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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, the claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a “computer program product comprising program code”. Code per se is non-statutory subject matter eligible for copyright protection and ineligible for patent protection. Therefore claim 20 is statutorily barred from patent eligibility under this title.
For compact prosecution purposes the examiner recommends that the applicant review MPEP 2106.03(I) wherein the four statutory categories are defined and wherein code is a per se stated example of expressly non-statutory subject matter. E.g. “Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20130336445 A1 by Sehnert et al. (hereafter Sehnert, previously of record).
Regarding claim 20, Sehnert teaches: 20. A non-transitory computer program product comprising program code portions which, when the computer program product is executed on one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (see in general Sehnert’s [0039] noting that the processing may be done on one or more processors, thus there is code involved as processors do not function of their own free will): obtain, for each of at least one surgical device, information indicative of one or more poses thereof, wherein at least one of the one or more poses is obtained based on planning data indicative of the at least one pose relative to the previously taken medical image data of the portion of the patient’s body; select, based on the one or more poses, at least one anatomical element of a patient's body; and determine, based on the selected at least one anatomical element, a scan region to be imaged by a medical image acquisition device (regarding these together, see Sehnert’s [0051]-[0056] noting that the P&O of a surgical instrument (e.g. a object, such as an instrument, camera, probe, needle, tube, or other object that is placed on or inserted into the patient anatomy) is track to determining its pose, that an area around the surgical device is an area of the patient anatomy, and that the ROI is defined to be the anatomy surrounding and including the tracked instrument, also shown as anatomical region 70 in Figs. 6C and 8A where any data used before taking a subsequent image is inherently planning data and in this instance where the preoperative medical image/basis image of Sehnert is a previously acquired image and contains the surgical device with P&O (i.e. pose) data and thus is the exact same sort of planning data used by the applicant’s own specification); and instructing the medical image acquisition device to image the scan region (see Fig. 7 step 220 and/or [0062] noting that after the ROI is defined images are taken that correspond thereto), wherein instructing the medical image acquisition device to image the scan region triggers movement of the medical image acquisition device relative to the patient’s body, and/or of a patient support supporting the patient’s body or a portion thereof (as best understood this is a desiderata with no patentable weight as it addresses the response of structures outside the scope of the invention and will therefore be treated as inherent. For compact prosecution purposes the examiner notes that the applicant may find the rejections of claims 1 or 17 instructive in understanding how this sort of limitation would be rejected if and when the applicant recited that the “image acquisition device and/or patient support” were structures of the invention. Lastly and in order to compact prosecution to the upmost, and despite not seemingly being required by the claim given that no such structure exists in claim 20 in the current drafting, the examiner notes that Sehnert teaches computerized control of at least a medical image acquisition device. Specifically identifying the ROI triggers the system to automatically take images that include the ROI after the ROI is identified, see Sehnert’s Fig. 7 step 220 and/or [0061]-[0062]; from there the examiner notes that this imaging tracks the ROI even if the ROI moves as seen directly in [0064] and that this tracking of the ROI physically moves the medical image acquisition device relative to the patient body to accomplish as much as seen in [0070]-[0071] which expressly spells out that the movement of the ROI causes movement of the medical image acquisition device occurs in two ways, more specifically for small ROI shifts this is movement of the metal plates of the collimator under processor control or for larger ROI shifts it is desirable to readjust the position of the source 20 and receiver 50 and, given that no structure is required to be moved by this claim drafting, either of these appear to simply be taught in a way that would cover the processor making a determination to move and outputting the relevant data to move, whether or not that movement is possible via just the collimator).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Sehnert or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sehnert further IVO US 20120189095 A1 by Ruijters et al. (hereafter Ruijters, previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Sehnert teaches: 1. A method for determining a scan region to be imaged by a medical image acquisition device (see Sehnert’s Title or Abstract), the method being performed by at least one processor (see in general Sehnert’s [0039] noting that the processing may be done on one or more processors) and comprising:
obtaining, for each of at least one surgical device, information indicative of one or more poses thereof, wherein at least one of the one or more poses is obtained based on planning data indicative of the at least one pose relative to previously taken medical image data of the portion of the patient’s body; selecting, based on the one or more poses, at least one anatomical element of a patient's body; and determining, based on the selected at least one anatomical element, a scan region to be imaged by a medical image acquisition device (regarding these together, see Sehnert’s [0051]-[0056] noting that the P&O of a surgical instrument (e.g. a object, such as an instrument, camera, probe, needle, tube, or other object that is placed on or inserted into the patient anatomy) is tracked to determining its pose, that an area around the surgical device is an area of the patient anatomy, and that the ROI is defined to be the anatomy surrounding and including the tracked instrument, also shown as anatomical region 70 in Figs. 6C and 8A where any data used before taking a subsequent image is inherently planning data and in this instance where the preoperative medical image/basis image of Sehnert is a previously acquired image and contains the surgical device with P&O (i.e. pose) data and thus is the exact same sort of planning data used by the applicant’s own specification); and
instructing the medical image acquisition device to image the scan region, wherein instructing the medical image acquisition device to image the scan region triggers movement of the medical image acquisition device relative to the patient’s body and/or a patient support supporting the patient’s body or a portion thereof (regarding these together, identifying the ROI triggers the system to automatically take images that include the ROI after the ROI is identified, see Sehnert’s Fig. 7 step 220 and/or [0061]-[0062]; from there the examiner notes that this imaging tracks the ROI even if the ROI moves as seen directly in [0064] and that this tracking of the ROI physically moves the medical image acquisition device relative to the patient body to accomplish as much as seen in [0070]-[0071] which expressly spells out that the movement of the ROI causes movement of the medical image acquisition device occurs in two ways, more specifically for small ROI shifts this is movement of the metal plates of the collimator under processor control or for larger ROI shifts it is desirable to readjust the position of the source 20 and receiver 50 which is not stated to be (or not be) under processor control and thus is additionally/alternatively addressed below in the 103(a) analysis for compact prosecution purposes).
While the foregoing is a full and complete rejection of all claim limitations, at least for small ROI movements, the examiner notes that it may compact prosecution to note that while Sehnert alone does not cover expressly automating movement of the source and receiver relative to the patient nor automatic movement of the patient table, these limitations are additionally obvious, at least as an alternative or additional grounds of rejection, when one considers the teachings of the prior art.
Specifically Ruijters, in the same or eminently related field of X-ray imaging (see Ruijters’s Abstract) teaches a patient table which can be automatically positioned for acquisitions based on a ROI (see Ruijters’s [0050] and [0057]) which advantageously improves data acquisition speed versus manual positioning and improved accuracy of ROI imaging versus manual positioning (not only is automation prima facie advantageous (e.g. removes human error, reduces medical staff workload, etc.) but these and other advantages are also directly taught by Ruijters in [0035] and [0040] among others).
Therefore and in the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the date of invention to improve the x-ray imaging apparatus of Sehnert with the automated patient table taught by Ruijters in order to advantageously reduce medical staff workload as well as improve both the speed and accuracy of image acquisition.
Regarding claim 3, Sehnert teaches: 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one anatomical element is selected from one or more anatomical elements identified in the previously taken medical image data (see Sehnert’s [0051]-[0055] noting that the user can select/define an anatomical region to use as the ROI based on a previously taken image (i.e. preoperative image/basis image)).
Regarding claim 4, Sehnert teaches: 4. The method of claim 1, wherein each pose is indicative of the respective surgical device having an associated relationship with the at least one anatomical element to be selected from the groups consisting of: touching, extending at least partially into, and being aligned with the at least one anatomical element to be selected (Sehnert’s [0056] describes that the relationship is both touching and partially into the anatomical element).
Regarding claim 5, Sehnert teaches: 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the scan region is determined such that it includes or excludes the selected at least one anatomical element or such that it includes a first set of the selected at least one anatomical element and excludes a second set of the selected at least one anatomical element (this limitation is inherent as the claim recites “such that it includes or excludes” which covers all possible options. However and for compact prosecution purposes the examiner notes that the base embodiment, and the embodiment that corresponds to claims 2-3 each use a scan region that includes the anatomical element as set forth in Figs. 6A-6C or described in [0051]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 6, Sehnert teaches: 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the scan region is determined to correspond to or comprise at least one virtual bounding box encasing one or more of the selected at least one anatomical element (see Sehnert’s Figs. 6A-6C or [0051]-[0056] where Sehnert describes and depicts an area having bounds that includes the anatomy of interest).
Regarding claim 7, Sehnert teaches: 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the scan region is determined to fulfil one or more constraints chosen from (i) a range of movement of the medical image acquisition device, (ii) a spatial imaging range of the medical image acquisition device, and (iii) a range of movement of a patient support supporting the patient's body or a portion thereof (the region for any individual scan is limited by the range of movement of the medical image acquisition device, see Sehnert’s [0071] noting that if the collimator cannot open wide enough the invention will need repositioned then a new image can be taken).
Regarding claim 8, Sehnert teaches: 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the scan region is determined such that it comprises a plurality of sub-regions to be imaged separately by the medical image acquisition device (see Sehnert’s [0076]).
Regarding claim 9, Sehnert teaches: 9. The method of claim 1, further comprising triggering visualization of an indication of the scan region (see Sehnert’s Figs. 6A-6C noting the visualization of 70 including its bounding lines being displayed to the user).
Regarding claim 10 , Sehnert teaches: 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining user input indicating a change of the scan region; and updating the scan region based on the user input (see Sehnert’s [0051]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 13, Sehnert teaches: 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the scan region is determined such that it comprises a plurality of sub-regions to be imaged separately by the medical image acquisition device, and wherein instructing the medical image acquisition device to image the scan region triggers acquisition of separate medical image data for each of the plurality of sub-regions by the medical image acquisition device (see Fig. 7 step 220 and/or [0062] noting that after the ROI is defined images are taken that correspond thereto in light of Sehnert’s [0076] which describes that the ROI can have multiple, even disconnected, sub-regions).
Regarding claim 14, Sehnert teaches: 14. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more poses is obtained based on planning data indicative of the at least one pose relative to the previously taken medical image data of the portion of the patient's body (see Sehnert’s [0056] noting that prior to any direct tracking, the location of the object may be identified by the user in the preoperative image which is, as described in the applicant’s specification, a form of planning data).
Regarding claim 15, Sehnert teaches: 15. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more poses is obtained based on tracking data indicative of the at least one pose relative to the patient's body (see Sehnert’s [0056] noting that the pose (i.e. P&O) is determined by tracking data).
Regarding claim 16, Sehnert teaches: 16. The method of claim 1, wherein each of the at least one anatomical element is a bone, and wherein the at least one surgical device comprises at least one device chosen from (i) a surgical instrument and (ii) a medical implant (Sehnert gives an example where the anatomical element includes bone via Figs. 6A-6C, likewise the surgical device can be an instrument as per [0056]).
Regarding claim 17, Sehnert teaches: 17. A system comprising a medical image acquisition device, and/or a patient support configured to support a patient’s body or a portion thereof, wherein the medical image acquisition device and/or patient support is configured to move in response to at least one processor instructing the medical image acquisition device to scan the scan region (see Sehnert’s [0070]-[0071] for a medical image acquisition device that is fully capable of moving with respect to the patient. For compact prosecution purposes the examiner notes that while only one of these is required and Sehnert teaches the movable image acquisition device that the 103(a) analysis below additionally/alternatively incorporates a movable patient table), wherein the system further comprises an apparatus, the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one memory containing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to (see in general Sehnert’s [0039] noting that the processing may be done on one or more processors of a computer workstation, thus this includes memory by ordinary meaning (i.e. a computer includes memory) and by necessity as the processor does not have free will but must instead use stored instructions): obtain, for each of at least one surgical device, information indicative of one or more poses thereof, wherein at least one of the one or more poses is obtained based on planning data indicative of the at least one pose relative to the previously taken medical image data of the portion of the patient’s body; select, based on the one or more poses, at least one anatomical element of a patient's body; and determine, based on the selected at least one anatomical element, a scan region to be imaged by a medical image acquisition device (regarding these together, see Sehnert’s [0051]-[0056] noting that the P&O of a surgical instrument (e.g. a object, such as an instrument, camera, probe, needle, tube, or other object that is placed on or inserted into the patient anatomy) is track to determining its pose, that an area around the surgical device is an area of the patient anatomy, and that the ROI is defined to be the anatomy surrounding and including the tracked instrument, also shown as anatomical region 70 in Figs. 6C and 8A where any data used before taking a subsequent image is inherently planning data and in this instance where the preoperative medical image/basis image of Sehnert is a previously acquired image and contains the surgical device with P&O (i.e. pose) data and thus is the exact same sort of planning data used by the applicant’s own specification); and instructing the medical image acquisition device to image the scan region, wherein instructing the medical image acquisition device to image the scan region triggers movement of the medical image acquisition device relative to the patient’s body, and/or of the patient support supporting the patient’s body or a portion thereof (regarding these together, identifying the ROI triggers the system to automatically take images that include the ROI after the ROI is identified, see Sehnert’s Fig. 7 step 220 and/or [0061]-[0062]; from there the examiner notes that this imaging tracks the ROI even if the ROI moves as seen directly in [0064] and that this tracking of the ROI physically moves the medical image acquisition device relative to the patient body to accomplish as much as seen in [0070]-[0071] which expressly spells out that the movement of the ROI causes movement of the medical image acquisition device occurs in two ways, more specifically for small ROI shifts this is movement of the metal plates of the collimator under processor control or for larger ROI shifts it is desirable to readjust the position of the source 20 and receiver 50 which is not stated to be (or not be) under processor control and thus is additionally/alternatively addressed below in the 103(a) analysis for compact prosecution purposes).
While the foregoing is a full and complete rejection of all claim limitations, at least for small ROI movements, the examiner notes that it may compact prosecution to note that while Sehnert alone does not cover expressly automating movement of the source and receiver relative to the patient nor automatic movement of the patient table, these limitations are additionally obvious, at least as an alternative or additional grounds of rejection, when one considers the teachings of the prior art
Specifically Ruijters, in the same or eminently related field of X-ray imaging (see Ruijters’s Abstract) teaches a patient table which can be automatically positioned for acquisitions based on a ROI (see Ruijters’s [0050] and [0057]) which advantageously improves data acquisition speed versus manual positioning and improved accuracy of ROI imaging versus manual positioning (not only is automation prima facie advantageous (e.g. removes human error, reduces medical staff workload, etc.) but these and other advantages are also directly taught by Ruijters in [0035] and [0040] among others).
Therefore and in the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the date of invention to improve the x-ray imaging apparatus of Sehnert with the automated patient table taught by Ruijters in order to advantageously reduce medical staff workload as well as improve both the speed and accuracy of image acquisition.
While the foregoing is a full and complete rejection of all claim limitations, at least for small ROI movements, the examiner notes that it may compact prosecution to note that while Sehnert alone does not cover expressly automating movement of the source and receiver relative to the patient nor automatic movement of the patient table, these limitations are additionally obvious, at least as an alternative or additional grounds of rejection, when one considers the teachings of the prior art.
Specifically Ruijters, in the same or eminently related field of X-ray imaging (see Ruijters’s Abstract) teaches a patient table which can be automatically positioned for acquisitions based on a ROI (see Ruijters’s [0050] and [0057]) which advantageously improves data acquisition speed versus manual positioning and improved accuracy of ROI imaging versus manual positioning (not only is automation prima facie advantageous (e.g. removes human error, reduces medical staff workload, etc.) but these and other advantages are also directly taught by Ruijters in [0035] and [0040] among others).
Therefore and in the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the date of invention to improve the x-ray imaging apparatus of Sehnert with the automated patient table taught by Ruijters in order to advantageously reduce medical staff workload as well as improve both the speed and accuracy of image acquisition.
Regarding claim 18, Sehnert teaches: 18. The system of claim 17, further comprising the medical image acquisition device (see Sehnert’s Figs. 2A-2B noting source 20 and detector 50 constituting the imaging apparatus).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2025 with respect to the 101, 102, and 103 rejections on pages 6-9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with each argument being responded to in the order presented as follows:
The applicant first addresses the 101 rejections and it is important to note that the argument, while not fully convincing due to the inclusion of claim 20, is convincing in part and the 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 13-18 is overcome. However, and further regarding claim 20, the examiner notes that the applicant argues that the amendment renders the claim patent eligible. In this instance the amendment does nothing to change the core statutory category of the claim, does not include or incorporate any further structure, and therefore this is not convincing.
Regarding the 102 rejection the applicant lodges a series of arguments. The applicant’s first argument is that Sehnert does not obtain pose information based on planning data and in particular data indicative to at least one pose relative to previously taken medical image data. To rebut this the examiner notes that Sehnert’s [0051]-[0056] cited by the examiner and the applicant in this very argument sets forth determining a ROI that includes the at least one surgical device and that this involves determining the P&O of that device (i.e. the pose) as per [0056]. Likewise, the fact that Sehnert uses a basis image then continuously tracks movement with respect to this image in the subsequent image stream that is gathered responsive to determining the ROI is also clearly established in the other citations, e.g. [0064], such that it is unclear how the applicant intends to argue this point as the Sehnert reference may use different terminology but teaches identically the same scope the applicant opines to be absent. As such the applicant’s arguments are not convincing to the examiner.
The applicant then opines that tracking cannot constitute planning data. In this instance the examiner reminds the applicant that the claim defines what is considerable as planning data and that this is data that is “indicative of the at least one pose relative to previously taken medical image data” and as such the tracking of the pose over a plurality of images very much qualifies as planning data per the claim’s own definition. If the applicant views their planning data to be some other form of data than they are welcome and invited to redefine the term; however, this argument cannot be convincing in its current form as it would require the examiner to disregard claimed limitations in order to find it convincing.
The applicant the opines that because one section of Sehnert can define the ROI with respect to the surgical device and thus may exclude at least portions of the anatomy that Sehnert fails to teach the claimed image selection. In this instance the examiner notes that the applicant’s own argument gives the corollary option that Sehnert’s selection may include the anatomy and that not every teaching of Sehnert has to read on the claims so long as one teaching does so this argument appears self-defeating. Likewise the applicant never claims how much of the anatomy is required to be in the image (e.g. the term vertebra is an example for argument’s sake, but could not be held relevant to any particular claim limitation) so this is also spurious when one reads the scope of the claim and notes that it is not so limited as to include any set amount or set structure of the anatomy. Therefore, the argument is not convincing.
The applicant the opines that Sehnert’s teachings do not read on the newly added claim limitations. In this instance the best rebuttal to this argument is to see the new citations of Sehnert/new grounds of rejection that show exactly how Sehnert does in fact teach this limitation, which is incorporated herein to fully rebut the argument.
The applicant then turns to the 103(a) combination and addresses Ruijters. In this instance the examiner notes that he applicant’s amendment has cause Ruijters to only be cited as an additional/alternative reference since the claims allow for moving the imaging device instead of the bed. However, and for compact prosecution purposes the examiner also notes that the argument is spurious. That is the applicant does not address a single citation of Ruijters used by the examiner in forming the rejection and instead cites to unrelated and unused features of Ruijters and opines that these cause Ruijters to be deficient. This cannot be convincing as the applicant has not addressed the rejection at issue in the first place nor has the applicant attempted to point out any deficiency in what the examiner is actually relying upon in their rejection. Likewise, the applicant concludes their argument against Ruijters by opining that it cannot be combined with Sehnert as this would change Sehnert’s principle of operation. While this is still a continuation of the discussion of things entirely unrelated to why the examiner has cited Ruijters and is therefore equally spurious, it may still compact prosecution to note that Sehnert’s [0070]-[0071] clearly shows that there is a need to reposition the patient/ROI relative to the imaging device that cannot be accomplished directly by Sehnert’s collimator. As such incorporating teachings about how to move patient’s relative to an imaging device as is done in Ruijters not only does not teach away from Sehnert, but even directly addresses an issue which Sehnert requires the reader to solve but does not provide express guidance on how to solve. Therefore, this argument is also in rote incorrect. As such these arguments are not convincing to the examiner.
The applicant then concludes by opining that the dependent claims are each similarly patentable, at least by virtue of dependency. In this instance the examiner is not convinced that the parent claims are patentable at this time and therefore is not convinced that the dependent claims are patentable for the same reasons addressed towards the parent claims above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael S Kellogg whose telephone number is (571)270-7278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-1pm.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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.
/MICHAEL S KELLOGG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights