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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the extended area of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10 and 12-20 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.
The term “high atomic number” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high atomic number” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The element “a collimator made of a material with a high atomic number” is indefinite because neither the claim nor the specification provides a definition of which materials qualify as being a high atomic number.
Claims 9-10 and 12-20 are dependent on claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason.
For the purpose of examination, collimators are known in the art to be made of many types of materials, including plastics, therefore any collimator containing a material with a component which has an atomic number greater than or equal to carbon will be considered to be “a high atomic number.”
The term “approximately” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The element “each optoelectronic conversion module has a measurement area of between 4 mm2 and approximately 15 cm2” is indefinite because neither the claim nor the specification provides a definition of an appropriate definition of approximately.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thon US 201/0200763.
Regarding claim 11, Thon discloses a method for making a scintigraphic measurement device, comprising: preparing a plurality of scintillation crystals defining, or designed to define, in conjunction with each other a total measurement area (figs. 3-5 #302 span the measurement area); establishing a type of optoelectronic conversion module to be used (figs. 4A, 5A #312); determining the number of optoelectronic conversion modules to be used to completely cover said measurement area (figs. 4A, 5A #312); connecting together said optoelectronic conversion modules in a two-dimensional configuration defining an optoelectronic network covering entirely said measurement area (modules 312 are connected in a 2-D array covering the entire measurement area); applying said optoelectronic network to said plurality of scintillation crystals (figs. 3B, 4B, 5B).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thon et al. US 2010/0200763 in view of Gagnon et al. US 2014/0021354.
Regarding claim 1, Thon teaches a scintigraphic measurement device with extended area, comprising: a measurement structure defining an overall measurement area (figs. 3-5) and designed to receive a radiation and to convert said radiation into electrical signals (para. 0020-0022; definitionally a detector), said measurement structure comprising a matrix of scintillation crystals defining said measurement area (figs. 3-5 #302 span the measurement area) and an optoelectronic network for converting photons into electrical signals (para. 0038; definitionally a scintillator); a collimator (fig. 6 #612, 602) made of a material with a high atomic number (para. 0051; light absorbing medium) and having a plurality of collimation channels distributed over said measurement area (figs. 3-5 the matrix of scintillation crystals 302 have a plurality of collimation channels, see fig. 6, which are distributed over the measurement area of figs. 3-5), said collimator being associated with the measurement structure for absorbing a lateral radiation directed towards the measurement structure (para. 0047-0051) and having an angle of incidence greater than a predetermined value (figs. 6A-6I provide a variety of collimator configurations wherein the collimators have an angle of incidence which is greater than some other arbitrary predetermined value); an electronic processing unit (fig. 8 #800) applied to the measurement structure to process the electrical signals generated by the measurement structure (para. 0075); wherein the optoelectronic network is formed by a matrix of optoelectronic conversion modules (figs. 4A, 5A #312) connected to each other according to a two-dimensional distribution to cover said measurement area (the matrix of modules 312 are connected in a 2-D array), each optoelectronic conversion module comprising a two-dimensional matrix of individual "Multi Pixel Photon Counter" (MPPC) elements or individual "Silicon PhotoMultiplier" (SiPM) elements electrically interconnected (figs. 4A, 5A #316; para. 0039; each module 312 comprises a submodule of SiPM’s 316 arranged in a 2-D matrix for a module-of-modules architecture); and a plurality of channels (fig. 8 connection channels from 808 to 803) by which the electronic processing unit is connected to the optoelectronic network for measuring a total electric current of each channel delivered by the optoelectronic conversion modules positioned on said channel(para. 0079 “Signals from the pixels 808 are received by a data acquisition system 803, which produces data indicative of the detected radiation” each pixel 808 being connected by a channel; para. 0004 “the various APD cells have been connected electrically in parallel so as to produce an output signal that is the analog sum of the currents generated by the APD cells of an SiPM” the signal is the total current of each channel).
Thon fails to explicitly teach wherein the optoelectronic conversion modules are electrically connected to each other along two directions which are transversal to each other; however, Thon does teach that readout circuitry may be provided at the APD cell level, detector cell level (the 2-D matrix of SiPM’s), and/or the pixel level (the optoelectronic module).
Gagnon teaches wherein the optoelectronic conversion modules are electrically connected to each other along two directions which are transversal to each other (figs 1-2) for the purpose of reducing the number of channels for readout which makes the device more scalable to larger arrays of modules (para. 0012).
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 wherein the optoelectronic conversion modules are electrically connected to each other along two directions which are transversal to each other as taught by Gagnon in the scintigraphic measurement device of Thon for the purpose of reducing the number of channels for readout which makes the device more scalable to larger arrays of modules.
Regarding claim 2, Thon teaches wherein said optoelectronic conversion modules are identical to each other and/or have a same number and a same distribution of single MPPC or SiPM elements (figs. 4A, 5A; the conversion modules 312 have the same number and distribution of SiPM elements 316).
Regarding claim 3, Thon fails to teach wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is electrically connected to a single channel of the optoelectronic conversion module for each of said two directions.
Gagnon teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is electrically connected to a single channel of the optoelectronic conversion module for each of said two directions (figs 1-2) for the purpose of reducing the number of channels for readout which makes the device more scalable to larger arrays of modules (para. 0012).
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 wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is electrically connected to a single channel of the optoelectronic conversion module for each of said two directions as taught by Gagnon in the scintigraphic measurement device of Thon for the purpose of reducing the number of channels for readout which makes the device more scalable to larger arrays of modules.
Regarding claim 6, Thon and Gagnon do not explicitly disclose wherein each optoelectronic conversion module has a surface extension different from the surface extension of at least one scintillation crystal to which it is associated and/or a surface extension only partly superposed on said at least one scintillation crystal to which it is associated, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance
Regarding claim 7, Thon fails to disclose the structure of the electronic processing unit (803) therefore fails to teach wherein said electronic processing unit comprises an ASIC unit or a resistive network connected to said channels for measuring said total electric current of each channel delivered by the optoelectronic conversion modules positioned on said channel.
Gagnon teaches that a data acquisition unit, such as the one of Thon, can be implemented as an ASIC (para. 0064) and that ASIC’s can provide smaller devices and lower power consumption (para. 0052).
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 wherein said electronic processing unit comprises an ASIC unit or a resistive network connected to said channels for measuring said total electric current of each channel delivered by the optoelectronic conversion modules positioned on said channel as taught by Gagnon in the scintigraphic measurement device of Thon for the purpose of providing smaller devices and lowering power consumption.
Regarding claim 8, Thon teaches wherein each optoelectronic conversion module has a measurement area of between 4 mm2 and approximately 15 cm2 (fig. 4A, 5A; para. 0061 each element 316 is about 1mm x 1mm thus embodiment 4A has a module area of approximately 4 mm2 and fig. 5A has a module area of approximately 16 cm2) and/or wherein said total measurement area is greater than 25 cm2.
Regarding claim 16, Thon fails to teach wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is electrically connected to a single channel of the optoelectronic conversion module for each of said two directions.
Gagnon teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is electrically connected to a single channel of the optoelectronic conversion module for each of said two directions (fig. 2) for the purpose of reducing the number of channels for readout which makes the device more scalable to larger arrays of modules (para. 0012).
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 wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is electrically connected to a single channel of the optoelectronic conversion module for each of said two directions as taught by Gagnon in the scintigraphic measurement device of Thon for the purpose of reducing the number of channels for readout which makes the device more scalable to larger arrays of modules.
Claims 4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thon et al. US 2010/0200763 and Gagnon et al. US 2014/0021354 in further view of Lerche US 2018/0329085.
Regarding claim 4, Thon and Gagnon fail to teach wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective current dividing element configured to divide the current delivered by the MPPC or SiPM element into two half-currents, each half-current being supplied to a respective channel for each of said two directions.
Lerche teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective current dividing element configured to divide the current delivered by the MPPC or SiPM element into two half-currents, each half-current being supplied to a respective channel for each of said two directions (fig. 1; current dividers S; para. 0022, 0051) for the purpose of determining the exact position of the detected light via Anger logic (para. 0051).
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 wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective current dividing element configured to divide the current delivered by the MPPC or SiPM element into two half-currents, each half-current being supplied to a respective channel for each of said two directions as taught by Lerche in the scintigraphic measurement device of Thon and Gagnon for the purpose of determining the exact position of the detected light via Anger logic.
Regarding claim 17, Thon and Gagnon fail to wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective current dividing element configured to divide the current delivered by the MPPC or SiPM element into two half-currents, each half-current being supplied to a respective channel for each of said two directions.
Lerche teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective current dividing element configured to divide the current delivered by the MPPC or SiPM element into two half-currents, each half-current being supplied to a respective channel for each of said two directions (fig. 1; current dividers S; para. 0022, 0051) for the purpose of determining the exact position of the detected light via Anger logic (para. 0051).
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 wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective current dividing element configured to divide the current delivered by the MPPC or SiPM element into two half-currents, each half-current being supplied to a respective channel for each of said two directions as taught by Lerche in the scintigraphic measurement device of Thon and Gagnon for the purpose of determining the exact position of the detected light via Anger logic.
Regarding claim 18, Thon and Gagnon fail to wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective current dividing element configured to divide the current delivered by the MPPC or SiPM element into two half-currents, each half-current being supplied to a respective channel for each of said two directions.
Lerche teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective current dividing element configured to divide the current delivered by the MPPC or SiPM element into two half-currents, each half-current being supplied to a respective channel for each of said two directions (fig. 1; current dividers S; para. 0022, 0051) for the purpose of determining the exact position of the detected light via Anger logic (para. 0051).
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 wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective current dividing element configured to divide the current delivered by the MPPC or SiPM element into two half-currents, each half-current being supplied to a respective channel for each of said two directions as taught by Lerche in the scintigraphic measurement device of Thon and Gagnon for the purpose of determining the exact position of the detected light via Anger logic.
Claims 5, 12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thon et al. US 2010/0200763 and Gagnon et al. US 2014/0021354 in further view of Hernandez et al. EP 3399345.
Regarding claim 5, Thon and Gagnon fails to teach wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold.
Hernandez teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold (para. 0013, 0065) for the purpose of reducing noise (para. 0013).
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 wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold as taught by Hernandez in the scintigraphic measurement device of Thon and Gagnon for the purpose of reducing noise.
Regarding claim 12, Thon, Gagnon, and Hernandez does not specifically disclose wherein said threshold is defined by an electrical current value of between 10 and 100 mA. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (10 and 100 mA) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have wherein said threshold is defined by an electrical current value of between 10 and 100 mA in the scintigraphic measurement device of Thon, Gagnon, and Hernandez for the purpose of reducing noise.
Regarding claim 19, Thon and Gagnon fails to teach wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold.
Hernandez teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold (para. 0013, 0065) for the purpose of reducing noise (para. 0013).
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 wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold as taught by Hernandez in the scintigraphic measurement device of Thon and Gagnon for the purpose of reducing noise.
Regarding claim 20, Thon and Gagnon fails to teach wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold.
Hernandez teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold (para. 0013, 0065) for the purpose of reducing noise (para. 0013).
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 wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold as taught by Hernandez in the scintigraphic measurement device of Thon and Gagnon for the purpose of reducing noise.
Claims 9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thon et al. US 2010/0200763 and Gagnon et al. US 2014/0021354 in further view of Soluri et al. EP 1262796.
Regarding claim 9, Thon and Gagnon fails to teach wherein said total measurement area comprises a first portion defined by a plurality of first scintillation crystals and a second portion defined by a plurality of second scintillation crystals, wherein each first scintillation crystal has a respective measurement area different from the measurement area defined by each second scintillation crystal.
Soluri teaches wherein said total measurement area comprises a first portion defined by a plurality of first scintillation crystals and a second portion defined by a plurality of second scintillation crystals, wherein each first scintillation crystal has a respective measurement area different from the measurement area defined by each second scintillation crystal (fig. 20; the total measurement area comprises at least two different measurement areas defined by at least two different resolutions of scintillation crystals which make up at least two different measurement areas; para. 0048) for the purpose of having multiple spatial resolutions in the same device (para. 0048).
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 wherein said total measurement area comprises a first portion defined by a plurality of first scintillation crystals and a second portion defined by a plurality of second scintillation crystals, wherein each first scintillation crystal has a respective measurement area different from the measurement area defined by each second scintillation crystal as taught by Soluri in the scintigraphic measurement device of Thon and Gagnon for the purpose of having multiple spatial resolutions in the same device.
Regarding claim 13, Thon teaches the optoelectronic conversion modules (312) being of equal dimension (figs. 4A, 5A).
Regarding claim 14, Thon and Gagnon fails to teach wherein said first portion and second portion of the measurement area are equal to each other.
Soluri teaches wherein said first portion and second portion of the measurement area are equal to each other (fig. 10) for the purpose of having multiple spatial resolutions in the same device (para. 0048).
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 wherein said first portion and second portion of the measurement area are equal to each other as taught by Soluri in the scintigraphic measurement device of Thon and Gagnon for the purpose of having multiple spatial resolutions in the same device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thon et al. US 2010/0200763 and Gagnon et al. US 2014/0021354 in further view of Langenbrunner US 5514870.
Regarding claim 10, Thon and Gagnon fails to teach wherein at least one of said collimation channels is associated with two or more crystals having different response times.
Langenbrunner teaches wherein at least one of said collimation channels is associated with two or more crystals having different response times (fig. 1B #10, 12; col. 4 ln. 28-50) for the purpose of increasing the speed of the detector (col. 3 ln. 60-67).
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 wherein wherein at least one of said collimation channels is associated with two or more crystals having different response times as taught by Langenbrunner in the scintigraphic measurement device of Thon and Gagnon for the purpose of increasing the speed of the detector.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thon et al. US 2010/0200763 and Gagnon et al. US 2014/0021354 in further view of Drukier US 5532122.
Regarding claim 15, Thon teaches wherein at least one of said collimation channels is associated with four crystals and arranged according to a 2x2 distribution (fig. 6I collimator 612 defines a 2x2 crystal channel).
Thon and Gagnon fails to teach the crystals having response times different to each other.
Drukier teaches scintillation crystals having response times different to each other (col. 14 ln. 4-9) for the purpose of increasing efficiency for detection of low and high energy photons (col. 14 ln. 9-11).
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 scintillation crystals having response times different to each other as taught by Drukier in the scintigraphic measurement device of Thon and Gagnon for the purpose of increasing efficiency for detection of low and high energy photons.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights