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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-22 are pending. Claims 8 and 18 are canceled, and Claim 22 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.6-10, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because Applicant’s amendments of independent claims has altered the scope of the claims, and therefore, necessitated new grounds of rejection, which are presented below. However, Applicant argues Izatt does not cure the deficiencies of Liu and Krucker with respect to the foregoing features such as the reducing dimensionality of a multi-dimensional dataspace by applying an operator that eliminates angular dimensions from the multi-dimensional dataspace to create an enhance resolution and contrast image of a 3D space of the object using the images as registered. Examiner respectfully disagrees due to Izatt, Paras. 6, 27, 37, 40, and 44, teaches using multiple OCT cross-sectional images or B-scans which can be 3D and acquired at a diversity of angles such as two dimensions of angular scanning in which contributions are added from multiple angles to fill in frequency space wherein the entire Fourier spectrum of the object can be synthesized up to the frequency cutoff by taking projections at multiple directions and the inverse Fourier transform reconstructs the image with isotropic high-resolution wherein the backprojection algorithm can be employed for projections summed across all angles which is mathematically equivalent to the Fourier synthesis technique and wherein the acquired cross-sectional images are registered and the reconstructing of an enhanced resolution image of the object is based on the registered images and displaying an image of the object based on the enhanced resolution image and wherein the OCT system provides improved image resolution and contrast, i.e., multi-dimensional data space being the 3D B-scans at two dimensions of angular scanning has its dimensionality reduced by applying an operator that eliminates the angular dimensions being the summation and backprojection of the plurality of images captured at a diversity of angles for 3D reconstruction to create an enhanced resolution and contrast image of a 3D space of the object using the registered images. Examiner has considered applicants arguments with respect to the new claim 22. However, arguments are moot due to new claims being presented and are therefore being analyzed as presented below.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 13, 15, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210183056 A1) in view of Izatt et al. (US 20200340798 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu teaches "A method comprising: receiving a plurality of images of an object, each image of the plurality of images having more than three dimensions"; (Liu, Paras. 10-11 and 17, teaches an image data processing method for registering two image data sets comprising obtaining two different four-dimensional image data sets wherein the image data is representative of a time series of three dimensional image frames of a common anatomical region, i.e., receive images of an object being the anatomical region and the images have more than three dimensions including the time dimension);
"performing multi-dimensional registration of the plurality of images to one another across at least one-non-spatial dimension to generate a multi-dimensional dataspace"; (Liu, Paras. 5 and 73-77, teaches obtaining two different four-dimensional image data sets each comprising image data representative of a time series of three dimensional image frames of an anatomical region and performing a rotation and translation of one or both of the four-dimensional image data sets such as to bring their respective three-dimensional motion vectors into alignment and performing a further transformation of one or both of the image data sets having aligned three-dimensional motion vectors based on an image registration procedure wherein the registration or fusion of the two 4D image sets is a key step to allow the imaged field of view to be extended and supplement missing information, i.e., perform multi-dimensional registration of the images to one another across at least one non-spatial dimension being time to generate the registered or fused multi-dimensional dataspace).
However, Liu does not explicitly teach "reducing dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace by applying an operator that eliminates angular dimensions from the multi-dimensional dataspace to create an enhanced resolution and contrast image of a 3D space of the object using the plurality of images as registered in the multi-dimensional dataspace; and displaying the enhanced resolution and contrast image”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Izatt teaches "reducing dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace by applying an operator that eliminates angular dimensions from the multi-dimensional dataspace to create an enhanced resolution and contrast image of a 3D space of the object using the plurality of images as registered in the multi-dimensional dataspace"; (Izatt, Paras. 6, 27, 37, 40, and 44, teaches using multiple OCT cross-sectional images or B-scans which can be 3D and acquired at a diversity of angles such as two dimensions of angular scanning in which contributions are added from multiple angles to fill in frequency space wherein the entire Fourier spectrum of the object can be synthesized up to the frequency cutoff by taking projections at multiple directions and the inverse Fourier transform reconstructs the image with isotropic high-resolution wherein the backprojection algorithm can be employed for projections summed across all angles which is mathematically equivalent to the Fourier synthesis technique and wherein the acquired cross-sectional images are registered and the reconstructing of an enhanced resolution image of the object is based on the registered images and displaying an image of the object based on the enhanced resolution image and wherein the OCT system provides improved image resolution and contrast, i.e., multi-dimensional data space being the 3D B-scans at two dimensions of angular scanning has its dimensionality reduced by applying an operator that eliminates the angular dimensions being the summation and backprojection of the plurality of images captured at a diversity of angles for 3D reconstruction to create an enhanced resolution and contrast image of a 3D space of the object using the registered images);
"and displaying the enhanced resolution and contrast image"; (Izatt, Abstract and Para. 6, teaches displaying an image of the object based on the enhanced resolution image wherein the image also provides improved contrast).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Liu by including the application of an operator to eliminate angular dimensions and display of the enhanced image taught by Izatt. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it enhances the resolution (Izatt, Paras. 3 and 6, teaches the motivation of combination to be to enhance resolution and contrast).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references of Liu in view of Izatt teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of images of the object are one of optical coherence tomography B-scans and OCT volumes"; (Izatt, Claim 2, teaches the images are one of optical coherence tomography B-scans and OCT volumes).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Liu in view of Izatt references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 5. Thus, the method recited in claim 5 is met by Liu in view of Izatt.
Claim 10 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Liu in view of Izatt references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Liu in view of Izatt references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of references of Liu in view of Izatt teaches "The system of claim 10, further comprising: an imaging device, wherein the imaging device acquires the plurality of images of the object taken at different angles and sends the plurality of images of the object taken at different angles to the storage system"; (Izatt, Paras. 110-111 and Claim 20, teaches a scanning device configured to acquire a plurality of cross-sectional images of an object at different angles wherein the computer readable storage medium which stores instructions to carry out the method includes a storage device, i.e., imaging device acquires images of the object at different angles and sends the images to the storage system).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Liu in view of Izatt references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 13. Thus, the method recited in claim 13 is met by Liu in view of Izatt.
Claim 15 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 5. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Liu in view of Izatt references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Liu in view of Izatt references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Claim 20 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Liu in view of Izatt references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Liu in view of Izatt references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of references of Liu in view of Izatt teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the operator comprises template-matching via cross-correlation or mean square error to identify spatial locations exhibiting a specified angular backscatter distribution profile"; (Izatt, Paras. 47, 80, 83, 87, and 91, teaches a mean squared error between the raw B-scans and a forward prediction of the B-scans based on the estimated high-resolution reconstruction wherein the mean square error may be iteratively minimized with respect to the forward model parameters wherein B-scan intensity values are rescaled pixel-wise and finding the angle with the largest Gabor response for each pixel and each pixel was assigned a value according to the orientation index wherein optimized angular backscatter profiles are given and the final B-scan prediction incorporates the angular backscatter profile and wherein each B-scan pixel has individual spatial coordinates, i.e., operator being the forward prediction of B-scans including mean square error which includes identifying spatial locations with a specified angular backscatter distribution profile being the pixel-wise rescaling of intensity values and finding orientation index and optimized angular backscatter profile incorporated by the final B-scan prediction).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Liu in view of Izatt references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 22. Thus, the method recited in claim 22 is met by Liu in view of Izatt.
Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Izatt and Krücker et al. ("3D spatial compounding of ultrasound images using image-based nonrigid registration." Ultrasound in medicine & biology 26.9 (2000): 1475-1488).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references of Liu in view of Izatt does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 1, wherein reducing the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace to create the enhanced resolution and contrast image of the 3D space of the object comprises utilizing at least one of variance, high-order statistics, entropy, principal component analysis, t-distributed stochastic neighborhood embedding, and neural networks using the plurality of images as registered in the multi-dimensional dataspace".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Krucker teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein reducing the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace to create the enhanced resolution and contrast image of the 3D space of the object comprises utilizing at least one of variance, high-order statistics, entropy, principal component analysis, t-distributed stochastic neighborhood embedding, and neural networks using the plurality of images as registered in the multi-dimensional dataspace"; (Krucker, FIG. 4 and Materials and Methods - Registration, teaches the registration procedure employs mutual information to measure relative alignment wherein mutual information is defined as the entropy and joint entropy of the data sets wherein image volumes are aligned using registration and then compounded and displayed in original orientation, i.e., reducing dimensionality of the dataspace comprises utilizing at least entropy using the images as registered in the dataspace).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Liu and Izatt by including the reducing of dimensionality of the dataspace to enhance resolution and contrast of the 3D space of the object using registered images in the dataspace taught by Krucker. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it enables high spatial resolution and reduces noise and increases CNR (Krucker, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to enable high spatial resolution and reduce noise and increase in contrast-to-noise-ratio).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references of Liu in view of Izatt and Krucker teaches "The method of claim 2, wherein the at least one of the variance, high-order statistics, entropy, principal component analysis, t-distributed stochastic neighborhood embedding, and neural networks are determined by applying an iterative optimization algorithm to the plurality of images as registered in the multi-dimensional dataspace"; (Krucker, FIG. 4 and Materials and Methods - Registration, teaches the registration procedure employs mutual information to measure relative alignment wherein mutual information is defined as the entropy and joint entropy of the data sets wherein the registration optimization works by iteratively maximizing the mutual information wherein image volumes are aligned using registration and then compounded and displayed in original orientation, i.e., determine entropy by iterative optimization on the images as registered in the dataspace by the iteratively maximizing the mutual information defined by the entropy).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Liu in view of Izatt and Krucker references presented in the rejection of Claim 2, applies to claim 3. Thus, the method recited in claim 3 is met by Liu in view of Izatt and Krucker.
Claim 11 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 2. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Liu in view of Izatt and Krucker references, presented in rejection of Claim 2, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Liu in view of Izatt and Krucker references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Claim 12 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 3. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Liu in view of Izatt and Krucker references, presented in rejection of Claim 2, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Liu in view of Izatt and Krucker references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of references of Liu in view of Izatt teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein reducing dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace to create the enhanced resolution and contrast image comprises deriving the enhanced resolution and contrast image based on variation of image data across the at least one non-spatial dimension"; (Krucker, Abstract, teaches volumetric image registration to enable high spatial resolution in 3D spatial compounding being the summation of images from multiple views wherein the volume of interest was scanned at five different angles in which pairs of separate views were registered by an automatic procedure based on a mutual information metric wherein the compounded images displayed the expected reduction in speckle noise and increase in contrast-to-noise ratio as well as better delineation of connective tissues and reduced shadowing, i.e., enable high spatial resolution with reduction in noise and increase in contrast of the compounded image based on the variation of image data across the at least one non-spatial dimension being the variation between the five different transducer tilt angles used to scan the volume of interest).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Liu in view of Izatt and Krucker references presented in the rejection of Claim 2, applies to claim 21. Thus, the method recited in claim 21 is met by Liu in view of Izatt and Krucker.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Izatt and Zhao et al. ("Angular compounding for speckle reduction in optical coherence tomography using geometric image registration algorithm and digital focusing." Scientific Reports 10.1 (2020): 1893).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references of Liu in view of Izatt does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 1, further comprising taking a Fourier transform of the plurality of registered images prior to reducing the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Zhao teaches "The method of claim 1, further comprising taking a Fourier transform of the plurality of registered images prior to reducing the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace"; (Zhao, Method - Data process flow, teaches converting the spectral interferences to spatial information via the Fourier transform before angular compounding of the images to combine them to be one fused image, i.e., taking a Fourier transform of the images prior to reducing the dimensionality reduction of the multi-dimensional space being the compounding of the images).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Liu and Izatt wherein the images are registered images by including the taking of the Fourier transform of the images prior to reducing the dimensionality taught by Zhao. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it suppresses noise and enhances resolution (Zhao, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to suppress speckle noise, enhance resolution and contrast, and reveal fine structures).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 14 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 4. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Liu in view of Izatt and Zhao references, presented in rejection of Claim 4, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Liu in view of Izatt and Zhao references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Izatt and Said (US 20130188068 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references of Liu in view of Izatt does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 1, wherein the multi-dimensional dataspace is at least a five-dimensional dataspace".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Said teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the multi-dimensional dataspace is at least a five-dimensional dataspace"; (Said, Para. 20, teaches characterizing an image of a scene from many different viewing locations at any viewing angle and at any point in time with a plenoptic function parameterized as a five-dimensional function, i.e., multi-dimensional dataspace is at least a five-dimensional dataspace).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Liu and Izatt by including the dataspace being at least a five-dimensional dataspace taught by Said. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it decreases cost of rendering (Said, Paras. 4-5, teaches the motivation of combination to be to decrease cost of rendering images acquired using camera arrays).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references of Liu in view of Izatt and Said teaches "The method of claim 6, wherein the at least five-dimensional dataspace comprises space and angular dimensions"; (Said, Para. 20, teaches characterizing an image of a scene from many different viewing locations at any viewing angle and at any point in time with a plenoptic function parameterized as a five-dimensional function with three Cartesian coordinates x, y, and z and two spherical coordinate angles, i.e., multi-dimensional dataspace is at least a five-dimensional dataspace comprising space and angular dimensions);
"and wherein the at least five-dimensional dataspace further comprises time and wavelength dimensions"; (Said, Para. 20, teaches characterizing an image of a scene from many different viewing locations at any viewing angle and at any point in time with a plenoptic function parameterized as a five-dimensional function with three Cartesian coordinates x, y, and z and two spherical coordinate angles wherein the plenoptic function can also be parameterized by additional dimensions including time and wavelength, i.e., multi-dimensional dataspace is at least a five-dimensional dataspace comprising time and wavelength dimensions).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Liu in view of Izatt and Said references presented in the rejection of Claim 6, applies to claim 7. Thus, the method recited in claim 7 is met by Liu in view of Izatt and Said.
Claim 16 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 6. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Liu in view of Izatt and Said references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Liu in view of Izatt and Said references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of references of Liu in view of Izatt and Said teaches "The system of claim 16, wherein the at least five-dimensional dataspace comprises at least one of space, angular dimensions, time, and wavelength dimensions"; (Said, Para. 20, teaches characterizing an image of a scene from many different viewing locations at any viewing angle and at any point in time with a plenoptic function parameterized as a five-dimensional function with three Cartesian coordinates x, y, and z and two spherical coordinate angles, i.e., multi-dimensional dataspace is at least a five-dimensional dataspace comprising space and angular dimensions, wherein the plenoptic function can also be parameterized by additional dimensions including time and wavelength, i.e., multi-dimensional dataspace is at least a five-dimensional dataspace comprising time and wavelength dimensions).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Liu in view of Izatt and Said references presented in the rejection of Claim 6, applies to claim 17. Thus, the system recited in claim 17 is met by Liu in view of Izatt and Said.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Izatt and Ferrara et al. (US 20240225601 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references of Liu in view of Izatt does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 1, wherein reducing the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace to create the enhanced resolution and contrast image of the 3D space of the object comprises reducing the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace to create a plurality of enhanced resolution and contrast images of the 3D space of the object, wherein the plurality of enhanced resolution and contrast images of the 3D space of the object comprises the enhanced resolution and contrast image of the 3D space of the object".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ferrara teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein reducing the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace to create the enhanced resolution and contrast image of the 3D space of the object comprises reducing the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace to create a plurality of enhanced resolution and contrast images of the 3D space of the object, wherein the plurality of enhanced resolution and contrast images of the 3D space of the object comprises the enhanced resolution and contrast image of the 3D space of the object"; (Ferrara, FIGS. 5A-5B and Paras. 57-58, 64, and 67, teaches a combination of coherent and non-coherent spatial compounding used to optimize the balance between resolution and contrast in varying imaging conditions wherein multiple planewaves are summed to create high quality spatial compounded images wherein complete slices are acquired through the imaged subjects which are then combined to yield highly detailed image volumes wherein the process repeats successively with images slices being acquired at each vertical step and the entire volume being reconstructed after all the slices have been acquired, i.e., reducing the dimensionality of the dataspace being the non-coherent spatial compounding of image slices to create a plurality of enhanced resolution and contrast images of the 3D space of the object wherein the plurality of the enhanced images of the 3D space of the object comprises the enhanced resolution and contrast image of the 3D space of the object).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Liu and Izatt by including the reducing of the dimensionality of the database creating a plurality of enhanced resolution and contrast images of a 3D space for an object that include the enhanced image of the 3D space of the object taught by Ferrara. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it offers a low cost imaging system with improved resolution accuracy (Ferrara, Para. 5, teaches the motivation of combination to be have a low cost and versatile imaging system with greater resolution accuracy).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 19 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 9. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Liu in view of Izatt and Ferrara references, presented in rejection of Claim 9, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Liu in view of Izatt and Ferrara references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights