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 Arguments
Regarding the amendment to the title, the proposed amendment to the title includes a misspelling that is not acceptable. Therefore, the objection to the specification is maintained.
In view of the amendment to claim 3, the objection to claim 3 is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 1-8, the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 1-8, the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is proposed that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. However, the amendment to the title was submitted on 1/9/2026 includes a misspelling and is therefore unacceptable.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “learner.” The Examiner notes the term has not been redefined according to its traditional definition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-5, 12, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “comparing an image of a predetermined standard cross-section with the ultrasound image to identify the cross-section shown in the ultrasound image.” It is indefinite and unclear how the above limitation is intended to be applied. According to the disclosure (see published specification paragraphs 0053-0054 & p0064), the cross-section image is acquired and subsequently identified. Paragraph 0054 lists a variety of neural networks that can be utilized. Paragraph 0054 also states “… an algorithm that does not require learning such as pattern matching such as template matching, correlation coefficient, or similarity calculation may be used for the specifying processing.” There is no disclosure nor embodiment where any type “learner” compares images as claimed. As best understood (the term is not defined or utilized in the disclosure), the term “learner” is intended to be some type artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning. Artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning are models consisting of one or more neural networks. These models trained for image analysis do not compare an input image with the images it has been trained with. Neural networks evaluate thousands of images to recognize the multiple features of the training images and extract features of significance that are represented by weights and biases that are then applied to the evaluation of a new image. Claim 1 from which claim 2 depends includes the limitation where the specifying processing uses a “learner.” However, since claim 2 requires a comparison between two specific images, i.e., a predetermined standard cross-section and the new input ultrasound image, this limitation is not executable in view of claim 1 requirements. Further, the disclosure discussed where the accuracy calculation is calculated using machine learning after the machine learning accomplishes the specifying processing (required by claim 1). The disclosure does not provide any written guidance or embodiment where the accuracy calculation is calculated not utilizing some type machine learning when the comparison between images is accomplished as claimed. Claims 3-5 are rejected based on their dependency.
Dependent claims 12 and 17 are rejected similarly to claim 2 above. Dependent claims 13 and 18 are rejected based on their dependency on claims 12 and 17 respectively.
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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.
Claim 1 instantiates “each specifying processing” in both lines 9 and 16. It is indefinite whether the instantiation in line 16 is intended to refer to the first instantiation in line 9 or is intended to be a different instantiation representative of a different “each specifying processing.” For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the second instantiation to be referencing the first instantiation.
Independent claim 8 is similarly rejected as claim 1 above. Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-18 are rejected for failing to remedy the ambiguity of their respective independent claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the specifying processing" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that “a plurality of types of specifying processing” and “each specifying processing” has been previously instantiated. Dependent claims 2-7 and 14-18 are rejected based on their dependency.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the specifying processing" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that “a plurality of types of specifying processing” and “each specifying processing” has been previously instantiated. Dependent claims 9-13 are rejected based on their dependency.
Claim 2 recites “comparing an image of a predetermined standard cross-section with the ultrasound image to identify the cross-section shown in the ultrasound image.” It is indefinite and unclear how the above limitation is intended to be applied. According to the disclosure (see published specification paragraphs 0053-0054 & p0064), the cross-section image is acquired and subsequently identified. Paragraph 0054 lists a variety of neural networks that can be utilized. Paragraph 0054 also states “… an algorithm that does not require learning such as pattern matching such as template matching, correlation coefficient, or similarity calculation may be used for the specifying processing.” Artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning are models of neural networks trained for image analysis do not compare an input image with the images its been trained with. Neural networks evaluate thousands of images to recognize the multiple features of the training images and extract features of significance that are represented by weights and biases that are then applied to the evaluation of a new image. Claim 1 from which claim 2 depends includes the limitation where the specifying processing uses a “learner.” As best understood (the term is not defined or utilized in the disclosure), the term “learner” is intended to be some type artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning. However, since claim 2 requires a comparison between two specific images, i.e., a predetermined standard cross-section and the new input ultrasound image, how is this limitation to be executed when considered in view of claim 1 requirements? Further, the disclosure discussed where the accuracy calculation is calculated using machine learning after the machine learning accomplishes the specifying processing. How is the accuracy calculation is calculated when some type machine learning is not used when the comparison between images is accomplished as claimed? Claims 3-5 are rejected based on their dependency. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the ”comparing an image of a predetermined standard cross-section with the ultrasound image to identify the cross-section shown in the ultrasound image” limitation to mean that a new image is evaluated by some type learning model that has been trained on specific image types, e.g., predetermined standard cross-section of an ultrasound image.
Dependent claim 12 is rejected and interpreted similarly to claim 2 above. Dependent claim 13 is rejected based on its dependency.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the result" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “an ultrasonic wave.” It is indefinite and unclear as to the intent of this limitation. Claim 8 from which claim 11 ultimately depends has already instantiated this limitation. Is the instantiation in claim 11 intended to represent a different “ultrasonic wave” or the “ultrasonic wave” instantiated in claim 8? For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation to be referring to that instantiated in claim 8.
Claims 13, 16 and 18 are rejected similarly to claim 11 above.
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) 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12-14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhownick et al., (US Pub No. 2023003864).
NOTE: The Examiner has used US Pub No. 20230038364 to Bhownick as an equivalent publication of European Patent Application 20152186.1 published 7/21/2021 as EP 3852054 A1.
Claim 1: Bhownick discloses an ultrasonic imaging apparatus comprising one or more processors and a program storage device tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the one or more processors [Abstract], the ultrasound imaging apparatus including the one or more processors performing a method comprising:
receiving an ultrasound image generated by transmitting and receiving an ultrasonic wave [ultrasound probe, p0170-0171 – NOTE: although transmitting and receiving an ultrasonic wave is not explicitly stated, these features are inherent in an ultrasound probe], specifying an imaging scene by a plurality of types of specifying processing, and calculating an accuracy of specifying the imaging scene for each specifying processing [receiving a video stream of medical images acquired during an ultrasound scan of the subject … a computational unit configured for applying an object detector function to the medical image, wherein the object detector function is trained to detect a plurality of classes of anatomical structures, thereby generating as output the coordinates of a plurality of bounding boxes and a confidence score for each bounding box, the confidence score giving the probability of the bounding box containing an anatomical structure belonging to one of the plurality of classes, p0060, p0086-0087 & p0104-0106],
the plurality of types of specifying processing including (a) identification processing of a cross-section of the ultrasound image [medical images capturing the largest cross-section of a certain anatomical structure are used for further evaluation … detect a first plurality of classes of larger-sized anatomical structures, thereby generating as output the coordinates of at least one first bounding box and the confidence score of it containing a larger-sized anatomical structure, p0039, p0088 & p0104-0106], (b) processing of detecting an abnormality shown in the ultrasound image [hierarchical inferencing scheme of the bounding boxes provides automatic identification of normal IUP and non-IUP cases, like ectopic. Thereby, the diagnostic approach can be made more systematic, and a simple scheme may be used to detect abnormal pregnancy, p0062 & p0105], and (c) processing of specifying a site of a subject shown in the ultrasound image [detect at least one second class of smaller-sized anatomical structures, thereby generating as output the coordinates of at least one second bounding box and the confidence score of it containing a smaller-sized anatomical structure, p0090 & p0104-0106], and the specifying processing using a learner [e.g., a first neural network and a second neural network, p0087-0090 & p0109-0111]; and
determining an examination action to be performed next on the basis of an accuracy of specifying the imaging scene for each specifying processing [bounding boxes and the confidence score of each bounding box containing a certain class of anatomical structure. The output may be visualized by outputting the medical image and/or the cropped image, and displaying the bounding boxes having the highest confidence score thereon, e.g. in a contrasting colour scheme, or overlaid on the image, p0027 & p0091].
Claim 2: Bhownick discloses the ultrasonic imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the method performed by the ultrasound imaging apparatus including the one or more processors further comprises: comparing an image of a predetermined standard cross-section with the ultrasound image to identify the cross-section shown in the ultrasound image; and calculating an accuracy of identifying the cross-section as the accuracy of specifying the imaging scene [a weighted average of the bounding boxes and the confidence scores have been used in formulating a confidence interval which has been subsequently used for best plane computations. For example, those medical images capturing the largest cross-section of a certain anatomical structure are used for further evaluation. These planes/images along with the corresponding bounding boxes may then be used for automated computation of key parameters [interpreted as comparison between images], p0039].
Claim 3: Bhownick discloses the ultrasonic imaging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the method performed by the ultrasound imaging apparatus including the one or more processors further comprises: calculating an accuracy of detection in the processing of detecting the abnormality as the accuracy of specifying the imaging scene [rendered probability may be 1 or 0, but may also take a value in-between, and may depend on the confidence score of the bounding boxes used for its determination. The inferencing scheme may for example comprise a number of IF ELSE commands, which are implemented in an algorithm in any computational language. In the case of first trimester pregnancy, the inferencing scheme may for example be as follows: Let the bounding box of uterus be denoted as B.sub.u and of GS as B.sub.GS. If B.sub.GS is a subset of B.sub.u, then it is inferred as normal IUP, else it is termed as abnormal pregnancy. In the second level automation of using the second neural network, yolk sac (YS) and embryo are detected and localised. Let the bounding boxes for yolk sac and embryo be termed B.sub.YS and B.sub.E. If B.sub.YS and/or B.sub.E are subsets of B.sub.GS, then it is termed as a normal pregnancy. If YS and embryo are not detected within GS, then the chances of abnormal pregnancy are increased. An “increased” probability of a medical condition may for example mean that its probability is above a pre-defined threshold, for example above a value in the range of 50-95%, preferably 60-90%, p0035].
Claim 4: Bhownick discloses the ultrasonic imaging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the method performed by the ultrasound imaging apparatus including the one or more processors further comprises: (aa) calculating an accuracy of specifying in the processing of specifying the site of the subject as the accuracy of specifying the imaging scene [rendered probability may be 1 or 0, but may also take a value in-between, and may depend on the confidence score of the bounding boxes used for its determination. The inferencing scheme may for example comprise a number of IF ELSE commands, which are implemented in an algorithm in any computational language. In the case of first trimester pregnancy, the inferencing scheme may for example be as follows: Let the bounding box of uterus be denoted as B.sub.u and of GS as B.sub.GS. If B.sub.GS is a subset of B.sub.u, then it is inferred as normal IUP, else it is termed as abnormal pregnancy. In the second level automation of using the second neural network, yolk sac (YS) and embryo are detected and localized [interpreted as the site of the subject]. Let the bounding boxes for yolk sac and embryo be termed B.sub.YS and B.sub.E. If B.sub.YS and/or B.sub.E are subsets of B.sub.GS, then it is termed as a normal pregnancy. If YS and embryo are not detected within GS, then the chances of abnormal pregnancy are increased. An “increased” probability of a medical condition may for example mean that its probability is above a pre-defined threshold, for example above a value in the range of 50-95%, preferably 60-90%, p0035 & p0106-0107].
Claim 6: Bhownick discloses the ultrasonic imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the method performed by the ultrasound imaging apparatus including the one or more processors further comprises: determining a setting of a body mark to be set in the ultrasound image as the examination action to be performed next [displaying the medical image together with the at least one first bounding box and the at least one second bounding box displayed in a contrasting color, so that a user may check the accuracy of the prediction, p0084].
Claim 8: the program herein has been executed or performed by the apparatus of claim 1 and is therefore likewise rejected.
Claim 9: Bhownick discloses the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 8, wherein the method performed by the computer executing the program further comprises: displaying, on a display, information for performing the examination action or information prompting an examiner to perform the examination action [displaying the medical image together with the at least one first bounding box and the at least one second bounding box displayed in a contrasting color, so that a user may check the accuracy of the prediction, p0084].
Claim 12: Bhownick discloses the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 9, wherein the method performed by the computer executing the program further comprises: calculating a matching degree between a cross-section of the ultrasound image and a standard cross-sectional image; calculating an accuracy of an abnormal object detected from the ultrasound image [a weighted average of the bounding boxes and the confidence scores have been used in formulating a confidence interval which has been subsequently used for best plane computations. For example, those medical images capturing the largest cross-section of a certain anatomical structure are used for further evaluation. These planes/images along with the corresponding bounding boxes may then be used for automated computation of key parameters [interpreted as comparison between images], p0039]; and determining the examination action on the basis of the matching degree and the accuracy of the abnormal object [bounding boxes and the confidence score of each bounding box containing a certain class of anatomical structure. The output may be visualized by outputting the medical image and/or the cropped image, and displaying the bounding boxes having the highest confidence score thereon, e.g. in a contrasting colour scheme, or overlaid on the image … n the case of the field-of-view covering the uterus of a woman in early pregnancy, the invention may serve to make the diagnosis of normal or abnormal early pregnancy more systematic, in particular the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancies, molar pregnancies or adnexal features, p0027-0028 & p0091].
Claim 13: Bhownick discloses the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 12, wherein the ultrasound image is an image generated by transmission and reception of an ultrasonic wave to and from a fetus [receiving a video stream of medical images acquired during an ultrasound scan of the subject … e.g., gestational Yolk sac, embryo sac, embryo Fetus NT, fetal heart as shown in Table 1 … provided by an ultrasound probe, p0025-0026, p0060 & p0170-0171 – NOTE: although transmitting and receiving an ultrasonic wave is not explicitly stated, these features are inherent in an ultrasound probe].
Claim 14: the apparatus herein has been executed or performed by the program of claim 9 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 17: the apparatus herein has been executed or performed by the program of claim 12 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 18: the apparatus herein has been executed or performed by the program of claim 13 and is likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhownick et al., (US Pub No. 2023003864) in view of Li (US Pub No. 20190065897).
Claim 5: Bhownick discloses the ultrasonic imaging apparatus according to claim 4.
Bhownick does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the result of the calculation in (aa) and a result determined on the basis of the result of the calculation is used to determine the examination action to be performed next.
Li discloses in a related system from the same field of endeavor [Abstract] wherein at least one of the result of the calculation in (aa) [in a case that the classifier 101 is the Softmax classifier, the plurality of scores is a plurality of prediction probabilities [i.e., accuracy calculation], and the classification result corresponds to a maximum prediction probability among the plurality of prediction probabilities, p0095] and a result determined on the basis of the result of the calculation is used to determine the examination action to be performed next [each computer aided diagnosis device in the computer aided diagnosis device group 300 corresponds to a classification result, and is configured to analyze features of the medical image corresponding to the classification result. Each computer aided diagnosis device is further configured to output an analysis result for subsequent operations, p0097 & p0110].
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have included in Bhownick the support wherein at least one of the result of the calculation in (aa) and a result determined on the basis of the result of the calculation is used to determine the examination action to be performed next as disclosed by Li because it allows the doctor to combine the analysis results and the medical images to perform disease diagnosis, treatment and other operations on a patient as discussed by Li in at least paragraph 0110.
Claim 7: Bhownick discloses the ultrasonic imaging apparatus according to claim 1.
Bhownick appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein the method performed by the ultrasound imaging apparatus including the one or more processors further comprises: determining an attachment of the ultrasound image on a report as the examination action to be performed next.
Li discloses determining an attachment of the ultrasound image on a report as the examination action to be performed next [display the analysis results and/or medical images. A doctor can view the analysis results and/or the medical images through the monitor, a projection screen, or the like [interpreted as attachment in view of the description in the instant application], and combine the analysis results and the medical images to perform disease diagnosis, treatment and other operations [i.e., next action to be performed] on a patient, p0110].
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have included in Bhownick the support for determining an attachment of the ultrasound image on a report as the examination action to be performed next as disclosed by Li because it allows the doctor to combine the analysis results and the medical images to perform disease diagnosis, treatment and other operations on a patient as discussed by Li in at least paragraph 0110.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhownick et al., (US Pub No. 2023003864) in view of Owen et al., (US Pub No. 20220280139).
Claim 10: Bhownick discloses the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 9, wherein the examination action is an action related to image adjustment of the ultrasound image [displaying the medical image together with the at least one first bounding box and the at least one second bounding box displayed in a contrasting color, so that a user may check the accuracy of the prediction, p0084].
Bhownick does not appear to disclose where the action is related to image adjustment.
Owen discloses in a related system from the same field of endeavor [Abstract] wherein the examination action is an action related to image adjustment of the ultrasound image [the system can alert the clinician that a change in operating levels or conditions would be prudent for the present exam, Abstract].
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have included in Bhownick the support wherein the examination action is an action related to image adjustment of the ultrasound image as taught by Owen because it allows the clinician to make operating adjustments to obtain clearer images while maintaining patient safety as discussed in the Abstract and at least paragraphs 0013-0014.
Claim 11: Bhownick discloses the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 10, wherein the ultrasound image is an image generated by transmission and reception of an ultrasonic wave to and from a fetus [receiving a video stream of medical images acquired during an ultrasound scan of the subject … e.g., gestational Yolk sac, embryo sac, embryo Fetus NT, fetal heart as shown in Table 1 … provided by an ultrasound probe, p0025-0026, p0060 & p0170-0171 – NOTE: although transmitting and receiving an ultrasonic wave is not explicitly stated, these features are inherent in an ultrasound probe].
Owen also discloses wherein the ultrasound image is an image generated by transmission and reception of an ultrasonic wave to and from a fetus [p0015 & p0020].
Claim 15: the apparatus herein has been executed or performed by the program of claim 10 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 16: the apparatus herein has been executed or performed by the program of claim 11 and is likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering: Ultrasound, 2013 discloses well-known features of an ultrasound system.
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 BARBARA D REINIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5082. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 10am - 6pm.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/BARBARA D REINIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682