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 .
Note: all citations with respect to the specification of present application are citing the paragraph number in the Pre-Grant Publication US 2025/0302576 A1.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claim 1 – 19) in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 1 – 20 remain pending in the application;
Claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration.
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.
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:
Limitation “marker element” in claim 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, 18 and 19.
Limitation “locator” in claim 1 – 4 and 9 – 19.
Limitation “signal emitter” in claim 5 – 7.
Limitation “power receiver” in claim 5 – 7.
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.
Regarding limitation “marker element” in claim 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, 18 and 19, the corresponding structural disclosure in the specification of present application is recited as: “Marker element (120) is generally configured to facilitate localization of marker (100). For instance, marker element (120) is generally configured as a hard non-bioabsorbable (e.g., permanent or semi-permanent) material with radiopaque and/or echogenic properties to enhance visualization of marker (100) over relatively long durations (e.g., months or years). Thus, marker element (120) is generally formed into a variety of different shapes to enhance visualization of marker (100) under ultrasound, x-ray, or both” in [0019].
Regarding limitation “locator” in claim 1 – 4 and 9 – 19, the corresponding structural disclosure in the specification of present application is recited as: “Although locator (150) of the present example includes a piezoelectric crystal to produce vibration, it should be understood that other component may be used in other examples either in addition to, or in lieu of, the piezoelectric crystal. For instance, in some examples, locator (150) may include a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) motor configured to drive a vibrator or oscillator. In addition, or in the alternative, locator (150) may include one or more magnetic vibration generators, one or more EMF-based vibration generators, and/or combinations thereof” in [0026].
Regarding limitation “signal emitter” in claim 5 – 7, the corresponding structural disclosure in the specification of present application is recited as: “Signal emitter (452) can include a variety of emitters either separately or in combination. For instance, in some examples, signal emitter (452) can include one or more piezoelectric crystals or other vibratory elements, which can be configured to emit vibrations. In other examples, signal emitter (452) can include light emitters either in combination with piezoelectric crystals or in lieu of piezoelectric crystals” in [0045].
Regarding limitation “power receiver” in claim 5 – 7, the corresponding structural disclosure in the specification of present application is recited as: “Receiver (470) can be configured to receive power through a variety of modes. For instance, in some examples, receiver (470) is configured to receive power via ultrasonic radiation. In such examples, receiver (470) includes a piezoelectric crystal configured to vibrate in the presence of ultrasonic radiation. This vibration can then result in the piezoelectric crystal generating an electric current. In other examples, receiver (470) is configured to receive power via electromagnetic radiation. In such examples, receiver (470) includes a coil of wire. When the coil of wire is positioned within an electromagnetic field emitted by a remote source, the electromagnetic field may induce a current in the coil of wire. In yet other examples, receiver (470) includes a combination of elements such as piezoelectric crystals and coils of wire to receive power through a combination of different modes. In still other examples, receiver (470) includes element configured to draw power from bodily tissues either through body heat or movement of the body” in [0047]
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 § 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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites limitation “at least a portion of the marker element” in line 1 – 2, it is unclear the above “portion” is a newly introduced different portion or same portion of the marker element as introduced in claim 1 line 3.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable portion of the marker element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 1, 2, 4 – 6 and 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krag et al. (US 2004/0138555 A1; published on 07/15/2004) (hereinafter "Krag").
Regarding claim 1, Krag discloses a biopsy site marker ("… a first wireless implantable marker configured to be implanted within the human body …" [0012]), the marker comprising:
(a) a carrier ("… to outer housing 90 of marker 30 e." [0069]);
(b) a marker element, at least a portion of the marker element being disposed within a portion of the carrier ("… via support 88 to outer housing 90 of marker 30 e." [0069]; here both the support and outer housing are considered as marker element for transferring the vibrating); and
(c) a locator, the locator being configured to emit vibrations into tissue proximate the marker ("Piezoelectric device 86 is attached via support 88 to outer housing 90 of marker 30 e. Housing 90 is designed to resonate at the mechanical oscillation frequency of piezoelectric device 86." [0069]).
Regarding claim 2, Krag discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and further discloses the locator being in communication with the marker element ("Piezoelectric device 86 is attached via support 88 to outer housing 90 of marker 30 e." [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, Krag discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and further discloses the locator defining at least a portion of the marker element ("Piezoelectric device 86 is attached via support 88 to outer housing 90 of marker 30 e." [0069]; the support 88 is portion of marker element, which is also part of the vibration generating device).
Regarding claim 5, Krag discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and further discloses the locator including a signal emitter ("… to drive piezoelectric device 86 connected to circuit 84. Piezoelectric device 86 is a conventional piezoelectric device of the type that converts an oscillating electrical input signal into mechanical oscillations." [0069]) and a power receiver ("A power detection and regulation circuit 82 is connected to antenna 80 …" [0069]), the power receiver being in communication with the signal emitter to emit vibrations via the signal emitter ("… oscillator and waveform generator circuit 84 connected to circuit 82. Circuit 84 … to drive piezoelectric device 86 connected to circuit 84." [0069]).
Regarding claim 6, Krag discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 5, and further discloses the locator further including a controller ("… by oscillator and waveform generator circuit 84 …"), the controller being in communication with the signal emitter and the power receiver ("… oscillator and waveform generator circuit 84 connected to circuit 82. Circuit 84 … to drive piezoelectric device 86 connected to circuit 84." [0069]), the controller being configured to drive the signal emitter to emit vibrations in a predetermined sequence ("Circuit 84 converts the regulated RF signal received from circuit 82 into an oscillating electrical signal, preferably in the audio frequency range (i.e., 20 Hz-20 kHz), having a waveform that is optimized to drive piezoelectric device 86 connected to circuit 84." [0069]).
Regarding claim 8, Krag discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and further discloses the locator including a piezoelectric crystal ("Piezoelectric device 86 is a conventional piezoelectric device of the type that converts an oscillating electrical input signal into mechanical oscillations." [0069]; piezoelectric crystal is a conventional piezoelectric element).
Regarding claim 9, Krag discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and further discloses the locator being configured to emit vibrations in the presence of ultrasonic radiation ("More specifically, incoming ultrasound signal 74 is reflected off marker 30 e as reflected ultrasound signal 76, with a Doppler shift component being added to the reflected signal due to the vibration of the marker to enhance imageability of the marker." [0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Krag discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and further discloses the locator being configured to emit vibrations continuously in the presence of ultrasonic radiation ("More specifically, incoming ultrasound signal 74 is reflected off marker 30 e as reflected ultrasound signal 76, with a Doppler shift component being added to the reflected signal due to the vibration of the marker to enhance imageability of the marker." [0068]).
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.
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.
Claim 3, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krag, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Imran et al. (US 2004/0068204 A1; published on 04/08/2004) (hereinafter "Imran").
Regarding claim 3, Krag teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, except the marker element including a base defining a coil-shaped structure, the locator being disposed within the coil-shaped structure of the base.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Imran teaches the marker element including a base defining a coil-shaped structure ("The capsule 110 includes an RF coil 135 …" [0035]; see Fig.3A, the capsule, which is equivalent to the outer housing of Krag, comprising a coil based structure), the locator being disposed within the coil-shaped structure of the base ("… an acoustic transducers 136 a, 136 b, and 136 c located within the capsule body 111." [0085]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the marker as taught by Krag with the active marker as taught by Imran. Doing so would make it possible to provide an "improved system for determining the coordinates of a capsule in three-dimensional space" (see Imran; [0017]).
Regarding claim 13, Krag teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, except the locator being entirely enclosed by the carrier.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Imran teaches the locator being entirely enclosed by the carrier ("The capsule 110 includes an RF coil 135 for transmitting and receiving RF signals, and an acoustic transducers 136 a, 136 b, and 136 c located within the capsule body 111." [0085]; see Fig.3A, all elements are within the capsule).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the marker as taught by Krag with the active marker as taught by Imran. Doing so would make it possible to provide an "improved system for determining the coordinates of a capsule in three-dimensional space" (see Imran; [0017]).
Regarding claim 14, Krag teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, except the marker element including one or more legs, each leg of the one or more legs extending from an outer surface of the carrier, the locator being configured to communicate the vibrations through at least one leg of the one or more legs.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Imran teaches the marker element including one or more legs, each leg of the one or more legs extending from an outer surface of the carrier ("An elongate member 115 is affixed to the back end 131 of the capsule body 111." [0087]), the locator being configured to communicate the vibrations through at least one leg of the one or more legs ("The elongate member 115 is preferably formed of an elastically behaving material such as a Ni—Ti alloy." [0087]; since elastic material is also a medium for transferring vibration, and the elongate member is mechanically connected to the outer housing, the vibration of outer housing as taught by Krag will transfer to the elongate member inherently).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the marker as taught by Krag with the active marker as taught by Imran. Doing so would make it possible to provide an "improved system for determining the coordinates of a capsule in three-dimensional space" (see Imran; [0017]).
Claim 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krag, as applied in claim 5, and further in view of Perryman et al. (US 2022/0233872 A1; published on 07/28/2022) (hereinafter "Perryman").
Regarding claim 7, Krag teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 5, and Krag further teaches a power supply to communicate the received power via the power receiver to the signal emitter ("This marker 30 e includes an antenna 80 for receiving an RF signal that provides the energy driving the marker." [0069]).
Although Krag does not explicitly teach a power source being configured to store power received via the power receiver, Krag teaches an embodiment of including a battery in the marker to supply power (see Krag; [0067]).
In addition, in the same field of endeavor, Perryman teaches the locator further including a power source, the power source being configured to store power received via the power receiver and communicate the stored power to the signal emitter ("The pIPG 20 receives the signal 30 at the receiver array and converts the power to stored energy … . In one embodiment, the energy is stored locally in each receiver element internal to the receiver array 21. In an alternative embodiment, the energy is stored in a central energy storage bank 22 in the pIPG 20. The stored energy 22 is harnessed by the pulse generator 23 ..." [0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the marker battery as taught by Krag with the on-board power storage as taught by Perryman. Dosing so would make it possible to provide reliable power supply in the case of "poor power reception" (see Perryman; [0015] - [0017]).
Regarding claim 11, Krag in view of Perryman teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 7, and Krag further teaches the locator being configured to emit vibrations imperceptible to humans ("More specifically, incoming ultrasound signal 74 is reflected off marker 30 e as reflected ultrasound signal 76, with a Doppler shift component being added to the reflected signal due to the vibration of the marker to enhance imageability of the marker." [0068]; the reflected ultrasound with shift is imperceptible to humans).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krag, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Maharbiz et al. (US 2019/0150881 A1; published on 05/23/2019) (hereinafter "Maharbiz").
Regarding claim 12, Krag teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, except the locator being configured to emit vibrations of 25 Megahertz to 30 Megahertz.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Maharbiz teaches the locator being configured to emit vibrations of 25 Megahertz to 30 Megahertz ("… the miniaturized ultrasonic transducers are narrow-band … the frequency of the ultrasonic waves is … between about 25 MHz and about 50 MHz …" [0115]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the frequency as taught by Krag with the frequency as taught by Maharbiz. Setting such frequency range "allows for a smaller miniaturized ultrasonic transducer on the implantable device" (see Maharbiz; [0115]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krag, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of LaViola et al. (US 2021/0169579 A1; published on 06/10/2021) (hereinafter "LaViola").
Regarding claim 15, Krag teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and Krag further teaches the carrier being biocompatible ("… a wireless implantable marker comprises a biocompatible casing …" [0013]), the marker element and the locator being permanent (the piezoelectric device and the support are permanent by the definition of material).
Krag fails to explicitly teach the carrier being bioabsorbable.
However, in the same field of endeavor, LaViola teaches the carrier being bioabsorbable ("In some aspects, as illustrated by FIG. 2D, the central orb 202 can be made of bio-absorbable material for example, hydrogel, blend and/or copolymer of polyglycolide or polyglycolic acid. In this example the central orb 202 over time may be absorbed by the body, while the distal spheres, not comprising bio-absorbable material remain in the body." [0093]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the marker carrier as taught by Krag with the multiple markers carrier as taught by LaViola. Dosing so, the unnecessary part such like the components for delivery "over time may be absorbed by the body, while the distal spheres, not comprising bio-absorbable material remain in the body" to continue the function of localization (see LaViola; [0093]).
Claim 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krag in view of LaViola.
Regarding claim 16, Krag teaches a system for locating a biopsy site ("The present invention is directed toward methods, systems, and system components for finding a target location within a human body." [0012]), the system comprising:
(a) an ultrasound transducer ("… for markers 30 e and 30 f, which are designed to provide high image contrast when imaged with ultrasound, probe 32 includes a conventional ultrasound transducer which are designed to provide high image contrast when imaged with ultrasound, probe 32 includes a conventional ultrasound transducer ..." [0113]); and
(b) a biopsy site marker ("… a first wireless implantable marker configured to be implanted within the human body …" [0012]), the marker including:
(i) a marker element ("… via support 88 to outer housing 90 of marker 30 e." [0069]; here both the support and outer housing are considered as marker element for transferring the vibrating), and
(ii) a locator proximate the marker element ("Piezoelectric device 86 is attached via support 88 to outer housing 90 of marker 30 e. Housing 90 is designed to resonate at the mechanical oscillation frequency of piezoelectric device 86." [0069]), the ultrasound transducer being configured to transmit ultrasonic radiation through tissue ("… when marker 30 is intended to be detected using a probe 32 and detector 34 that perform ultrasound imaging." [0068]; transmitting ultrasound energy through tissue is inherent property of ultrasound imaging),
the locator being configured to, in response to the ultrasonic radiation transmitted by the ultrasound transducer, produce vibrations ("More specifically, incoming ultrasound signal 74 is reflected off marker 30 e as reflected ultrasound signal 76, with a Doppler shift component being added to the reflected signal due to the vibration of the marker to enhance imageability of the marker." [0068]; "In the case of marker 30 e, the latter is caused to vibrate at a frequency that is generally significantly less than that of the ultrasound generated by the ultrasound transducer in probe 32." [0114]).
Krag fails to explicitly teach the locator being configured to be excited by the ultrasonic radiation transmitted by the ultrasound transducer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, LaViola teaches the locator being configured to be excited by the ultrasonic radiation transmitted by the ultrasound transducer, thereby producing vibrations ("In some examples, the ultrasonic sound waves may trigger or activate the marker localization transceiver 118 … and the marker localization transceiver 118 may be powered by the ultrasonic sound waves by converting the physical energy of the sound waves into electrical energy." [0067]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the marker operation as taught by Krag with the markers operation as taught by LaViola. By simplifying marker components such like the power supply, it is possible to "improve patient comfort and reduce challenges in surgical coordination and patient time in surgery" (see LaViola; [0051]).
Regarding claim 17, Krag in view of LaViola teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 16, and Krag further teaches the locator being configured to resonate with the ultrasonic radiation transmitted by the ultrasound transducer ("More specifically, incoming ultrasound signal 74 is reflected off marker 30 e as reflected ultrasound signal 76, with a Doppler shift component being added to the reflected signal due to the vibration of the marker to enhance imageability of the marker." [0068]).
Regarding claim 18, Krag in view of LaViola teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 16, and Krag further teaches the locator being coupled to a portion of the marker element ("Piezoelectric device 86 is attached via support 88 to outer housing 90 of marker 30 e." [0069]), the marker element being configured to transmit the vibrations produced by the locator ("Piezoelectric device 86 is attached via support 88 to outer housing 90 of marker 30 e. Housing 90 is designed to resonate at the mechanical oscillation frequency of piezoelectric device 86." [0069]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krag in view of LaViola, as applied in claim 16, and further in view of Imran.
Regarding claim 19, Krag in view of LaViola teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 16, and LaViola further teaches the marker further including a bioabsorbable carrier ("In some aspects, as illustrated by FIG. 2D, the central orb 202 can be made of bio-absorbable material for example, hydrogel, blend and/or copolymer of polyglycolide or polyglycolic acid. In this example the central orb 202 over time may be absorbed by the body, while the distal spheres, not comprising bio-absorbable material remain in the body." [0093]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the marker carrier as taught by Krag with the multiple markers carrier as taught by LaViola. Dosing so, the unnecessary part such like the components for delivery "over time may be absorbed by the body, while the distal spheres, not comprising bio-absorbable material remain in the body" to continue the function of localization (see LaViola; [0093]).
Krag in view of LaViola fails to explicitly teach the carrier enclosing the locator and at least a portion of the marker element.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Imran teaches the carrier enclosing the locator and at least a portion of the marker element ("… an acoustic transducers 136 a, 136 b, and 136 c located within the capsule body 111." [0085]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the marker as taught by Krag with the active marker as taught by Imran. Doing so would make it possible to provide an "improved system for determining the coordinates of a capsule in three-dimensional space" (see Imran; [0017]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chi Sing et al. (US 2021/0204832 A1; published on 07/08/2021) teach a biopsy site marker, a marker delivery tool and method, and a probe for localizing the implanted marker.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAO SHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-8059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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 M. 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.
/CHAO SHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797