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
Applicant’s amendments filed 05 December 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-19 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05 December 2025, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument that the previously cited portions of Cadwalader and Heesch fail to disclose “the belt portion having a length configured to extend at least partially across a width of the imaging procedure table” and “a junction between the belt portion and the shield portion extending at least partially across the width of the imaging procedure table” is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of the previously applied reference(s).
Applicant’s argument that the disclosure of Heesch prevents access to various portions of the patient is not persuasive. Heesch column 11, lines 25-29 disclose that element 96 of the shield portion is flexible to allow an operator to “move the region of vascular access”, and Heesch column 11, lines 40-45 discloses open access to various areas of the patient. Furthermore, claim 1 includes no limitations requiring a particular level of access to the patient, and the cited portion of Heesch (the “shield apparatus…that encloses the human torso (or part of a human torso) during X-ray procedures” (Heesch, abstract, emphasis added)) explicitly states that the body of the patient need not be entirely enclosed by the shielding apparatus.
Applicant’s argument that Cadwalader in view of Rees (here, Rees (2012)) fails to disclose “the hinged coupling comprising a reversible locking mechanism configured to toggle between a locked position and an unlocked position” is not persuasive. Cadwalader does fail to disclose this limitation; however, Rees (2012) discloses the hinged coupling comprising a reversible locking mechanism configured to toggle between a locked position and an unlocked position (Rees (2012), paragraph 0086, lines 4-7: “The [radiation shielding] inserts 12 have a plurality of hinged regions 56 to allow the insert 12 to be selectively manipulated to assume a locked, straight configuration, or a relaxed flexible configuration” (emphasis added)).
Applicant’s argument that the previously cited art fails to disclose the reversible locking mechanism comprising “a spring-loaded button configured to toggle between the locked position and the unlocked position” is persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Applicant argued during the interview held on 15 December 2025 that the sensor of Kawahara detects a distance from a patient, not engagement between apparatus components as claimed; the Examiner agreed during the interview to review the cited portions of Kawahara. Upon review, this argument is not persuasive. Kawahara does teach a sensor detecting a distance from a patient (Kawahara, paragraph 0043, interval ensuring unit 21). However, paragraph 0043 of Kawahara also discloses an optical, proximity, or “other magnetic force” sensor(s) configured to sense an engagement (“mounting/detachment”) between components (interval ensuring unit 21 and collimator unit 20).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heesch (U.S. Patent No. 6,325,538 B1), hereinafter Heesch, in view of Gainor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0158082 A1), hereinafter Gainor.
Regarding claim 1, Heesch discloses a system for reducing scatter radiation (column 4, lines 10-20) during x-ray (column 4, lines 20-25) imaging procedures (column 11, lines 50-60), the system comprising:
a belt portion (FIG. 17B, element 96) having radiation-shielding properties (column 10, lines 13-15) and adapted for placement across at least a portion of a patient (column 10, lines 18-20) positioned on an imaging procedure table (column 10, lines 26-28), the belt portion having a length configured to extend at least partially across a width of the imaging procedure table (FIGs. 17-18 show that screens 95, 96, and 97 extend across a width of the imaging procedure table), the belt portion having a generally horizontal dimension (FIG. 17B, horizontal top and bottom edges of opening 96b) that is deformable to conform to a surface of the patient (column 10, lines 13-20), the belt portion having a vertical dimension that extends upwardly from the generally horizontal dimension of the belt portion and extends along the length of the belt portion (FIG. 17B, vertical portion of element 96 extending upwards from the horizontal top edge of opening 96b) to form an abutting surface when the belt portion is placed across the portion of the patient (Merriam-Webster.com defines ‘abutting’ as ‘to border on; to touch along an edge’ and ‘surface’ as ‘the exterior or upper boundary of an object or body’; in light of these definitions, the area including fasteners 88b along the upper edge of element 96 forms an abutting surface); and
a shield portion (FIG. 23, element 50, which includes upper section 52, lower section 53, and middle section 47) having radiation-shielding properties (column 7, lines 44-50) and configured to facilitate being selectively moved into releasable engagement with the abutting surface of the belt portion (column 10, lines 23-26), a lower portion of the shield portion (FIG. 23: portion 47 of shield portion 50 is lower than portion 52 of shield portion 50) forming a junction between the belt portion and the shield portion extending at least partially across the width of the imaging procedure table (column 10, lines 23-26) to form a barrier to scatter radiation at the junction (column 7, lines 44-46; column 10, lines 13-14; and FIGs. 17-18 demonstrate that the junction between the belt portion and the shield portion, both of which have radiation shielding properties, leaves no gap and therefore also has radiation shielding properties), the shield portion configured to extend upward from the patient when engaged with the belt portion (FIGs. 18, 23), the shield portion comprising a table attachment extending therefrom (column 9, lines 35-45, angle struts 81), the table attachment configured to mate with a receiver formed in the imaging procedure table (FIG. 11, elements 69) for releasably coupling the shield portion to the imaging procedure table (column 9, lines 35-45).
Heesch fails to disclose that the shield portion is configured to facilitate being selectively moved from a position above the patient.
However, Gainor discloses that the shield portion (paragraphs 0077, tray) is configured to facilitate being selectively moved from a position above the patient (paragraph 0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Heesch to include that the shield portion is configured to facilitate being selectively moved from a position above the patient, based on the teachings of Gainor that this enables flexibility of the shield to accommodate different patient body shapes (Gainor, paragraph 0078).
Regarding claim 3, Heesch in view of Gainor as applied to claim 1 discloses the system for reducing scatter radiation of claim 1.
In addition, Heesch discloses one or more radiation detection sensors disposed proximate the procedure table and configured to indicate a level of x-ray radiation intensity (column 11, lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 7, Heesch in view of Gainor as applied to claim 1 discloses the system for reducing scatter radiation of claim 1.
In addition, Heesch discloses that the belt portion extends at least partially across an upward-facing portion of the patient (column 10, lines 18-20 and FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Heesch in view of Gainor as applied to claim 1 discloses the system for reducing scatter radiation of claim 1.
In addition, Heesch discloses that the belt portion releasably engages with the shield portion via one or more fasteners disposed along the junction between the belt portion and the shield portion (column 10, lines 23-26, fasteners 88a, 88b).
The disclosure of Heesch demonstrates that the function of hook and loop fasteners is known in the art of radiation shields. Heesch also shows that substituting hook and loop fasteners for snap fasteners in a radiation shield yields the predictable result of creating releasable engagement between fastened portions of the shield (Heesch, column 10, lines 13-28; hook and loop fasteners 95a, 96a, 97a). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Heesch to include that the belt portion releasably engages with the shield portion via one or more hook and loop fasteners disposed along the junction between the belt portion and the shield portion because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claims 2, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heesch in view of Gainor as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawahara et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0301235 A1), hereinafter Kawahara.
Regarding claim 2, Heesch in view of Gainor as applied to claim 1 discloses the system for reducing scatter radiation of claim 1, including an engagement between the shield portion and the belt portion at the junction (Heesch, FIG. 23 and column 10, lines 23-26; see claim 1 supra).
Heesch in view of Gainor fails to disclose one or more engagement sensors disposed along the junction, the one or more engagement sensors configured to sense an engagement between components.
However, Kawahara discloses one or more engagement sensors (paragraph 0043: an optical, proximity, or other magnetic force sensor) disposed along the junction (paragraph 0042), the one or more engagement sensors configured to sense an engagement between components (paragraph 0043, lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Heesch in view of Gainor to include one or more engagement sensors disposed along the junction, the one or more engagement sensors configured to sense an engagement, based on the teachings of Kawahara that the use of an engagement sensor can prevent potentially damaging effects of radiation which may occur when proper engagement between components is not obtained (Kawahara, paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 8, Heesch in view of Gainor as applied to claim 1 discloses the system for reducing scatter radiation of claim 1.
In addition, Heesch discloses that the belt portion releasably engages with the shield portion via one or more elements disposed along the junction between the belt portion and the shield portion (column 10, lines 23-26, fasteners 88a, 88b).
Heesch in view of Gainor fails to disclose one or more magnetic elements forming the engagement.
However, Kawahara discloses one or more magnetic elements forming the engagement (paragraph 0045, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Heesch in view of Gainor to include one or more magnetic elements forming the releasable engagement, based on the teachings of Kawahara that magnetic engagement provides the benefit of easy detachment between components for more efficient storage and transport of the system as a whole (Kawahara, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 11, Heesch in view of Gainor and Kawahara as applied to claim 2 discloses the system for reducing scatter radiation of claim 2.
In addition, Kawahara discloses that the one or more engagement sensors disposed along the junction comprises one or more of a pressure sensor, a Hall effect sensor, and a magnetic sensor (paragraph 0043, lines 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Heesch in view of Gainor and Kawahara to include that the one or more engagement sensors disposed along the junction comprises one or more of a pressure sensor, a Hall effect sensor, and a magnetic sensor, based on the additional teachings of Kawahara that magnetic engagement provides the benefit of easy detachment between components for more efficient storage and transport of the system as a whole (Kawahara, paragraph 0032); therefore, a magnetic sensor is advantageous for determining the magnitude of magnetic force attracting the components to each other, which may be used to determine the proximity of the components to each other to avoid insufficient engagement (Kawahara, paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 12, Heesch in view of Gainor and Kawahara as applied to claim 11 discloses the system for reducing scatter radiation of claim 11, including an engagement between the shield portion and the belt portion at the junction (Heesch, FIG. 23 and column 10, lines 23-26; see claim 1 supra).
In addition, Kawahara discloses that the one or more engagement sensors comprises a magnetic sensor configured to sense a degree of engagement (paragraph 0043, lines 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Heesch in view of Gainor and Kawahara to include the one or more engagement sensors comprises a magnetic sensor configured to sense a degree of engagement, based on the additional teachings of Kawahara that magnetic engagement provides the benefit of easy detachment between components for more efficient storage and transport of the system as a whole (Kawahara, paragraph 0032); therefore, a magnetic sensor is advantageous for determining the magnitude of magnetic force attracting the components to each other, which may be used to determine the proximity of the components to each other to avoid insufficient engagement (Kawahara, paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 13, Heesch in view of Gainor and Kawahara as applied to claim 11 discloses the system for reducing scatter radiation of claim 11, including an engagement between the shield portion and the belt portion at the junction (Heesch, FIG. 23 and column 10, lines 23-26; see claim 1 supra).
In addition, Kawahara discloses that the one or more engagement sensors comprises a magnetic sensor (paragraph 0043, lines 4-5) configured to enhance the engagement (paragraph 0045, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Heesch in view of Gainor and Kawahara to include that the one or more engagement sensors comprises a magnetic sensor configured to enhance the engagement, based on the additional teachings of Kawahara that magnetic engagement provides the benefit of easy detachment between components for more efficient storage and transport of the system as a whole (Kawahara, paragraph 0032); therefore, a magnetic sensor is advantageous for determining the magnitude of magnetic force attracting the components to each other, which may be used to determine the proximity of the components to each other to avoid insufficient engagement (Kawahara, paragraph 0043).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heesch in view of Gainor as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Cadwalader et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0164425 A1), hereinafter Cadwalader.
Regarding claim 4, Heesch in view of Gainor as applied to claim 1 discloses the system for reducing scatter radiation of claim 1.
Heesch in view of Gainor fails to disclose that the belt portion comprises a plurality of slits to facilitate conforming of the belt portion to an upper surface of the patient.
However, Cadwalader discloses that the belt portion (FIG. 11, element 30) comprises a plurality of slits (paragraph 0033, lines 10-11, “discontinuous edges”) to facilitate conforming of the belt portion to an upper surface of the patient (paragraph 0033, lines 10-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Heesch in view of Gainor to include that the belt portion comprises a plurality of slits to facilitate conforming of the belt portion to an upper surface of the patient, based on the teachings of Cadwalader that this ensures that the belt conforms to the patient in a manner which improves radiation shielding for the patient (Cadwalader, paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 5, Heesch in view of Gainor as applied to claim 1 discloses the system for reducing scatter radiation of claim 1.
Heesch in view of Gainor fails to disclose that the belt portion comprises a plurality of undulations in a lower portion of the belt portion to facilitate conforming of the belt portion to an upper surface of the patient.
However, Cadwalader discloses that the belt portion (FIG. 11, element 30) comprises a plurality of undulations (paragraph 0033, line 10, “curvilinear edges”) in a lower portion of the belt portion (paragraph 0033, lines 9-10, lower portion 38) to facilitate conforming of the belt portion to an upper surface of the patient (paragraph 0033, lines 10-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Heesch in view of Gainor to include that the belt portion comprises a plurality of undulations in a lower portion of the belt portion to facilitate conforming of the belt portion to an upper surface of the patient, based on the teachings of Cadwalader that this ensures that the belt conforms to the patient in a manner which improves radiation shielding for the patient (Cadwalader, paragraph 0033).
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0132217 A1), hereinafter Rees (2012), in view of Mossor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0188638 A1), hereinafter Mossor.
Regarding claim 14, a first embodiment of Rees (2012) discloses an articulatable radiation shielding system (FIG. 13, element 12) comprising:
a first shielding pane (FIG. 13, leftmost element 56) and a second shielding pane (FIG. 13, second element 56 from the left), each of the first and second shielding panes having a top portion and a vertically oriented planar surface having at least one vertically oriented edge portion;
a hinged coupling (FIG. 13, element 58) pivotably coupling the first shielding pane (FIG. 13, leftmost element 56) to the second shielding pane (FIG. 13, second element 56 from the left) along the vertically oriented edge portions of each of the first shielding pane and the second shielding pane (FIG. 13: the elements 56 are connected by vertical element 58 along their vertical edge portions), the hinged coupling further comprising a reversible locking mechanism configured to toggle between a locked position and an unlocked position (paragraph 0086, lines 4-7); and
a first hinge connector (FIGs. 13-13C, horizontal bar at the top edge of leftmost element 56) configured to couple the first shielding pane to the hinged coupling (paragraph 0086), the first hinge connector disposed along a top portion of the first shielding pane (FIGs. 13-13C); and
a second hinge connector (FIGs. 13-13C, horizontal bar at the top edge of second element 56 from the left) configured to couple the second shielding pane to the hinged coupling (paragraph 0086), the second hinge connector disposed along a top portion of the second shielding pane (FIGs. 13-13C).
In another embodiment, Rees (2012) discloses that at least one of the first and second shielding panes comprising a transparent or translucent radiation blocking material (paragraph 0100, lines 15-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first embodiment of Rees (2012) to include that at least one of the first and second shielding panes comprising a transparent or translucent radiation blocking material, based on the teachings of Rees (2012) that using a transparent shielding material provides the advantage of an unobstructed view through the shield (Rees (2012), paragraph 0100, lines 19-22).
Rees (2012) fails to disclose that the hinged coupling comprises an outer tube and an inner rod disposed within the outer tube, the outer tube coupled to the first shielding pane and the inner rod coupled to the second shielding pane to enable pivotable movement between the first shielding pane and the second shielding pane.
However, Mossor discloses that the hinged coupling (FIG. 8, interface between elements 700, 500) comprises an outer tube (FIG. 8, element 306) and an inner rod (FIG. 8, element 310) disposed within the outer tube (paragraph 0047, lines 3-4), the outer tube coupled to the first shielding pane (paragraph 0059, lines 16-17: outer tube 306 is coupled to first shielding pane 500) and the inner rod coupled to the second shielding pane (paragraph 0059, lines 21-25: arm 608 of second shielding pane 700 is coupled to inner rod 310) to enable pivotable movement between the first shielding pane and the second shielding pane (paragraph 0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Rees (2012) to include that the hinged coupling comprises an outer tube and an inner rod disposed within the outer tube, the outer tube coupled to the first shielding pane and the inner rod coupled to the second shielding pane to enable pivotable movement between the first shielding pane and the second shielding pane, based on the teachings of Mossor that this configuration provides maximal radiation protection while still allowing flexibility of arrangement (Mossor, paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 19, Rees (2012) in view of Mossor as applied to claim 14 discloses the articulatable radiation shielding system of claim 14.
In addition, Rees (2012) discloses that the vertically oriented edge portion of at least one of the first shielding pane and the second shielding pane (FIG. 13, connecting edge portions of elements 56) comprises a concave shape (FIG. 13A shows the concave shape of the edge portion forming a male/female hinged connection).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees (2012) in view of Mossor as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Cadwalader.
Regarding claim 15, Rees (2012) in view of Mossor as applied to claim 14 discloses the articulatable radiation shielding system of claim 14.
Rees (2012) in view of Mossor fails to disclose that at least one of the first and second shielding panes further comprises a shielding frame disposed at least partially around an outer edge thereof.
However, Cadwalader discloses that at least one of the first and second shielding panes (FIG. 11, elements 30, 50) further comprises a shielding frame (FIG. 11, element 70) disposed at least partially around an outer edge thereof (FIG. 11: portion 74 of element 70 is disposed around an outer edge of element 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Rees (2012) in view of Mossor to include that at least one of the first and second shielding panes further comprises a shielding frame disposed at least partially around an outer edge thereof, based on the teachings of Cadwalader that this enables flexibility of the system in terms of supporting the shielding panes in desired configurations (Cadwalader, paragraphs 0064-0065).
Regarding claim 16, Rees (2012) in view of Mossor and Cadwalader as applied to claim 15 discloses the articulatable radiation shielding system of claim 15.
In addition, Mossor discloses that at least one of the first hinge connector and the second hinge connector (FIG. 13, element 1318) forms a removable portion (paragraph 0068) of the shielding frame (FIG. 13, element 354).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Rees (2012) in view of Mossor and Cadwalader to include that at least one of the first hinge connector and the second hinge connector forms a removable portion of the shielding frame, based on the additional teachings of Mossor that this provides the beneficial ability to stack multiple shielding components for more flexible design (Mossor, paragraph 0068).
Regarding claim 17, Rees (2012) in view of Mossor and Cadwalader as applied to claim 15 discloses the articulatable radiation shielding system of claim 15.
In addition, Rees (2012) discloses that the first hinge connector (FIG. 13, element 46 attached to the leftmost element 56) and the second hinge connector (FIG. 13, element 46 attached to the second element 56 from the left) are portions of a cable (paragraph 0086, lines 17-20) disposed along a top portion of the first and second shielding panes (FIG. 13: element 46 is located on the top surface of elements 56).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees (2012) in view of Mossor as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yin et al. (CN Patent No. 106618627 A), hereinafter Yin (English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 18, Rees (2012) in view of Mossor as applied to claim 14 discloses the articulatable radiation shielding system of claim 14, including that the hinged coupling comprises a reversible locking mechanism configured to toggle between a locked position and an unlocked position (Rees (2012), paragraph 0086, lines 4-7).
Rees (2012) in view of Mossor fails to disclose that the reversible locking mechanism comprises a spring-loaded button configured to toggle between the locked position and the unlocked position.
However, Yin discloses a reversible locking mechanism (page 6, paragraph beginning “fixing cylinder 6…”, lines 5-10) comprising a spring-loaded (FIG. 3, element 25) button (FIG. 3, element 19) configured to toggle between the locked position and the unlocked position (page 6, paragraph beginning “fixing cylinder 6…”, lines 5-10).
The disclosure of Yin demonstrates that the function of a locking mechanism comprising a spring-loaded button is known in the art of radiation shields. Yin also shows that substituting a spring-loaded button for a different locking mechanism in a radiation shield yields the predictable result of producing a radiation shield which can be adjusted to accommodate different patients (Yin, page 6, paragraph beginning “fixing cylinder 6…”). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Rees (2012) in view of Mossor to include that the reversible locking mechanism comprises a spring-loaded button configured to toggle between the locked position and the unlocked position because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rees (U.S. Patent No. 7,973,299 B2), hereinafter Rees (2011), teaches a radiation shielding apparatus comprising a spring-loaded locking mechanism configured to toggle between the locked position and the unlocked position.
Wilson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,016,172 B2), hereinafter Wilson, teaches a system for reducing scatter radiation during x-ray imaging procedures, comprising multiple shielding portions which are releasably engaged with each other via one or more magnetic elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881