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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure (IDS) submitted on 06/02/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Objection to the Title
Applicant’s arguments and amendments [pgs. 2 & 9 of Remarks], filed 06/02/2026 with respect to the objection to the title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner acknowledges the amendment to the title clarifies the context of the invention.
The objection to the title has been withdrawn.
Objection to the Specification
Applicant’s arguments and amendments [pgs. 2 & 9], filed 06/02/2026 with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner acknowledges the amendment to the specification correct the previously indicated typographic error.
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Applicant’s arguments and amendments [pgs. 7-9], filed 06/02/2026 with respect to the limitations previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) for claims 18 & 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner is no longer interpreting these claims within the narrower scope of what explicitly disclosed in the specification.
The claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been withdrawn.
Amendments to the Claims
Amendments to Claims 1, 7, 18 & 19
Applicant has amended the indicated claims [pgs. 3-4, 7-10], filed 06/02/2026 to include some, but not all, of the previously indicated allowable subject matter of claim 3, originally filed 06/14/2023. The examiner acknowledges these changes, however, as noted in the previous office action, mailed 02/24/2026, the primary reason for allowance was that the disclosed prior art, Zhao et al (US 2018/0330525 A1) fail to teach providing a set of tools based on a labeling task for a given workflow corresponding to a global characteristic of a target structure after a labeling step has been conducted. Claims 1, 7, 18 & 19, as they are currently constructed, no longer specify this dependence on the order of operations in which a tool is selected based on a global characteristic, and have a broader scope than the original claim 3.
Accordingly, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (see Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102 below).
Amendments to Claims 3-6, 8-9, 11-17
Applicant has amended the indicated claims [pgs. 3-7], filed 06/02/2026, for clarity, and cancelled claim 3. The examiner acknowledges these amendments and that these changes do not give rise to any new claim rejections or objections, except for the amendment to claim 13 (further detailed below in Claim Objections).
New Claims 20-22
Applicant has set forth new claims [pgs. 8 & 9-10], filed on 06/02/2026. These new claims are anticipated by the disclosed prior art, Zhao et al (US 2018/0330525 A1).
Accordingly, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (see Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102 below).
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a global characteristic”. This limitation was first introduced in claim 7, and should subsequently referred to as “the global characteristic” for every subsequent recitation in a chain of dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7-17 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 7, applicant has amended the claim to recite the limitation of “generate a usable tool set corresponding to the labeling task performed on the medical image, based on the local characteristic of the target structure” (emphasis added). However, applicant has never previously claimed a “local characteristic” in the previous language of claim 7. Therefore, it is unclear to what “local characteristic” applicant is referring to. Thus, applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 8-17 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 7.
As for claim 19, applicant has amended the claim to recite the limitation of “generating a usable tool set corresponding to the labeling task performed on the medical image, based on the local characteristic of the target structure” (emphasis added). However, applicant has never previously claimed a “local characteristic” in the previous language of claim 19. Therefore, it is unclear to what “local characteristic” applicant is referring to. Thus, applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claims 1,2, 4-14 & 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al (US 2018/0330525 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao et al et al disclose an interactive annotation wizard for annotating medical imaging data. More specifically, Zhao et al teach a medical image processing apparatus (image processing system 100 [¶0028; Fig. 1]) comprising processing circuity (processors 303 of the advanced image processing system 140 [¶0064; Fig. 3]) configured to:
(medical data store 206 obtains and stores medical images and data [¶0048; Fig. 2] for subsequent image processing via a variety of image processing tools [¶0042; illustrated in Fig. 8H] including tools to label images);
determine a labeling task performed on the medical image for the labeling process (during image process 722 a colonoscopy flythrough (a kind of labeling task to identify abnormal structures in a colon) is performed for labeling potential polyps through digestive track [¶0087-89; Fig. 8A-K]);
analyze a local characteristic of a target structure serving as a labeling target in the medical image (during image process 722, potential polyp candidates (in this case, a target structure for a colonoscopy flythrough) are displayed in a GUI to denote their position in the colon (in this case, a local characteristic of a target structure) [¶0092; Fig. 8D]);
analyze a global characteristic of the target structure in the medical image (abdominal images relating to a colonoscopy (a global characteristic for the target structure of a polyp candidate) are analyzed to provide the polyp picking process [¶0089; Fig. 8A], when the target structure is a heart vessel, the global characteristic is images of a cardiovascular origin [¶0072-73]);
based on of the target structure, (during image process 722 (the colonoscopy flythrough) a “pick polyp” tool is presented that allows a user to both identify and measure the volume of individual polyps (labeled as polyps #1-3 based on their position) that have been identified during the colonoscopy flythrough [¶0070; Fig. 8H]) wherein the usable tool set is selected from an existing tool set, based on the global characteristic of the target structure (tools provided for polyp picking are based on the images being of abdominal origin, relating to a colonoscopy [¶0069-71; Fig. 8H]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhao et al teach the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the usable tool set is a tool set including a plurality of labeling tools (refer to Fig. 8H which denotes particular tools when the labeling task is related to selecting polyps in the digestive track, with a “pick polyp” tool that allows a user to denote a location, shape, or size of a polyp in an image or camera tools to adjust the view in the image [¶0074 & 92]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhao et al teach the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as previously described), wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to record (during the labeling step of annotating polyps in the colon during the colonoscopy flythrough 713 (the labeling task), labeled polyps and their locations in the colon are recorded [¶0089; Fig. 8A]) and a labeling step performed on the medical image corresponding to the labeling task performed on the medical image (during the colonoscopy flythrough 713 (the labeling task), the workflow 703 is presented to a user to iterate through and pick polyps in the colon [¶0081; Fig. 7A & 8A-H]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhao et al teach the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as previously described),
the processing circuitry is further configured to conduct a search to determine whether or not a usable tool set corresponding to the labeling task performed on the medical image is present (for each image processing step, advanced tools specific to each image processing step are presented to the user as seen in Fig. 8H, and are determined by the image processing server based on the types of images, body parts, medical procedures, and medical conditions associated with the image (the examiner notes that in order to output a tool, the tools must first be searched to find the appropriate tool) [¶0095]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao et al teach the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 5 (as previously described), upon finding the usable tool set in the search, the processing circuitry is further configured to output the usable tool set as a candidate labeling tool (for each image processing step, advanced tools specific to each image processing step are presented to the user as seen in Fig. 8H, and are determined by the image processing server based on the types of images, body parts, medical procedures, and medical conditions associated with the image (the examiner notes that in order to output a tool, the tools must first be searched to find the appropriate tool) [¶0095]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhao et al teach a medical image processing apparatus (image processing system 100 [¶0028; Fig. 1]) comprising processing circuity (processors 303 of the advanced image processing system 140 [¶0064; Fig. 3]) configured to:
(medical data store 206 obtains and stores medical images and data for subsequent image processing [¶0048; Fig. 2] via a variety of image processing tools [¶0042; illustrated in Fig. 8H] including tools to label images);
determine a labeling task performed on the medical image for the labeling process (during image process 722, polyps in a digestive track are labeled [¶0089; Fig. A]);
analyze a global characteristic of a target structure serving as a labeling target in the medical image (abdominal images relating to a colonoscopy (a global characteristic for the target structure of a polyp candidate) are analyzed to provide the polyp picking process [¶0089; Fig. 8A], when the target structure is a heart vessel, the global characteristic is images of a cardiovascular origin [¶0072-73]);
generate a usable tool set corresponding to the labeling task performed on the medical image, based on the local characteristic of the target structure (during image process 722 (the colonoscopy flythrough) a “pick polyp” tool is presented that allows a user to both identify and measure the volume of individual polyps (labeled as polyps #1-3 based on their position) that have been identified during the colonoscopy flythrough [¶0070; Fig. 8H]); and
(a process line or workflow 703 is illustrated at the top of the GUI in Fig. 7A [¶0081]; when the flythrough option 713 is selected as the labeling task, the GUI is updated for polyp picking [¶0088-89; Fig. 8A-H]), wherein the usable tool set is selected from an existing tool set, based on the global characteristic of the target structure (tools provided for polyp picking are based on the images being of abdominal origin, relating to a colonoscopy [¶0069-71; Fig. 8H]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao et al teach the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 7 (as described above), wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to conduct a search to determine whether or not an existing workflow corresponding to the labeling task performed on the medical image is present (referring to Fig. 7A, a series of selectable tags 711-714 corresponding to different imaging procedures associated with the abdomen or pelvis are selectable, each with their own corresponding workflow, such as flythrough 713 [¶0080]).
Regarding claim 9, Zhao et al teach the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 7 (as previously described), wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to assist the labeling process performed on the medical image based on task performed on the medical image to conform to the workflow (in Fig. 8A, when the workflow 703 corresponding to a colonoscopy flythrough is selected, automatic image processing is performed to pre-identify potential polyps in the colon to assist a user during the polyp picking process – the user is then allowed to then manually adjust and confirm accurate polyp picking [¶0089]).
Regarding claim 10, Zhao et al teach the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 7 (as previously described), wherein the workflow includes a display part indicating a step for adjusting a display state and a labeling part indicating a step for performing the labeling process by using a labeling tool (in Fig. 8H, several different views of the colon are presented, with a variety of “camera” tools to select from the GUI, such as “lock on path”, “orbit”, and “forward view” which allow a user to adjust the display during the colonoscopy flythrough image processing [¶0086-89]).
Regarding claim 11, Zhao et al teach the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 8 (as previously described), wherein
the workflow includes a display part indicating a step for adjusting a display state (in Fig. 8H, several different views of the colon are presented, with a variety of “camera” tools to select from the GUI, such as “lock on path”, “orbit”, and “forward view” which allow a user to adjust the display during the colonoscopy flythrough image processing [¶0086-89]), and
upon finding the existing workflow in the search, the processing circuitry is further configured to adjust a display state of the medical image being displayed, in accordance with a final display result in the display part of the existing workflow (referring to Fig. 7A, a series of selectable tags 711-714 corresponding to different imaging procedures associated with the abdomen or pelvis are selectable, each with their own corresponding workflow, such as flythrough 713 [¶0080], multiple display areas 801-804 are presented [¶0088-89; Fig. 8A]).
Regarding claim 12, Zhao et al teach the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 8 (as previously described), wherein
the workflow includes a labeling part indicating a step for performing the labeling process by using a labeling tool (when the workflow corresponds to a colonoscopy flythrough, the GUI provides particular tools for selecting polyps in the colon, with a “pick polyp” tool that allows a user to denote a location, shape, or size of a polyp in an image or camera tools to adjust the view in the image [¶0074 & 92; Fig. 8H]), and
upon finding the existing workflow in the search, the processing circuitry is further configured to form and display a flowchart for performing the labeling process by using the labeling tool, according to the labeling part of the existing workflow (when the workflow corresponds to a colonoscopy flythrough, the GUI displays a flowchart 703, which walks the user through the different steps associated with the existing workflow [¶0088-92]).
Regarding claim 13, Zhao et al teach the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 7 (as previously described), wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to analyze a global characteristic of a labeled result from the received labeling task (after automatic preliminary labeling of potential polyps is performed for the colonoscopy flythrough, of which, the relevant organ of the labeling task (in this case, the colon) is being treated as the global characteristic [¶0088-89; Fig. 8A]), and
the processing circuitry is configured to optimize the workflow by correcting an existing workflow (in the colonoscopy flythrough 703, a user is able to view results during step 723, and either confirm results (724) or, if the results are not satisfactory, the user is able to iterate back to process step 722 for optimal polyp picking [¶0088-89; Fig. 8A]).
Regarding claim 14, Zhao et al teach the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 13 (as described above), wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to correct a parameter used in the workflow, based on (a user may be prompted questions relating to updating parameters or processing preferences associated with the workflow (in this case, a colonoscopy flythrough) – with one example of a parameter being the default display windows, which can also be “remembered” for subsequent processing using the same workflow ([¶0086]).
Regarding claim 18, Zhao et al teach a medical image processing method (image processing method 600 [¶0078; Fig. 6]) comprising:
(medical data store 206 obtains and stores medical images and data for subsequent image processing [¶0048; Fig. 2] via a variety of image processing tools [¶0042; illustrated in Fig. 8H] including tools to label images);
determining a labeling task performed on the medical image (during image process 722, polyps in a digestive track are labeled [¶0089; Fig. A]);
analyzing(during image process 722, potential polyp candidates (in this case, a target structure for a colonoscopy flythrough) are displayed in a GUI to denote their position in the colon (in this case, a local characteristic of a target structure) [¶0092; Fig. 8D]);
analyzing a global characteristic of a target structure serving as a labeling target in the medical image (abdominal images relating to a colonoscopy (a global characteristic for the target structure of a polyp candidate) are analyzed to provide the polyp picking process [¶0089; Fig. 8A], when the target structure is a heart vessel, the global characteristic is images of a cardiovascular origin [¶0072-73]); and
generating a usable tool set corresponding to the labeling task performed on the medical image, on a basis of the local characteristic of the target structure (during image process 722 (the colonoscopy flythrough) a “pick polyp” tool is presented that allows a user to both identify and measure the volume of individual polyps (labeled as polyps #1-3 based on their position) that have been identified during the colonoscopy flythrough [¶0070; Fig. 8H]), wherein the usable tool set is selected from an existing tool set, based on the global characteristic of the target structure (tools provided for polyp picking are based on the images being of abdominal origin, relating to a colonoscopy [¶0069-71; Fig. 8H]).
Regarding claim 19, Zhao et al teach a medical image processing method (image processing method 600 [¶0078; Fig. 6]) comprising:
obtaining a medical image subject to a labeling process (medical data store 206 obtains and stores medical images and data for subsequent image processing [¶0048; Fig. 2] via a variety of image processing tools [¶0042; illustrated in Fig. 8H] including tools to label images);
determining a labeling task performed on the medical image for the labeling process (during image process 722, polyps in a digestive track are labeled [¶0089; Fig. A]);
analyzing a global characteristic of a target structure serving as a labeling target in the medical image (abdominal images relating to a colonoscopy (a global characteristic for the target structure of a polyp candidate) are analyzed to provide the polyp picking process [¶0089; Fig. 8A], when the target structure is a heart vessel, the global characteristic is images of a cardiovascular origin [¶0072-73]);
generate a usable tool set corresponding to the labeling task performed on the medical image, based on the local characteristic of the target structure (during image process 722 (the colonoscopy flythrough) a “pick polyp” tool is presented that allows a user to both identify and measure the volume of individual polyps (labeled as polyps #1-3 based on their position) that have been identified during the colonoscopy flythrough [¶0070; Fig. 8H]); and
recording the determined labeling task received and generating a workflow indicating the labeling task performed on the medical image (a process line or workflow 903 is illustrated at the top of the GUI in Fig. 7A [¶0081]; when the flythrough option 713 is selected as the labeling task, the GUI is updated for polyp picking [¶0088-89; Fig. 8A-H]), wherein the usable tool set is selected from an existing tool set, based on the global characteristic of the target structure (tools provided for polyp picking are based on the images being of abdominal origin, relating to a colonoscopy [¶0069-71; Fig. 8H]).
Regarding claim 20, Zhao et al teach The medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as described previously), wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to select a tool from the usable tool set, perform the labeling task for the target structure in the medical image using the selected tool, and output a result of the labeling task (“pick polyp” is configured to allow a user to select polyps in the colonoscopy flythrough, which can also be performed via automatic processing, with picked polyps being marked as nodes in the colonic tract [¶0089-92; Fig. 8D & 8H]).
With respect to claim 21 Zhao et al teach The medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as described previously), wherein the local characteristic is a characteristic used for judging whether or not a certain tool is suitable for the labeling task (landmarks or shape atlases (local characteristics) for particular structures can dictate a type of processing or pattern recognition for image segmentation to update subsequent labeling tools [¶0071-73]).
As for claim 22 Zhao et al teach The medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as described previously), wherein the global characteristic is a characteristic used for optimizing a tool set or a workflow (the type of image corresponding to a particular medical procedure dictates the workflow and tools available for a labeling process, such as polyp picking for abdominal images of a colonoscopy [¶0089; Fig. 8A], or cardiovascular images for vessel selection and stenosis measurement [¶0072-73]).
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.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (US 2018/0330525 A1) in view of Liu, Yaoyong (WO 2019/233392 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Zhao et al teach the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 13 (as previously described), wherein
the workflow is structured with a plurality of operation steps (a process line or workflow 903 is illustrated at the top of the GUI in Fig. 7A [¶0081], comprising a series of image processing steps), but does not teach that the processing circuitry is configured to add new operations to the workflow on the basis of an analyzed global characteristic of the labeled result.
Liu, Yaoyong however, is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the present application and also discloses adding new operations to an existing workflow based on a global characteristic of an image label. More specifically, Liu, Yaoyong teach and
the processing circuitry is further configured to add a new operation step to the workflow, based on the analyzed global characteristic of the labeled result (Liu, Yaoyong: Operation 108 first determines an image label (a global characteristic) according to the target scene or subject label, and then performs image processing on the to-be-detected image on the basis of the image label. (Examiner notes that the processing to be performed based on the image label implies adding a new step based on that label) [¶0041-0045; Fig. 1]). Liu, Yaoyong also discloses that implementing different types of processing based on the different image labels improves the overall processing efficiency of the image processing system and enables a degree of automation during the workflow [¶0048].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application take the annotation wizard and labeling workflow provided by Zhao et al, and implement the workflow optimization provided by Liu, Yaoyong for improved processing efficiency to arrive at the invention of the present application.
Regarding claim 16, Zhao et al teach the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 13 (as previously described), wherein
the workflow is structured with a plurality of operation steps (a process line or workflow 903 is illustrated at the top of the GUI in Fig. 7A [¶0081], comprising a series of image processing steps), but does not explicitly teach that the processing circuitry is configured to replace steps in the workflow.
Liu, Yaoyong, on the other hand teaches and
the processing circuitry is further configured to replace a part of the operation steps in the workflow with one or more new operation steps (Liu, Yaoyong: Operation 108 first determines an image label (a global characteristic) according to the target scene or subject label, and then performs image processing on the to-be-detected image on the basis of the image label. (performing image processing specific to the image label implies replacing particular image processing steps) [¶0041-0045; Fig. 1]). Liu, Yaoyong also discloses that implementing different types of processing based on the different image labels improves the overall processing efficiency of the image processing system and enables a degree of automation during the workflow [¶0048].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application take the annotation wizard and labeling workflow provided by Zhao et al, and implement the workflow optimization provided by Liu, Yaoyong for improved processing efficiency to arrive at the invention of the present application.
Regarding claim 17, Zhao et al in view of Liu, Yaoyong teach the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 16 (as described above), wherein
the workflow includes an operation step for adjusting a display range (Zhao et al: camera tools available in the GUI during the colonoscopy flythrough allow a user to adjust the display view [¶0095-98; Fig. H]), and
the processing circuitry is further configured to replace the operation step for adjusting the display range, with an operation step for identifying a display range by detecting a landmark (Zhao et al: when polyps (a detected landmark) are automatically detected in the colonoscopy flythrough, a view of the detected polyp (polyp #1) is automatically displayed to the user [¶0088-90; Fig. 8A]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael M. Sofroniou whose telephone number is (571)272-0287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John M. Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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 M SOFRONIOU/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights