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 .
Examiner Note
MPEP 2120(I) states “Prior art rejections should ordinarily be confined strictly to the best available art.” However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner is providing additional commentary such that this issue can be resolved sooner. The claimed invention is understood as a legally obvious variation over Sofka’s (submitted by Applicant, see Specification, [0003]). Applicant asserts the difference is that where Sofka analyzes an image (of, e.g., a liver) to estimate the phase of a contrast agent spreading through an organ, whereas Applicant instead analyzes the same image to determine the time elapsed since the contrast agent began spreading. The examiner’s analysis has not identified any analysis techniques (e.g., a new neural network architecture) that are different from Sofka.
However, estimating time elapsed and the contrast phase are known substitutes. MPEP 2144.06(II). See, e.g., the “Phases” section from the attached Wikipedia article on Contrast CT from before the earliest asserted priority date (i.e., the images at issue in this application), where there is a table that shows how the phases are matched to “time from injection.”
Another way to see that Applicant’s invention is obvious is that “Omission of an Element and Its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired.” MPEP 2144.04(II). Applicant explains that the difference between its approach and Sofka’s is that Sofka does not determine the time of the image before determining the phase. However, Applicant does not have a use for the time other than determining the phase (i.e., the same information that Sofka determines), and thus the function of determining the elapsed time is not desired. See, for example, claim 8, stating that the estimated time is converted to a contrast state via a lookup table.
One way to distinguish over Sofka is to submit evidence of new and unexpected results.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not “enable the Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure.” 37 CFR 1.72(b). Specifically, the abstract does not use plain language to identify the context (e.g., detecting liver lesions from CT images) or the solution.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to for missing paragraphs 0004 and 0005.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 references claim 13, but does not properly depend from claim 13 because the instructions can exist without performance of any of the method steps. Here, claim 13 is a method but claim 14 is an apparatus, and the apparatus claim can be met without necessarily practicing the method. MPEP 608.01(n)(III) addresses the “test for proper dependency.”
MPEP 607(III) states:
Any claim which is in dependent form but which is so worded that it, in fact, is not a proper dependent claim, as for example it does not include every limitation of the claim on which it depends, will be required to be canceled as not being a proper dependent claim; and cancellation of any further claim depending on such a dependent claim will be similarly required. The applicant may thereupon amend the claims to place them in proper dependent form, or may redraft them as independent claims, upon payment of any necessary additional fee.
Claim 14 is such a claim because it is directed to a system rather than a method as in referenced claim 13. MPEP 608.01(n)(III). While, in the interest of compact prosecution, claim 14 has been examined, claim 14 is required to be cancelled.
Claims 2, 3, and 5-7 are objected to for reciting “certainty,” because a better translation is needed, perhaps “likelihood.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 (all claims) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12493954 B2 in view of the prior art as applied below. US 12493954 B2 is a previous patent from the same inventor that is also analyzing contrast states. What is purported to be inventive here, i.e., the elapsed time index values, is obvious over the prior art (and is legally obvious as per the above examiner note).
Claims 1-14 (all claims) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application Nos. 18/587962 and 18/587965 in view of the prior art as applied below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The last element of the first claim of 18/587962 is “and to estimate an elapsed period from start of injection of a contrast agent in the image on the basis of image analysis of the image,” which is the inventive concept here.
The claims of 18/587965 are much broader than the current claims, but as shown by, for example, the shared figures (such as Fig. 1 of both applications), the claims of 18/587965 read on the present claims.
All of the pending claims, the conflicting patent and the conflicting applications are all directed to using machine learning to track contrast states. Therefore, all of the conflicting patent and applications are directed to the same problem as the present application. Further, any differences between the present claims and the claims in any of the conflicting patent or applications are obvious in view of the prior art as applied below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the below prior art with any of the conflicting patent or applications for implementation details (especially as the patent claims lack implementation details). Based on the findings herein, this is an example of “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 (all claims) are rejected due to conflicting disclosure between this application and one of the inventor’s earlier patents, US12493954B2.
The present invention is directed to determining the “contrast time phase” from an image that may lack contrast information. Specification, [0002]. The contrast time phase is specifically the elapsed time. See, e.g., Specification [0013]-[0018] repeatedly describing that the index values and contrast are understood as “elapsed time.” (These statements correspond to the claims.)
However, the inventor’s earlier patent, US12493954B2, says that this does not work:
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
However, even in the images captured at the same time elapsed since the start of the injection of the contrast agent, the contrast state may differ depending on, for example, the physique of a subject and the physical condition of the subject. Therefore, in a case in which the contrast time phase is determined using information of the injection start time of the contrast agent included in metadata and property analysis is performed, the performance of the property analysis may deteriorate due to a variation in the contrast time phase.
In addition, in a case in which the metadata does not include the information of the injection start time of the contrast agent, the property analysis is performed in a state in which the contrast time phase is not determined.
A system disclosed in JP2011-136030A determines whether or not the acquired image data has been obtained by contrast imaging, and it is difficult to determine the contrast time phase of the captured image.
One of ordinary skill in the art, comparing the present application to the inventor’s earlier work would see that the present application conflicts with the inventor’s earlier patent, and that the present application does not resolve this conflict. That this conflict has not been resolved shows that the specification lacks written description support.
Claims 1 and 13 recite “determin[es/ing] the contrast state,” but this is unlimited functional claiming because it is reciting a result rather than the steps to accomplish it. MPEP 2173.05(g). Applicant may wish to narrow the claim to exclude the techniques described in the “Description of Related Art” section.
Claims 3 and 7 recite “learning model,” but this is unlimited functional claiming due to the wide variety of machine learning models. Naming a specific architecture, such as specification [0070]’s convolutional neural network, overcomes this rejection.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected. Claim 14 is rejected as per claim 13.
Claims 1-14 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1-14 (all claims) are rejected for lack of enablement due to the above discussed conflict with the inventor’s earlier patent, US12493954B2. While each of the Wands factors have been considered (MPEP 2164.01(a)), the decisive factor is “(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor.” Here, the inventor has explicitly provided guidance that this does not work. Additionally, for “(G) The existence of working examples,” there do not appear to be any working examples (e.g., all of the figures appear to be hypothetical as opposed to actual outputs). Given the conflict between the present specification and the inventor’s earlier patent, US12493954B2, the final Wands factor, “(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure” weighs against enablement because resolving this conflict is beyond routine experimentation.
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 1-14 (all claims) 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.
Claim 1 is a device claim, but recites a series of actions taken by the processor (“acquires,” “estimates,” and “determines”). These are improper method steps in an apparatus claim. MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). One option is to recite that these steps are specified by the instructions.
Claims 1 and 13 recite “images including information,” but it is not clear how to interpret “information.” Is the information required to be images, or might it be information about images?
Claims 1 and 13 recite “a first image series,” but do not require the image series to actually be present (e.g., the first image series may not exist yet because it will be captured in the future). Without an objective standard, such as a series of images, whether the subject is in different positions from the non-existent image series becomes subjective. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claims 1 and 13 recite “index value,” but this lacks a plain meaning. If images are numbered (e.g., 1, 2, 3, …), could that be an index value?
Claims 1 and 13 recite “related to,” but this is subjective. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claim 2 recites overlapping claim elements that cause confusion. Parent claim 1 recites both “estimates an index value” and “determines the contrast state” based on the estimated values. But then claim 2 specifies that “the index value is a certainty of belonging to each of a plurality of the contrast states,” but that appears to be the same as the “determines the contrast state step.”
Claims 2, 4, and 5 recite “integrating,” but the usage does not appear to match the plain meanings of computing an integral or making whole by bringing together physical parts.
Claim 2 recites “determines the contrast state of the first image series on the basis of the integrated index value,” which differs from parent claim 1’s recitation “determines the contrast state of the first image series on the basis of each of a plurality of the estimated index values.” It is unclear if claim 2 is intended to further narrow claim 1 or if it is improperly redefining claim 1.
Claims 3 and 7 recite “image based on an image series,” but this is subjective because “based on” lacks an objective standard. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV). Reciting an objective standard, such as “from” overcomes this rejection.
Claims 4 and 5 recite “wherein the index value is an elapsed time,” and parent claim 1 recites estimating this value. However, this is confusing because the time is known in advance. See, e.g., Specification [0036]. In other words, one knows when the picture was taken, so what is there to estimate?
Claims 4, 5, and 9 recite “elapsed time from the injection of the contrast agent,” but parent claim 1 explicitly contemplates that this might occur before the injection. It is unclear how to interpret “elapsed time from the injection of the contrast agent” if the injection has not yet occurred.
Claims 4 and 5 recite “derives an elapsed time obtained,” but the conflict between the present tense of “derives” and the past tense of “obtained” is indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “product,” but does not appear to mean multiplying.
Claim 6 recites a method of deriving the integrated elapsed time that appears to conflict with parent claim 5’s method for the same purpose.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected. Claim 14 is rejected as per claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recite a device, and machines satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Claim 13 recites a method, and processes satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory, computer-readable tangible recording medium, and manufactures satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Step 2A, prong one: All of the elements of claims 1-14 are a mental process because a person can look at a CT image and decide which contrast state is shown, or estimate when the picture was taken (see, e.g., the Sofka reference describing their process as automatic as opposed to being performed manually by clinicians). Further, the various models are also mental processes, see example 47, claim 2, element (d) (from the July 2024 AI subject matter eligibility examples). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) explains that use of a generic computer or in a computer environment is still a mental process. In particular, this section begins by citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 US 63 (1972). “The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.” In Benson the Supreme Court did not separately analyze the computer hardware at issue; the specifics of what hardware was claimed is only included in an appendix to the decision.
Because there are no additional elements, no further analysis is required for Step 2A, prong two or Step 2B.
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.
Claims 1-14 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by US20200334818A1 (“Canon”).
1. A contrast state determination device comprising:
at least one processor; and (Canon, Fig. 1, processing circuitry 17)
at least one memory that stores commands to be executed by the at least one processor, (Canon, Fig. 1, main memory 18)
wherein the at least one processor acquires a plurality of two-dimensional images including information of slice images of a subject at different positions from a first image series captured before or after a contrast agent is injected into the subject, (Canon, claim 1, “acquire contrast image data generated by imaging a subject.” [0035] “… capable of acquiring contrast image data, for example, … a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) apparatus.” Canon’s MRI teaches the claimed slice images)
estimates an index value related to a contrast state from each of the plurality of two-dimensional images, and (Canon, claim 1, “input the acquired contrast image data to a learned model to generate a time phase data classified according to a contrast state” Canon’s time phase data teach the claimed index value.)
determines the contrast state of the first image series on the basis of each of a plurality of the estimated index values. (Canon, Fig. 18. Specification, [0020] states that a “contrast state” includes “an arterial phase, a portal phase,” among others, as shown by Canon, Fig. 18 (as per the mapping of the above limitation, these phases teach the claimed index values).)
2. The contrast state determination device according to claim 1, wherein the index value is a certainty of belonging to each of a plurality of the contrast states, and (Canon, Fig. 18. Canon, [0235] “FIG. 18 is a diagram showing a display example of definitive diagnostic result data,” and that this is “definitive” teaches the claimed certainty.)
the at least one processor derives an index value obtained by integrating the plurality of index values and determines the contrast state of the first image series on the basis of the integrated index value. (Canon, Fig. 18.)
3. The contrast state determination device according to claim 2, further comprising:
a first learning model that, in a case where a two-dimensional image based on an image series captured before or after the contrast agent is injected into the subject is input, outputs a certainty of belonging to each of the plurality of contrast states, (Canon, claim 1 “input the acquired contrast image data to a learned model to generate a time phase data classified according to a contrast state”)
wherein the at least one processor inputs the plurality of two-dimensional images to the first learning model to estimate the plurality of index values. (Canon, claim 1 “input the acquired contrast image data to a learned model to generate a time phase data classified according to a contrast state”)
4. The contrast state determination device according to claim 1, wherein the index value is an elapsed time from the injection of the contrast agent into the subject, and (Canon, claim 1, “input the acquired contrast image data to a learned model to generate a time phase data classified according to a contrast state” Canon’s time phase data teach the claimed index value.)
the at least one processor derives an elapsed time obtained by integrating a plurality of the elapsed times which are the plurality of index values and determines the contrast state of the first image series on the basis of the integrated elapsed time. (Canon, Fig. 18. Note Canon’s time scale, shown in black.)
5. The contrast state determination device according to claim 1, wherein the index values are an elapsed time from the injection of the contrast agent into the subject and a certainty of the elapsed time, and (Canon, Fig. 18. Note Canon’s time scale, shown in black.)
the at least one processor derives an elapsed time obtained by integrating a plurality of the elapsed times which are the plurality of index values on the basis of a plurality of the certainties which are the plurality of index values and determines the contrast state of the first image series on the basis of the integrated elapsed time. (Canon, Fig. 18. Note Canon’s time scale, shown in black.)
6. The contrast state determination device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor derives the integrated elapsed time on the basis of a product of a plurality of probability distribution models having the elapsed time and the certainty as parameters. (Canon’s various learned models include neural networks (e.g., [0089] “the learned neural network N1 and the learned parameter P1′ constitute the learned model D1.”), and Canon’s neural networks teach the claimed plurality of probability distribution models.)
7. The contrast state determination device according to claim 5, further comprising:
a second learning model that, in a case where a two-dimensional image based on an image series captured before or after the contrast agent is injected into the subject is input, outputs the elapsed time from the injection of the contrast agent into the subject and the certainty of the elapsed time, (Canon, claim 1 “input the acquired contrast image data to a learned model to generate a time phase data classified according to a contrast state.” Note that there is no “first” learning model recited in this claim.)
wherein the at least one processor inputs the plurality of two-dimensional images to the second learning model to estimate the plurality of elapsed times and the plurality of certainties. (Canon, claim 1 “input the acquired contrast image data to a learned model to generate a time phase data classified according to a contrast state”)
8. The contrast state determination device according to claim 4, further comprising: a conversion table in which the elapsed time from the injection of the contrast agent into the subject is associated with the contrast state, wherein the at least one processor determines the contrast state of the first image series on the basis of the integrated elapsed time and the conversion table. (Canon, Fig. 18. Canon’s time scale aligns with the different states, teaching the claimed table.)
Claim 9 is rejected as per claim 8.
10. The contrast state determination device according to claim 1, wherein the two-dimensional image is at least one of the slice image, (Canon, claim 1, “acquire contrast image data generated by imaging a subject.” [0035] “… capable of acquiring contrast image data, for example, … a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) apparatus.” Canon’s MRI teaches the claimed slice images)
a maximum intensity projection (MIP) image of a plurality of the slice images, or
an average image of the plurality of slice images. (Canon, [0049] “The 2D color Doppler image includes an average speed image representing moving state information”)
11. The contrast state determination device according to claim 1, wherein the first image series is a three-dimensional image including a liver of the subject, and (Canon, claim 8 “ultrasonic imaging of a liver”)
the contrast state includes at least one of a non-contrast phase, an arterial phase, a portal phase, or an equilibrium phase. (Canon, Fig. 18)
12. The contrast state determination device according to claim 1, wherein the first image series is a three-dimensional image including a kidney of the subject, and (Canon, [0038] “The imaging region may be a tissue that can specify a specific contrast state of a lesion area with a contrast agent, for example, the mammary gland or the pancreas.” Canon’s teaching of specifying a contrast state of a lesion area allows one to “at once envisage” the kidney. MPEP 2131.02(III). Should Applicant argue that the kidney is not anticipated, Applicant may wish to support its position by identifying disclosure that shows differences in how the kidney is treated differently than the liver (i.e., that kidney and liver are not easily interchangeable).)
the contrast state includes at least one of a non-contrast phase, a corticomedullary phase, a parenchymal phase, or an excretory phase. (Canon, Fig. 18. Canon’s equilibrium phase teaches the claimed excretory phase because the equilibrium phase is where the contrast agent leaves the body.)
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected as per claim 1. See also, Canon, [0161] “a program stored in the main memory 18.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20220012927 –[0021] “certain types of tissues (e.g., a tumor) appear different based on the amount of time that has elapsed after the contrast has been administered to the patient.”
20230206477 – [0005] “The dynamic contrast examination is a method in which, after an iodine contrast agent is intravenously injected into an arm, the same part is repeatedly imaged and a change in the part over time is observed.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663