DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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 Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on 4/10/2026.
Claims
Claims 1, 15, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 4 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-16 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
101
The examiner has considered all of the applicant’s arguments and withdraws the 101 rejection. Amended claims 1, 15 and 16 recite that a medical image is analyzed to determine information including a region-of-interest of the image and then compared to an analyzed interpretation report to ensure that the interpretation report has been completed. If the interpretation report has not been completed then the user interface displays a notification to inform the user that requires confirmation to close the medical image that has an incomplete interpretation report. This improves upon the medical image interpretation report creation interface by preventing the accidental closing of important medical data if something was missed during the creation of the interpretation report.
103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because new references have been added as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 15, and 16, “an examination apparatus using to generate the first medical image” (emphasis added) should read “an examination apparatus used to generate the first medical image”.
Rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 103
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11075003 B2 (“Sakamoto”) and US 20120239431 A1 (“Hayashi”) and US 20090083074 A1 (“Shioe”).
Per claims 1, 15, and 16, Sakamoto discloses:
one or more processors (e.g. The computer may comprise one or more processors (e.g., central processing unit (CPU), micro processing unit (MPU)) and may include a network of separate computers or separate processors to read out and execute the computer executable instructions) (Column 13, Ln 44 – Column 14, Ln 5);
one or more memories in which instruction to be executed by the one or more processors are stored (e.g. The computer executable instructions may be provided to the computer, for example, from a network or the storage medium. The storage medium may include, for example, one or more of a hard disk, a random-access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a storage of distributed computing systems, an optical disk (such as a compact disc (CD), digital versatile disc (DVD), or Blu-ray Disc (BD)™), a flash memory device, a memory card, and the like) (Column 13, Ln 44 – Column 14, Ln 5);
analyze a first medical image that is a target of the instruction to determine generated data and time of the first medical image, an examination apparatus using to generate the first medical image, and a region-of-interest included in the first medical image (e.g. Then, in step S301, the region information obtaining unit 102 obtains the medical image data transmitted from the case information terminal 300, that is, an association information (region information) in which coordinate positions of the medical image data serving as an interpretation target are associated with anatomical structures of a subject) and (See Figs. 7 and 8 which include both a Date of Imaging and a Modality device used) (Column 6, Ln 55 – Column 7, Ln 17 and Column 8, Ln 10-19 and Figs. 7 and 8);
analyze a creation status of a latest interpretation report for the first medical image by analyzing a content described in the interpretation report to determine at least one of an examination date and time, an examination apparatus name, and an organ name (e.g. In step S305, the described region obtaining unit 110 obtains described regions, which are regions described in the report sentence, based on the region information obtained in step S301 and the report sentence obtained in step S303. In the present embodiment, described regions are obtained by performing keyword matching on the report sentence with anatomical structure names indicated by respective labels of the region information used as keywords. Note that matching may be performed by expanding the keyword using a synonym or ontology. For example, in the example of the report sentence shown in FIG. 5 (the example shown in the report sentence input region 502), “left upper lobe” and “right lower lobe” are obtained as the described regions) (Column 9, Ln 34-46 and Figs. 7 and 8));
analyze a correspondence relationship between a result analysis of the first medical image for which the interpretation report is to be created and the content described in the interpretation report (e.g. In step S306, the determination unit 112 determines the consistency between the regions of interest obtained in step S303 and the described regions obtained in step S305. In the present embodiment, it is determined whether or not there is information that is included in the regions of interest but not in the described regions. That is, it is determined whether or not there is missing description, that is, there is a region that a medical doctor gazed at but is not included in the report sentence. In the above-described example, “right upper lobe” that is the region of interest is not included in the described region, and thus it is determined that there is missing description) (Column 9, Ln 47-58 and Column 11, Ln 3-17);
collect status information indicating any of a fist status, a second status, or a third status based on the analysis result of the medical image and the analysis result of the interpretation report… the second status indicating that the latest interpretation report is incomplete (e.g. In step S306, the determination unit 112 determines the consistency between the regions of interest obtained in step S303 and the described regions obtained in step S305. In the present embodiment, it is determined whether or not there is information that is included in the regions of interest but not in the described regions. That is, it is determined whether or not there is missing description, that is, there is a region that a medical doctor gazed at but is not included in the report sentence. In the above-described example, “right upper lobe” that is the region of interest is not included in the described region, and thus it is determined that there is missing description) (Column 9, Ln 47-67 and Column 10, Ln 64 – Column 11, Ln 17);
determine processing according to the status information for the first medical image (e.g. In step S307, the presenting information creation unit 114 creates presenting information based on the result determined in step S306. In the present embodiment, a message box is created as the presenting information. In the above-described example, since “right upper lobe” is not included in the described region, a message box notifying the fact is created. Then, in step S308, the presenting information creation unit 114 displays the created message box in the monitor 1005) (Column 9, Ln 47 – Column 10, Ln 14 and Column 11, Ln 17-37 and Column 11, Ln 38-45 and Figs. 7 and 8).
wherein in a case where the status information of the first medical image indicates the first status or the second status, execute processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close the first medical image, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. In step S307, the presenting information creation unit 114 creates presenting information based on the result determined in step S306. In the present embodiment, a message box is created as the presenting information. In the above-described example, since “right upper lobe” is not included in the described region, a message box notifying the fact is created. Then, in step S308, the presenting information creation unit 114 displays the created message box in the monitor 1005) and (FIG. 7 shows an example of the presenting information displayed on the monitor 1005 according to the present embodiment. The presenting information is displayed in the form of a message box 704. Here, when the “YES” button in the message box 704 is pressed down, the report sentence can be corrected (re-input). That is, it is determined that a correction instruction is input in step S309, and the procedure returns to step S302 and it is possible to perform creation (editing) of the report sentence by the report creation unit 101. On the other hand, when the “NO” button is pressed down, the procedure advances to step S310, where the report creation unit 101 stores the report sentence in the magnetic disk 1003 or the like, and ends the report creation assistance processing) (Column 10, Ln 59 – Column 11, Ln 14 and Column 11, Ln 18-27 and Figs. 7 and 8);
in a case where the status information of the first medical image indicates the third status, execute processing of closing the first medical image without performing processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close the first medical image, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. Note that if, in step S306, the determination of consistency is successful (if it is determined that there is no missing description), for example, a message box indicating that fact may be created and displayed, and the user may be asked whether or not to continue creating the report sentence. Alternatively, if it is determined that there is no missing description, a configuration is also possible in which the report sentence is stored and the report creation ends, as with the above-described case where the “NO” button is pressed down) (Column 10, Ln 1-24 and Column 11, Ln 37-45).
Although Sakamoto discloses analyzing a medical image and an interpretation report to determine whether the interpretation report is missing anything essential from the medical image and then determining whether to display a prompt to the user based on the determination when the user clicks a button to end the interpretation report input, Sakamoto does not specifically disclose:
receive an instruction to close one or more medical images displayed on a display device;
…the first status being a status according to the creation status of the latest interpretation report for a first medical image that is a target of the instruction and indicating that the latest interpretation report has been created… the third status corresponding to neither the first status nor the second status.
However Hayashi, in analogous art of medical image interpretation, discloses:
receive an instruction to close one or more medical images displayed on a display device (e.g. When quitting of the display of the image for the selected examination is instructed through the operation unit 22 (YES in Step S17), the RAM 25 and the specific-operation authorization-extension file 164 are referred to confirm the operation that has been performed (Step S18). The quitting of the display of an examination may be instructed, for example, by operation of searching for next examination from the examination list, closing the displayed viewer screen, or clicking the "quit interpretation" button appearing on the viewer screen) (Section [0073]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image viewer user interface of Sakamoto to include the use of a close document interaction, as taught by Hayashi, in order to achieve the predictable result of providing convenience to the user by allowing them to close an image or move onto the next image when they are done.
Although Sakamoto/Hayashi discloses receiving an instruction to close one or more medical images and determining processing according to the status information of a medical image when a user closes them, Sakamoto/Hayashi does not specifically disclose:
…the first status being a status according to the creation status of the latest interpretation report for a first medical image that is a target of the instruction and indicating that the latest interpretation report has been created… the third status corresponding to neither the first status nor the second status.
However Shioe, in analogous art of medical image interpretation, discloses:
…the first status being a status according to the creation status of the latest interpretation report for a first medical image that is a target of the instruction and indicating that the latest interpretation report has been created… the third status corresponding to neither the first status nor the second status (e.g. The status information for the inspection request has three status; one where neither the inspection nor the image interpretation has been yet done, one where only the image interpretation has not been done yet and one where both the inspection and image interpretation have been already completed. The status item in the inspection request list 60 is displayed based on the status information. The status of the status information and one displayed in the inspection request list 60 are, however, not limited to the above-mentioned three) (Section [0059], [0070], [0071], and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical image interpretation system/method of Sakamoto/Hayashi to include the use of 3 different medical image statuses, as taught by Shioe, in order to achieve the predictable result of providing convenience to the user by allowing them to easily identify which medical images still need to be interpreted.
Per claim 3, Sakamoto/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Sakamoto further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to, in a case where the status information of the first medical image indicates the first status or the second status, execute processing of continuing an open state of the first medical image, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. FIG. 7 shows an example of the presenting information displayed on the monitor 1005 according to the present embodiment. The presenting information is displayed in the form of a message box 704. Here, when the “YES” button in the message box 704 is pressed down, the report sentence can be corrected (re-input). That is, it is determined that a correction instruction is input in step S309, and the procedure returns to step S302 and it is possible to perform creation (editing) of the report sentence by the report creation unit 101) (Column 10, Ln 1-24 and Column 11, Ln 18-27).
Per claim 5, Sakamoto/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Hayashi further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive an instruction to close an examination image group including the one or more medical images, as the instruction to close the one or more medical images displayed on the display device (e.g. When quitting of the display of the image for the selected examination is instructed through the operation unit 22 (YES in Step S17), the RAM 25 and the specific-operation authorization-extension file 164 are referred to confirm the operation that has been performed (Step S18). The quitting of the display of an examination may be instructed, for example, by operation of searching for next examination from the examination list, closing the displayed viewer screen, or clicking the "quit interpretation" button appearing on the viewer screen) (Section [0073], [0074], and [0077]).
The motivation to combine Hayashi with Sakamoto/Shioe is disclosed above with reference to claims 1, 15, and 16.
Per claim 6, Sakamoto/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 5 above. Sakamoto further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: in a case where the close instruction for the examination image group is received and the status information of the first medical image included in the examination image group indicates the first status or the second status, execute processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close all the medical images included in the examination image group, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. FIG. 7 shows an example of the presenting information displayed on the monitor 1005 according to the present embodiment. The presenting information is displayed in the form of a message box 704. Here, when the “YES” button in the message box 704 is pressed down, the report sentence can be corrected (re-input). That is, it is determined that a correction instruction is input in step S309, and the procedure returns to step S302 and it is possible to perform creation (editing) of the report sentence by the report creation unit 101. On the other hand, when the “NO” button is pressed down, the procedure advances to step S310, where the report creation unit 101 stores the report sentence in the magnetic disk 1003 or the like, and ends the report creation assistance processing) (Column 9, Ln 59 – Column 10, Ln 14 and Column 11, Ln 18-27 and Figs. 7 and 8);
in a case where the close instruction for the examination image group is received and the status information of the first medical image included in the examination image group indicates the third status, execute processing of closing all the medical images included in the examination image group without performing the processing of providing notification of the confirmation of whether to close all the medical images, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. Note that if, in step S306, the determination of consistency is successful (if it is determined that there is no missing description), for example, a message box indicating that fact may be created and displayed, and the user may be asked whether or not to continue creating the report sentence. Alternatively, if it is determined that there is no missing description, a configuration is also possible in which the report sentence is stored and the report creation ends, as with the above-described case where the “NO” button is pressed down) (Column 10, Ln 1-25 and Column 11, Ln 38-45).
Per claim 7, Sakamoto/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 5 above. Sakamoto further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: in a case where the close instruction for the examination image group is received and the status information of the first medical image included in the examination image group indicates the first status or the second status, execute processing of continuing an open state of all the medical images included in the examination image group, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. FIG. 7 shows an example of the presenting information displayed on the monitor 1005 according to the present embodiment. The presenting information is displayed in the form of a message box 704. Here, when the “YES” button in the message box 704 is pressed down, the report sentence can be corrected (re-input). That is, it is determined that a correction instruction is input in step S309, and the procedure returns to step S302 and it is possible to perform creation (editing) of the report sentence by the report creation unit 101) (Column 10, Ln 1-25 and Column 11, Ln 28-37);
in a case where the close instruction for the examination image group is received and the status information of the first medical image included in the examination image group indicates the third status, execute processing of closing all the medical images included in the examination image group without performing processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close all the medical images, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. Note that if, in step S306, the determination of consistency is successful (if it is determined that there is no missing description), for example, a message box indicating that fact may be created and displayed, and the user may be asked whether or not to continue creating the report sentence. Alternatively, if it is determined that there is no missing description, a configuration is also possible in which the report sentence is stored and the report creation ends, as with the above-described case where the “NO” button is pressed down) (Column 10, Ln 1-25 and Column 11, Ln 38-45).
Per claim 8, Sakamoto/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Shioe further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the status of the first medical image based on information represented by a character string input in a case of creating the latest interpretation report (e.g. The inspection request list 60 has fields to display, for example, the date when the inspection request is received, patient's name, request department, requesting doctor's name, inspection item and status of the inspection request. In the field of the status, for example, "Waiting for inspection" is displayed when neither the inspection nor the Image interpretation has been done. When the inspection has been finished but the Image interpretation has not been completed, "Waiting for Image interpretation" is displayed. When both the inspection and Image interpretation have been completed, "End" is displayed) (Section [0058], [0059], [0069]-[0071], and Fig. 4).
The motivation to combine Shioe with Sakamoto/Hayashi is disclosed above with reference to claims, 1, 15, and 16.
Per claim 10, Sakamoto/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Shioe further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine whether or not there is an interpretation report corresponding to the first medical image; in a case where there is an interpretation report corresponding to the first medical image, determine the status information for the first medical image to be the first status; and in a case where there is no interpretation report corresponding to the first medical image, determine the status information for the first medical image to be the second status (e.g. The inspection request list 60 has fields to display, for example, the date when the inspection request is received, patient's name, request department, requesting doctor's name, inspection item and status of the inspection request. In the field of the status, for example, "Waiting for inspection" is displayed when neither the inspection nor the Image interpretation has been done. When the inspection has been finished but the Image interpretation has not been completed, "Waiting for Image interpretation" is displayed. When both the inspection and Image interpretation have been completed, "End" is displayed) (Section [0058], [0059], [0069]-[0071], and Fig. 4).
The motivation to combine Shioe with Sakamoto/Hayashi is disclosed above with reference to claims, 1, 15, and 16.
Per claim 11, Sakamoto/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Shioe further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine whether or not a character string is present in an interpretation report for an anatomical structure included in the first medical image (e.g. The inspection request list 60 has fields to display, for example, the date when the inspection request is received, patient's name, request department, requesting doctor's name, inspection item and status of the inspection request. In the field of the status, for example, "Waiting for inspection" is displayed when neither the inspection nor the Image interpretation has been done. When the inspection has been finished but the Image interpretation has not been completed, "Waiting for Image interpretation" is displayed. When both the inspection and Image interpretation have been completed, "End" is displayed) (Section [0058], [0059], [0069]-[0071], and Fig. 4);
in a case where the character string is present in the interpretation report for the anatomical structure included in the first medical image, determine the status information for the first medical image to be the first status (e.g. The inspection request list 60 has fields to display, for example, the date when the inspection request is received, patient's name, request department, requesting doctor's name, inspection item and status of the inspection request. In the field of the status, for example, "Waiting for inspection" is displayed when neither the inspection nor the Image interpretation has been done. When the inspection has been finished but the Image interpretation has not been completed, "Waiting for Image interpretation" is displayed. When both the inspection and Image interpretation have been completed, "End" is displayed) (Section [0058], [0059], [0069]-[0071], and Fig. 4);
and in a case where the character string is not present in the interpretation report for the anatomical structure included in the first medical image, determine the status information for the first medical image to be the second status (e.g. The inspection request list 60 has fields to display, for example, the date when the inspection request is received, patient's name, request department, requesting doctor's name, inspection item and status of the inspection request. In the field of the status, for example, "Waiting for inspection" is displayed when neither the inspection nor the Image interpretation has been done. When the inspection has been finished but the Image interpretation has not been completed, "Waiting for Image interpretation" is displayed. When both the inspection and Image interpretation have been completed, "End" is displayed) (Section [0058], [0059], [0069]-[0071], and Fig. 4).
The motivation to combine Shioe with Sakamoto/Hayashi is disclosed above with reference to claims, 1, 15, and 16.
Per claim 12, Sakamoto/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Shioe further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive an input indicating completion of creation of an interpretation report (e.g. When the requesting doctor registers a new inspection request, the status information is set in an initial condition indicating that the inspection and image interpretation have not been done yet, and the importance information is set in an initial condition indicating no importance) (Section [0059], [0071], [0072], [0081], and [0082]);
in a case where an input indicating completion of an interpretation report corresponding to the first medical image is received, determine the status information for the first medical image to be the third status (e.g. When the requesting doctor registers a new inspection request, the status information is set in an initial condition indicating that the inspection and image interpretation have not been done yet, and the importance information is set in an initial condition indicating no importance) (Section [0059], [0071], [0072], [0081], and [0082]).
The motivation to combine Shioe with Sakamoto/Hayashi is disclosed above with reference to claims, 1, 15, and 16.
Per claim 13, Sakamoto/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 11 above. Sakamoto further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to, in a case where it is determined that the status information for the first medical image indicates the third status, execute processing of closing the first medical image without performing processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close the first medical image, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. Note that if, in step S306, the determination of consistency is successful (if it is determined that there is no missing description), for example, a message box indicating that fact may be created and displayed, and the user may be asked whether or not to continue creating the report sentence. Alternatively, if it is determined that there is no missing description, a configuration is also possible in which the report sentence is stored and the report creation ends, as with the above-described case where the “NO” button is pressed down) (Column 10, Ln 1-24 and Column 11, Ln 38-45).
Per claim 14, Sakamoto/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Shioe further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the status of the first medical image based on an examination date and time at which the first medical image was generated (e.g. When the requesting doctor registers a new inspection request, the status information is set in an initial condition indicating that the inspection and image interpretation have not been done yet, and the importance information is set in an initial condition indicating no importance) (Section [0059] and [0071]).
The motivation to combine Shioe with Sakamoto/Hayashi is disclosed above with reference to claims, 1, 15, and 16.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto/Hayashi/Shioe, as applied to claim 7 above, in further view of US 20220005565 A1 (“Lyman”).
Per claim 9, although Sakamoto/Hayashi/Shioe disclose determining a status of a medical image, Sakamoto/Hayashi/Shioe do not specifically disclose:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the status of the first medical image by applying a trained learning model that has been trained to output the status information of the first medical image in response to inputs of the interpretation report for the first medical image and the first medical image using the latest interpretation report, the first medical image, and the status information of the first medical image as learning data.
However Lyman, in analogous art of medical image assessments, discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the status of the first medical image by applying a trained learning model that has been trained to output the status information of the first medical image in response to inputs of the interpretation report for the first medical image and the first medical image using the latest interpretation report, the first medical image, and the status information of the first medical image as learning data (e.g. Step 3204 includes generating first automated assessment data by performing a first inference function on the first medical scan by utilizing a computer vision model trained on a plurality of medical scans. Step 3206 includes generating first human assessment data by performing an extraction function on the first medical report. Step 3208 includes generating first consensus data by performing a consensus function on the first automated assessment data and the first human assessment data, wherein performing the consensus function includes comparing the first automated assessment data to the first human assessment data. Step 3210 includes transmitting, via the network interface, a first retroactive discrepancy notification, wherein the first retroactive discrepancy notification indicates the first medical scan is flagged in response to determining the first consensus data indicates the automated assessment data compares unfavorably to the first human assessment data) (Section [0330]-[0331]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical image status determination of Sakamoto/Hayashi/Shioe to include the use of a trained learning model, as taught by Lyman, in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a more accurate and automated way to identify factors for the status determination and reducing errors (See Lyman paragraph [0363] and [0376]).
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY SAX whose telephone number is 571-272-2935. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575.
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.
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.
/TPS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights