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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 14 in the reply filed on 13 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 20 August 2024 and 26 March 2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 204 “guide wires”; 210 “LED”; 800 “Method”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 209; 212.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilreath et al (US 20180310802 A1) in view of Wang et al (US 20030191368 A1) in view of Tabacco et al (US 20050151971 A1) and further in view of Sadanand (US 8777844 B1).
With regards to claim 1, Gilreath et al teaches;
A medical imaging device comprising a sensing node, as read on the taught ([0042], “The present specification relates generally to a multi-viewing element endoscope assembly…”; multi-viewing elements read on a sensing nodes.);
The claimed sensing node comprising “one or more probes spaced around and defining a center lumen of the sensing node and having a surface directed outwardly from the center lumen” has been read on the taught ([0426], “…two or more viewing elements (for example, three, four or more) are positioned in proximity to or at the distal end of the tip section and point sideways such that the field of view provided by the viewing elements covers a front and side views.”; Viewing elements pointing sideways read on the viewing elements being disposed around a center lumen. See also Figure 1J, which shows probes defining a center lumen);
“Each probe comprising a window disposed in the surface” has been read on the taught ([0791], “…fields of view of side looking cameras 3920a and 3920b are each illuminated by a single LED 3950 located within the endoscope head 3930 and each protected by optical window 3952.”; Optical window 3952 reads on a window);
The claimed “a fiber optic element disposed in optical communication with the […] window” has been read on the taught ([0451], “One or more illuminators may illuminate the viewing fields of the viewing elements. In an embodiment, the illuminators may be fiber optic illuminators that carry light from remote sources.”);
The claimed “one or more guide wire ports running parallel to the center lumen” has been read on the taught ([0111], “Optionally, the present embodiment discloses a front working channel comprising an exit port and a conduit, […] wherein the conduit is defined by one of said three separate and fluidically isolated conduits extending through the elongated housing of the fluid manifold.”; The front working channel with a port and a conduit extending through the elongated housing reads on a guide wire port);
The claimed “one or more guide wires extending through the guide wire ports” has been read on the taught ([0195], “…the present application discloses another improved endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedure comprising inserting an endoscope into a body cavity and positioning it proximate a target papilla; inserting a guidewire through a first channel, such as the front working channel…”; a guidewire extending through the front working channel reads on a guidewire extending through the guide wire port.)
Gilreath et al additionally teaches that the device may have a flexible, elongated shaft, as read on the taught ([0447], “The tip section, with the tip cover, may be turned or maneuvered by way of a flexible shaft, which may also be referred to as a bending section, for example, a vertebra mechanism.”).
However, Gilreath et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the device is a biofilm detection device comprising a plurality of sensing nodes, the probes comprising a quartz window disposed in the surface, and a plurality of swivel joints, each of the plurality of swivel joints interconnecting adjacent pairs of the plurality of sensing nodes.
In the analogous art of endoscope systems, Wang et al teaches;
“An imaging device with a sensing node” has been read on the taught (Abstract, “The present invention relates to a fluorescence endoscope imaging system.”);
The claimed “a quartz window disposed in the surface, and a fiber optic element disposed in optical communication with the quartz window” has been read on the taught ([0092], “The probe contains a quartz shield 106 which is in contact with the tissue 16. The optical fibers are located at a distance of 2 mm from the tissue surface by this shield 106…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging device as taught by Gilreath et al with the quartz window as taught by Wang et al, for the predictable benefit of creating a device capable of fluorescent imaging techniques, which is sensitive to tissue structures and chemical constituents ([0031], “This method is sensitive to the biochemical constituents and microarchitecture below the tissue surface. Furthermore, combined with endoscopes, fluorescence images can scan wide areas, and can resolve tissue surfaces on the sub-millimeter scale.”).
However, Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the device is a biofilm detection device comprising a plurality of sensing nodes and a plurality of swivel joints, each of the plurality of swivel joints interconnecting adjacent pairs of the plurality of sensing nodes.
In the analogous art of biofilm monitoring systems, Tabacco et al teaches;
A biofilm detection device, as read on the taught ([0031], "The apparatus of the present invention detects biofilms…");
A plurality of sensing nodes, as read on the taught ([0015], "The system consists of multiple optical probes interfaced with a compact optoelectronic interface and data acquisition system.");
A probe comprising a window disposed in the surface and a fiber optic element disposed in optical communication with the window, as read on the taught ([0049], "The fiber optic probe can be placed […] behind an optical window on which the biofilm accumulates.");
Tabacco et al further teaches that multiple detection fibers can be associated with the same device, as read on the taught ([0050], "While this example shows one bifurcated fiber bundle, there can be a plurality of bifurcated fiber bundles.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the endoscopic device as taught by Gilreath et al in view Wang et al with the plurality of sensing nodes and biofilm detection method as taught by Tabacco et al, for the predictable benefit of directly measuring bacteria located within the body ([0013], “The present invention is directed to an autonomous, stand-alone system that directly measures the bacteria responsible for biofilm formation.”).
However, Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the device has a plurality of swivel joints, each of the plurality of swivel joints interconnecting adjacent pairs of the plurality of sensing nodes.
In the analogous art of endoscopic devices, Sadanand teaches;
“A flexible elongated body composed of sections and having an internal lumen” has been read on the taught (Column 3, line 41, “Elongated body portion 102 may be made of one or more articulated tube members that allow elongated body portion 102 to bend or flex in one configuration…”).
The claimed “wherein the device has a plurality of swivel joints” has been read on the taught (Column 4, line 21, “Elongated device may have any number of tubular sections 116, 118 and joint members 120, for example from about 20 to about 25 sections with a joint member in between.”; Column 7, line 54, “As can be seen from the exploded view of joint member 120, when outer articulated tube member 114 bends, spring member 132 and spring member 134 rotate about the ball 130.”; A joint composing a ball and spring member reads on a swivel joint.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the endoscopic device as taught by Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al with the swivel joints as taught by Sadanand, for the predictable benefit of allowing the device to bend to reach desired locations (Sadanand, column 2, line 55, “The ability of the device to transition between a modifiable or flexible configuration and a fixed or rigid configuration allows the device to be advanced to a desired location and bend to reach a different location.”).
Regarding the limitation “each of the plurality of swivel joints interconnecting adjacent pairs of the plurality of sensing nodes,” the combination of Gilreath et al and Wang et al teaches a fluorescent endoscope device with optical windows disposed radially around a cylindrical member. Tabacco et al teaches that multiple sensors are compatible with a fluorescent sensing system, and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) teaches that duplication of parts may be prima facie obvious. The endoscope device of Sadanand teaches multiple cylindrical members separated by swivel joints. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, given these teachings, that the sensors in a cylindrical member taught by Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al could be disposed in the cylindrical members separated by swivel joints as taught by Sadanand, for the predictable benefit of allowing sensing along the length of the device and not solely at the distal end.
With regards to claim 2, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al and further in view of Sadanand.
Gilreath et al further teaches;
The claimed device “further comprising a hollow backbone carrying fiber optic cabling from the sensing nodes in communication with a control unit” has been read on the taught ([1079], “…the one or more elongated sections, such as elongated section 8308′, may be used for transferring […] optic fibers […] between removable section 8502 and/or surface 8305’’ and the endoscope handle and/or console.”; The elongated section reads on a hollow backbone. The console reads on a control unit.).
With regards to claim 3, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al and further in view of Sadanand.
Gilreath et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the probes are air- or water-tight” has been read on the taught ([0098], “Optionally, the housing is a cover for the image capture section that is configured to cover and fluidly seal said first integrated circuit assembly and said fluid manifold…”; A housing which covers and fluidly seals the components of the image capture section reads on the probes being water-tight.).
With regards to claim 4, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al and further in view of Sadanand.
Neither Gilreath et al, Tabacco et al, nor Sadanand teaches wherein the quartz window comprises a UV grade quartz, and transmits UV light ranging from 180 nm to 400 nm.
Wang et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the quartz window comprises a UV grade quartz, and transmits UV light ranging from 180 nm to 400 nm” has been read on the taught ([0003], “The optics module employs a quartz optical fiber and associated optics to deliver the UV light to the tissue…”; [0003], “…Ultraviolet (UV) light was used at 370 nm to excite visible fluorescence (400-700 nm), the spectral signatures of which enabled differentiating between normal and abnormal tissues.”; 370 nm reads on UV light between 180 nm and 400 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device including a quartz window and UV detection as taught by Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al and further in view of Sadanand with the UV grade quartz transmitting UV light as taught by Wang et al, for the predictable benefit of allowing UV detection of biological tissues and samples ([0003], “Ultraviolet (UV) light was used at 370 nm to excite visible fluorescence (400-700 nm), the spectral signatures of which enabled differentiating between normal and abnormal tissues.”).
Additionally, while Tabacco et al does not explicitly disclose details of a quartz window, Tabacco et al does teach the desirability of UV light between 260 and 480 nm for detection of biofilms (see Table 3).
With regards to claim 5, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al and further in view of Sadanand.
Gilreath et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the one or more probes further comprises one or more light emitting diodes (LED)” has been read on the taught ([0791], “…fields of view of side looking cameras 3920a and 3920b are each illuminated by a single LED 3950 located within the endoscope head 3930 and each protected by optical window 3952.”).
With regards to claim 6, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al and further in view of Sadanand.
Gilreath et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein each sensing node of the plurality of sensing nodes comprises a plurality of optically transparent windows configured to provide 360 degree light emission and sensing” has been read on the taught ([0426], “…two or more viewing elements (for example, three, four or more) are positioned in proximity to or at the distal end of the tip section and point sideways such that the field of view provided by the viewing elements covers a front and side views.”; Covering front and side views reads on 360 degree light emission and sensing. See also Figure 1G, which shows 360 degree field of view).
With regards to claim 8, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al and further in view of Sadanand.
Gilreath et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein each sensing node of the plurality of sensing nodes further comprises a series of open ports positioned symmetrically about the center lumen” has been read on the taught ([0926] FIG. 61A shows tip section 200 of an endoscope assembly comprising two independent side service channel openings, a first side service channel opening 805a and a second side service channel opening (not visible, as this is on the opposite side of the tip).”; Side service channel openings read on a series of open ports positioned symmetrically about the center lumen.).
With regards to claim 10, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al and further in view of Sadanand.
Gilreath et al, Wang et al, and Sadanand do not explicitly disclose wherein the fiber optic element is configured to receive emitted fluorescence from biofilm.
Tabacco et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the fiber optic element is configured to receive emitted fluorescence from biofilm” has been read on the taught ([0049], “After the light from the bifurcated fiber 33 strikes the biofilm, one or more biomarkers, including fluorescence emission arising from bacteria and bacterial biomarkers from the biofilm from the light incident on the biofilm travels back up the bifurcated fiber 33 to a second optical fiber 36, through an emission filter 37, to a detector 37.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the endoscopic device as taught by Gilreath et al in view Wang et al with the plurality of sensing nodes and biofilm detection method as taught by Tabacco et al, for the predictable benefit of directly measuring bacteria located within the body ([0013], “The present invention is directed to an autonomous, stand-alone system that directly measures the bacteria responsible for biofilm formation.”).
With regards to claim 12, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al and further in view of Sadanand.
Gilreath et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the plurality of sensing nodes is operatively connected to a control unit via one or more wires extending through the center lumen” has been read on the taught ([0487], “Moreover, each viewing element may require, for proper operation, dedicated control signals also delivered by wires along the endoscope.”; See also [0475], which discusses cables threaded through the elongated shaft of the endoscope.).
With regards to claim 13, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al and further in view of Sadanand.
Gilreath et al, Wang et al, and Tabacco et al do not explicitly disclose wherein the swivel joints comprise hollow ball joints.
Sadanand additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the swivel joints comprise hollow ball joints” has been read on the taught (Column 8, line 6, “Similar to ball joint 230, ball joint 130 has a hollow pathway 422 formed therein so that a continuous lumen dimensioned to be advanced over inner articulated tube member 214 is formed between tubular sections 116, 118 and joint member 120.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the endoscopic device as taught by Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al with the swivel joints as taught by Sadanand, for the predictable benefit of allowing the device to bend to reach desired locations (Sadanand, column 2, line 55, “The ability of the device to transition between a modifiable or flexible configuration and a fixed or rigid configuration allows the device to be advanced to a desired location and bend to reach a different location.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gilreath et al (US 20180310802 A1) in view of Wang et al (US 20030191368 A1) in view of Tabacco et al (US 20050151971 A1) in view of Sadanand (US 8777844 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al (US 20240423481 A1).
With regards to claim 7, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al and further in view of Sadanand.
However, this combination does not explicitly disclose wherein each sensing node of the plurality of sensing nodes is independently operative.
In the analogous art of fiber optic sensors, Li et al teaches;
The claimed “wherein each sensing node of the plurality of sensing nodes is independently operative” has been read on the taught ([0227], “The optical device 3602C may include a WDM device configured to de-multiplex the initial optical signals 3611 such that each of the multiple fiber optical sensors within the optical sensor array 3601 receives and subsequently outputs its own individual optical signal.”; [0158], “When multiple fiber optical sensors are arranged in an array, the capability to individually calibrate and fine tune each fiber optical sensor within the array offers the potential to drive and synchronize the operations of each sensor in an array.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fiber optic sensing system as taught by Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al in view of Sadanand with the independently operative sensors as taught by Li et al. Per MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al in view of Sadanand teaches a “base” device of an endoscope with multiple fiber optic sensing nodes. The prior art of Li et al contains a “comparable” device of fiber optic sensing arrays, which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention with individually operable fiber optic sensors. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of independently operable fiber optic sensors in the same way to the base device, for the predictable result of creating an endoscope system which can sense different areas independently and simultaneously.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gilreath et al (US 20180310802 A1) in view of Wang et al (US 20030191368 A1) in view of Tabacco et al (US 20050151971 A1) in view of Sadanand (US 8777844 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of D'Amelio et al (US 20050182299 A1).
With regards to claim 9, the device of claim 8 is obvious over Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al and further in view of Sadanand.
However, this combination does not explicitly disclose wherein each quartz window is detachably attached to one or more of the open ports by a latch.
In the analogous art of optical assemblies for medical devices, D’Amelio et al teaches;
The claimed “wherein each quartz window is detachably attached to one or more of the open ports by a latch” has been read on the taught ([0038], “The removable optical window 46 is adapted for sealing engagement with the distal end 18 so as to protect the lens cell 42 from fluid and debris when assembled and provide access to remove and/or replace the lens cell 42 when disassembled.”; [0056], “The removable window holder 35 is removably coupled to the distal end 18 by suitable fasteners 34 that are place within fastener apertures 33.”; Fasteners 34 read on a latch.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical device with an optical assembly as taught by Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al and further in view of Sadanand with the detachable windows as taught by D’Amelio et al, for the predictable benefit of allowing access to the internal workings via the optical apertures ([0038], “The removable optical window 46 is adapted for sealing engagement with the distal end 18 so as to protect the lens cell 42 from fluid and debris when assembled and provide access to remove and/or replace the lens cell 42 when disassembled.”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gilreath et al (US 20180310802 A1) in view of Wang et al (US 20030191368 A1) in view of Tabacco et al (US 20050151971 A1) in view of Sadanand (US 8777844 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cader et al (US 20180017490 A1).
With regards to claim 11, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al and further in view of Sadanand.
However, this combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of sensing nodes is configured to emit fluorescence to thereby sanitize biofilm.
In the analogous art of optical biofilm probes, Cader et al teaches;
A probe capable of detecting biofilms, as read on the taught ([0018], “The apparatus 100 includes an optical biofilm probe 130 at the bypass 104 to detect biofilm formation on the substrate 120.”).
The claimed “wherein the plurality of sensing nodes is configured to emit fluorescence to thereby sanitize biofilm” has been read on the taught ([0020], “…the light source 132 (or a separate light source not shown) may emit ultraviolet light to terminate biofilm growth on the substrate 120.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al in view of Sadanand with the fluorescence emission to sanitize biofilm as taught by Cader et al.
Per MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al in view of Sadanand teaches a “base” device of an endoscope which can detect biofilms. The prior art of Li et al contains a “comparable” device of an optical biofilm probe, which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention with the ability to emit light which sanitizes biofilms. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of emitting light from a biofilm detection probe in the same way to the base device, for the predictable result of creating an endoscope system which can sanitize biofilms.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gilreath et al (US 20180310802 A1) in view of Wang et al (US 20030191368 A1) in view of Tabacco et al (US 20050151971 A1) in view of Sadanand (US 8777844 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Slawinski et al (US 20230072879 A1).
With regards to claim 14, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al and further in view of Sadanand.
However, this combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of sensing nodes is operatively connected to a control unit via a wireless network.
In the analogous art of endoscope systems, Slawinski et al teaches;
“An endoscope system” has been read on the taught (Abstract, “A method is provided for navigating an endoscopic device through an anatomical luminal network of a patient…”);
The claimed “wherein the plurality of sensing nodes is operatively connected to a control unit via a wireless network” has been read on the taught ([0111], “In some case, the handle portion may be housing or comprise components configured to process image data, provide power, or establish communication with other external devices. In some cases, the communication may be wireless communication.”; Components configured to process image data and establish wireless communication reads on the plurality of sensing nodes being operatively connected to a control unit via a wireless network.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device with a plurality of sensing nodes as taught by Gilreath et al in view of Wang et al in view of Tabacco et al in view of Sadanand with the wireless communication as taught by Slawinski et al, for the predictable benefit of allowing the device to function in a plug-and-play fashion ([0111], “In some case, the handle portion may be housing or comprise components configured to process image data, provide power, or establish communication with other external devices. In some cases, the communication may be wireless communication.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30pm 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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights