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 22 January 2026 wherein: claims 1, 3-8, 13-15, and 17-19 are amended; claims 2 and 16 are canceled; claims 1, 3-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges claim 15 no longer invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) due to amendment.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 9, first line through page 13, last line), filed 22 January 2026, with respect to claims 1, 3-15, and 17-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is presently amended to include the limitations of now-canceled claim 2 regarding iterative reconstruction to specify that the projection data is two-dimensional X-ray image data. Claims 1-2 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rautela (Rautela et al., “Dual-modality synthetic mammogram construction for breast lesion detection using U-DARTS”, 29 August 2022, Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, 42(3), 1041-1050; a copy is attached to the Non-Final rejection issued 24 October 2025) in view of Yang (US 2017/0186192 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). 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).
In this case, Applicant argues that Rautela only discloses two-dimensional imaging, and not three-dimensional imaging as claimed, and that Yang does not expressly disclose the specifically claimed processing circuitry. However, Rautela discloses iterative reconstruction, combining X-ray tomosynthesis data with thermographic image data. While Rautela only discloses the simpler case of two-dimensional imaging, both two-dimensional imaging and three-dimensional imaging were known in the art, and there is no disclosure in Rautela teaching away from applying the methodology to three-dimensional imaging, or that it would be outside the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to do so. Yang provides a specific example of combining three-dimensional thermography and tomography image data. That Yang provides a multitude of different examples does not make the examples any less obvious. While no single reference discloses all of the claimed limitations, the combined teachings of the references suggest that combining X-ray tomosynthesis data with thermographic image data via iterative reconstruction, whether the images are three-dimensional or two-dimensional, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
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.
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 1, 3 and 13-14
Claims 1, 3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rautela (Rautela et al., “Dual-modality synthetic mammogram construction for breast lesion detection using U-DARTS”, 29 August 2022, Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, 42(3), 1041-1050; a copy is attached) in view of Yang (US 2017/0186192 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Examiner provides an annotated copy of Figure 2 of Rautela below.
PNG
media_image1.png
552
1444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Rautela, annotated by Examiner to show features of the claimed invention, including the combination of X-ray tomosynthesis image data (within the mammogram image of Rautela) and thermographic image data (within the thermal image of Rautela).
With particular reference to the annotated figure above, Rautela discloses a method comprising: acquiring thermographic image data by imaging a subject irradiated with infrared rays; acquiring a plurality of items of projection X-ray image data by imaging the subject with tomosynthesis; and executing reconstruction based on the plurality of items of projection X-ray image data and the thermographic image data (Abstract: “a novel synthetic mammogram construction model is proposed. An image enhancement approach is applied to enhance the image quality. Dual-modality structural feature (DMSF) based mapping function is designed to transform a mammogram from a thermal image segment”; section 3.1, first two paragraphs: “Thermal-to-Mammo mapping is learned by using two sets of images (Mammogram and Thermal images of the same subjects that are not deformable) with an unsupervised approach. The main steps of the proposed methodology are preprocessing, feature extraction, and deep learning-based classifier. In the pre-processing approach, the histogram is decomposed into subparts. A logarithmic transform between subhistograms is used, which is shown in Fig. 2”; reconstruction based on both image sets described in sections 3.2 and 5 and shown in Figs. 4-5; see generally: Abstract; Sections 1, 3-5; Figs. 1-2, 4-5),
iteratively executing the reconstruction to reduce errors (mean absolute error MAE) between tomosynthesis X-ray image data obtained by the execution of the reconstruction and tomosynthesis model X-ray image data corresponding to the thermographic image data (iterative optimization as described in sections 3.2 of Rautela, see particularly equation (5) for the error (loss) function which is minimized and algorithm 2 which describes iterative reconstruction).
Rautela does not expressly disclose the thermographic image and the tomosynthesis X-ray image data are both three-dimensional, which would necessarily require the projection X-ray image data to be two-dimensional, and the method is performed on a medical image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to perform the method.
Yang discloses a medical image processing apparatus which combines thermography and tomography image data (¶ 52), wherein imaging data is three-dimensional (¶ 51), wherein the medical image processing apparatus comprises processing circuitry (120) configured to perform an image processing and reconstruction method (¶¶ 45, 49-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Rautela, in view of the teachings of Yang, so that the thermographic image and the tomosynthesis X-ray image data are both three-dimensional, which would necessarily require the projection X-ray image data to be two-dimensional, and the method is performed on a medical image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to perform the method.
One would have been motivated to use processing circuitry to provide a convenient means for performing the method, and one would have been motivated to use three-dimensional data to obtain more information as compared to using two-dimensional data.
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Rautela modified teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the three-dimensional tomosynthesis model X-ray image data by converting a size and a pixel value range of the three-dimensional thermographic image data into a size and a pixel value of the three-dimensional tomosynthesis X-ray image data (the claimed conversion is necessarily required to obtain the difference image and final output synthetic image shown in Fig. 5 of Rautela and described in section 5; imaging modified to be three-dimensional as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claims 13-14
Regarding claims 13-14, see the rejection of claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rautela in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 6,528,793 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Rautela modified teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to iteratively execute the reconstruction based on an evaluation function (equation (5) of Rautela; imaging modified to be three-dimensional as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Rautela does not expressly disclose the evaluation function incudes: a term is related to the square of the error between a plurality of items of projection data obtained by a forward projection of the three-dimensional tomosynthesis X-ray image data and the plurality of items of projection data acquired by imaging the subject with tomosynthesis; and a term relating to a multiplication by a parameter of a squared error between the three-dimensional tomosynthesis X-ray image data obtained by the execution of the reconstruction and the three-dimensional tomosynthesis model X-ray image data corresponding to the three-dimensional thermographic image data.
Chen discloses iteratively reconstructing image projection data using an evaluation function including a term related to the square of an error and a term relating to a multiplication by a parameter (weighting) of a squared error (minimum penalized weighted least-square errors; col. 5, ll. 29-46; the weighting is by definition a multiplication by a weighting factor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Rautela, in view of the teachings of Chen, so that a term is related to the square of the error between a plurality of items of projection data obtained by a forward projection of the three-dimensional tomosynthesis X-ray image data and the plurality of items of projection data acquired by imaging the subject with tomosynthesis; and a term relating to a multiplication by a parameter of a squared error between the three-dimensional tomosynthesis X-ray image data obtained by the execution of the reconstruction and the three-dimensional tomosynthesis model X-ray image data corresponding to the three-dimensional thermographic image data.
One would have been motivated to gain an advantage suggested by Chen of using a known, statistical iterative image reconstruction technique (Chen, col. 5, ll. 29-46).
Claims 5-8
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rautela in view of Yang and Chen as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Klippel (US 5,694,476 A).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Rautela modified teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 4, but does not expressly disclose the processing circuitry is further configured to partially differentiate the evaluation function with respect to the three-dimensional tomosynthesis X-ray image data, and update the three-dimensional tomosynthesis X-ray image data based on a result of the partial differentiation.
Klippel discloses partially differentiating an evaluation function (equation (5)) based on least-mean-square (LMS) as part of an iterative process (col. 7, l. 1 – col. 8 l. 44; partial differentiation: col. 7, ll. 40-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Rautela, in view of the teachings of Klippel, so that the processing circuitry is further configured to partially differentiate the evaluation function with respect to the three-dimensional tomosynthesis X-ray image data, and update the three-dimensional tomosynthesis X-ray image data based on a result of the partial differentiation.
One would have been motivated to gain an advantage suggested by Klippel of ensuring fast and stable convergence (Klippel, col. 7, ll. 24-30).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Rautela modified teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to iterate an update loop until an exit condition is satisfied, the update loop including obtaining a result of the partial differentiation of the evaluation function with respect to the three-dimensional tomosynthesis X-ray image data and updating the three-dimensional tomosynthesis X-ray image data (update loop and exit condition (threshold comparison) described in Rautela, sections 3.1-3.2; partial differentiation described in rejection of claim 5 above; imaging modified to be three-dimensional as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Rautela modified teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the exit condition is satisfied if a difference between the three-dimensional tomosynthesis X-ray image data prior to the update and the updated three-dimensional tomosynthesis X-ray image data has fallen below a threshold value (threshold value in section 3.1 of Rautela), or if a number of iterations (z in algorithm 2 in section 3.2 of Rautela) of the update loop has reached a maximum number (SCMiterations in algorithm 2 in section 3.2 of Rautela; differentiation described in rejection of claim 5 above; imaging modified to be three-dimensional as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Rautela modified teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the result of the partial differentiation is a sum of first tomosynthesis error image data and second tomosynthesis error image data, the first tomosynthesis error image data being obtained by a back projection of an error between the plurality of items of projection data obtained by the forward projection and the plurality of items of projection data acquired by imaging the subject with tomosynthesis, the second tomosynthesis error image data being obtained by multiplying, by the parameter, an error between the three-dimensional tomosynthesis X-ray image data and the three-dimensional tomosynthesis X-ray model image data, and the parameter used in the multiplication by the parameter indicates a rate at which an error relating to the three-dimensional thermographic image data is introduced (the first tomosynthesis error image data and the second tomosynthesis error image data are necessary to perform the weighted least squares processing described in the rejection of claim 4 above; imaging modified to be three-dimensional as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claims 9-10
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rautela in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Rautela modified teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 8, but does not expressly disclose the parameter has a greater value in the case where a medication that generates heat through infrared irradiation is administered into the subject than in the case where the medication is not administered.
AAPA discloses acquiring thermographic image data relating to a subject into which a medication that generates heat through infrared irradiation has been administered. See Applicant’s specification, paragraphs 85-88. Regarding the use of Applicant’s admissions as prior art, see MPEP §§ 2129(I)-(II). In order for the medication to be effective, the parameter would necessarily have a greater value in the case where a medication that generates heat through infrared irradiation is administered into the subject than in the case where the medication is not administered.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Rautela, in view of the AAPM, so that the parameter has a greater value in the case where a medication that generates heat through infrared irradiation is administered into the subject than in the case where the medication is not administered.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in the AAPM of emphasizing a tumor (Applicant’s specification, ¶¶ 85-88) using an effective medication.
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Rautela modified teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire the three-dimensional thermographic image data relating to the subject into which a medication that generates heat through infrared irradiation has been administered.
AAPA discloses acquiring thermographic image data relating to a subject into which a medication that generates heat through infrared irradiation has been administered. See Applicant’s specification, paragraphs 85-88. Regarding the use of Applicant’s admissions as prior art, see MPEP §§ 2129(I)-(II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Rautela, in view of the AAPM, so that the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire the three-dimensional thermographic image data relating to the subject into which a medication that generates heat through infrared irradiation has been administered.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in the AAPM of emphasizing a tumor (Applicant’s specification, ¶¶ 85-88).
Claims 11-12
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rautela in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo (US 2022/0189062 A1).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Rautela modified teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire the three-dimensional thermographic image data by merging first three-dimensional thermographic image data obtained by imaging the subject irradiated with the infrared rays from above and second three-dimensional thermographic image data obtained by imaging the subject irradiated with the infrared rays from below.
Seo discloses a multi-view camera-based iterative calibration method for the generation of a 3D volume model comprising merging first image data obtained by imaging a subject (10) from above and second image data obtained by imaging the subject (10) from below (¶¶ 40-51, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Rautela, in view of the teachings of Seo, so that the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire the three-dimensional thermographic image data by merging first three-dimensional thermographic image data obtained by imaging the subject irradiated with the infrared rays from above and second three-dimensional thermographic image data obtained by imaging the subject irradiated with the infrared rays from below.
One would have been motivated to gain an advantage suggested by Seo of improving image quality via improved calibration (Seo, ¶¶ 12-29).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Rautela modified teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to merge the first three-dimensional thermographic image data with the second three-dimensional thermographic image data by applying weighting according to a depth from a surface of the irradiation of the subject with the infrared rays (depth used as described in Seo, ¶¶ 40-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Rautela in view of the further teachings of Seo.
One would have been motivated to gain an advantage suggested by Seo of improving image quality via improved calibration (Seo, ¶¶ 12-29).
Claims 15 and 17
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rautela in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chinn (US 2009/0072156 A1).
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, Rautela modified teaches the X-ray diagnostic apparatus according to claim 14, further comprising: a first imaging unit configured to image the subject and to obtain the three-dimensional thermographic image data; a second imaging unit configured to image the subject with tomosynthesis and to obtain the plurality of items of two-dimensional projection X-ray image data; and control circuitry configured to control the first imaging unit and the second imaging unit (a first imaging unit, a second imaging unit, and control circuity would necessarily need to be used in order to perform the method of Rautela described in the rejection of claim 1 above; imaging modified to be three-dimensional as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Rautela modified does not expressly disclose the first imaging unit includes a flash lamp configured to irradiate the subject with the infrared rays; an infrared camera configured to image the subject irradiated with the infrared rays and send a plurality of items of thermographic image data; and image generation circuitry configured to obtain the three-dimensional thermographic image data from the plurality of items of thermographic image data, and the second imaging unit includes an X-ray detector used in the tomosynthesis imaging.
Examiner takes official notice a first imaging unit comprising a signal generator, flash lamps, an infrared camera, and image generation circuitry and a second imaging unit comprising an X-ray tube, an X-ray detector, a C-arm, and image generation circuitry were well-known and routinely used in the art. Regarding official notice, see MPEP § 2144.03. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Rautela in view of what was well-known to use the claimed first and second imaging units, with the claimed configurations of the sub-elements being their ordinary configurations for their intended purposes. One would have been motivated to do so to provide convenient means for performing the imaging. Because Applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03(C).
Rautela modified does not expressly disclose the control circuity is configured to cause the imaging with the first imaging unit and the tomosynthesis imaging with the second imaging unit to be executed in parallel.
Chinn discloses performing two different types of tomographic imaging (PET, SPECT) in parallel (simultaneously; ¶ 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Rautela in view of the teachings of Chinn so that the control circuity is configured to cause the imaging with the first imaging unit and the tomosynthesis imaging with the second imaging unit to be executed in parallel.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Chinn of reducing scan time (Chinn, ¶ 51).
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, Rautela modified teaches the X-ray diagnostic apparatus according to claim 15, further comprising a mounting base (compression plate 202) on which the subject (projection object) is mounted and which allows the infrared rays to pass therethrough (Yang, ¶¶ 66, 74, Fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Rautela in view of the further teachings of Yang.
One would have been motivated to use such a mounting base (compression plate) for its ordinary use of performing mammography, with mammography being disclosed by both Rautela and Yang.
Claim 18
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rautela in view of Yang and Chinn as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Seo.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejections of claims 12 and 15 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 19-20
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rautela in view of Yang, Chinn, and Seo as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Tang (US 2023/0092496 A1).
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, Rautela modified teaches the X-ray diagnostic apparatus according to claim 18. Rautela modified does not expressly disclose retraction control circuitry, wherein the retraction control circuitry is configured to cause the X-ray detector to retract from a region between the second flash lamp and the second infrared camera and the subject prior to starting of the imaging using the second flash lamp and the second infrared camera.
Tang discloses retraction control circuitry (130), wherein the retraction control circuitry is configured to cause an X-ray detector (80) to retract prior to starting of imaging (¶¶ 95, 156, 191; Figs. 1, 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Rautela, in view of the teachings of Tang, to include retraction control circuitry, wherein the retraction control circuitry is configured to cause the X-ray detector to retract from a region between the second flash lamp and the second infrared camera and the subject prior to starting of the imaging using the second flash lamp and the second infrared camera.
One would have been motivated to gain an advantage recited in Tang of achieving a desired source to detector spacing (SID); Tang, ¶¶ 90, 191).
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, Rautela modified teaches the X-ray diagnostic apparatus according to claim 19, further comprising: a rail (linear guiding rail) configured to support the X-ray detector (80) to allow movement of the X-ray detector from the region (Tang, ¶ 191).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Rautela in view of the further teachings of Tang.
One would have been motivated to do so to provide a reliable means for moving the detector.
While Rautela modified discloses a rail as described above, Rautela modified does not expressly disclose using two rails.
Examiner takes official notice using two rails to move a detector was well-known and routinely practiced in the art. Regarding official notice, see MPEP § 2144.03. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Rautela in view of what was well-known to use two rails. One would have been motivated to do so to improve stability. Because Applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03(C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park (US 2021/0174938 A1) a method for three-dimensional medical image generation using a generative adversarial network (GAN; Abstract).
Faul (US 2008/0219534 A1) discloses medical diagnostic imaging and the use of medical images in one imaging modality with medical images from another imaging modality (¶ 3).
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 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