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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation “the scout scan” in line 2 is indefinite because it is unclear which scout scan the claim is referring to since there is first and second scout scan.
Claim 11 is rejected as it depends from rejected claim 10
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greiser et al. (US 2023/0255506; hereinafter Greiser), in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen), in view of Damadian et al. (US 10,679,365).
Regarding claim 1, Greiser discloses a magnetic resonance imaging. Greiser shows a method of localizing a target for magnetic resonance (MR) scanning (see abstract; par. [0022]), the method comprising: estimating an initial position of the target relative to a magnetic resonance scanner from first data (see par. [0022], [0023]), the target comprising an object in a patient (see fig. 1), and the first data comprises pre-scan information (see par. [0022], [0023]; fig. 2, 5, 8)); determining based on the initial position, scout scans to be performed (see par. [0022], [0118]); performing a first scout scan of a first region (see abstract, par. [0008], [0009], [0019], [0070], [0080], [0071], [0072]); fig. 2, 5 and 8), the region is based on the initial position (see abstract, par. [0008], [0009], [0024], [0070], [0071], [0072]); fig. 2, 5 and 8); determining a subsequent position of the target relative to the magnetic resonance scanner from the scout scan (see abstract, par. [0008], [0009], [0019], [0070], [0080], [0071], [0072]); fig. 2, 5 and 8); and diagnostically imaging the target with the magnetic resonance scanner, the imaging configured by the subsequent position of the target (see par. [0031], [0033], [0035], [0086], [0087]).
But, Greiser fails to explicitly state performing first and second scout scans of multiple regions, performing second scout scan for a second region of one or more regions, the second region distinct from the first region, wherein a support or the patient is moved to allow scanning of the second region; and determining the subsequent position from the first and second scout scan.
Also, Greiser shows that the patient table can be moved (see par. [0059]) but fails to explicitly state wherein patient support mechanically moved relative to the MRI scanner to position the second region within a filed view of the MRI scanner.
Chen discloses automatic image plane planning and following for MIR using AI. Chen teaches performing first (see 402 in fig. 4) and second scout scans (see 414 in fig. 4) of multiple regions (see par. [0039]), performing second scout scan for a second region of one or more regions (see fig. 4 and par. [0039]); and determining the subsequent position of the target from the first and second scout scan (see par. [0039], and fig. 4). Furthermore, Chen teaches the second region distinct from the first region (see par. [0010], [0039], [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of performing first and second scout scans of multiple regions, performing second scout scan for a second region of one or more regions, determining the subsequent position from the first and second scout scans, and the second region distinct from the first region in the invention of Greiser, as taught by Chen, to be able to automatically acquire and adjust planned image planes to compensate for changes in a post of a region of interest throughout an entire scanning process to provide quality image. The examiner notes that upon incorporating the teaching of Chen into the invention of Greiser would provide determining the subsequent position of the target relative to the MRI scanner from the first and second scout scan.
But, Greiser and Chen fail to explicitly state wherein patient support mechanically moved relative to the MRI scanner to position the second region within a filed view of the MRI scanner.
Damadian discloses method of correlating a slice profile and teaches wherein patient support mechanically moved relative to the MRI scanner to position second region within a filed view of the MRI scanner (see fig. 1 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein patient support mechanically moved relative to the MRI scanner to position the second region within a filed view of the MRI scanner in the invention of Greiser and Chen, as taught by Damadian, to be able to automatically move the patient in three degrees of freedom to be able to image in different planes.
Regarding claim 5, Greiser, Chen and Damadian discloses the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Greiser shows wherein estimating comprises estimating from the pre-scan information comprising measurements from an exterior of the patient, and/or a previously acquired representation of an interior of the patient (see par. [0022], [0023], [0024], [0068]).
Regarding claim 7, Greiser, Chen, and Damadian disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Greiser shows that the patient table can be moved (see par. [0059]), but fail to explicitly state mechanically moving the patient relative to the magnetic resonance scanner scanning different regions.
Damadian discloses an imaging system. Damadian teaches mechanically moving the patient relative to the magnetic resonance scanner scanning different regions (see abstract and fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of mechanically moving the patient relative to the magnetic resonance scanner scanning different regions in the invention Greiser and Chen, as taught by Damadian, to be automatically move the patient without needing user intervention.
Regarding claim 10, Greiser, Chen and Damadian disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore as best understood of the indefinite language, Chen shows wherein performing the first scout scan or the scout scan and determining the one or more scout regions are interleaved so that one or more of the first region or the second region are selected by a deep reinforcement learning AI based on previous ones of the scout scans (see fig. 4, par. [0039], [0044]).
Regarding claim 11, Greiser, Chen and Damadian disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore as best understood of the indefinite claim limitation, Chen teaches the deep reinforcement learning AI selects a plan (see par. [0039]), and each plan indicates how to select a next region of the first and second region (see fig. 4 and par. [0039]).
Regarding claim 12 Greiser, Chen and Damadian disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Greiser shows wherein diagnostically imaging comprises generating settings for radio frequency subsystem and a gradient subsystem of the magnetic resonance scanner to scan the subsequent location (see par. [0060]).
Regarding claim 13, Greiser, Chen and Damadian disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Greiser shows wherein at least one of the scout scans is performed after beginning the diagnostically imaging (see par. [0022], [0023]), and further comprising adjusting for motion based on scan data of the at least one of the scout scans performed after beginning the diagnostically imaging (see par. [0115]), and Chen also teaches adjusting for motion based on scan data of the at least one of the scout scans performed after beginning the diagnostically imaging (see par. [0007], [0036], [0041]).
Regarding claim 14, Greiser and Chen disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Greiser shows that the patient table can be moved (see par. [0059]), but fail to explicitly state adjusting a patient of position relative to the MRI scanner based on the subsequent.
Damadian discloses an imaging system. Damadian teaches adjusting a patient of position relative to the MRI scanner based on subsequent position (see abstract and fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of adjusting a patient of position relative to the MRI scanner based on the subsequent. in the invention Greiser and Chen, as taught by Damadian, to be automatically move the patient without needing user intervention and provide accurate image by correcting and account for patient inadvertent movement.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greiser et al. (US 2023/0255506; hereinafter Greiser), in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen), in view of Damadian et al. (US 10,679,365) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Poole et al. (US 2019/0353726; hereinafter Poole).
Regarding claims 2-3, Greiser and Chen disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Greiser teaches wherein the magnetic resonance scanner comprises homogeneous main magnetic field (see par. [0058]) with a field of view with a diameter of volume (see abstract, par. [0008], [0009], [0019], [0070], [0080], [0071], [0072])), wherein the scout scan is of the patient using the field of view (see abstract, par. [0008], [0009], [0019], [0070], [0080], [0071], [0072]), and Chen teaches the first and second scout region of the first and second region of the patient (see par. [0039]), but fails to explicitly state that the FOV with a diameter of spherical homogenous volume is less than 30 cm.
Poole discloses a MRI system. Poole teaches FOV with a diameter of spherical homogenous volume is less than 30 cm (see par. [0011], [0085])
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of FOV with a diameter of spherical homogenous volume is less than 30 cm in the invention of Greiser, Chen Damadian, as taught by Poole, to be able provide a portable MRI system with sufficient enhanced image quality within imaging region.
Regarding claim 4, combined invention of Greiser, Chen, Damadian and Poole disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to exilically state the diameter is less than 10 cm, but it would have obvious and routine to one of ordinary kill in the art to have provide the diameter to be less than 10 cm since it has been held that providing optimum range is routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greiser et al. (US 2023/0255506; hereinafter Greiser), in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen), in view of Damadian et al. (US 10,679,365) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2023/0237653; hereinafter Jang).
Regarding claim 6, Greiser, Chen and Damadian disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Chen teaches artificial intelligence (see fig. 4), but fail to explicitly state wherein estimating comprises estimating by an artificial intelligence in response to input of the pre-scan information.
Jang discloses an imaging system. Jang teaches wherein estimating comprises estimating by an artificial intelligence in response to input of the pre-scan information (see par. [0046], [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of estimating by an artificial intelligence in response to input of the pre-scan information in the invention of Greiser, Chen, and Damadian, as taught by Jang, to provide a faster processing of information to prove a more accurate result.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greiser et al. (US 2023/0255506; hereinafter Greiser), in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen), in view of Damadian et al. (US 10,679,365) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alhamud et al. (US 2016/0047876; hereinafter Alhamud).
Regarding claim 8, Greiser, Chen and Damadian disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Greiser teaches wherein the magnetic resonance scanner comprises homogeneous main magnetic field (see par. [0058]) with field of a homogenous scanning volume and scanning region (see abstract, par. [0008], [0009], [0019], [0070], [0080], [0071], [0072])), but fails to explicitly state wherein performing comprises adjusting a central frequency.
Alhamud discloses MRI system. Alhamud teaches adjusting a central frequency of MRI system (see par. [0018], [0049]).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of adjusting central frequency in the invention of Greiser and Chen, as taught by Alhamud, to be able to correct the main magnetic field inhomogeneity. The examiner notes that upon modifying the invention of Greiser, Chen and Damadian to incorporate the teaching of Alhamud would provide with the different regions of the scout scans are outside of a homogenous scanning volume.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greiser et al. (US 2023/0255506; hereinafter Greiser), in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen), in view of Damadian et al. (US 10,679,365) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vik et al. (US 2012/0230563; hereinafter Vik).
Regarding claim 9, Greiser, Chen and Damadian disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state determining comprises aggregating scout scan data from first and second scout scans and estimating the subsequent position from the aggregated scout scan data.
Vik discloses scan planning. Vik teaches aggregating scout scan data from the scout scans and estimating the subsequent position from the aggregated scout scan data from first and second scout scans (see par. [0034], [0075], [0079]; fig. 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of aggregating scout scan data from the first and second scout scan and estimating the subsequent position from the aggregated scout scan data in the invention of Greiser, Chen and Damadian, as taught by Vik, to be able to provide enhanced quality image by generating a FOV location adjustment.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen), in view of Damadian et al. (US 10,679,365).
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses automatic image plane planning and following for MIR using AI. Chen shows a MRI system (see abstract) comprising: a MR scanner configured to perform scout scans of a first region of a patient (see fig. 2 and 4; par. [0039]) and a second region of the patient (see par. [0039]), the scout scans providing first scan data of the first region (see 402 in fig. 4; par. [0039])) and second scan data of the second region (see 414 in fig. 4; par. [0039])); and a processor (see 304 in fig. 3) configured to determine a location of a diagnostic region from the scout scans of the first region and second region (as best understood of the indefinite limitation, see par. [0039]); the MR scanner configured to perform a scan of the diagnostic region based on the determined location (see abstract; par. [0039] and fig. 4).
But, Greiser and Chen fail to explicitly state wherein patient support mechanically moved between the scout scans of the first and second region to overcome restricted field of view of the MR scanner.
Damadian discloses method of correlating a slice profile and teaches wherein patient support mechanically moved between the scout scans of the first and second region (see fig. 1 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein patient support mechanically moved relative to the MRI scanner to position the second region within a filed view of the MRI scanner in the invention Chen, as taught by Damadian, to be able to automatically move the patient in three degrees of freedom to be able to image in different planes.
Regarding the limitations of claim 15 “...to overcome restricted field of view of the MR scanner " directed to the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Therefore, as taught, the combined invention disclosed by Chen and Damadian is capable of performing the functions as set forth by applicant. Also, see MPEP 2114.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen), in view of Damadian et al. (US 10,679,365) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Henry et al. (US 2023/0190105; hereinafter Henry).
Regarding claim 16, Chen and Damadian disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state different contact weighting for scout images.
Henry discloses MR imaging system. Henry teaches state different contact weighting for images (see par. [0027], [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of state different contact weighting for scout images in the invention of Chen and Damadian, as taught by Henry, to be able to differentiate the different regions using diffusion weighting scout images.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen), in view of Damadian et al. (US 10,679,365) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Greiser et al. (US 2023/0255506; hereinafter Greiser)
Regarding claim 17, Chen and Damadian disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state the processor configured to estimate an initial location of the diagnostic region from a previous whole body scan, the first and second scout regions is established based on the initial location.
Greiser teaches wherein the processor is configured to estimate an initial location of the diagnostic region from a previous whole-body scan and scan region is established based on the initial location ((see par. [0022], [0023], fig. 2, 5 and 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of an initial location of the diagnostic region from a previous whole body scan, scan region is established based on the initial location in the invention of Chen, as taught by Greiser, to provide additional scans to accurately compensate patient motion. The examiner notes that upon incorporating the teaching of Greiser into the invention of Chen would provide the first and second regions are established based on the initial location.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen), in view of Damadian et al. (US 10,679,365) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2023/0237653; hereinafter Jang).
Regarding claim 19, Chen and Damadian disclose the invention substantially as described in the 102 rejection above, furthermore Chen teaches artificial intelligence (see fig. 4; par. [0039]) but fail to explicitly state that the processor is configured to scout scan and/or determine the location with an artificial intelligence previously trained to extrapolate information outside of a current field of view
Jang discloses an imaging system. Jang teaches the processor is configured to scout scan and/or determine the location with an artificial intelligence previously trained to extrapolate information outside of a current field of view (see par. [0046], [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the processor is configured to scout scan and/or determine the location with an artificial intelligence previously trained to extrapolate information outside of a current field of view in the invention of Chen and Damadian, as taught by Jang, to provide a faster processing of information to prove a more accurate result.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen), in view of Damadian et al. (US 10,679,365), and in view of Poole et al. (US 2019/0353726; hereinafter Poole).
Regarding claim 20, Chen discloses an automatic imaging plane planning and following for MRI using AI. Chen shows a method for localizing a target for magnetic resonance (MR) scanning (see abstract), performing, by a MRI (see fig. 2), a first scout scan of a first region of a patient (see fig. 4 and par. [0039]); performing, by the MRI, a second scout of a second region of the patient (see fig. 4 and par. [0039]), the MRI having a FOV with a diameter such that first region is outside a field of view of the second region (see fig. 4 and par. [0039]); determining, by a machine-learning model implemented by a processor (see fig. 3 and 4), a position of the target relative to the MR system from the first scout scan and second scout scan (see fig. 4 and par. [0039]), and imaging the target with the MRI, the imaging configured by the position of the target (see abstract; par. [0039] and fig. 4).
But, Chen fails to explicitly state mechanically moving a patient support for the patient so that a filed of view of the magnetic resonance system covers the second region, and that the diameter of the field of view is less than of 30 cm or less such that each of the different regions are outside the field of view of others of the different regions.
Damadian discloses method of correlating a slice profile and teaches wherein mechanically moving a patient support for the patient so that a field of view of the magnetic resonance system covers the second region (see fig. 1 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of mechanically moving a patient support for the patient so that a field of view of the magnetic resonance system covers the second region in the invention Chen, as taught by Damadian, to be able to automatically move the patient in three degrees of freedom to be able to image in different planes.
But, Chen and Damadian fail to explicitly state that the diameter of the field of view is less than of 30 cm or less such that each of the different regions are outside the field of view of others of the different regions.
Poole discloses a MRI system. Poole teaches FOV with a diameter of spherical homogenous volume is less than 30 cm (see par. [0011], [0085])
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of FOV with a diameter of spherical homogenous volume is less than 30 cm in the invention of Chen and Damadian, as taught by Poole, to be able provide a portable MRI system with sufficient enhanced image quality within imaging region.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 (a) to claim 15 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 15.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 (b) to claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 17 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/16/2026, page 10, with respect to claim limitation that wherein patient support is mechanically moved to position the second region within a field of view in claims 1, 15 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the prior Office action of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner has provided new prior art Damadian to address this claim limitation.
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/16/2026, pages 11-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12 and 13 with respect to prior art Chen and Damadian, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that claim 1 merely recites a scout image of a first region and a scout image of a second region but does not explicitly limit or recite that the first and second regions are of two different anatomical targets. In par. [0010], [0039], Check teaches scout images of three different standard views such as axial, sagittal and coronal, and these standard views do read on first and second region. The examiner notes that even imaging the axial, sagittal and coronal views of cardiac area, but the different standard view of the cardiac area would provide having the second region distinct from the first region since claims 1, 15 and 20 do not require imaging different anatomical targets, and that the first region is of a first anatomical target and the second region is of a different separate anatomical target.
In response to applicant's argument in middle of page 12 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner notes that prior art Chen involuntary tracks such as involuntary cardiac and respiratory motions, and does not teach away of adding mechanically moving the patient support as taught by Damadian. Therefore, the examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to have utilized the teaching of wherein patient support mechanically moved relative to the MRI scanner to position the second region within a filed view of the MRI scanner in the invention of Greiser and Chen, as taught by Damadian, to be able to automatically move the patient in three degrees of freedom to be able to image in different planes.
Furthermore Applicant’s argument on bottom of page 13 to top of page 14, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner merely relied on prior art Poole to teach FOV with a diameter of spherical homogenous volume is less than 30 cm (see par. [0011], [0085]). The examiner notes that on par. [0076], Poole does mention that the inventors developed a low-field and very low-filed MRI system capable of producing clinically useful images with sufficient imaging resolution and image quality.
Therefore, the examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have utilized the teaching of FOV with a diameter of spherical homogenous volume is less than 30 cm in the invention of Chen and Damadian, as taught by Poole, to be able provide a portable MRI system with sufficient enhanced image quality within imaging region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WU (US 2019/0046131) discloses a patient support can be automatically moved between imaging scans (see par. [0215]).
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 SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights