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 .
Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments on 1/28/2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment and has reviewed the claims accordingly.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS(s) dated 7/11/2025, 3/13/2025, and 9/7/2023 that have been previously considered remain placed in the application file.
Overview
Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are pending in this application and have been considered below.
Claim 16 is canceled by the applicant.
Claims 1-2, 4, 13 and 17-21 are rejected.
Claims 3, 5-12 and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Applicant Arguments
In regards to Argument 1, Applicant states the independent claims have been amended to incorporate subject matter from allowable claim 4 with the addition of other different respective first and second different transmit RF parameters (See Remarks, page 8 3rd paragraph).
Examiner’s Response
In response to Argument 1, it has been considered but is moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection based on the amendments. A new reference, Cunningham, has been introduced which on page 1326 under “Theory”, page 1327 under “Methods”, Abstract, Equation 1 discloses a double-angle method in which two images are acquired with prescribed tip angles of α and 2α while keeping all other signal-affecting sequence parameters constant. Changing the prescribed flip angle from α to 2α, while keeping pulse duration and shape the same, is accomplished by adjusting the RF transmitter gain or equivalently the RF level/amplitude. Further, Orzada introduces the shim setting configuration as described in the added claim and the independent claims’ Markush grouping. Orzada in Abstract discloses “RF shimming, where each element in an array is driven by its own amplifier and modulated with a certain (constant) amplitude and phase relative to the other elements, and Transmit SENSE, where spatially tailored RF pulses are used. In this article, a relatively inexpensive and easy to use imaging scheme for 7 Tesla imaging is proposed to mitigate signal voids due to
B
1
+
field inhomogeneity. Two time-inter leaved images are acquired using a different excitation mode for each.”; Page 328 left column discloses "two images with different excitation patterns (modes) can be acquired and reconstructed together with twice the number of ‘‘virtual’’ receive elements."
After reviewing the amendments, the Examiner interprets that Mihara in view of Ishikawa, further in view of Cunningham teaches on the amended claims that were presented. The details of the rejection are listed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 19-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1's Markush group ("first and second different RF gains") encompasses claim 4 and 19-20's "first and second different RF transmitter gain levels," therefore, claim 4 and 19-20 fails to narrow the claim." Claim 1's Markush group ("first and second different RF shim settings") encompasses claim 21's "first and second different RF shim settings," therefore, claim 21 fails to narrow the claim." Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mihara et al (“A method of RF inhomogeneity correction in MR imaging”, hereafter referred to as Mihara) in view of Ishikawa et al (US 20180082432 A1, hereafter referred to as Ishikawa), further in view of Cunningham et al (“Saturated Double-Angle Method for Rapid B1 Mapping”, hereafter referred to as Cunningham).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Mihara teaches An image processing method comprising: obtaining first and second sets of image data generated by performing a series of MRI sequences using first and second different transmit RF parameters (Mihara in Abstract discloses "correcting RF inhomogeneity in MR imaging is proposed. First, two images with different flip-angles of θ and 2θ are obtained" – acquires two image sets each from a series of sequences with a varied pulse amplitude);
correcting the first set of image data using the calculated correlation map to obtain a corrected image (Mihara in Page 116 left column bottom discloses "corrected image … compensating the inhomogeneity of the B1 field and the coil sensitivity … Using these two images, the spatial distribution maps of functions, flip-angle θ is calculated" – first image is corrected by dividing by the derived θ map to yield a uniform image that compensates B1 and coil effects which is the final corrected output. See also Equation (7) and (8)).
Mihara does not explicitly teach all of calculating a correlation map from the first and second sets of image data; wherein the first and second different transmit RF parameters are selected from the group consisting of: first and second different RF levels, first and second different RF gains, first and second different RF phases, and first and second different RF shim settings.
However, Ishikawa teaches calculating a correlation map from the first and second sets of image data (Ishikawa in ¶55-57 discloses "performs a cross-correlation analysis between the speckle image of a current frame and the speckle image of an immediately previous frame … cross-power spectrum calculation unit 121 and a cross-correlation map generation unit 122 … performs two-dimensional inverse discrete Fourier transform on the cross-power spectrum and additionally normalizes it to generate a cross-correlation coefficient map" – derives correlation map from paired images for motion analysis)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mihara by incorporating calculation of a cross-correlation map from the paired image sets that is taught by Ishikawa, since both reference are analogous art in the field of image acquisition and artifact correction using multi-set imaging data; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Mihara’s derivation of sensitivity maps from dual flip-angle image pairs for static RF inhomogeneity compensation with Ishikawa’s generation of normalized cross-correlation coefficient maps from consecutive speckle image pairs via Fourier-based analysis yields the predictable result of reduced blur in dynamic MRI sequences, thereby improving diagnostic accuracy.
Mihara in view of Ishikawa does not explicitly teach all of wherein the first and second different transmit RF parameters are selected from the group consisting of: first and second different RF levels, first and second different RF gains, first and second different RF phases, and first and second different RF shim settings.
However, Cunningham teaches wherein the first and second different transmit RF parameters are selected from the group consisting of: first and second different RF levels, first and second different RF gains, first and second different RF phases, and first and second different RF shim settings. (Examiner acknowledges claim 1's Markush grouping. Cunningham on page 1326 under “Theory”, page 1327 under “Methods”, Abstract, Equation 1 discloses a double-angle method in which two images are acquired with prescribed tip angles of α and 2α while keeping all other signal-affecting sequence parameters constant. Changing the prescribed flip angle from α to 2α, while keeping pulse duration and shape the same, is accomplished by adjusting the RF transmitter gain or equivalently the RF level/amplitude.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mihara in view of Ishikawa by incorporating the use of first and second different transmit RF gains to acquire sets of image data at different nominal flip angles that is taught by Cunningham, since both reference are analogous art in the field of MRI RF inhomogeneity correction; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Mihara in view of Ishikawa’s ratio-based RF inhomogeneity correction method with Cunningham’s saturated double-angle B1+ ,aping technique using varied RF gains yields the predictable result of reduced blur in dynamic MRI sequences, thereby improving diagnostic accuracy.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Mihara in view of Ishikawa, further in view of Cunningham teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein:
calculating the correlation map from the first and second sets of image data comprises calculating a ratio map from the first and second sets of image data (Mihara in Page 116 left column bottom discloses "Using these two images, the spatial distribution maps of functions, flip-angle θ is calculated" – calculates flip-angle θ using the ratio of image sets as input to arccos to form a ratio-derived map. See also Equation (7)); and
correcting the first set of image data using the calculated correlation map comprises correcting the first set of image data using the calculated ratio map to obtain the corrected image (Mihara in Page 116 left column bottom discloses "corrected image … compensating the inhomogeneity of the B1 field and the coil sensitivity … Using these two images, the spatial distribution maps of functions, flip-angle θ is calculated" – correction divides image by a function of the ratio-derived flip-angle, effectively using the ratio map for normalization. See also Equation (7) and (8)).
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, Mihara in view of Ishikawa, further in view of Cunningham teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the first and second different transmit RF parameters are first and second different RF transmitter gain levels (Cunningham on page 1326 under “Theory”, page 1327 under “Methods”, Abstract, Equation 1 discloses a double-angle method in which two images are acquired with prescribed tip angles of α and 2α while keeping all other signal-affecting sequence parameters constant. Changing the prescribed flip angle from α to 2α, while keeping pulse duration and shape the same, is accomplished by adjusting the RF transmitter gain or equivalently the RF level/amplitude.).
Claim 17
Regarding Claim 17, Mihara teaches A Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) system comprising:
a gantry (Mihara in Abstract discloses MR imaging);
at least one RF transmitter coil (Mihara in Abstract discloses MR imaging); and
an RF transmitter coil controller configured to:
obtain first and second sets of image data generated by performing a series of MRI sequences using first and second different transmit RF parameters (Mihara in Abstract discloses "correcting RF inhomogeneity in MR imaging is proposed. First, two images with different flip-angles of θ and 2θ are obtained" – acquires two image sets each from a series of sequences with a varied pulse amplitude);
correct the first set of image data using the calculated correlation map to obtain a corrected image (Mihara in Page 116 left column bottom discloses "corrected image … compensating the inhomogeneity of the B1 field and the coil sensitivity … Using these two images, the spatial distribution maps of functions, flip-angle θ is calculated" – first image is corrected by dividing by the derived θ map to yield a uniform image that compensates B1 and coil effects which is the final corrected output. See also Equation (7) and (8)).
Mihara does not explicitly teach all of calculate a correlation map from the first and second sets of image data; wherein the first and second different transmit RF parameters are selected from the group consisting of: first and second different RF levels, first and second different RF gains, first and second different RF phases, and first and second different RF shim settings.
However, Ishikawa teaches calculate a correlation map from the first and second sets of image data (Ishikawa in ¶55-57 discloses "performs a cross-correlation analysis between the speckle image of a current frame and the speckle image of an immediately previous frame … cross-power spectrum calculation unit 121 and a cross-correlation map generation unit 122 … performs two-dimensional inverse discrete Fourier transform on the cross-power spectrum and additionally normalizes it to generate a cross-correlation coefficient map" – derives correlation map from paired images for motion analysis).
Mihara in view of Ishikawa does not explicitly teach all of wherein the first and second different transmit RF parameters are selected from the group consisting of: first and second different RF levels, first and second different RF gains, first and second different RF phases, and first and second different RF shim settings.
However, Cunningham teaches wherein the first and second different transmit RF parameters are selected from the group consisting of: first and second different RF levels, first and second different RF gains, first and second different RF phases, and first and second different RF shim settings. (Examiner acknowledges claim 1's Markush grouping. Cunningham on page 1326 under “Theory”, page 1327 under “Methods”, Abstract, Equation 1 discloses a double-angle method in which two images are acquired with prescribed tip angles of α and 2α while keeping all other signal-affecting sequence parameters constant. Changing the prescribed flip angle from α to 2α, while keeping pulse duration and shape the same, is accomplished by adjusting the RF transmitter gain or equivalently the RF level/amplitude.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mihara in view of Ishikawa by incorporating the use of first and second different transmit RF gains to acquire sets of image data at different nominal flip angles that is taught by Cunningham, since both reference are analogous art in the field of MRI RF inhomogeneity correction; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Mihara in view of Ishikawa’s ratio-based RF inhomogeneity correction method with Cunningham’s saturated double-angle B1+ ,aping technique using varied RF gains yields the predictable result of reduced blur in dynamic MRI sequences, thereby improving diagnostic accuracy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mihara by incorporating calculation of a cross-correlation map from the paired image sets that is taught by Ishikawa, since both reference are analogous art in the field of image acquisition and artifact correction using multi-set imaging data; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Mihara’s derivation of sensitivity maps from dual flip-angle image pairs for static RF inhomogeneity compensation with Ishikawa’s generation of normalized cross-correlation coefficient maps from consecutive speckle image pairs via Fourier-based analysis yields the predictable result of reduced blur in dynamic MRI sequences, thereby improving diagnostic accuracy.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18
Regarding Claim 18, Mihara teaches A computer program product comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to be communicatively coupled to a computer processor, wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage medium includes computer instructions which, when executed by the computer processor, cause the computer processor to perform the steps of: obtaining first and second sets of image data generated by performing a series of MRI sequences using first and second different transmit RF parameters (Mihara in Abstract discloses "correcting RF inhomogeneity in MR imaging is proposed. First, two images with different flip-angles of θ and 2θ are obtained" – acquires two image sets each from a series of sequences with a varied pulse amplitude);
correcting the first set of image data using the calculated correlation map to obtain a corrected image (Mihara in Page 116 left column bottom discloses "corrected image … compensating the inhomogeneity of the B1 field and the coil sensitivity … Using these two images, the spatial distribution maps of functions, flip-angle θ is calculated" – first image is corrected by dividing by the derived θ map to yield a uniform image that compensates B1 and coil effects which is the final corrected output. See also Equation (7) and (8)).
Mihara does not explicitly teach all of calculating a correlation map from the first and second sets of image data; wherein the first and second different transmit RF parameters are selected from the group consisting of: first and second different RF levels, first and second different RF gains, first and second different RF phases, and first and second different RF shim settings.
However, Ishikawa teaches calculating a correlation map from the first and second sets of image data (Ishikawa in ¶55-57 discloses "performs a cross-correlation analysis between the speckle image of a current frame and the speckle image of an immediately previous frame … cross-power spectrum calculation unit 121 and a cross-correlation map generation unit 122 … performs two-dimensional inverse discrete Fourier transform on the cross-power spectrum and additionally normalizes it to generate a cross-correlation coefficient map" – derives correlation map from paired images for motion analysis)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mihara by incorporating calculation of a cross-correlation map from the paired image sets that is taught by Ishikawa, since both reference are analogous art in the field of image acquisition and artifact correction using multi-set imaging data; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Mihara’s derivation of sensitivity maps from dual flip-angle image pairs for static RF inhomogeneity compensation with Ishikawa’s generation of normalized cross-correlation coefficient maps from consecutive speckle image pairs via Fourier-based analysis yields the predictable result of reduced blur in dynamic MRI sequences, thereby improving diagnostic accuracy.
Mihara in view of Ishikawa does not explicitly teach all of wherein the first and second different transmit RF parameters are selected from the group consisting of: first and second different RF levels, first and second different RF gains, first and second different RF phases, and first and second different RF shim settings.
However, Cunningham teaches wherein the first and second different transmit RF parameters are selected from the group consisting of: first and second different RF levels, first and second different RF gains, first and second different RF phases, and first and second different RF shim settings. (Examiner acknowledges claim 1's Markush grouping. Cunningham on page 1326 under “Theory”, page 1327 under “Methods”, Abstract, Equation 1 discloses a double-angle method in which two images are acquired with prescribed tip angles of α and 2α while keeping all other signal-affecting sequence parameters constant. Changing the prescribed flip angle from α to 2α, while keeping pulse duration and shape the same, is accomplished by adjusting the RF transmitter gain or equivalently the RF level/amplitude.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mihara in view of Ishikawa by incorporating the use of first and second different transmit RF gains to acquire sets of image data at different nominal flip angles that is taught by Cunningham, since both reference are analogous art in the field of MRI RF inhomogeneity correction; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Mihara in view of Ishikawa’s ratio-based RF inhomogeneity correction method with Cunningham’s saturated double-angle B1+ ,aping technique using varied RF gains yields the predictable result of reduced blur in dynamic MRI sequences, thereby improving diagnostic accuracy.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 19
Regarding Claim 19, Mihara in view of Ishikawa, further in view of Cunningham teaches The MRI system according to claim 17, wherein the first and second different transmit RF parameters are first and second different RF transmitter gain levels (Cunningham on page 1326 under “Theory”, page 1327 under “Methods”, Abstract, Equation 1 discloses a double-angle method in which two images are acquired with prescribed tip angles of α and 2α while keeping all other signal-affecting sequence parameters constant. Changing the prescribed flip angle from α to 2α, while keeping pulse duration and shape the same, is accomplished by adjusting the RF transmitter gain or equivalently the RF level/amplitude.)
Claim 20
Regarding Claim 20, Mihara in view of Ishikawa, further in view of Cunningham teaches The computer program product according to claim 18, wherein the first and second different transmit RF parameters are first and second different RF transmitter gain levels (Cunningham on page 1326 under “Theory”, page 1327 under “Methods”, Abstract, Equation 1 discloses a double-angle method in which two images are acquired with prescribed tip angles of α and 2α while keeping all other signal-affecting sequence parameters constant. Changing the prescribed flip angle from α to 2α, while keeping pulse duration and shape the same, is accomplished by adjusting the RF transmitter gain or equivalently the RF level/amplitude.)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mihara et al (“A method of RF inhomogeneity correction in MR imaging”, hereafter referred to as Mihara) in view of Ishikawa et al (US 20180082432 A1, hereafter referred to as Ishikawa), further in view of Cunningham et al (“Saturated Double-Angle Method for Rapid B1 Mapping”, hereafter referred to as Cunningham).further in view of Lee et al (US 20140071156 A1, hereafter referred to as Lee).
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, Mihara in view of Ishikawa, further in view of Cunningham teaches The method according to claim 1.
Mihara in view of Ishikawa, further in view of Cunningham does not explicitly teach all of wherein correcting the first set of image data using the calculated correlation map comprises correcting the first set of image data using the calculated correlation map when the calculated correlation map is larger than a threshold value.
However, Lee teaches wherein correcting the first set of image data using the calculated correlation map comprises correcting the first set of image data using the calculated correlation map when the calculated correlation map is larger than a threshold value (Lee in ¶58 discloses "a correlation value between noise maps is compared with a predetermined threshold value").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mihara in view of Ishikawa, further in view of Cunningham by applying image correction based on correlation exceeding a threshold that is taught by Lee, since both reference are analogous art in the field of digital image processing in medical imaging; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Mihara in view of Ishikawa, further in view of Cunningham’s correction method using a correlation map with Lee’s conditional threshold-based determination for correction yields the predictable result of selectively applying corrections only to regions with high correlation, thereby reducing processing artifacts and improving diagnosis.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mihara et al (“A method of RF inhomogeneity correction in MR imaging”, hereafter referred to as Mihara) in view of Ishikawa et al (US 20180082432 A1, hereafter referred to as Ishikawa), further in view of Cunningham et al (“Saturated Double-Angle Method for Rapid B1 Mapping”, hereafter referred to as Cunningham), further in view of Orzada et al (“RF Excitation Using Time Interleaved Acquisition of Modes (TIAMO) to Address B1 Inhomogeneity in High-Field MRI”, hereafter referred to as Orzada).
Claim 21
Regarding Claim 21, Mihara in view of Ishikawa, further in view of Cunningham teaches The method according to claim 1.
Mihara in view of Ishikawa, further in view of Cunningham does not explicitly teach all of wherein the first and second different transmit RF parameters are first and second different RF shim settings.
However, Orzada teaches wherein the first and second different transmit RF parameters are first and second different RF shim settings (Orzada in Abstract discloses “Several multichannel approaches have been proposed to try to tackle these problems, including RF shimming, where each element in an array is driven by its own amplifier and modulated with a certain (constant) amplitude and phase relative to the other elements, and Transmit SENSE, where spatially tailored RF pulses are used. In this article, a relatively inexpensive and easy to use imaging scheme for 7 Tesla imaging is proposed to mitigate signal voids due to
B
1
+
field inhomogeneity. Two time-inter leaved images are acquired using a different excitation mode for each.”; Page 328 left column discloses "two images with different excitation patterns (modes) can be acquired and reconstructed together with twice the number of ‘‘virtual’’ receive elements. ").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mihara in view of Ishikawa, further in view of Cunningham by introducing RF shim settings which is a known way to vary transmit parameters between acquisitions by Orzada, since both reference are analogous art in the field of digital image processing in medical imaging; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Mihara in view of Ishikawa, further in view of Cunningham’s correction method using a correlation map with Orzada’s two sets of image data using two different RF shim configurations (excitation modes) yields the predictable result of reduced signal voids and improved image uniformity in regions of low transmit efficiency.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-12 and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN P CASCAIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Mr. O’Neal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Date: 3/9/2026