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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/04/26 has been entered.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "reflecting device".
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee (US 2023/0218235), in view of Murphy (US 2021/0370064) and further in view of Vortman et al. (US 2007/0016039).
Addressing claim 1, Yee discloses a system comprising:
a probe configured to emit transcranial focused ultrasound (see Fig. 1 and [0004]);
a gimbal system coupled to the probe (see [0007]);
at least one infrared camera (see [0007]);
a reflecting device positioned proximate to the probe (see [0007]; obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the reflecting device is included proximate to the device to locate the position of the device/probe/ultrasound transducer by infrared camera; infrared camera works by detecting reflected infrared light to determine position);
a computing device executing an application that causes the
computing device to at least: cause the at least one infrared camera to gather positional information from the reflecting device (see [0007]);
receive MRI data associated with a patient (see claim 15; inside MRI envelop to take MRI images);
Yee does not disclose simulate, based on the positional information and the MRI data, a predicted ultrasound field produced by the probe array; verify a target trajectory of the predicted ultrasound field relative to an anatomical target identified in the MRI data; generate, in real time, beam formation coefficients corresponding to drive signals for the probe array based on the verified target trajectory and acoustic properties derived from the MRI data; and in response to verifying the target trajectory, cause the probe array to initiate ultrasound stimulation via the drive signals. Murphy discloses simulate, based on the positional information and the MRI data, a predicted ultrasound field produced by the probe array (see abstract; [0060], [0074] and [0076]; acoustic simulation maps patients target brain regions relative to ultrasound elements; simulation perform on brain image data (MRI data)); verify a target trajectory of the predicted ultrasound field relative to an anatomical target identified in the MRI data (abstract; [0060], [0074] and [0076]; appropriately phase corrects each element timing such that a beam focuses on the target; identify the target in the MRI image and adjust phase to focus on the target); generate, in real time, beam formation coefficients corresponding to drive signals for the probe array based on the verified target trajectory and acoustic properties derived from the MRI data (abstract; Fig. 1A, [0008], [0012], [0060], [0062], [0065-0066], [0073-0074], [0076] and [0088]; control beamforming base on skull thickness and brain substructure mapping from MRI images of the brain; it is unclear what Murphy mean by offline computing device; it is clear from Fig. 1A that computer device 250 is connected to the stimulation device; further paragraphs [0008]; [0012]; [0066] and [0088] clearly disclose real time process information to generate, in real time, beam formation coefficients for treatment or adjustment of ultrasound stimulation parameters for real time target treatment; offline computing does not mean stimulation is not real time); and in response to verifying the target trajectory, cause the probe array to initiate ultrasound stimulation via the drive signals (see abstract; [0060], [0065], [0073-0074] and [0076]; perform simulation; perform phase correction then stimulate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yee to base on the positional information and the MRI data, a predicted ultrasound field produced by the probe array; verify a target trajectory of the predicted ultrasound field relative to an anatomical target identified in the MRI data; generate, in real time, beam formation coefficients corresponding to drive signals for the probe array based on the verified target trajectory and acoustic properties derived from the MRI data; and in response to verifying the target trajectory, cause the probe array to initiate ultrasound stimulation via the drive signals as taught by Murphy because this help predict optimal focusing parameter (see [0069]).
Yee does not disclose cause the gimbal system to adjust positioning of the probe array. Yee does not adjust the gimbal system electronically; however, replace manual (turn the knob by hand) activity with an automatic or electronically activate is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (In reVenner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined “old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed.” The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.). Vortman discloses cause the gimbal system to adjust positioning of the probe array (see Fig. 1A, [0021] and [0026]; the transducer elements 24 are movable by operation of the gimbals (positioner/positioning system); the electronic controller 18 (18 along with processor 22 is a computing device) electronically control the positioning system/gimbal system to move the transducer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yee to cause the gimbal system to adjust positioning of the probe array by a computing device as taught by Vortman because adjust system using electronic means provide advantages over manual activities.
Addressing claims 8-9 and 13-14, Yee discloses:
addressing claim 8, wherein the reflecting device comprises a plurality of reflecting balls positioned proximate to the probe array (see [0007]; reflecting device could be ball or any shape to reflect infrared for the camera to determine position; having one ball or plurality of balls only require routine skill in the art (In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced);
addressing claim 9, wherein the at least one infrared camera gathers positional information from the reflecting device based on infrared reflections from the reflecting device (see [0007]).
addressing claim 13, an optical guidance system, the optical guidance system measuring data about the shape of a scalp, wherein the application executed by computing device estimates a target position and orientation of the probe array based on the data provided by the optical guidance system (see [0007]; infrared camera is the optical guidance system that measure head position (shape of a scalp) and device position to help placing treatment device in position).
addressing claim 14, wherein the optical guidance system comprises at least
one of a camera, camera on a smartphone, or a LIDAR device (see [0007]; infrared camera).
Addressing claims 2-5, Murphy discloses:
addressing claim 2, wherein the probe array comprises an annular probe array or a rectangular matrix array (see Fig. 1B; annular matrix array);
addressing claim 3, where the probe array comprises a low element-count matrix array (see [0052]; two-dimensional ultrasound probes is low element-count matrix array; low element count just means a smaller number of transducer elements; 2-d use less transducer than 3-d).
addressing claim 4-5, overlay the simulated ultrasound filed onto the MRI data and display on the user interface (see Fig. 5D, [0015] and [0060-0061]; Fig. 5D showing an acoustic simulation of the ultrasound beam onto the image on the user interface 250).
Claim 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee (US 2023/0218235), in view of Murphy (US 2021/0370064), further in view of Vortman et al. (US 2007/0016039) and Maev et al. (US 10,330,782).
Addressing claims 10-11, Yee does not disclose a phase adaptation algorithm compensating for at least of scalp geometry or skull geometry. Maev discloses a phase adaptation algorithm compensating for at least of scalp geometry or skull geometry (see abstract, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 3, lines 20-60 and col. 7, lines 10-20; beamforming is generated base on skull thickness and phase is adapted using algorithm to compensate for skull thickness, geometry and aberration; Maev also explicitly discloses limitation in claim 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yee to have a phase adaptation algorithm compensating for at least of scalp geometry or skull geometry as taught by Maev because this help improve ultrasound procedure quality (see abstract; the image would be better; when use for treatment the treatment would also be better because ultrasound transmission through the skull would improve.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee (US 2023/0218235), in view of Murphy (US 2021/0370064), further in view of Vortman et al. (US 2007/0016039) and Urabe et al. (US 2020/0383662).
Addressing claim 12, Yee does not disclose wherein the system identifies a blood vessel in the simulated ultrasound field and generates a notification in response to identifying the blood vessel. Urabe disclose identify the blood vessel in ultrasound beam and generates a notification (see [0010]; the ultrasound beam is equivalent to ultrasound field; Berger disclose calculate/simulate ultrasound field). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yee to identified blood vessel in ultrasound beam/field and generate a notification as taught by Urabe this allow user to target or avoid blood vessel such as measure blood flow (see [0014]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee (US 2023/0218235), in view of Murphy (US 2021/0370064), further in view of Vortman et al. (US 2007/0016039) and D’urso et al. (US 2019/0209007).
Addressing claim 15, Yee does not disclose using EEG signal to calculate a target position and orientation of the probe array. D’urso discloses using EEG signal to calculate/determine a target position and orientation of the functional element (treatment element) (see claim 53, using EEG to determine if treatment element in wearable device is align with implanted device; the target position and orientation would be that the two devices align; monitor and adjust using EEG to make sure the devices are aligned). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yee to use EEG signal to calculate a target position and orientation of the probe array (element) as taught by D’urso because this would optimize operation (see [0097]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee (US 2023/0218235), in view of Murphy (US 2021/0370064), further in view of Vortman et al. (US 2007/0016039) and Hyde et al. (US 2015/0164407).
Addressing claims 16-17, Yee does not disclose wherein the application verifies acoustic contact between probes of the probe array and a scalp and generates at least one notification on acoustic contact verification; wherein the application analyzes non-beamformed probe data from the probe array to determine if there is adequate contact between the probe array and a scalp. Hyde discloses wherein the application verifies acoustic contact between probes of the probe array and a scalp and generates at least one notification on acoustic contact verification; wherein the application analyzes non-beamformed probe data from the probe array to determine if there is adequate contact between the probe array and a scalp (see [0033], [0035], [0038] and [0110]; using ultrasound signal to determine if ultrasound transducer is in contact with scalp region and output signal; ultrasound signals are raw data (non-beamformed data) and not ultrasound images; piezoelectric component allow user to analyzed non-beamform data to determine contact and output notification signal; sensor 110 could be ultrasound sensor which use raw data to detect contact; it measure impedance different to determine contact). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yee to have wherein the application verifies acoustic contact between probes of the probe array and a scalp and generates at least one notification on acoustic contact verification; wherein the application analyzes non-beamformed probe data from the probe array to determine if there is adequate contact between the probe array and a scalp as taught by Hyde because this allow for determine if the treatment device is in good contact with the skull, analyze scalp structure and topography.
Claims 18-26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee (US 2023/0218235), in view of Murphy (US 2021/0370064), further in view of Vortman et al. (US 2007/0016039) and Snell (US 2025/0090871).
Addressing claim 18, Yee in view of Murphy and Vortman discloses a system that perform the method in claim 18. However, they do not disclose adjusting, based on the verified acoustic field simulation, a position of the probe array. In the same field of endeavor, Snell discloses adjusting, based on the verified acoustic field simulation, a position of the probe array (see abstract, [0013], [0034] and [0042]; simulate ultrasound rays (acoustic field) and adjust the transducer position to a position that give a design simulation result). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yee to have adjusting, based on the verified acoustic field simulation, a position of the probe array as taught by Snell because this improves treatment (see [0128]).
Addressing claims 19-22, Murphy discloses:
addressing claim 19, wherein the probe array comprises an annular probe array or a rectangular matrix array (see Fig. 1B; annular matrix array);
addressing claim 20, where the probe array comprises a low element-count matrix array (see [0052]; two-dimensional ultrasound probes is low element-count matrix array; low element count just means a smaller number of transducer elements; 2-d use less transducer than 3-d).
addressing claim 21, overlay the simulated ultrasound filed onto the MRI data and display on the user interface (see Fig. 5D, [0015] and [0060-0061]; Fig. 5D showing an acoustic simulation of the ultrasound beam onto the image on the user interface 250).
addressing claim 22, the beam formation coefficients are based upon skull thickness or skull aberrations of a patient (see [0065], [0073] and [0076]; beamforming base on skull thickness is well-known; applicant pointed out in the remark that beam forming control is well-known; also see the conclusion section below for further information).
Addressing claims 23-26 and 30, Yee discloses:
addressing claim 23, cause the gimbal system to adjust positioning of the probe array (see [0006-0007]).
addressing claim 24, determining the positional data associated with the probe array based upon data obtained by at least one infrared camera (see [0007]).
addressing claim 25, wherein the at least one infrared camera obtains the positional information based on reflections from the reflecting device based on infrared reflections from the reflecting device mounted proximate to the probe array (see [0007]).
addressing claim 26, wherein the reflecting device comprises a plurality of reflecting balls positioned proximate to the probe array (see [0007]; reflecting device could be ball or any shape to reflect infrared for the camera to determine position; having one ball or plurality of balls only require routine skill in the art (In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced).
addressing claim 30, measuring, via an optical guidance system, data about the shape of a scalp, wherein the application executed by computing device estimates a target position and orientation of the probe array based on the data provided by the optical guidance system (see [0007]; infrared camera is the optical guidance system that measure head position (shape of a scalp) and device position to help placing treatment device in position).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee (US 2023/0218235), in view of Murphy (US 2021/0370064), further in view of Vortman et al. (US 2007/0016039), Snell (US 2025/0090871) and Maev et al. (US 10,330,782).
Addressing claims 27-28, Yee does not disclose a phase adaptation algorithm compensating for at least of scalp geometry or skull geometry. Maev discloses a phase adaptation algorithm compensating for at least of scalp geometry or skull geometry (see abstract, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 3, lines 20-60 and col. 7, lines 10-20; beamforming is generated base on skull thickness and phase is adapted using algorithm to compensate for skull thickness, geometry and aberration). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yee to have a phase adaptation algorithm compensating for at least of scalp geometry or skull geometry as taught by Maev because this help improve ultrasound procedure quality (see abstract; the image would be better; when use for treatment the treatment would also be better because ultrasound transmission through the skull would improve.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee (US 2023/0218235), in view of Murphy (US 2021/0370064), further in view of Vortman et al. (US 2007/0016039), Snell (US 2025/0090871) and Urabe et al. (US 2020/0383662).
Addressing claim 12, Yee does not disclose wherein the system identifies a blood vessel in the simulated ultrasound field and generates a notification in response to identifying the blood vessel. Urabe disclose identify the blood vessel in ultrasound beam and generates a notification (see [0010]; the ultrasound beam is equivalent to ultrasound field; Berger disclose calculate/simulate ultrasound field). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yee to identified blood vessel in ultrasound beam/field and generate a notification as taught by Urabe this allow user to target or avoid blood vessel such as measure blood flow (see [0014]).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee (US 2023/0218235), in view of Murphy (US 2021/0370064), further in view of Vortman et al. (US 2007/0016039), Snell (US 2025/0090871) and D’urso et al. (US 2019/0209007).
Addressing claim 31, Yee does not disclose using EEG signal to calculate a target position and orientation of the probe array. D’urso discloses using EEG signal to calculate/determine a target position and orientation of the functional element (treatment element) (see claim 53, using EEG to determine if treatment element in wearable device is align with implanted device; the target position and orientation would be that the two devices align; monitor and adjust using EEG to make sure the devices are aligned). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yee to use EEG signal to calculate a target position and orientation of the probe array (element) as taught by D’urso because this would optimize operation (see [0097]).
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee (US 2023/0218235), in view of Murphy (US 2021/0370064), further in view of Vortman et al. (US 2007/0016039), Snell (US 2025/0090871) and Hyde et al. (US 2015/0164407).
Addressing claims 32-33, Yee does not disclose wherein verifies acoustic contact between probes of the probe array and a scalp and generating at least one notification on acoustic contact verification; wherein analyzing non-beamformed probe data from the probe array to determine if there is adequate contact between the probe array and a scalp. Hyde discloses wherein verifies acoustic contact between probes of the probe array and a scalp and generating at least one notification on acoustic contact verification; wherein analyzing non-beamformed probe data from the probe array to determine if there is adequate contact between the probe array and a scalp (see [0033], [0035], [0038] and [0110]; using ultrasound signal to determine if ultrasound transducer is in contact with scalp region and output signal; ultrasound signals are raw data (non-beamformed data) and not ultrasound images; piezoelectric component allow user to analyzed non-beamform data to determine contact and output notification signal; sensor 110 could be ultrasound sensor which use raw data to detect contact; it measure impedance different to determine contact). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yee to have wherein verifies acoustic contact between probes of the probe array and a scalp and generating at least one notification on acoustic contact verification; wherein analyzing non-beamformed probe data from the probe array to determine if there is adequate contact between the probe array and a scalp as taught by Hyde because this allow for determine if the treatment device is in good contact with the skull, analyze scalp structure and topography.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 8-22 and 24-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Also, the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regarding 112(f) interpretation, the term “reflecting device” is being interpret according to the specification. Reflecting device is a placeholder for device that reflect energy as the specification disclose an example: reflecting balls. Examiner interprets the term according to what is disclose in the specification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3,983,374 (see col. 8, line 65-col. 9, line 28; computing device control the step motor to move transducer on the gimbal) and US 2015/0078595 (see Figs. 6-7, [0042], [0044], [0046] and [0048]; computing device control the servo motor to move transducer on the gimbal).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN NGOC NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/HIEN N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights