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 .
Continuation
The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent application 17/154,474, now U.S. patent 11,838,644.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed 26 February 2026 wherein: claims 1-20 are canceled; claims 30-31 are newly added; claims 21-31 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 5, first line through page 9, last line), filed 26 February 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim 21
Regarding claim 21, the claim was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (US 2015/0189194 A1) in view of Kubota (US 2018/0317872 A1).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP § 2145(IV). Further, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2145(VI). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2145(III). A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. See MPEP § 2143.03(I).
In this case, while no single reference discloses linking the clamed first and second exposure records to the third exposure image, Tajima discloses obtaining the claimed first and second exposure records and the third exposure image. Kubota discloses linking information to an image. As exposure records can be considered types of information, the combined teachings of the cited prior art suggest it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to link information (first and second exposure records) to an image (third exposure image). As a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, one would have been able to link the information as claimed even though neither of the cited references contain express instructions for doing so. While the particular exposure records and images described in Applicant’s specification may differ from those found in the cited prior art, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. The cited prior art suggests all claimed limitations. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 is maintained.
Claims 22-29
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claims are allowable for the same or similar reasons identified regarding claim 21, see the above response regarding claim 21.
Claim 23
Regarding claim 23, Examiner acknowledges “radiation quality” is claimed in claim 24 and not claim 23. However, the cited portions of the prior art remain the same, and the rejection has been updated below to remove the unnecessary reference to “radiation quality”. Applicant argues the claimed addition of records is not taught by the cited prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner acknowledges Tajima discloses images, but Tajima also discloses adding records. For example, Tajima expressly discloses adding irradiation times. As Applicant has not addressed this issue, the rejection of claim 23 is maintained.
Claim 26
Regarding claim 26, Examiner acknowledges none of the cited prior art alone expressly discloses the claimed displaying of images and records. A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. The cited prior art suggests all of the claimed records and images, and also suggests displaying various types of information. The cited prior art suggests it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display information as claimed, even though no single reference includes express instructions for doing so.
Nonstatutory double patenting rejections
Regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejections, Examiner acknowledges the claim language between the reference patent and the instant application is not the same. However, the reference claims anticipate the instant claims as described, and Applicant has not addressed the described mapping of limitations. For example, the invention of reference claim 4 would anticipate instant claim 21, and Applicant has not provided any specific arguments for why the reference claim 4 limitation “that combines the first exposure record and the second exposure record to generate a third exposure record, the third exposure record including the first parameter with a third value, the third value being a total of the first value and the second value; that links information about the third exposure record to a third exposure image generated on the basis of the first exposure image and the second exposure image” would not anticipate the instant claim 21 limitation “that generates a third image based on the first exposure image and the second exposure image; and that links the first exposure record and the second exposure record to the third exposure image”. Accordingly, the nonstatutory double patenting rejections are maintained.
New claims 30-31
The limitations of new claims 30-31, including a “radiation quality” option and an “added filter” option, are not substantially different from those found in claims 23-25, with claim 24 corresponding to the “radiation quality” option and claim 25 corresponding to the “added filter” option. Accordingly, claims 30-31 are rejected on similar grounds to those of claims 23-24 using the “radiation quality” option.
Claim Numbering
The numbering of the claims is not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(g) which states in part “all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable.” Claim 29 is unnecessarily separated from claim 27, both of which depend on claim 21, by independent claim 28. See also MPEP § 608.01(n)(IV). The numbering of the claims should not be changed now. Examiner will correct the numbering of the claims if still necessary if the application is allowed. Due to the irregular numbering of the claims, the following rejections of the claims may not necessarily be in numerical order.
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 21 and 28
Claims 21 and 28 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Regarding claims 21 and 28, the limitation “radiography system” uses the generic placeholder “system” 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 an irradiator, a radiographic imager, and a console (Applicant’s specification, ¶ 14) and equivalents thereof.
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 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 21-24 and 28-31
Claims 21-24 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (US 2015/0189194 A1) in view of Kubota (US 2018/0317872 A1).
Claim 21
Regarding claim 21, Examiner notes Applicant’s specification states:
console 3 corresponds to the “exposure record totalizer” (¶ 28, fig. 1, 3);
a pre-exposure image corresponds to the first exposure image and a main exposure image corresponds to the second exposure image (¶ 36).
A copy of Figure 1 of Tajima annotated by Examiner is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
1045
1498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Tajima, annotated by Examiner to show features of Applicant’s claimed inventions, including an irradiator (2a), a radiographic imager (13), hardware processor/console (14), and display (14b).
Tajima discloses an exposure record storage device (14; ¶¶ 50-54, Fig. 1) comprising: a hardware processor that receives a first exposure record which is an actual exposure record of a first exposure (exposure for preview image) and a second exposure record which is an actual exposure record of a second exposure (exposure determined from preview image), when a radiography system comprising an irradiator (2a), a radiographic imager (13), and a console (14) generates a first exposure image through the first exposure and a second exposure image through the second exposure, the first exposure record including a parameter with a first value, the second exposure record including the parameter with a second value, the parameter being at least one of an irradiation time, a tube current time product, an area dose value and an incident surface dose value; that generates a third image (image for diagnosis) based on the first exposure image and the second exposure image (¶¶ 110-116, fig. 11-12; i.e., the system generates a first image (preview image) with, e.g., an irradiation time corresponding to dose, determines what irradiation time a second image should have, so that a third image (image for diagnosis) is a sum of the first two images and has a total irradiation time of the first two irradiation times; adding irradiation times is described particularly described in ¶ 113; area dose value (dose measurement in a rectangular field) is described in ¶ 112; using tube current time product instead of irradiation time is particularly described in ¶ 116; radiography system described in ¶¶ 50-54 and shown in Fig. 1).
Tajima does not expressly disclose linking the first exposure record and the second exposure record to the third exposure image.
Kubota discloses linking information to an image (par. [0124]).
It 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 to have modified the invention of Tajima in view of the teachings of Kubota to include linking information about a third exposure record to a third exposure image.
One would have been motivated to do so to make imaging conditions readily available upon later viewing of the third exposure image.
Claim 22
Regarding claim 22, Tajima modified teaches the exposure record storage device according to claim 21, wherein the hardware processor generates the third image by combining (via summation) the first exposure image and the second exposure image (Tajima, ¶¶ 110-116).
Claim 23
Regarding claim 23, Tajima modified teaches the exposure record storage device according to claim 21, wherein when the hardware processor determines not to add up the first exposure record and the second exposure record, the hardware processor links the first exposure record and the second exposure record to the third exposure image (see rejection of claim 1 above, with records described in Tajima, ¶¶ 110-116; the position of the target with respect to the irradiation field is a factor which is considered; the records are added or not depending on target movement, Tajima, ¶¶ 105-109).
Claim 24
Regarding claim 24, Tajima modified teaches the exposure record storage device according to claim 23, wherein when a radiation quality differs between the first exposure and the second exposure, the hardware processor determines not to add up the first exposure record and the second exposure record (see rejection of claim 1 above, with records described in Tajima, ¶¶ 110-116; the position of the target with respect to the irradiation field can be considered as corresponding to the claimed “radiation quality”; the records are added or not depending on target movement, Tajima, ¶¶ 105-109).
Claim 28
Regarding claim 28, see the rejection of claim 21 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 29
Regarding claim 29, Tajima modified teaches a radiography system comprising: an irradiator that emits radiation; a radiographic imager that generates image data of an exposure image by receiving the radiation; and the exposure record storage device according to claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above).
Claims 30-31
Regarding claims 30-31, see the rejections of claims 23-24 above, mutatis muntadis, for the “radiation quality” option.
Claim 25
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (US 2015/0189194 A1) in view of Kubota (US 2018/0317872 A1) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Pellegrino (US 2007/0076847 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Tajima modified teaches the exposure record storage device according to claim 23, but does not expressly disclose when an added filter in an irradiator differs between the first exposure and the second exposure, the hardware processor determines not to add up the first exposure record and the second exposure record.
Pellegrino discloses when a signal from an added filter (10b) in an irradiator (x-ray radiation assembly 10) differs from a reference signal, a controller (14) determines to issue a warning to a user (¶ 25, Fig. 1).
It 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 to have further modified the invention of Tajima in view of the teachings of Pellegrino to include when an added filter in an irradiator differs between the first exposure and the second exposure, the hardware processor determines not to add up the first exposure record and the second exposure record.
One would have been motivated to gain an advantage suggested by Pellegrino of informing a user that servicing may be required (Pellegrino, ¶ 25).
Claims 26-27
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (US 2015/0189194 A1) in view of Kubota (US 2018/0317872 A1) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Morgan (US 6,205,347 B1).
Claim 26
Regarding claim 26, Tajima modified teaches the exposure record storage device according to claim 21, wherein the hardware processor that displays, on a display (14b), images, including the third exposure image (Tajima, ¶¶ 50-54, 105-116; Fig. 1).
Tajima modified does not expressly disclose also displaying the second exposure record.
Morgan discloses generating a first image, a second image, and a third image which is a combination of the first and second images and displaying at least one of the images (col. 2 ln. 29-54).
It 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 to have further modified the invention of Tajima in view of the teachings of Morgan to include also displaying the second exposure record.
One would have been motivated to do so to make the second exposure record more easily viewable for a user.
Claim 27
Regarding claim 27, Tajima modified teaches the exposure record storage device according to claim 21, wherein the hardware processor that displays, on a display (14b), images, including the third exposure image (Tajima, ¶¶ 50-54, 105-116; Fig. 1).
Tajima modified does not expressly disclose also displaying the second exposure image and the second exposure record.
Morgan discloses generating a first image, a second image, and a third image which is a combination of the first and second images and displaying at least one of the images (col. 2 ln. 29-54).
It 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 to have further modified the invention of Tajima in view of the teachings of Morgan to include also displaying the second exposure image and the second exposure record.
One would have been motivated to do so to make the second exposure image and the second exposure record more easily viewable for a user.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-22, 24, and 28-29
Claims 21-22, 24, and 28-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 7, and 22-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,838,644. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims anticipate the instant claims as follows:
Instant
Claim #
Instant
Limitations
Ref.
Claim #
Reference
Limitations
21
An exposure record storage device comprising: a hardware processor that receives a first exposure record which is an actual exposure record of a first exposure and a second exposure record which is an actual exposure record of a second exposure, when a radiography system generates a first exposure image through the first exposure and a second exposure image through the second exposure, the first exposure record including a parameter with a first value, the second exposure record including the parameter with a second value, the parameter being at least one of an irradiation time, a tube current time product, an area dose value and an incident surface dose value
4
An exposure record totalizer comprising: a hardware processor that receives a first exposure record which is an actual exposure record of a first exposure and a second exposure record which is an actual exposure record of a second exposure according to predetermined conditions, when a radiography system generates a first exposure image through the first exposure and a second exposure image through the second exposure, the first exposure record including a first parameter with a first value, the second exposure record including the first parameter with a second value, the first parameter being at least one of an irradiation time, a tube current time product, an area dose value and an incident surface dose value
that generates a third image based on the first exposure image and the second exposure image; and that links the first exposure record and the second exposure record to the third exposure image
that combines the first exposure record and the second exposure record to generate a third exposure record, the third exposure record including the first parameter with a third value, the third value being a total of the first value and the second value;
that links information about the third exposure record to a third exposure image generated on the basis of the first exposure image and the second exposure image
22
the hardware processor generates the third image by combining the first exposure image and the second exposure image
7
the hardware processor selects either combining exposure to combine the first exposure image and the second exposure image into the third exposure image
24
when a radiation quality differs between the first exposure and the second exposure, the hardware processor determines not to add up the first exposure record and the second exposure record.
22
when the radiation quality differs between the first exposure and the second exposure, the hardware processor determines not to add up the first exposure record and the second exposure record.
28
An exposure record storage method comprising: receiving a first exposure record which is an actual exposure record of a first exposure and a second exposure record which is an actual exposure record of a second exposure, when a radiography system generates a first exposure image through the first exposure and a second exposure image through the second exposure, the first exposure record including a parameter with a first value, the second exposure record including the parameter with a second value, the parameter being at least one of an irradiation time, a tube current time product, an area dose value and an incident surface dose value
4
An exposure record totalizer comprising: a hardware processor that receives a first exposure record which is an actual exposure record of a first exposure and a second exposure record which is an actual exposure record of a second exposure according to predetermined conditions, when a radiography system generates a first exposure image through the first exposure and a second exposure image through the second exposure, the first exposure record including a first parameter with a first value, the second exposure record including the first parameter with a second value, the first parameter being at least one of an irradiation time, a tube current time product, an area dose value and an incident surface dose value
generating a third image based on the first exposure image and the second exposure image; and linking the first exposure record and the second exposure record to the third exposure image
that combines the first exposure record and the second exposure record to generate a third exposure record, the third exposure record including the first parameter with a third value, the third value being a total of the first value and the second value;
that links information about the third exposure record to a third exposure image generated on the basis of the first exposure image and the second exposure image
29
A radiography system comprising: an irradiator that emits radiation; a radiographic imager that generates image data of an exposure image by receiving the radiation; and the exposure record storage device according to claim 21.
23
A radiography system comprising: an irradiator that emits radiation; a radiographic imager that generates image data of an exposure image by receiving the radiation; and
the exposure record totalizer according to claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Isaacs (US 2016/0117823 A1) discloses merging images and displaying images and information (¶¶ 41, 78).
Kamiya (US 2013/0077744 A1) discloses merging images and displaying images and information (¶¶ 95-112).
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 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 on 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