DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed 07 July 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 8, first line, through page 18, last line), filed 02 July 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
Incorporation by Reference
Applicant’s argument regarding a listing of websites being sufficient for proper incorporation by reference is not persuasive. According to 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c)(2), a proper incorporation by reference requires the specification “[c]learly identify the reference patent, application, or publication”. Further, 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(e) states “An incorporation by reference by hyperlink or other form of browser executable code is not permitted.” See also MPEP § 608.01(I).
An example recitation of one of the references described in paragraph 78 of the application is “https://www.nature.com/articles/s4l598-0l8-22437-z, for malignancy analysis”. This recitation does not clearly identify the reference publication because there is insufficient identifying information. While 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c)(2) does not expressly require any particular reference information such as the title of the publication (which Examiner recommended as a possible remedy), website links can change or no longer work, and if the recited link stops working, one reading the specification would not know what article is being referenced. The reference must, in some manner, be clearly identified. A publication cannot be properly incorporated by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c)(2) by a bare link consisting of random letters and numbers. Accordingly, Examiner maintains the incorporation by reference in paragraph 78 is improper.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) are not persuasive.
Enablement
Regarding claims 3 and 12, while Applicant’s specification describes some techniques (image segmentation, object localization; support vector machine or random forest) of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) with a high level of generality, as explained in the rejection, the specification would only be enabling for those aspects already known in the art. Because the claims do not specify what AI module is used, the full scope of the claims would include those modules both known in the art, and those known only to Applicant. Because Applicant’s specification only recites broad techniques, rather than particular modules, the full scope of Applicant’s invention is not enabled.
Best Mode
Similarly, the best mode requirement is not satisfied because while some techniques are broadly recited, the particular AI module used by Applicant is not provided. Due to the large number of possible AI modules which could be used, this effectively results in concealment of the best mode.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 pertaining to the teachings of Li (US 2021/0369219 A1) and the tissue imaging device further comprising a motor disposed within the housing and operably connected to the PCED detector to move the PCED detector within the interior of the housing are persuasive. A new reference is provided below for these limitations.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references (see ¶ 78) in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The specification is objected to for the following reason:
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to the list of websites in paragraph 78 of the specification is ineffective because the reference document is not clearly identified as required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c)(2). According to 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c)(2), a proper incorporation by reference requires the specification “[c]learly identify the reference patent, application, or publication”. Further, 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(e) states “An incorporation by reference by hyperlink or other form of browser executable code is not permitted.” See also MPEP § 608.01(I). An example recitation of one of the references described in paragraph 78 of the application is “https://www.nature.com/articles/s4l598-0l8-22437-z, for malignancy analysis”. This recitation does not clearly identify the reference publication because there is insufficient identifying information. While 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c)(2) does not expressly require any particular reference information such as the title of the publication, website links can change or no longer work, and if the recited link stops working, one reading the specification would not know what article is being referenced. The reference must, in some manner, be clearly identified. A publication cannot be properly incorporated by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c)(2) by a bare link consisting of random letters and numbers. Examiner recommends citing the documents directly, e.g., by reciting the author, title, date, publisher, edition or volume, and pertinent pages, such as listed on form PTO-892 or form PTO/SB/08.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 § U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claims 2 and 12
Claims 2 and 12 interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “control device” uses the generic placeholder “device” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to either: a processor, memory, a user interface, and a display; or a controller (Applicant’s specification, ¶ 63) and equivalents thereof. Regarding the interpretations of claims using generic placeholders, see MPEP § 2181(I)(A).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, see the interpretation of the limitation “control device” as described regarding claim 2 above.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
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.
Claims 3 and 12 — Enablement
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for using previously known artificial intelligence modules, does not reasonably provide enablement for using whatever novel and nonobvious artificial intelligence module Applicant used. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
According to the approach used by the court in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (See MPEP § 2164), There are many factors (“Wands factors”) to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue.” These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
With reference to representative claim 3, the claim is directed to the use of an artificial intelligence module. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the system includes any artificial intelligence module, including those previously known in the art, and whatever undisclosed module Applicant used which would presumably be novel and nonobvious. The specification, while stating the result of the artificial intelligence module being trained to analyze images (see, e.g., ¶ 77), and providing examples of inputs, outputs, and models (see e.g., ¶ 78), does not specifically disclose how Applicant trained the artificial intelligence model, lacking details such as specific weighting or algorithms actually used. While some techniques (image segmentation, object localization; support vector machine or random forest) are broadly recited, there is no specific information about how these techniques are actually implemented by Applicant. Taking these factors into account, while one of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with artificial intelligence and would have been able to use previously known artificial intelligence modules, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of claim 3 which would include whatever undisclosed model Applicant actually used.
Claims 3 and 12 — Best Mode
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the best mode contemplated by the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s) has not been disclosed. Evidence of concealment of the best mode is based upon Applicant’s use of an artificial intelligence module while lacking any specific description of how the module is trained in the specification or any specific module, as described in the enablement rejections above. Only high-level techniques (image segmentation, object localization; support vector machine or random forest); Applicant’s actual implementation of these techniques is not specified. Of the many possible artificial intelligence modules, at least one must have been the best mode contemplated by the inventor or a joint inventor. However, this best mode is not disclosed.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–-----103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103) 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-7
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chmeissani (US 2022/0071583 A1) in view of Boone (US 2008/0187095 A1).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Chmeissani discloses a tissue imaging system (90 in Figs. 2a-c, 3a-b) for use in conjunction with a radiography imaging system (70 in Fig. 3A) including a radiation source (72 in Fig. 3A) and a detector (75 in Fig. 3A), the tissue imaging system comprising: a tissue imaging device adapted to be positioned on a surface of the detector of the radiography imaging system between the radiation source and the detector (depicted in Fig. 3A; ¶ 53), the tissue imaging device comprising: a housing (98 in Fig. 2A; ¶ 55) positionable on the surface of the detector (¶¶ 53-54), the housing defining an interior and a tissue support surface opposite the surface of the detector (depicted in Fig. 3A); and a photon counting energy discriminating (PCED) detector (¶ 67) disposed within the interior of the housing (¶¶ 55-56), the PCED detector adapted to generate image data used to form multi-energy material decomposition images (Fig. 4; ¶¶ 83-84; see also ¶¶ 23-101; claims 1-19; Figs. 1-6).
Chmeissani does not expressly disclose a motor disposed within the housing and operably connected to the PCED detector to move the PCED detector within the interior of the housing.
Boone discloses a tissue (breast) imaging device (10) comprises a motor (28) disposed within a housing (portion of bed 12 surrounding and forming chamber 20 as shown in Fig. 1) and operably connected to a detector (26) to move the detector within the interior of the housing (¶ 72; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Chmeissani, in view of the teachings of Boone, so that the tissue imaging device further comprises a motor disposed within the housing and operably connected to the PCED detector to move the PCED detector within the interior of the housing.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage suggested by Boone of permitting motorized movement of the detector (Boone, ¶ 72).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Chmeissani modified teaches the tissue imaging system of claim 5, further comprising a control device (computer, which is a type of controller) operably connected to the PCED detector (i.e., a computer is inherently required to use the recited in computer algorithm in Chmeissani, ¶ 39 to perform image analysis of the image generated by the PCED detector).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Chmeissani modified teaches the tissue imaging system of claim 2, wherein the control device comprises an artificial intelligence module configured to classify tissue types (malignant or benign tissue) detected within the image data of the imaged tissue (Chmeissani, ¶¶ 39, 83-84).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Chmeissani modified teaches the tissue imaging system of claim 5, wherein the PCED detector is adapted to be operably connected to the radiography imaging system (Chmeissani, Figs. 3A, 6).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Chmeissani modified teaches the tissue imaging system of claim 5, wherein the tissue imaging device further comprises at least one grid (94) spaced from the PCED detector (Chmeissani, ¶ 72, Figs. 2B-C).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Chmeissani modified teaches the tissue imaging system of claim 6, wherein the at least one grid (94) is disposed within the interior of the housing between the tissue support surface and the PCED detector (Chmeissani, ¶ 72, Figs. 2B-C).
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chmeissani in view of Boone as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2021/0204890 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Chmeissani modified teaches the tissue imaging system of claim 6, further comprising: a first grid (94) adapted to be positioned between the sample support surface and the radiation source (see rejection of claim 6 above; Chmeissani, ¶ 72, Figs. 2B-C).
Chmeissani modified does not expressly disclose a second grid positioned between the sample support surface and the detector.
Wang discloses photon counting detector system (¶ 27) comprising a first grid (150) adapted to be positioned between a detector (170) and a radiation source (110); and a second grid (160) positioned between a sample (120) and the detector (170; ¶¶ 25, 32; Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have further modified the invention of Chmeissani, in view of the teachings of Wang, to include a second grid positioned between the sample support surface and the detector.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage suggested by Wang of improving imaging performance (Wang, ¶ 28).
Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chmeissani in view of Boone as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ledan (US 2024/0268775 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Chmeissani modified teaches the tissue imaging system of claim 5, but does not expressly disclose a magstand engaged with the housing to alter the position of the tissue support surface relative to the surface of the detector.
Ledan discloses a prior art mammography system comprises a magstand (1028) engaged with a housing (1014) to alter the position of a tissue support surface (top surface of 1028) relative to a surface of a detector (1018; ¶ 11, Fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have further modified the invention of Chmeissani, in view of the teachings of Ledan, to include a magstand engaged with the housing to alter the position of the tissue support surface relative to the surface of the detector.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage suggested by Ledan of providing a desired magnification (Ledan, ¶ 11).
Claim 10
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chmeissani in view of Boone as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Vancamberg (US 2021/0307711 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Chmeissani modified teaches the tissue imaging system of claim 5, but does not expressly disclose a camera adapted to obtain images of the tissue support surface for providing positioning information of the tissue support surface and PCED detector relative to the radiation source.
Vancamberg discloses a camera (101) adapted to obtain images of a tissue support surface (164) for providing positioning information of the tissue support surface (164) and a radiation detector (168) relative to a radiation source (160; ¶¶ 40-41; Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have further modified the invention of Chmeissani, in view of the teachings of Vancamberg, to include a camera adapted to obtain images of the tissue support surface for providing positioning information of the tissue support surface and PCED detector relative to the radiation source.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage suggested by Vancamberg of evaluating breast position prior to x-ray exposure (Vancamberg, ¶ 40).
Claims 12-15, and 18-19
Claims 12-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chmeissani in view of Vancamberg and Boone.
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Chmeissani discloses a radiography imaging system comprising: a radiation source; a detector capable of receiving radiation from the radiation source and defining a surface; and a tissue imaging system comprising: a housing removably positionable on the surface of the detector, the housing defining an interior and a tissue support surface opposite the surface of the detector; and a photon counting energy discriminating (PCED) detector disposed within the interior of the housing, the PCED adapted to generate image data of the imaged tissue to form one or more of multi-energy material decomposition images (see rejection of claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis).
Chmeissani does not expressly disclose: a controller operable to control the operation and movement of the radiation source and detector to generate image data, the controller including a central processing unit and interconnected memory for processing the image data from the detector; a display operably connected to the controller for presenting information to a user; a user interface operably connected to the controller to enable user input to the controller; and wherein the PCED detector is removably connected to the controller.
Vancamberg discloses a controller (44) operable to control the operation and movement of a radiation source (16) and a detector (18) to generate image data, the controller (44) including a central processing unit (processor) and interconnected memory for processing the image data from the detector (18); a display (56) operably connected to the controller (44) for presenting information to a user; a user interface (50) operably connected to the controller (44) to enable user input to the controller (40); and wherein the detector (18) is removably (via 47) connected to the controller (44; ¶¶ 24-51; Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Chmeissani, in view of the teachings of Vancamberg, to include a controller operable to control the operation and movement of the radiation source and detector to generate image data, the controller including a central processing unit and interconnected memory for processing the image data from the detector; a display operably connected to the controller for presenting information to a user; a user interface operably connected to the controller to enable user input to the controller; and wherein the PCED detector is removably connected to the controller.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage suggested by Vancamberg of permitting relative movement of the source and the detector (¶ 29) and facilitating control of the imaging system (Vancamberg, ¶ 27).
For the motor limitations of claim 13, see the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, see the rejections of claims 2-3 above.
Claims 14-15 and 18
Regarding claims 14-15 and 18, see the rejections of claims 6-7 and 10 above, respectively.
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claim 13 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chmeissani in view of Vancamberg and Boone as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 16, Chmeissani modified teaches the system of claim 14. For the further limitations of claim 16, see the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim 17
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chmeissani in view of Vancamberg and Boone as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ledan.
Regarding claim 17, Chmeissani modified teaches the system of claim 11. For the further limitations of claim 17, see the rejection of claim 9 above.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chmeissani in view of Vancamberg and Boone as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Lafferty (US 2010/0191145 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Chmeissani modified teaches the method of claim 19. Chmeissani modified does not expressly disclose the imaged tissue is a biopsy specimen obtained with the radiography imaging system.
Lafferty discloses an imaged tissue is a biopsy specimen (130) obtained with a radiography imaging system (¶¶ 36).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Chmeissani, in view of the teachings of Lafferty, so that the imaged tissue is a biopsy specimen obtained with the radiography imaging system.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage suggested by Lafferty of permitting biopsy sample imaging (Lafferty, ¶ 38).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi (US 2014/0294142 A1) discloses an X-ray imaging device for forming an X-ray image of a breast (¶ 12) including photon counting and energy discrimination (¶¶ 132, 145).
Lee (US 2014/0348291 A1) discloses an X-ray imaging device for forming an X-ray image of a breast (Abstract) including photon counting and energy discrimination (¶ 62).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-2995. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights