Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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 31 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.
The claim contains grammatical errors to the extent that it is unclear what is being claimed. For example, it recites “The method of claim 20, said controlling the second light source …” is not a grammatically correct phrase. The claim further recites said controlling the second light source “yielding a second pixel response, of the image sensor, that includes a red channel and a yellow channel” which is considered to further identify “said controlling the second light source”, but then there is no description of how further this element is defined in scope, e.g. what it does or how it operates, it simply identifies the “said controlling the second light source”. Therefore, the recitation of “said controlling the second light source” is considered incomplete and therefore indefinite.
The claim further recites “wherein: said generating the enhanced image further comprises subtracting the red channel from the yellow channel”. It is unclear if this is to mean the red and yellow illumination channels or the red and yellow image channels because if it refers to the illumination channels, it is a very roundabout way to simply recite a yellow illumination channel. For example, as the claim is written, it appears it is referring to the red and yellow channels of the second light source, but this would simply mean the second light source is emitting a yellow light since the second light source has been identified as a yellow and red illumination minus the red illumination, leaving just the yellow light. As such, it will be interpreted as a second light source as being yellow light, until the indefiniteness has been resolved by the applicant.
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) 1, 7-9, 11, 12, 18-21, 24-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama US2023/0347168 and further in view of Shahinian et al. US2014/0085420 and Mitamura US 20190289179 A1.
Murayama discloses for claim 1 “A multi-band imager comprising:
a first light source (311; fig 2; 0048, describes white light source 311) that illuminates an area of interest during a first time period;
a second light source (312; fig 2; 0049, describes a light having some wavelengths or some part of the wavelength band from the visual light range, i.e. a narrow band light, e.g. see fig 4 for an exemplary spectrum) that illuminates the area of interest during a second time period (0046);
an image sensor (244; fig 2; 0044, 0105) capturing a first image when receiving light from the first light source reflected by the area of interest and capturing a second image when receiving light from the second light source reflected by the area of interest; and
a memory (memory described at 0045) for storing the first image while the area of interest is illuminated by the first light source”.
Murayama does not disclose:
a second light source “comprising multi-band pass filter”, rather the second light source of Murayama is composed of multiple narrow band illumination sources (0049). Shahinian teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing multi-band illumination by using a single light source and a multi-band pass illumination filter (CMBF 110; fig 1; 0047). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Shahinian into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the multi-band imager and the second light source e.g. as claimed because it reduces the number of discrete light sources and therefore eliminates multiple possible points of failure in the plural light sources.
“wherein an enhanced image of the area of interest is generated by combining the first image and the second image”, but does disclose combining other images, e.g. multiple narrow band images (0094). Mitamura teaches in the same field of endeavor, combining a normal observation image/white light image as the first image with a narrow band image as the second image (fig 4; 0049-0051). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Mitamura into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the multi-band imager e.g. as claimed because an image containing structure information can be provided with a special light image (0050).
Murayama discloses for claim 7, “The multi-band imager of claim 1, wherein the first and second light sources generate light in a visible light spectrum (0048-0049 describes the visible wavelengths of light emitted)”.
Murayama discloses for claim 8, “The multi-band imager of claim 1, wherein the first light source is a light-emitting diode (LED) and the second light source comprises an LED (0048-0049).
Murayama discloses for claim 9, “The multi-band imager of claim 1, wherein the first and second light sources generate light in visible and near infrared (NIR) spectrums (0048 describes the white light source and 0049-0050 describes the near IR light)”.
Murayama discloses for claim 11, “A multi-band imaging system comprising:
a multi-band imager (1; fig 2; 0037) comprising:
a first light source (311; fig 2; 0048) that illuminates an area of interest during a first time period;
a second light source (312; fig 2; 0049) that illuminates the area of interest during a second time period;
an image sensor (244; fig 2; 0044, 0105) receiving light from the first and second light sources reflected by the area of interest and capturing an image; and
a memory (45; fig 20068);
a processor (4; fig 2; 0054); and
a system memory (memory described at 0045) storing machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to generate enhanced images of the area of interest by:
controlling the first light source to illuminate the area of interest during the first time period (0048);
controlling the image sensor to capture a first image while the area of interest is illuminated by the first light source (0055, 0057);
controlling the second light source to illuminate the area of interest during the second time period (0049);
controlling the image sensor to capture a second image while the area of interest is illuminated by the second light source (0055, 0058)”.
Murayama does not disclose:
a second light source “comprising multi-band pass filter”, rather the second light source of Murayama is composed of multiple narrow band illumination sources (0049). Shahinian teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing multi-band illumination by using a single light source and a multi-band pass illumination filter (CMBF 110; fig 1; 0047). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Shahinian into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the multi-band imager and the second light source e.g. as claimed because it reduces the number of discrete light sources and therefore eliminates multiple possible points of failure in the plural light sources.
“wherein an enhanced image of the area of interest is generated by combining the first image and the second image”, but does disclose combining other images, e.g. multiple narrow band images (0094). Mitamura teaches in the same field of endeavor, combining a normal observation image/white light image as the first image with a narrow band image as the second image (fig 4; 0049-0051). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Mitamura into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the multi-band imager e.g. as claimed because an image containing structure information can be provided with a special light image (0050).
Murayama discloses for claim 12, “The system of claim 11, wherein the first light source is a light-emitting diode (LED) and the second light source comprises an LED (0048-0049)”.
Murayama discloses for claim 18, “The system of claim 11, wherein the first and second light sources generate light in a visible light spectrum (0048-0049 describes the visible wavelengths of light emitted).
Murayama discloses for claim 19, “The system of claim 11, wherein the first and second light sources generate light in visible and near infrared (NIR) spectrums (0048 describes the white light source and 0049-0050 describes the near IR light)”.
Murayama discloses for claim 20, “A method of generating an enhanced image of an area of interest, comprising:
controlling a first light source to illuminate the area of interest during a first time period (311; fig 2; 0048);
controlling an image sensor to capture a first image while the area of interest is illuminated by the first light source (0055, 0057) and store it in a memory (memory described at 0045)
controlling a second light (312; fig 2; 0049) source to illuminate the area of interest during a second time period;
controlling the image sensor to capture a second image while the area of interest is illuminated by the second light source (0055, 0058)”.
Murayama does not disclose:
a second light source “comprising multi-band pass filter”, rather the second light source of Murayama is composed of multiple narrow band illumination sources (0049). Shahinian teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing multi-band illumination by using a single light source and a multi-band pass illumination filter (CMBF 110; fig 1; 0047). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Shahinian into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the multi-band imager and the second light source e.g. as claimed because it reduces the number of discrete light sources and therefore eliminates multiple possible points of failure in the plural light sources.
“wherein an enhanced image of the area of interest is generated by combining the first image and the second image”, but does disclose combining other images, e.g. multiple narrow band images (0094). Mitamura teaches in the same field of endeavor, combining a normal observation image/white light image as the first image with a narrow band image as the second image (fig 4; 0049-0051). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Mitamura into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the multi-band imager e.g. as claimed because an image containing structure information can be provided with a special light image (0050).
Murayama discloses for claim 21, “The method of claim 20, further comprising storing the second image in the memory (memory described at 0045)”.
Modified Murayama (as in claim 1) discloses for claim 24, “A multi-band imager comprising:
a first light source (311; fig 2; 0048) that illuminates an area of interest during a first time period;
a second light source (312; fig 2; 0049) emitting multi-banded light that illuminates the area of interest during a second time period;
an image sensor (244; fig 2; 0044, 0105) capturing a first image when receiving light from the first light source reflected by the area of interest and capturing a second image when receiving light from the second light source reflected by the area of interest; and
a memory (memory described at 0045) for storing the first image while the area of interest is illuminated by the first light source;
wherein an enhanced image of the area of interest is generated by combining the first image and the second image (Mitamura: fig 4; 0049-0051).
Murayama discloses for claim 25, “The multi-band imager of claim 24, wherein the first light source and the second light source are LEDs (claim 25 is a duplicate of claim 8; see rejection of claim 8)”.
Modified Murayama (as in claim 1) discloses for claim 26, “A multi-band imaging system comprising:
a multi-band imager (1; fig 2; 0037) comprising:
a first light source (311; fig 2; 0048) that illuminates an area of interest during a first time period;
a second light source (312; fig 2; 0049) emitting multi-banded light that illuminates the area of interest during a second time period;
an image sensor (244; fig 2; 0044, 0105) receiving light from the first and second light sources reflected by the area of interest and capturing an image; and
a memory (45; fig 20068);
a processor (4; fig 2; 0054); and
a system memory (memory described at 0045) storing machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to generate enhanced images of the area of interest by:
controlling the first light source to illuminate the area of interest during the first time period (0048);
controlling the image sensor to capture a first image while the area of interest is illuminated by the first light source (0055, 0057);
controlling the second light source to illuminate the area of interest during the second time period (0049);
controlling the image sensor to capture a second image while the area of interest is illuminated by the second light source (0055, 0058); and
generating an enhanced image of the area of interest by combining the first image and the second image (Mitamura: fig 4; 0049-0051)”.
Murayama discloses for claim 27, “The multi-band imaging system of claim 26, wherein the first light source and the second light source are LEDs (claim 27 is a duplicate of claim 12; see rejection of claim 12)”.
Modified Murayama (as in claim 20) discloses for claim 28, “A method of generating an enhanced image of an area of interest, comprising:
controlling a first light source to illuminate the area of interest during a first time period (311; fig 2; 0048);
controlling an image sensor to capture a first image while the area of interest is illuminated by the first light source (0055, 0057) and store it in a memory (memory described at 0045);
controlling a second light source (312; fig 2; 0049) to illuminate the area of interest during a second time period, the second light source emitting multi-banded light;
controlling the image sensor to capture a second image while the area of interest is illuminated by the second light source (0055, 0058); and
generating the enhanced image of the area of interest by combining the first image stored in the memory and the second image (Mitamura: fig 4; 0049-0051)”.
Murayama discloses for claim 29, “The method of claim 28, wherein the first light source and the second light source are LEDs (0048-0049)”.
Murayama discloses for claim 30, “The multi-band imager of claim 1, wherein:
the first light source illuminates the area with a first illumination having a first optical spectrum (311; fig 2; 0048, describes white light source 311); and
the second light source illuminates the area with a second illumination having a second optical spectrum that differs from the first optical spectrum (312; fig 2; 0049, describes a light having some wavelengths or some part of the wavelength band from the visual light range, i.e. a narrow band light, e.g. see fig 4 for an exemplary spectrum)”.
Claim(s) 2, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama, Shahinian, and Mitamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ouyang et al. US2019/0216325.
Murayama does not disclose for claim 2 “The multi-band imager of claim 1, wherein the image sensor further comprises an array of pixels and a color filter array of individual color filters corresponding to respective pixels of the array of pixels”. Murayama discloses a multi-band image sensor (e.g. 0105), but simply does not provide the details of the specific pixel arrangement. Ouyang teaches in the same field of endeavor, a pixel arrangement as claimed (fig 3A). Since Murayama fails to disclose the nature of the pixel arrangement it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any pixel arrangement known in the art, including the one taught by Ouyang to achieve the predictable result of providing an image sensor with an array of pixels as claimed.
Murayama does not disclose for claim 13, “The system of claim 11, wherein the image sensor further comprises an array of pixels and a color filter array of individual color filters corresponding to respective pixels of the array of pixels”. Murayama discloses a multi-band image sensor (e.g. 0105), but simply does not provide the details of the specific pixel arrangement. Ouyang teaches in the same field of endeavor, a pixel arrangement as claimed (fig 3A). Since Murayama fails to disclose the nature of the pixel arrangement it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any pixel arrangement known in the art, including the one taught by Ouyang to achieve the predictable result of providing an image sensor with an array of pixels as claimed.
Claim(s) 3-5, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama, Shahinian, and Mitamura, and Ouyang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Iketani US2003/0222997.
Modified Murayama does not disclose for claim 3 “The multi-band imager of claim 2, wherein the individual color filters include red, green, yellow and blue filters arranged in a 2x2 square repeating across the array of pixels”, but rather provides for the pixel array configuration as seen in Ouyang fig 3A, lacking a yellow pixel/filter. Iketani teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing color difference signals between red and yellow pixels (0045). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Iketani into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the multi-band imager e.g. as claimed, specifically by including a yellow pixel because it allows for gain control in endoscopic imaging based on the specific color pixels, including yellow.
Murayama does not disclose for claim 4, “The multi-band imager of claim 2, wherein the individual color filters include two red filters, a yellow filter and a blue filter arranged in a 2X2 square repeating across the array of pixels”. Iketani teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing color difference signals between red and yellow pixels (0045). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Iketani into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the multi-band imager e.g. as claimed, specifically by including a yellow pixel in place of a green pixel because it allows for gain control in endoscopic imaging based on the specific color pixels, including yellow.
Murayama does not disclose for claim 5, “The multi-band imager of claim 2, wherein the individual color filters include a red filter, two yellow filters and a blue filter arranged in a 2X2 square repeating across the array of pixels”. Iketani teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing color difference signals between red and yellow pixels and blue and yellow pixels (0045). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Iketani into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the multi-band imager e.g. as claimed because it allows for gain control in endoscopic imaging based on the specific color pixels.
Modified Murayama does not disclose for claim 14, “The system of claim 13, wherein the individual color filters include red, green, yellow and blue filters arranged in a 2X2 square repeating across the array of pixels”, but rather provides for the pixel array configuration as seen in Ouyang fig 3A, lacking a yellow pixel/filter. Iketani teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing color difference signals between red and yellow pixels (0045). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Iketani into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the multi-band imager e.g. as claimed, specifically by including a yellow pixel because it allows for gain control in endoscopic imaging based on the specific color pixels, including yellow.
Murayama does not disclose for claim 15, “The system of claim 13, wherein the individual color filters include two red filters, a yellow filter and a blue filter arranged in a 2X2 square repeating across the array of pixels”. Iketani teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing color difference signals between red and yellow pixels (0045). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Iketani into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the multi-band imager e.g. as claimed, specifically by including a yellow pixel in place of a green pixel because it allows for gain control in endoscopic imaging based on the specific color pixels, including yellow.
Murayama does not disclose for claim 16, “The system of claim 13, wherein the individual color filters include a red filter, two yellow filters and a blue filter arranged in a 2X2 square repeating across the array of pixels”. Iketani teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing color difference signals between red and yellow pixels and blue and yellow pixels (0045). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Iketani into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the multi-band imager e.g. as claimed because it allows for gain control in endoscopic imaging based on the specific color pixels.
Claim(s) 6, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama, Shahinian, and Mitamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bradbury et al. US2015/0182118.
Murayama does not disclose for claim 6, “The multi-band imager of claim 1, wherein the image sensor further comprises an array of pixels and a color filter array and bands in the multi-band pass filter are selected to correspond to the color filter array to increase a spectral resolution of the enhanced image”. Bradbury teaches in the same field of endeavor, matching/tuning a multi-band filter to a light source (0026, 0209). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Bradbury into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the multi-band imager e.g. as claimed because it tunes the filter to the light source allowing for increased image quality.
Murayama does not disclose for claim 17, “The system of claim 13, wherein the image sensor further comprises an array of pixels and a color filter array and the multi-band pass filter comprises a plurality of bands selected to correspond to the individual color filters to increase a spectral resolution of the enhanced image”. Bradbury teaches in the same field of endeavor, matching/tuning a multi-band filter to a light source (0026, 0209). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Bradbury into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the multi-band imager e.g. as claimed because it tunes the filter to the light source allowing for increased image quality.
Claim(s) 10, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama, Shahinian, and Mitamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fouquet et al. US2005/0249377.
Murayama does not disclose for claim 10, “The multi-band imager of claim 1, wherein the multi-band pass filter is an interference filter”. Murayama describes a filter but does not provide details as to the type of filter. Fouquet teaches in the same field of endeavor, specific types of filters usable in the art, e.g. interference filters (0054). Since Murayama fails to disclose the nature of the filter it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any filter known in the art, including the one taught by Fouquet to achieve the predictable result of filtering a light using an interference filter.
Murayama does not disclose for claim 22, “The method of claim 20, wherein the multi-band pass filter is an interference filter”. Murayama describes a filter but does not provide details as to the type of filter. Fouquet teaches in the same field of endeavor, specific types of filters usable in the art, e.g. interference filters (0054). Since Murayama fails to disclose the nature of the filter it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any filter known in the art, including the one taught by Fouquet to achieve the predictable result of filtering a light using an interference filter.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama, Shahinian, and Mitamura as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Ishii US2010/0067002.
Murayama does not disclose for claim 23, “The method of claim 20, wherein generating the enhanced image further comprises subtracting a pixel response of the image sensor when the area of interest is illuminated by the second light source from a pixel response of the image sensor when the area of interest is illuminated by the first light source”. Ishii teaches in the same field of endeavor, generating a composite image by subtracting a narrowband/fluorescence image signal as the second light source image from the white light image as the first light source image (0188). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Ishii into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the method e.g. as claimed because it allows for an “image signal having a low content rate of image signal attributable to the fluorescence” (0054) in conditions where the fluorescence signal is stronger than that of normal tissue image signal (0012).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama, Shahinian, and Mitamura as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Hayashi US20010049473.
Murayama does not disclose for claim 31, “The method of claim 20, said controlling the second light source yielding a second pixel response, of the image sensor, that includes a red channel and a yellow channel, wherein: said generating the enhanced image further comprises subtracting the red channel from the yellow channel”. Hayashi teaches in the same field of endeavor, fluorescence imaging for diagnosing tumors (0003) specifically at 0228 using a yellow narrow band illumination via a yellow filter element 205a for transmitting a light component having a wavelength of 510 nm or more (which specifically reads on applicant’s definition of yellow illumination filter 310 at approximately 450-820 nm 0028). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Hayashi into the invention of Murayama in order to configure the method e.g. as claimed, specifically using yellow illumination filtering because it allows for a manner of detecting and diagnosing tumors (0003).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (page 10-11) propose two interpretations of the rejection, specifically based on which images would be combined, neither of which are valid. The arguments simply only refer to the rejection in part, i.e.
“The rejection states that Murayama's paragraph [0094] "does disclose combining other images, e.g. multiple narrow band images." (Office Action, p. 5.)”,
without addressing the rest of the rejection or as a whole, i.e. the supporting secondary reference Mitamura in para ii. (page 3). The applicant’s arguments are addressed by the combination of the secondary reference Mitamura which specifically teaches combining a normal image and a narrow band image, both of which exist in the primary reference. Therefore, this is considered a piecemeal attack of the rejection and therefore is not persuasive.
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 JAE K WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-0837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-2:30p, 6p-9p.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-4963. 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.
/Jae Woo/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
05/16/26
Prosecution Insights