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
The current Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on October 16, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14, and 22-24 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.
Applicant's arguments filed October 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues that Yatsenko fails to disclose a layered pattern structure since the previous Office action stated that the subject matter of claim 17 which recites the pattern structure having two layers. However, as currently written, claim 15 fails to define the layered pattern structure as having multiple layers and recites the structure having two materials.
Further, in response to applicant's argument that Yatsenko fails to disclose wherein the pattern structure of the first material and the second material is configured for generating a Moiré pattern of X-ray signal intensities, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “an X-ray image of the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device to which a Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached” and “wherein the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device comprises one or more of: a medical robot, a medical instrument, a medical device, a patient support device, and/or a patient” are not adequately described in the specification. The specification defines the object as a robotic instrument, a medical instrument, a medical device, a patient support device or a patient in [0028]. The specification discloses that the method is used to align a robotic instrument, a medical instrument, a medical device, a patient support device or a patient to a predetermined trajectory relative to the x-ray imaging device in [0030]. However, the specification fails to define the object is other than the associated x-ray imaging device and is different from a medical robot, a medical instrument, a medical device, a patient support device, and/or a patient. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 22, the limitations “an X-ray image of the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device to which a Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached” and “wherein the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device comprises one or more of: a medical robot, a medical instrument, a medical device, a patient support device, and/or a patient” are not adequately described in the specification. The specification defines the object as a robotic instrument, a medical instrument, a medical device, a patient support device or a patient in [0028]. The specification discloses that the method is used to align a robotic instrument, a medical instrument, a medical device, a patient support device or a patient to a predetermined trajectory relative to the x-ray imaging device in [0030]. However, the specification fails to define the object is other than the associated x-ray imaging device and is different from a medical robot, a medical instrument, a medical device, a patient support device, and/or a patient. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 23-24 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 26, the limitations “an X-ray image of the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device to which a Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached” and “wherein the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device comprises one or more of: a medical robot, a medical instrument, a medical device, a patient support device, and/or a patient” are not adequately described in the specification. The specification defines the object as a robotic instrument, a medical instrument, a medical device, a patient support device or a patient in [0028]. The specification discloses that the method is used to align a robotic instrument, a medical instrument, a medical device, a patient support device or a patient to a predetermined trajectory relative to the x-ray imaging device in [0030]. However, the specification fails to define the object is other than the associated x-ray imaging device and is different from a medical robot, a medical instrument, a medical device, a patient support device, and/or a patient. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yatsenko (U.S. 2006/0115054).
Regarding claim 15:
Yatsenko discloses a Moiré marker for x-ray imaging, the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging comprising:
a layered pattern structure of at least a first material ([0079], transparent and non-transparent material) and a second material ([0079], transparent and non-transparent material),
wherein the first material has a higher x-ray opacity than an x-ray opacity of the second material ([0079], transparent and non-transparent material), and
wherein the pattern structure of the first material and the second material is configured for generating a Moiré pattern of x-ray signal intensities in an x-ray image ([0089], image including moiré pattern) when being imaged by an associated x-ray imaging device ([0089], image including moiré pattern).
Regarding claim 16:
Yatsenko discloses the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging according to claim 15, wherein the layered pattern structure of the first material and second material is configured to allow a determination of a rotational position of the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging from the x-ray image of the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging ([0084]-[0089], spatial dimension found in moiré pattern).
Regarding claim 20:
Yatsenko discloses the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging according to claim 15, wherein the first material is or comprises at least one of lead ([0083], lead strips), tin, bismuth, tungsten, iodine, gold, tantalum, yttrium, niobium, molybdenum, ruthenium, rhodium, barium, lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, lutetium, hafnium, rhenium, osmium, iridium, or bismuth, and wherein the second material is-comprises at least one of air, plastic material, carbon ([0083], carbon fiber), a composite of a thermoplastic resin with carbon-fiber reinforcement, a thermoplastic polymer or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 21:
Yatsenko discloses a marker array for x-ray imaging, the array comprising:
the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging according to claim 15 (as rejected above); and
an x-ray marker of an x-ray opaque material ([0089], gratings, radiolucent panels and other structures can be used) having a ball shape, a cuboid shape, a pyramidal shape, a disc shape, or any combination thereof (Fig. 6, panel 610 is a combination of a cuboid and a pyramidal shape).
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, 7-8, 14, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatsenko (U.S. 2006/0115054) in view of Steinle (U.S. 2016/0175064).
Regarding claim 1:
Yatsenko discloses a computer-implemented method of determining a rotational position in a coordinate system of an associated x-ray imaging device of an object other than the associated x-ray imaging device, the method comprising:
providing an x-ray image of the object ([0089], image including moiré pattern) other than the associated to which a Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached ([0045], grid integrated into imaging system; [0078]-[0081], moiré based calibration) during generation of the x-ray image (Fig. 11, 1110), the x-ray image having been generated when the object which the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached ([0045], grid integrated into imaging system) is imaged together with the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging by the associated x-ray imaging device ([0089], image including moiré pattern), wherein a Moiré pattern of x-ray signal intensities is generated on the image ([0078], moiré patterns; [0091], moiré patterns detected from image) by the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging when the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device to which the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached is imaged together with the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging by the associated x-ray imaging device ([0078], moiré patterns; [0091], moiré patterns detected from image), and
determining, based on the Moiré pattern of signal intensities generated when the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device to which the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached is imaged together with the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging by the associated x-ray imaging device, the rotational position of the object in the coordinate system of the x-ray imaging device ([0092], moiré pattern is used to determine focal point of x-ray source).
However, Yatsenko fails to disclose wherein the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device comprises one or more of: a medical robot, a medical instrument, a medical device, a patient support device, and/or a patient; wherein the Moiré pattern of x-ray signal intensities generated when the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device to which the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached is imaged together with the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging by the associated x-ray imaging device is indicative of an angle between the Moiré marker and an x-ray propagation direction of the associated x-ray imaging device.
Steinle teaches wherein the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device comprises one or more of: a medical robot, a medical instrument, a medical device ([0073], spatial position of medical device), a patient support device, and/or a patient;
wherein the Moiré pattern of x-ray signal intensities generated when the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device to which the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached is imaged together with the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging by the associated x-ray imaging device is indicative of an angle between the Moiré marker and an x-ray propagation direction of the associated x-ray imaging device ([0072], spatial orientation of marker devices, [0073], spatial position of medical device).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Yatsenko with the Moiré marker of Steinle in order to improve tracking accuracy for better medical procedures (Steinle; [0003]-[0004]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Yatsenko and Steinle discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the rotational position of the object comprises:
determining at least one point in the Moiré pattern of x-ray signal intensities (Yatsenko; [0084]-[0089], spatial dimension found in moiré pattern); and
using the determined at least one point as an input of a pre-defined relation describing a dependency of the Moiré pattern from the angle between the Moiré marker and the x-ray propagation direction of the x-ray imaging device (Yatsenko; [0085]-[0087], spatial dimension is input in to Fourier transform equation).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Yatsenko and Steinle discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the determined at least one point represents an x-ray signal intensity minimum of the Moiré pattern or an x-ray signal intensity maximum of the Moiré pattern (Yatsenko; [0077], Moiré pattern has low and high frequencies).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Yatsenko and Steinle discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the pre-defined relation is a stored x-ray intensity distribution detected by an x-ray sensor of the x-ray imaging device (Yatsenko; [0089], moiré pattern is transmitted to analysis unit) as a function of the angle between the Moiré marker and the x-ray propagation direction of the x-ray imaging device (Yatsenko; [0079], moiré patterns show geometric offsets).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Yatsenko and Steinle discloses the method according to claim1, further comprising generating a control signal for positioning the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device relative to the x-ray imaging device based on the determined rotational position of the object (Yatsenko; [0092], imaging system is calibrated by moving based on the focal point calculation).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Yatsenko and Steinle discloses the method according to claim 5 further comprising using the generated control signal to cause a movement of the object (Yatsenko; [0092], imaging system is calibrated by moving based on the focal point calculation).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Yatsenko and Steinle discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the x-ray image is an x-ray projection image ([0089], image including moiré pattern), and the determined rotational position of the object takes into account, in a calculative manner, a spatial divergence of an x-ray beam emitted by the x-ray imaging device ([0079], moiré patterns show geometric offsets).
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Yatsenko and Steinle discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: automatically detecting the Moiré pattern of x-ray signal intensities in the x-ray image with an image processing algorithm ([0078], moiré patterns; [0091], moiré patterns detected from image).
Regarding claim 22:
Yatsenko discloses a system for determining a rotational position of an object in a coordinate system of an associated x-ray imaging device of an object other than the associated x-ray imaging device, the system comprising:
a calculation unit (Fig. 3, workstation 30) configured to:
provide an x-ray image of the object ([0089], image including moiré pattern) other than the associated to which a Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached ([0045], grid integrated into imaging system; [0078]-[0081], moiré based calibration) during generation of the x-ray image (Fig. 11, 1110), the x-ray image having been generated when the object which the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached ([0045], grid integrated into imaging system) is imaged together with the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging by the associated x-ray imaging device ([0089], image including moiré pattern), wherein a Moiré pattern of x-ray signal intensities is generated on the image ([0078], moiré patterns; [0091], moiré patterns detected from image) by the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging when the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device to which the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached is imaged together with the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging by the associated x-ray imaging device ([0078], moiré patterns; [0091], moiré patterns detected from image), and
determine, based on the Moiré pattern of signal intensities generated when the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device to which the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached is imaged together with the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging by the associated x-ray imaging device, the rotational position of the object in the coordinate system of the x-ray imaging device ([0092], moiré pattern is used to determine focal point of x-ray source).
However, Yatsenko fails to disclose wherein the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device comprises one or more of: a medical robot, a medical instrument, a medical device, a patient support device, and/or a patient; wherein the Moiré pattern of x-ray signal intensities generated when the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device to which the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached is imaged together with the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging by the associated x-ray imaging device is indicative of an angle between the Moiré marker and an x-ray propagation direction of the associated x-ray imaging device.
Steinle teaches wherein the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device comprises one or more of: a medical robot, a medical instrument, a medical device ([0073], spatial position of medical device), a patient support device, and/or a patient;
wherein the Moiré pattern of x-ray signal intensities generated when the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device to which the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached is imaged together with the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging by the associated x-ray imaging device is indicative of an angle between the Moiré marker and an x-ray propagation direction of the associated x-ray imaging device ([0072], spatial orientation of marker devices, [0073], spatial position of medical device).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Yatsenko with the Moiré marker of Steinle in order to improve tracking accuracy for better medical procedures (Steinle; [0003]-[0004]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 23:
The combination of Yatsenko and Steinle discloses the system according to claim 22, the system further comprising the associated x-ray imaging device (Yatsenko; Fig. 3, 20 imaging device), wherein the calculation unit is further configured to:
generate a control signal for positioning the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device relative to the associated x-ray imaging device based on a result of the determined rotational position of the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device (Yatsenko; [0092], imaging system is calibrated by moving based on the focal point calculation).
Regarding claim 24:
The combination of Yatsenko and Steinle discloses the system according to claim 22, further comprising: the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging, the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging comprising a pattern structure of at least a first material ([0079], transparent and non-transparent material) and a second material ([0079], transparent and non-transparent material), wherein the first material has a higher x-ray opacity than the second material ([0079], transparent and non-transparent material), and wherein the pattern structure of the first and the second material is configured for generating a Moiré pattern of x-ray signal intensities in the x-ray image ([0089], image including moiré pattern) when being imaged by the x-ray imaging device ([0089], image including moiré pattern).
Regarding claim 26:
Yatsenko discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Fig. 3, workstation 30) storing a program comprising program instructions that, when executed on at least one processor of a computer or loaded onto the at least one processor of the computer, causes the computer to perform the method of determining a rotational position in a coordinate system of an associated x-ray imaging device of an object other than the associated x-ray imaging device, the method of comprising:
providing an x-ray image of the object ([0089], image including moiré pattern) other than the associated to which a Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached ([0045], grid integrated into imaging system; [0078]-[0081], moiré based calibration) during generation of the x-ray image (Fig. 11, 1110), the x-ray image having been generated when the object which the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached ([0045], grid integrated into imaging system) is imaged together with the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging by the associated x-ray imaging device ([0089], image including moiré pattern), wherein a Moiré pattern of x-ray signal intensities is generated on the image ([0078], moiré patterns; [0091], moiré patterns detected from image) by the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging when the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device to which the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached is imaged together with the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging by the associated x-ray imaging device ([0078], moiré patterns; [0091], moiré patterns detected from image), and
determining, based on the Moiré pattern of signal intensities generated when the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device to which the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached is imaged together with the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging by the associated x-ray imaging device, the rotational position of the object in the coordinate system of the x-ray imaging device ([0092], moiré pattern is used to determine focal point of x-ray source).
However, Yatsenko fails to disclose wherein the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device comprises one or more of: a medical robot, a medical instrument, a medical device, a patient support device, and/or a patient; wherein the Moiré pattern of x-ray signal intensities generated when the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device to which the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached is imaged together with the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging by the associated x-ray imaging device is indicative of an angle between the Moiré marker and an x-ray propagation direction of the associated x-ray imaging device.
Steinle teaches wherein the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device comprises one or more of: a medical robot, a medical instrument, a medical device ([0073], spatial position of medical device), a patient support device, and/or a patient;
wherein the Moiré pattern of x-ray signal intensities generated when the object other than the associated x-ray imaging device to which the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging is attached is imaged together with the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging by the associated x-ray imaging device is indicative of an angle between the Moiré marker and an x-ray propagation direction of the associated x-ray imaging device ([0072], spatial orientation of marker devices, [0073], spatial position of medical device).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Yatsenko with the Moiré marker of Steinle in order to improve tracking accuracy for better medical procedures (Steinle; [0003]-[0004]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9-13, and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Yatsenko (U.S. 2006/0115054).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Yatsenko and Steinle discloses the method according to claim 5.
However, the combination of Yatsenko and Steinle \ fails to disclose repeating the steps of providing the one x-ray image of the object, determining the rotational position of the object, and generating the control signal until a pre-defined position condition describing a desired position of the object in the coordinate system of the x-ray imaging device is reached.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Yatsenko and Steinle discloses the method according to claim 1.
However, the combination of Yatsenko and Steinle fails to disclose wherein in the provided x-ray image the Moiré marker and a further marker are attached to the object as marker array, the method further comprising the step automatically identifying the further marker in the provided x-ray image.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. Claims 10-11 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Yatsenko and Steinle discloses the method according to claim 1.
However, the combination of Yatsenko and Steinle fails to disclose the determining the rotational position further comprises comparing at least the Moiré pattern of the x-ray signal intensities generated by the Moiré marker in the x-ray image with a target pattern of x-ray intensities to be generated by the Moiré marker.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. Claim 13 is allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 17:
Yatsenko disclose the Moiré marker for x-ray imaging according to claim 15, wherein the pattern structure further comprises:
a first layer ([0079], transparent and non-transparent material) with a first pattern of the first material ([0079], transparent and non-transparent material) and the second material ([0079], transparent and non-transparent material).
However, Yatsenko fails to disclose a second layer with a second pattern of the first material and the second material.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. Claims 18-19 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884