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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “20” has been used to designate both “system” and “reader.” 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The use of the term IngeniaTM, PhilipsTM, CIRSTM, MATLABTM, MathworksTM, MedcalcTM which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: a minor error in antecedent basis. The claim should be amended to “[…] [[the]] a shear wave displacement […] estimating [[the]] a shear wavelength […] [[the]] a stiffness value […] when [[the]] a ratio of the shear wavelength by [[the]] a size of the pixel […] producing [[the]] a final stiffness map […]” in order to establish proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 9-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error. The claims should be amended to a semicolon (;) at the end of each step line (e.g., “[…] according to claim 1;[[,]] […].” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: a minor error in antecedent basis. The claim should be amended to “[…] [[the]] a phase signal […]” in order to establish proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error and clarity. The claim should be amended to “[…] the method for predicting at least comprising the steps of: [[carrying out the steps of a method for]] determining […].” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: minor error in antecedent basis and clarity. The claim should be amended to “[…] the method for predicting at least comprising the steps of: [[carrying out the steps of a method for]] determining […] and diagnosing [[a]] the chronic disease […].” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: clarity and minor error in antecedent basis. The claim should be amended to “[…] [[carrying out the steps of a method for]] determining […] [[carrying out the steps of a method for]] determining […] [[carrying out the steps of a method for]] determining […] based on [[the]] a comparison […].” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: clarity and minor error in antecedent basis. The claim should be amended to “[…] a predictive biomarker in response to [[the]] a treatment of a chronic disease […] [[carrying out the steps of a method for]] determining […] [[carrying out the steps of a method for]] determining […] [[carrying out the steps of a method for]] determining […] selecting [[a]] the biomarker based on [[the]] a comparison […].” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: clarity. The claim should be amended to “[…] [[carrying out the steps of a method for]] determining […] [[carrying out the steps of a method for]] determining […] [[carrying out the steps of a method for]] determining […] selecting [[a]] the compound based on [[the]] a comparison […].” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 14. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the final stiffness map" in Line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims not explicitly addressed above are rejected as depending from a rejected claim and failing to cure deficiencies of the parent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 appears to be intended to be a dependent claim from independent Claim 1 but there is no preamble to establish such. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andoh et al. (“Multi-frequency MRE for elasticity quantitation […]”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14-15, Andoh teaches method for determining mechanical parameters of a tissue of a subject, (1. Introduction “Magnetic Resonance Elastography (MRE) aims at mapping the mechanical properties of biological tissues by recording the displacement fields generated by a mechanical wave travelling through them” and 5. Conclusion “Mechanical properties assessed with MRE may provide critical insights into the tissue pathophysiological state.”), the method being computer-implemented, (2.2. MRE acquisition “MRE acquisitions were carried out on Achieva 1.5 T and Ingenia 3 T MR systems (Philips Healthcare, Eindhoven, The Netherlands). The phantoms were placed at the center of the magnet bore into an 8 channel SENSE knee coil (Philips Healthcare, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) with their axis horizontally aligned with the directing magnetic field (Figure 2).”), and comprising the following steps:
a) receiving at least one image of the tissue, each image being taken by a magnetic resonance elastography technique, (2.2. MRE acquisition “The generation of pressure waves was trigged by the MRI system for synchronization with the MRE acquisition and monitored with an oscilloscope” and 6. Acknowledgements “The MRE experiments were performed on the 1.5 T MRI platform of CEA/SHFJ and the 3 T MRI platform of Beaujon Hospital affiliated to the France Life Imaging network”),
b) reconstructing stiffness maps with resampling of the shear wave displacement at several spatial resolutions, (Fig. 5 and 2.2. MRE acquisition “all the complex MR raw data acquired in non-optimal conditions were resampled before phase unwrapping to retrospectively achieve optimal 𝑠𝑠 conditions before extraction of the displacement fields and computation of the mechanical properties.”),
c) estimating the shear wavelength at each pixel of each reconstructed stiffness map, (“how well the propagating shear wave is sampled: the spatial sampling factor (or number of voxels per wavelength), 𝑠 = λ/α […] where λ is the shear wavelength, α the voxel size”),
d) selecting for each pixel, the stiffness value of the reconstructed stiffness map fulfilling a selection criterion, the selection criterion being fulfilled when the ratio of the shear wavelength by the size of the pixel is comprised between 6 and 9, (5. Conclusion “the data should be of high quality and the displacement fields induced in the targeted homogeneous tissue at a single frequency should be sampled with the optimal number of voxels per expected wavelength (6 ≲ 𝑠 ≲ 9).”), and
e) producing the final stiffness map by taking the selected stiffness value for each pixel (Fig. 5).
Furthermore, the cited actions are computer implemented, which necessitate associated computer-readable media, as in Fig. 2 (“Console room” and “Function generator”).
Regarding Claim 2, Andoh teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Andoh teaches wherein the selection criterion is fulfilled when the shear wavelength divided by the size of the pixel is the nearest to a value comprises between 6 and 8 (5. Conclusion “the data should be of high quality and the displacement fields induced in the targeted homogeneous tissue at a single frequency should be sampled with the optimal number of voxels per expected wavelength (6 ≲ 𝑠 ≲ 9).”).
Regarding Claim 3, Andoh teaches all limitations of Claim 2, as discussed above. Furthermore, Andoh teaches where the value is comprises between 6.5 and 7.5 (5. Conclusion “the data should be of high quality and the displacement fields induced in the targeted homogeneous tissue at a single frequency should be sampled with the optimal number of voxels per expected wavelength (6 ≲ 𝑠 ≲ 9).”).
Regarding Claim 4, Andoh teaches wherein during the reconstructing step, the number of spatial resolutions at which the shear wave displacement is resampled is superior to 3 (Table 4 and 4. Discussion “To avoid any loss of spatial mechanical differentiation when small regions are targeted, highly spatially resolved displacement fields should be acquired with accordingly high excitation frequency to achieve optimal MRE in the expectedly stiffest regions such that only piecewise interpolation will remain to be performed in the other softer regions.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Andoh teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Andoh teaches wherein the reconstructing step comprises an unwrapping operation of the phase signal of each image (2.2. MRE acquisition “all the complex MR raw data acquired in non-optimal conditions were resampled before phase unwrapping to retrospectively achieve optimal 𝑠 conditions before extraction of the displacement fields and computation of the mechanical properties.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Andoh teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Andoh teaches wherein the reconstructing step comprises finding the stiffness value by inversion of the Helmholtz wave equation (2.3. MRE reconstruction “The components 𝑞𝑖(r,𝑡) of the curl of 𝐮(r,𝑡) satisfy the Helmholtz equation (2) for shear wave in a locally homogeneous isotropic viscoelastic medium with complex shear modulus 𝐺∗: 𝜌𝜔2𝑞𝑖(𝐫,𝑡) = 𝐺∗∇2𝑞𝑖(𝐫,𝑡) where 𝜔 = 2𝜋f, 𝐪(r,𝑡𝑡) = ∇ × 𝐮(r,𝑡) and 𝑖 = {𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧} By algebraic inversion, the shear dynamic,
G
i
'
, and loss, ,
G
i
'
'
moduli can be deduced along each spatial dimension 𝑖.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Andoh teaches method for predicting that a subject is at risk of suffering from a chronic disease, the method for predicting at least comprising the step of:
a) carrying out the steps of a method for determining the mechanical parameters of the subject, to obtain determined parameters, the method for determining being according to claim 1, (as discussed above), and
b) predicting that the subject is at risk of suffering from a chronic disease based on the determined parameters (1. Introduction “Special attention should therefore be paid when performing MRE either using different voxel sizes and different excitation frequencies simply probing tissues at different stages of a disease or mapping mechanically heterogeneous tissues” and 4. Discussion “Yet it is possible to set a broad spectrum of optimal conditions that would cover the expected mechanical range of an organ or a disease by implementing multi-frequency acquisitions.”).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andoh et al. (“Multi-frequency MRE for elasticity quantitation […]”).
Regarding Claim 5, Andoh teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Andoh teaches wherein each resampling of the shear wave displacement is performed with a multiplication factor, (2.2. MRE acquisition “Up and downsampling were performed through a Lanczos kernel. […] Lanczos kernel widths were adapted to each downsampling factor to match expected SNR gain one would obtain with Gaussian noise by mere averaging over downsampled voxels.”), the multiplication factor being comprised between 0.5 and 1.5 (Where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that adaption of the Lanczos kernel widths would allow the multiplication factor being comprised between 0.5 and 1.5 in order to control and minimize the negative lobes.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andoh et al. (“Multi-frequency MRE for elasticity quantitation […]”) in view of Wassenaar et al. (“Measuring Age-Dependent […]”).
Regarding Claim 7, Andoh teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. However, Andoh does not explicitly teach wherein the reconstruction step comprises a filtering operation with a Butterworth filter.
In an analogous measuring myocardial stiffness field of endeavor, Wassenaar teaches a method for determining mechanical parameters of a tissue of a subject, (Abstract “To assess reproducibility in measuring left ventricular (LV) myocardial stiffness in volunteers throughout the cardiac cycle using magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and to determine its correlation with age.”), wherein the reconstruction step comprises a filtering operation with a Butterworth filter (Discussion, 2D vs 3D LFE Shear Stiffness Measurements “we chose instead to apply Butterworth bandpass filter”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify Andoh with Wassenaar by filtering with a Butterworth filter because the filtering removes longitudinal or compressional waves, as taught by Wassenaar in Discussion, which improves signal-to-noise ratio, a desirable outcome in signal outcomes for diagnosis.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andoh et al. (“Multi-frequency MRE for elasticity quantitation […]”) in view of Elgeti et al. (“Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Elastography […]”).
Regarding Claim 10, Andoh teaches carrying out the steps of a method for determining the mechanical parameters of the subject, to obtain determined parameters, the method for determining being according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
However, Andoh does not explicitly teach diagnosing a chronic disease based on the determined parameters.
In an analogous cardiac MRE field of endeavor, Elgeti teaches method for predicting that a subject is at risk of suffering from a chronic disease, (Abstract “To assess the potential of cardiac magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) for elasticity-based detection of abnormal left ventricular (LV) relaxation.”), the method for predicting at least comprising the step of: diagnosing a chronic disease based on the determined parameters (Discussion “Because our analysis incorporates neither wave inversion nor time-dependent functional parameters, the proposed average of wave amplitudes is a most robust measure of the underlying mechanical properties of myocardial tissue. […] For this reason, the results presented here should be seen as a first indication of the diagnostic potential of cardiac MRE. […] we conclude that cardiac MRE is a promising imaging-based modality for diagnosis of pathologically altered mechanical properties of the heart.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify Andoh with Elgeti with diagnosing a chronic disease based on the determined parameters because patients with diastolic dysfunction have increased myocardial stiffness, leading to heart failure, which is associated with a significant morbidity, mortality and financial burden to health services, as taught by Elgeti in Introduction.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andoh et al. (“Multi-frequency MRE for elasticity quantitation […]”) in view of Everson et al. (US 20210318274).
Regarding Claim 11, Andoh teaches
a) carrying out the steps of a method for determining mechanical parameters of a first subject, to obtain first determined parameters, the method for determining being according to claim 1, (as discussed above), and
b) carrying out the steps of a method for determining mechanical parameters of a second subject, to obtain second determined parameters, method for determining being according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
However, Andoh does not explicitly teach the first subject being a subject suffering from the chronic disease, the second subject being a subject not suffering from the chronic disease, and selecting a therapeutic target based on the comparison of the first and second determined parameters.
In an analogous evaluation of liver function field of endeavor, Everson teaches method for identifying a therapeutic target for preventing and/or treating a chronic disease, ([0438] “the DSI value in the patient is used to monitor the need for, or the effectiveness of, a treatment of chronic liver disease in the patient wherein the treatment is selected from the group consisting of antiviral treatment, antifibrotic treatment, antibiotics, immunosuppressive treatments, anti-cancer treatments, ursodeoxycholic acid, insulin sensitizing agents, interventional treatment, liver transplant”), the method comprising:
a) the first subject being a subject suffering from the chronic disease, (Fig. 1 “diseased liver”),
b) the second subject being a subject not suffering from the chronic disease, (Fig. 1 “healthy liver”), and
c) selecting a therapeutic target based on the comparison of the first and second determined parameters ([0072] “the regression coefficients are obtained from a clinical study of a multiplicity of patients having a chronic liver disease, and having a defined rate of clinical events over time. […] the clinical events are selected from the group consisting of Childs-Turcotte-Pugh 2 point score progression (CTP+2), variceal hemorrhage, ascites, encephalopathy, or death.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify Andoh with Everson by selecting a therapeutic target because the modification ensures accuracy of treatment and minimizes risk of further damage to the patient’s health.
Regarding Claim 13, Andoh teaches
a) carrying out the steps of a method for determining mechanical parameters of a first subject, to obtain first determined parameters, the method for determining being according to claim 1, (as discussed above), and
b) carrying out the steps of a method for determining mechanical parameters of a second subject, to obtain second determined parameters, method for determining being according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
However, Andoh does not explicitly teach method for screening a compound useful as a probiotic, a prebiotic or a medicine, the compound influencing a known therapeutic target, for preventing and/or treating a chronic disease, wherein the first subject being a subject suffering from the chronic disease, the second subject being a subject not suffering from the chronic disease, and selecting a compound based on the comparison of the first and second determined parameters.
In an analogous evaluation of liver function field of endeavor, Everson teaches method for screening a compound useful as a probiotic, a prebiotic or a medicine, the compound influencing a known therapeutic target, for preventing and/or treating a chronic disease, ([0438] “the DSI value in the patient is used to monitor the need for, or the effectiveness of, a treatment of chronic liver disease in the patient wherein the treatment is selected from the group consisting of antiviral treatment, antifibrotic treatment, antibiotics, immunosuppressive treatments, anti-cancer treatments, ursodeoxycholic acid, insulin sensitizing agents, interventional treatment”), the method comprising:
a) the first subject being a subject suffering from the chronic disease, (Fig. 1, “diseased liver”),
b) the second subject being a subject not suffering from the chronic disease, (Fig. 1 “healthy liver”), and
c) selecting a compound based on the comparison of the first and second determined parameters ([0436]-[0437] “comparing the DSI value within the patient over time is used to monitor the effectiveness of a treatment of chronic liver disease in the patient, wherein a decrease in the DSI value in the patient over time is indicative of treatment effectiveness. […] comparing the DSI value in the patient over time is used to monitor the need for treatment of chronic liver disease in the patient, wherein an increase in the DSI value in the patient over time is indicative of a need for treatment in the patient.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify Andoh with Everson by selecting a compound because the modification helps to alleviate any progression of the chronic disease and help to heal the patient, leading to better quality of life. Additionally, the selection based on a comparison ensures that the most accurate compound is chosen.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andoh et al. (“Multi-frequency MRE for elasticity quantitation […]”) in view of Mantzoros et al. (WO 2021092265), cited from its respective US Patent Application Publication US 20230064246.
Regarding Claim 12, Andoh teaches
a) carrying out the steps of a method for determining mechanical parameters of a first subject, to obtain first determined parameters, the method for determining being according to claim 1, (as discussed above), and
b) carrying out the steps of a method for determining mechanical parameters of a second subject, to obtain second determined parameters, method for determining being according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
However, Andoh does not explicitly teach method for identifying a biomarker, the biomarker being a diagnostic biomarker of a chronic disease, a susceptibility biomarker of a chronic disease, a prognostic biomarker of a chronic disease, or a predictive biomarker in response to the treatment of a chronic disease, the first subject being a subject suffering from the chronic disease, the second subject being a subject not suffering from the chronic disease, and selecting a therapeutic target based on the comparison of the first and second determined parameters.
In an analogous liver fibrosis field of endeavor, Mantzoros teaches method for identifying a biomarker, the biomarker being a diagnostic biomarker of a chronic disease, a susceptibility biomarker of a chronic disease, a prognostic biomarker of a chronic disease, or a predictive biomarker in response to the treatment of a chronic disease, ([0005] “The present invention provides methods for diagnosing NAFLD (e.g., NASH or NAFL) and liver fibrosis by comparing a level of one or more biomarker (e.g., one or more lipid, glycan, fatty acid, and/or hormone) in a biological sample from a subject (e.g., a blood sample, such as a serum or plasma sample) with a reference sample. These methods can also be used to treat, monitor treatment efficacy, or monitor disease progression in subjects having or at risk of developing NAFLD and liver fibrosis.”), wherein
a) the first subject being a subject suffering from the chronic disease, ([0161] “The reference level is used for diagnosis of a subject as healthy or as having NAFL, NASH, or liver fibrosis.”),
b) the second subject being a subject not suffering from the chronic disease, ([0161] “By a “control” is meant any useful reference used to diagnose NASH or liver fibrosis. The control can be any sample, standard, standard curve, or level that is used for comparison purposes. The control may be a negative control (e.g., a sample or level from a subject diagnosed as not having NAFL, NASH, or liver fibrosis, e.g., a healthy subject)”), and
c) selecting a biomarker based on the comparison of the first and second determined parameters ([0216] “The reference level may be generated using a positive or negative control sample, e.g., the level of one or more biomarker in a subject can be compared directly to the level of one or more biomarker in a negative control sample (e.g., a biological sample from a healthy subject not having NAFL, NASH, or liver fibrosis or a biological sample obtained from the subject at an earlier timepoint when the subject was diagnosed as not having NAFL, NASH, or liver fibrosis) or a positive control sample (e.g., a biological sample from a subject clinically diagnosed (e.g., diagnosed using liver biopsy or imaging) with NAFL, NASH, or liver fibrosis).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify Andoh with Mantzoros by selecting a biomarker because it allows a clinician to reliably and non-invasively diagnose non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in patients at risk of liver fibrosis and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA CHRISTINA TALTY whose telephone number is (571)272-8022. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30 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, Mike Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MARIA CHRISTINA TALTY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795