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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/07/2025. Claims 1, 13, 14, 15, and 22-24 are amended, claim 21 is canceled, claims 11, 13, 19, and 20 are previously canceled, and claims 1-10 and 12 were previously withdrawn. Claims 14-18 and 22-24 are currently examined below.
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 23 recites the limitation "the selected layout option of the application". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14-18 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 22 recites (additional elements crossed out):
extract non-standardized description field data from a plurality of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) sources;
extract a plurality of expressions from the non-standardized description field data;
create an ontology with the extracted expressions;
extract a new expression from new non-standardized description field data of a DICOM file of a medical exam;
pre-process the new expression to normalize and/or regularize the new expression into a standard format;
using the ontology, map the new expression in the standard format to a unidimensional type of the medical exam, and based on the unidimensional type, configure an application running on the computing device, wherein mapping the new expression to the unidimensional type of the medical exam, using the ontology, comprises mapping the new expression to one or more concepts in the ontology and mapping the one or more concepts to one or more entries of a radiology lexicon, the one or more entries including the unidimensional type of the medical exam,
wherein configuring the application running on the computing device comprises:
when a matching entry of the radiology lexicon is identified,
when a matching entry of the radiology lexicon is not identified, prompting a user to select the application from the list of available application.
The above limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and mental processes. That is, other than reciting the steps as being performed by a “computing device including one or more processors” nothing in the claim precludes the steps as being described as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and mental processes. For example, but for the “computing device including one or more processors” language, the limitations describe a system for extracting data/expressions from DICOM sources to create an ontology, extracting another expression, reformatting the expression, using the ontology to map the reformatted expressions to a type of medical exam, and configuring an application based on the type, wherein the application is selected based upon the matching of an entry of a radiology lexicon. An analog example would be a creating relationships between terms from medical documents to establish knowledge of relationships between the terms, and based on this knowledge configuring applications based on terms seen on medical exams, wherein the particular application that is configured is selected based on the mapping of the terms to a radiology lexicon. The limitations describe the management of personal behavior, as well as actions that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes steps that may be performed mentally or with pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a “computing device including one or more processors” to perform the steps. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality (see at least Para [0024]) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore still directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a “computing device including one or more processors” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The majority of independent claim 14 features limitations similar to those of claim 22. However, instead of featuring limitations “based on the unidimensional type, configuring an application running on the computing device”, claim 14 features “based on the unidimensional type, ” (additional limitation crossed out). Automatically loading a layout option is mere automation of a manual process which is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (See MPEP 2106.05(a).I). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as stated above, the performance of some of the functions “automatically” is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Therefore, claim 14 is not found to feature “significantly more”.
Claims 15-18, and 23-24 are dependent on claim 14, and include all the limitations of claim 14. Therefore, they are also found to be directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 17 features the additional limitation of “displaying translated terms and corresponding expressions of the set of expressions on a display device, for a human expert to manually reconcile”. However, the use of a display device to display translated terms and corresponding expressions merely serves to place the judicial exception into a computer environment (i.e., use of display device instead of pen and paper). The remaining dependent claims have not been found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract idea since they merely further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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(s) 14, 15, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Innanje (US 2021/0183496) in view of Sevenster (US 2018/0357307).
Regarding claim 14, Innanje discloses A system, comprising:
a computing device including one or more processors having executable instructions stored in a non-transitory memory that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
extract description field data from a plurality of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) sources, the plurality of DICOM sources including a plurality of DICOM files generated during previous or historical medical exams and stored in one or more databases;
extract a plurality of expressions from the description field data;
create an ontology with the extracted expressions;
See Abstract – “For example, a computer-implemented method includes receiving first data of a first data category, the first data having a first data format; extracting a first plurality of attributes from the first data using a first extractor; mapping the first plurality of attributes to an unified data format using a first mapper; receiving second data of a second data category, the second data having a second data format; extracting a second plurality of attributes from the second data using a second extractor; mapping the second plurality of attributes to the unified data format using a second mapper; and building an ontology for a use case by at least linking the first plurality of attributes and the second plurality of attributes”, Para. [0035] – “In some examples, the unified data format is DICOM. In some examples, the first data category includes radiology data. In certain examples, the first data includes one of scan images and annotations. In some examples, the scan images include CT images, MRI images, and/or PET images.” and Para. [0043] – “In certain examples, the disclosed system is configured to receive Radiology Information System (RIS) data, such as Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) data and Hospital Information System (HIS) data.” The Examiner notes that the language “…the plurality of DICOM sources including a plurality of DICOM files generated during previous or historical medical exams and stored in one or more databases” is simply a label for the DICOM sources and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., when the DICOM sources were generated, or stored) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method (i.e., extracting data from DICOM sources) does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the first data (i.e., DICOM sources) of Innanje be generated during previous medical exams and stored on databases because the timing of generation and manner in which the first data is stored does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and merely labeling the DICOM sources differently from that of the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Innanje partially discloses:
extract a new expression from new non-standardized description field data of a DICOM file of a current medical exam;
pre-process the new expression to normalize and/or regularize the new expression into a standard format;
(See at least Para. [0044] – “In certain embodiments, the HIS data receiving module is configured to receive HIS data, such as from a HIS workflow, such as to receive previously-collected HIS data from a database. In certain examples, HIS data and/or HIS workflow corresponds to patient registration, Physicians analysis, diagnostics, and/or treatment planning. In certain examples, HIS data are stored in one or more HIS formats (e.g., PDF).”, Para. [0046] – “In certain embodiments, the knowledge extraction plugin is configured to extract data from HIS data, such as to extract data from various HIS data formats. In certain examples, the knowledge extraction plugin is further configured to transform HIS data into a unified data format mappable to one or more DICOM attributes.” And Para. [0055] – “In certain examples, the disclosed system is configured to provide a mechanism for applying (e.g., uploading) one or more plugins configured for extracting and/or mapping unstructured data from HIS and/or RIS formats to DICOM format (e.g., standard format).” The Examiner notes that the language “…of a current medical exam” is simply a label for the medical exam and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the temporal status of the medical exam) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method (i.e., extracting expressions from DICOM file) does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the first data (i.e., DICOM sources) of Innanje be associated with current medical exams because the timing of the exam does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and merely labeling the medical exam differently from that of the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
In the event that it is argued that “current” is not a label for the medical exam, the Examiner points to Sevenster, Para. [0004] – “A method, comprising: retrieving a report for an imaging exam; parsing out text from the report; mapping the parsed text to an ontology; automatically deriving a categorization scheme from ontology concepts extracted from the report for the imaging exam; assigning a semantic category to the imaging exam using the ontology concepts and the categorization scheme; and grouping the imaging exam with other imaging exams based on the assigned semantic category.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Innanje to utilize the report of Sevenster since both Innanje and Sevenster are in the same field of endeavor (i.e., use of ontologies with medical data), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.)
Innanje does not explicitly disclose map the new expression in the standardized format to one or more concepts in the ontology and map the one or more concepts to one or more entries of a radiology lexicon, the one or more entries including a unidimensional type of the current medical exam, and based on the unidimensional type, automatically load a layout option of an application running on the computing device. See at least Sevenster Para. [0004] – “A method, comprising: retrieving a report for an imaging exam; parsing out text from the report; mapping the parsed text to an ontology; automatically deriving a categorization scheme from ontology concepts extracted from the report for the imaging exam; assigning a semantic category to the imaging exam using the ontology concepts and the categorization scheme; and grouping the imaging exam with other imaging exams based on the assigned semantic category.”, Para. [0036] – “In another exemplary embodiment, the exam grouping engine 118 groups imaging exams into semantic categories based on contextual parameters including anatomy and modality.”, and Para. [0038] – “In step 221, the user interface (UI) engine 120 displays the timeline of imaging exams, semantic groups and relevant imaging exams, which may be displayed on a display 106.” In other words, after assigning the imaging exam to a semantic category (i.e., radiological lexicon entry) after mapping parsed text to an ontology, the imaging exams associated with the category are displayed (i.e., a layout option). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Innanje to utilize the teachings of Sevenster since it would allow for the browsing of imaging exams and detection of relevant exams (Para. [0003]))
Regarding claim 15, Innanje discloses The system of claim 14, wherein the plurality of DICOM files are obtained from at least one of:
a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS); and
a log file generated during a performance of a medical imaging exam.
See Para. [0043] – “In certain examples, the disclosed system is configured to receive Radiology Information System (RIS) data, such as Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) data and Hospital Information System (HIS) data.”
Regarding claim 23, Innanje does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 14, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to display the current medical exam in the selected layout option of the application. (See Sevenster, Para. [0004] – “A method, comprising: retrieving a report for an imaging exam; parsing out text from the report; mapping the parsed text to an ontology; automatically deriving a categorization scheme from ontology concepts extracted from the report for the imaging exam; assigning a semantic category to the imaging exam using the ontology concepts and the categorization scheme; and grouping the imaging exam with other imaging exams based on the assigned semantic category.”, and Fig. 4 which features a display of a timeline of relevant medical exams including the semantic group to which the imaging exam was assigned. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to since it would allow for the browsing of imaging exams (Para. [0003])).
Regarding claim 24, Innanje discloses The system of claim 14, wherein the plurality of expressions extracted from the non-standardized description field data include at least one of an anatomy, a contrast, a contrast phase, a contrast agent, an acquisition gating, a laterality, a pathology, one or more reconstruction filters, a multi-energy indication, a weighting, and a pulse sequence. Innanje discloses the extraction of data that includes at least blood report data (Claims 1 and 7).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Innanje (US 2021/0183496) in view of Sevenster (US 2018/0357307), and in further view of Cousineau (US 2006/0020444)
Regarding claim 16, Innanje and Sevenster do not explicitly disclose The system of claim 14, wherein creating the ontology with the extracted expressions further comprises:
for each extracted expression, performing at least one of:
including a reference term matching the extracted expression in the ontology; including vocabulary related to the extracted expression imported from one or more relevant lexicons into the ontology;
including reference terms related to the extracted expression collected from one or more relevant reference databases; and
including terms related to the extracted expression collected from one or more reliable ontologies in a domain of the extracted expression.
See Cousineau Para. [0079] – “Exemplary properties for a given ontology concept include a corresponding definition and synonyms.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Innanje and Sevenster to include synonyms in an ontology as taught by Cousineau since the inclusion of synonyms is critical for semantic interoperability of the ontology (Para. [0079]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Innanje (US 2021/0183496) in view of Sevenster (US 2018/0357307) and Cousineau (US 2006/0020444), and in further view of Brager (US 2013/0144605)
Regarding claim 17, Innanje, Sevenster, and Cousineau do not explicitly disclose The system of claim 16, wherein further instructions are included in the non-transitory memory that when executed, cause the one or more processors to enrich the ontology with terms from a set of targeted languages, where enriching the ontology further comprises, for each targeted language of the set of targeted languages:
translating terms of the ontology with ontology-based translation tools; See Brager Para. [0074] – “The "rules" template may also be configured to identify a rule, translate the rule into a (pseudo) natural language description ( or retrieve the description from metadata), and present the algorithm for consideration by an authoring entity.”
extracting a set of expressions from description fields of DICOM sources in the targeted languages, using the ontology; See Brager Para. [0075] – “The "import filters" template allows the authoring entity to identify existing import filters and/or design new filters. Import filters are an important class of rule sets typically used to parse and prepare extracted project data as the data is entered into the TMAO system. That is, a taxonomy rule set may be used to categorize and tag data items in the source project data, based on meaning. An import filter rule set may then be used to select a particular meaning for extraction (i.e., filter the data), prepare the data into a desired format, and enter the extracted data into the TMAO database in the desired format.”
displaying translated terms and corresponding expressions of the set of expressions on a display device, for a human expert to manually reconcile; See Brager Para. [0123] – “In this embodiment, the TMAO system may then be re-run with these new inputs, or it can otherwise retain the inputs without running until a human moderator or subsequent rule approves one or more of the inputs.”
based on input from the human expert, update the ontology with the reconciled translated terms. See Brager Para. [0126] – “The Learning System incorporates accepted changes into the primary TMAO system, by exporting feedback as Rule-Base Updates (1.14) back into the TMAO system.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Innanje, Sevenster, and Cousineau to utilize the features taught by Brager since it would improve the accuracy of the system through human verification.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Innanje (US 2021/0183496) in view of Sevenster (US 2018/0357307), Cousineau (US 2006/0020444), and Brager (US 2013/0144605), and in further view of Geller (US 2013/0013580)
Regarding claim 18 Innanje, Sevenster, Cousineau, and Brager do not explicitly disclose The system of claim 17, wherein further instructions are included in the non-transitory memory that when executed, cause the one or more processors to evaluate a performance of the ontology at expression extraction during an extraction of expressions from description fields of a test set of DICOM sources, wherein the performance is evaluated based on at least one of an extraction rate per expression, a total expression recognition rate, and a rate of conflicting terms extracted. Innanje discloses extracting terms from DICOM sources. However, Innanje, Sevenster, Cousineau, and Brager do not disclose evaluating the performance of the ontology. See Geller Para. [0144] – “We ran an evaluation experiment of the ontology expansion system. Three independent users were selected to perform in total 100 Web searches for famous people using the OSWS system. Among the 100 input queries, 34 of them already existed in the ontology, thus, their suggested completions were retrieved immediately from the ontology. Another 59 taken from the user queries, did not exist in the ontology and were automatically added.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Innanje, Sevenster, Cousineau, and Brager to utilize the teachings of Geller since it would allow users to determine if an ontology has areas that need improvement.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Innanje (US 2021/0183496) in view of Sevenster (US 2018/0357307), Burke (US 2012/0179670) and Cover (US 2006/0136389)
Regarding claim 22, Innanje and Sevenster do not explicitly disclose:
Wherein configuring the application running on the computing device comprises:
when a matching entry of the radiology lexicon is identified, automatically selecting the application from among a list of available applications based on the unidimensional type of the medical exam (Sevenster teaches assigning imaging exams to a semantic category based on at least anatomy and modality (Para. [0038]), as well as displaying the semantic groups (Para. [0038]). However, Sevenster is silent in regards to selecting an application to display the semantic groups based on their associated modality. See Burke, Para. [0033] – “In response to finding an indicator of the type of medical image file format, the corresponding proprietary viewer required to view such medical images can be executed at step 110. For example, the computer terminal 16 can accomplish this by opening the file on the CD including the search term "iSite" found during a search and having the executable file extension ".exe" or "bat" or other extension indicating an executable file. Alternately, the computer terminal 16 can use a lookup table to identify the executable file for viewers compatible with the corresponding medical image format. Any suitable relationship between the executable file and the search time or medical image format identified can be used. Regardless of how it is identified, the executable file is operable to launch the proprietary viewer for viewing iSite-compatible medical images.”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify they system of Innanje and Sevenster to utilize the teachings of Burke since it would ensure that the semantic groups of Sevenster are displayed in a suitable format.
Innanje and Sevenster also do not explicitly disclose when a matching entry of the radiology lexicon is not identified, prompting a user to select the application from the list of available application. (See Cover Para. [0065] – “When an associated application is not identified, the operating system 202 then prompts the user for further action. As shown in FIG. 4, the operating system 202 may invoke an OpenAs_RunDLL applet 404, which in a Windows-based system is executed by the Rundll32.exe application. In an embodiment, the OpenAs_RunDLL applet 404 creates a popup window that prompts the user to make one of two selections: (1) use a Web-based service to find the appropriate application to open the selected data file; or (2) manually select an application from a list of available applications to open the selected data file.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Innanje, Sevenster, and Burke to utilize the teachings of Cover since it would ensure that the exam data of Innanje/Sevenster/Burke is displayed properly even if the exam data type is unknown by the system.
The remaining limitations of independent claim 22 are similar to those of independent claim 14, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant points again to paragraphs [0019]-[0022], and [0116] as indicting that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by providing an improvement to computer functionality. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner points to Para. [0116] which states, in part, “Because the approach described herein relies on less processing power and a smaller amount of stored data, an appropriate option may be automatically selected, or a list of candidate options may be displayed to the user in real time without introducing any delays or lag time, facilitating a faster and more efficient work-flow and reducing an amount of user frustration.” This is not indicative of an improvement to computer functionality. As stated in the previous action, the actual functions (ex., processing execution speed, data retrieval speed) of any involved computing elements remain unchanged. The execution of fewer processes would inherently result in faster processing.
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to claim 37. This is not persuasive as Example 47 featured a different fact pattern. Example 37 featured “automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use”(i.e., active transformation of an interface), while the instant claims merely load a layout option as featured in claim 141, or the selection of an application as featured in claim 22.
Applicant argues Ex parte Desjardins supports the patent eligibility of the invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Desjardins was directed to improvements in machine learning technology. The instant claims are completely unrelated.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant takes issue with the combination of Innanje and Sevenster; in particular Sevenster featuring an external ontology. This is not persuasive. To briefly explain, Innanje establishes the creation of an ontology and the extraction of data from medical exams. However, Innanje was silent in regards to using the ontology to map the extracted data to a radiology lexicon. Sevenster is brought in to teach this. Regardless of whether the ontology of Sevenster is external or not, it still teaches the mapping of parsed terms to a radiological lexicon (e.g., semantic category) using an ontology. Further, the Applicant states, “one having ordinary skill in the art would not expect that a semantic category usable to allow for the browsing of imaging exams and detection of relevant exams could successfully be provided if the ontology of Innanje were utilized, since the ontology of Innanje includes linked attributes of radiology data (e.g., images or annotations) and profile, clinical, or diagnostic data (e.g., ECG data) that can be used to perform searches, generate graphs, and the like.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. If the ontology features data (i.e., images) that can be used to perform searches, then it allows for the browsing of imaging exams (e.g., searching for particular radiological images). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the combination of references teaches the limitation.
Applicant’s arguments concerning reference Cover are moot due to the application of additional prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE G ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 4:30 EST; Friday 7:00-11:00 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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.
/KYLE G ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3685 /KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
1 The Examiner notes that the specification does not appear to feature any language describing what a “layout option” entails.