/17/2025
ES
22844130
12/23/2022
ES 3064277 T3
04/23/2026
JP
2024539435
12/23/2022
JP 2025501947 A
01/24/2025
EP
PCT/EP2022/087693
12/23/2022
WO 2023126337 A1
07/06/2023
The claims originally filed June 25, 2024 by preliminary amendment are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the filing of August 7, 2024.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
3-7, 9-14, 16-21, 23, & 24
N/A
Cancelled:
none
N/A
Withdrawn:
none
N/A
Added:
none
N/A
Claims 1-24 are currently pending and outstanding.
Regarding the preliminary amendment:
Claims 3-7, 9-14, 16-21, 23, and 24 were amended.
No claims were cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn.
No claims were added.
Claims 1-24 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a non-final action and is the first action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities as the same reference number in the drawing has been used for different parts:
Reference Number
Part Referred To
1112
flexible fiber-optic cables 1112
flexible fiber-optic cable 1112
second optical connector 1112
1170
The housing 1170
The connector module 1170
1200
double-clad optical fiber 1200
The tapered region 1200
2110
the user-interface module 2110
211 of the optical fiber 2110
Appropriate correction is required.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions as defined by MPEP § 2111.01(IV) are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s). Per above, such special definitions must conform to the requirements of MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
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 of this title, 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 1-6, 10, 11, and 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220110525 of Seifert et al. (Seifert, which is the US counterpart publication to WO 2020112864 A1 published June 4, 2020, cited by Applicant) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090028495 of Anrig et al. (Anrig).
With respect to claim 1, Seifert discloses a disposable fiber-optic device (¶ 79, "A probe may include one or more waveguides for transmitting light from one or more light sources to a sample."), wherein the disposable fiber-optic device comprises:
an at least double-clad optical fiber ("a probe comprises a multi-clad fiber (e.g., a double clad fiber)") having a proximal end and a distal end (per common fibers/cables),
the distal end being configured to be advanced through a working channel of an endoscope (seen as so configured),
wherein the at least double-clad optical fiber has at least one core and at least two claddings (making it a double clad optical fiber); and
a connector module (Fig. 1c, ¶ 84, rotary junction 112) for optically connecting the proximal end (left side) of the at least double-clad optical fiber to a medical treatment device (probe 114), wherein the connector module comprises:
a first optical fiber (first waveguide 110a),
a second optical fiber (second waveguide 110b),
a first optical connector (¶ 78, junctions for one or more optical connections) for optically connecting the first optical fiber (110a) to the medical treatment device (114),
a second optical connector (¶ 78, junctions for one or more optical connections) for optically connecting the second optical fiber (110b) to the medical treatment device (114), and
an optical combiner module configured to couple radiation between the first optical fiber and the at least one core of the at least double-clad optical fiber and to couple radiation between the second optical fiber and at least one cladding of the at least two claddings of the at least double-clad optical fiber (¶ 84, "In some embodiments, the example system 100 is arranged such that light from the first light source 102 travels along a core of the third waveguide 110c and light from the second light source 104 travels along a waveguide cladding of the third waveguide 110c, or vice versa.").
Seifert as set forth above does not disclose:
The first and second optical connectors detachably connecting the first and second optical fibers, respectively, to the medical treatment device.
Anrig discloses an electro-optical hybrid connection assembly that includes (Figs. 1-4):
an optical connector for detachably connecting two optical fibers.
Abstract: "An electro-optical hybrid connection assembly provides an optical connection of at least a first optical fiber and a second optical fiber that define a fiber axis and … ."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an optical connector along the lines of Anrig in a system according to Seifert as set forth above in order to provide detachable attachment for fiber optic cables and/or optical fibers. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical fiber cable system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
a first optical connector for detachably and optically connecting the first optical fiber to the medical treatment device,
a second optical connector for detachably and optically connecting the second optical fiber to the medical treatment device, and
With respect to claim 2, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, including one wherein
the first optical fiber is a single-mode or few-mode optical fiber or has a single-mode or few-mode core.
Seifert, ¶ 47: "A probe may comprise any one or combination of one or more single mode fibers and one or more multi-mode fibers."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compatible/same optical fibers and cores along the lines of ¶ 47 in a system according to Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above in order to provide good signal transitions. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical fiber cable system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the first optical fiber is a single-mode or few-mode optical fiber or has a single-mode or few-mode core.
With respect to claim 3, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, including one wherein
the second optical fiber is a multi-mode optical fiber.
Per claim 2, above.
With respect to claim 4, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, including one wherein
the first optical connector is a low-reflectivity optical single-mode connector.
Along the lines of Applicant’s ¶ 71/page 14, line 14, the optical connector in Anrig provides such a low-reflectivity optical single-mode connector.
With respect to claim 5, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, including one wherein
the second optical connector is a high-power optical multi-mode connector.
Anrig, ¶ 20, "The electro-optical hybrid connection assembly can be used for high optical powers, in particular, in multimode operation, of greater than about 10 W. The optical fibers can therefore be designed as multimode fibers and for high optical powers of at least 10 W."
With respect to claim 6, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, including one wherein
any one of the at least one of the first optical connector and the second optical connector is spring-loaded.
Anrig, Fig. 1, spring 11b, ¶ 31.
With respect to claim 10, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, but not one wherein
the connector module comprises a temperature sensor.
Anrig, ¶ 3, provides that "The pump light source generates such a high heat output that large volume cooling elements of high weight are used. The removal of the pumped light source together with the necessary cooling unit to a separate power supply unit of the solid-state laser therefore enables a small volume structure for the actual laser head."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a temperature sensor and cooling along the lines of Anrig in a system according to Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above in order to ensure proper operation and prevent thermal damage. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical fiber cable system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the connector module comprises a temperature sensor.
With respect to claim 11, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, including one wherein
the connector module comprises a cooling member configured for cooling the optical combiner module.
Per claim 10 above and the thermal regime it addresses.
With respect to claim 13, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, but not one wherein
distal end of the at least double-clad optical fiber has an angled tip.
Anrig discloses fiber tips with right angles per the abstract and ¶ 30 inter alia.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the distal end of the at least double-clad optical fiber has an angled tip along the lines of Anrig in a system according to Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above in order to provide optical signal transmission/reception. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
The obvious analysis above is seen to apply here as well, mutatis mutandis.
With respect to claim 14, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, including one wherein
the connector module comprises a first housing accommodating at least the optical combiner module and at least a portion of the first optical fiber and at least a portion of the second optical fiber.
Anrig ¶ 29 has connected housings that provide for a unified housing. Just as the connectors may be held in a housing, any other element may also be included. The obvious analysis above is seen to apply here as well, mutatis mutandis.
With respect to claim 15, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 14, including one wherein
the first housing further accommodates the first and second optical connectors.
The combined housing of Anrig ¶ 29 is seen to accommodate both connectors.
With respect to claim 16, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 14, but not one wherein
at least one of the first optical connector and the second optical connector is arranged outside of the first housing and connected to the first housing via a flexible fiber-optic cable accommodating a portion of at least one of the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber.
Just as the probe or laser may be connected to the other devices in the system outside of any housing via a flexible fiber-optic cable, so too may the first and second optical connectors. The obvious analysis above is seen to apply here as well, mutatis mutandis.
With respect to claim 17, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, including one wherein
the first optical fiber has a proximal end and a distal end (as all optical fibers have),
wherein the first optical connector is configured to optically couple the proximal end of the first optical fiber to an end face of an optical fiber of the medical treatment device, and
wherein the first optical connector is configured to detachably connect the proximal end of the first optical fiber to the medical treatment device with the proximal end of the first optical fiber abutting the end face of the optical fiber of the medical treatment device.
Per claim 1, above, the optical connectors are seen to connect the base and probe elements. Further, the first optical connector is seen as so configured per the claim.
With respect to claim 18, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, including one wherein
the first optical connector is configured to couple single-mode laser radiation having a V number smaller than 10.
The first optical connector is seen as so configured.
With respect to claim 19, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, including one wherein
the second optical fiber has a proximal end and a distal end (as all optical fibers have),
wherein the second optical connector is configured to optically couple the proximal end of the second optical fiber to an output optical fiber of the medical treatment device (per claim 1 and seen as so configured), and
wherein the second optical connector is configured to detachably connect the proximal end of the second optical fiber to the medical treatment device with the proximal end of the second optical fiber positioned at a distance from an end facet of the output optical fiber of the medical treatment device (per Anrig and seen as so configured).
With respect to claim 20, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, including one wherein
the second optical connector is configured to couple multi-mode laser radiation having a V number larger than 10 and a power of at least 10 W into the second optical fiber.
The second optical connector is seen as so configured.
With respect to claim 21, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a fiber-optic medical treatment apparatus including one comprising
a medical treatment device and a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, wherein the disposable fiber-optic device is configured to be detachably and optically coupled to the medical treatment device.
Per claim 1, above.
With respect to claim 22, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a fiber-optic medical treatment apparatus according to claim 21, but not one wherein
the medical treatment device comprises:
a treatment laser source configured to output treatment laser radiation for treatment of a medical condition;
wherein the medical treatment apparatus is configured to output the treatment laser radiation via the cladding of the at least doubled-clad optical fiber; and
a sensor module including a sensor laser source configured to output sensor laser radiation;
wherein the medical treatment apparatus is configured to output the sensor laser radiation via the at least one core of the at least doubled-clad optical fiber.
The medical treatment device is seen to be a material or article worked upon (i.e., a “workpiece”) by the apparatus of claim 21.
Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP §§ 2115, 2143.03.
As such, medical treatment device is considered and addressed here re patentability, but is not seen as imparting patentability to nor limiting the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 23, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a fiber-optic medical treatment apparatus according to claim 22, including one wherein
the sensor module comprises at least one of an interferometric distance sensing module and a spectroscopic sensor module.
Seen as part of the workpiece per claim 22, above.
With respect to claim 24, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a fiber-optic medical treatment apparatus according to claim 22, including one wherein
the treatment laser radiation is multi-mode radiation and the sensor laser radiation is single-mode or few-mode laser radiation.
Workpiece per above and intended use.
The manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). MPEP § 2114(II).
Consequently, claim 24 is rejected on the same grounds as its immediate parent claim, claim 22, as not being differentiated from it.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0201868 of Aoki (Aoki).
With respect to claim 7, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, but not one wherein
the optical combiner module includes a side combiner.
Aoki Fig. 10, ¶ 65 and adjacent, shows optical coupler 3C-1 and several other side couplers/combiners.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use side combiners along the lines of Aoki in a system according to Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above in order to transfer/transmit signals. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical fiber cable system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the optical combiner module includes a side combiner.
With respect to claim 8, Seifert in view of Anrig and Aoki as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 7, including one wherein
the side combiner is configured to laterally couple radiation between the second optical fiber, or a multimode fiber section optically coupled to the second optical fiber, and the at least one cladding of the at least double-clad optical fiber, and
wherein the at least one core of the at least double-clad optical fiber passes through the side combiner.
The side combiner of Aoki is seen to enable such a configuration and the side combiner of Seifert in view of Anrig and Aoki as set forth above is seen as so configured.
At least one core of the at least double-clad optical fiber must pass through the side combiner for there to be the established combination between fibers.
With respect to claim 9, Seifert in view of Anrig and Aoki as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 7, including one wherein
the side combiner is configured to laterally couple radiation between a multimode fiber section having a first fiber diameter and at least one cladding of an at least double-clad optical fiber (seen as so configured),
wherein at least one core of the at least double-clad optical fiber passes through the side combiner and wherein the double-clad optical fiber has a diameter larger than the diameter of the multimode fiber section (would naturally occur with components of similar construction; a double-clad fiber would be wider and have a larger diameter than a single-clad fiber).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0299170 of Ito et al. (Ito) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0282403 of Tearney et al. (Tearney).
With respect to claim 12, Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above discloses a disposable fiber-optic device according to claim 1, but not one wherein
the at least double-clad optical fiber is a multicore fiber having two or more cores, and
wherein the at least double-clad optical fiber comprises a tapered region configured for coupling of radiation between a first core of the two or more cores and at least a second core of the two or more cores, different from the first core.
Ito discloses a laser scanning observation device and laser scanning method that includes:
¶ 191, "In the example illustrated in FIG. 4B, the multi-core optical fiber 340 is the double-clad multi-core optical fiber, but the second embodiment is not limited thereto."
Tearney discloses a methods and systems for providing electromagnetic radiation to at least one portion of a sample using conformal laser therapy procedures that includes (Figs. 11 and 22) a tapered region receiving input from plural optical fiber source.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a multi-core multi-clad fiber with a tapered receiving section along the lines of Ito and Tearney, respectively, in a system according to Seifert in view of Anrig as set forth above in order to provide signal handling to/from optical fibers/waveguides. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical fiber cable system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the at least double-clad optical fiber is a multicore fiber having two or more cores, and
wherein the at least double-clad optical fiber comprises a tapered region configured for coupling of radiation between a first core of the two or more cores and at least a second core of the two or more cores, different from the first core.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20250064519 A1 published February 27, 2025 is cited.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references have elements related to Applicant’s disclosure and/or claims or are otherwise associated with the other cited references, particularly with respect to related laser, medical, and optical waveguide/connector coupling devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) HOLLWEG can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
June 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights