DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-8 and 12-23 are currently pending. Claims 9-11 have been withdrawn and canceled in response to the restriction requirement. Claims 20-23 are newly added. Claims 1-8 and 12-23 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 23, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 5A, 5B, and 7 lack sufficient quality for publication. 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.
Claim 5 is 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 pre-AIA , the applicant, regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “transmitting, from the service in the first cloud network, to the service in the second cloud network, a notification that includes data about the image data; wherein the request is transmitted in response to the service in the second cloud network receiving the notification.” As recited, it is unclear which request the limitation is referring to the first request, the second request, or some other request. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how to avoid infringement of these claims because the metes and bounds of these claims are unclear. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted this claim as merely transmitting image data.
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 1-8 and 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A – Prong One. If the claims fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Step 2A – Prong Two. If the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon, it must then be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, then the claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2B. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be evaluated whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e. “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a machine; claims 12-19 are directed to a manufacture; and claims 20-23 are directed to a method. It is noted that claims 12-19 recite “[o]ne or more storage media” and Applicant’s specification explicitly discloses “[t]he term “storage media” as used herein refers to any non-transitory media that store data and/or instructions that cause a machine to operate in a specific fashion. . . . Storage media is distinct from but may be used in conjunction with transmission media.” (App. Spec. [0141]-[0142])
A claim “recites” an abstract idea if there are identifiable limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106. In the instant case, claim 1, and similarly claims 12 and 20, recite the steps of: based on first input received through a requester that includes an image viewer, receiving, from the requester, a first request that includes image data; generating a record that indicates a print order that is based on the first request and that includes the image data; transmitting, to an entity associated with the requester, a second request for data about 3D printing the image data; receiving, from the entity, second input that includes instructions for segmenting the image data -- these claim limitations set forth certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly commercial interactions including advertising, marketing, and sales activities/behaviors.
Additionally, these steps set forth mental processes, particularly concepts performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, including, inter alia, the observation and evaluation of information.
Further, the limitations of the claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Taking the independent claim elements separately, the additional elements of one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instruction which, when processed by the one or more processors perform the steps via computer, over a computer network, in a database, and through a web portal -- merely implement the abstract idea on a computer environment. Additionally, taking the dependent claim elements separately, the additional elements of performing the steps via a first cloud network and a second cloud network that is different than the first cloud network, a download request, and a computer also merely implement the abstract idea on a computer environment. Considered in combination, the steps of Applicant’s method add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Thus, claims 1-8 and 12-23 are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the independent claims, the technical elements of one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instruction which, when processed by the one or more processors perform the steps via computer, over a computer network, in a database, and through a web portal -- merely implement the abstract idea on a computer environment. Additionally, regarding the dependent claims, the technical elements of performing the steps via a first cloud network and a second cloud network that is different than the first cloud network, a download request, and a computer also merely implement the abstract idea on a computer environment.
When considering the elements and combinations of elements, the claim(s) as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not amount to an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment; the claims merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer; or the claims amounts to nothing more than requiring a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-8 and 12-23 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same rationale.
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 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)(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, 7, 12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haslam (US PGP 2021/0335041).
As per claim 1, Haslam teaches computing system comprising:
one or more processors; and (Haslam: [0054])
one or more memories storing instruction which, when processed by the one or more processors, cause: (Haslam: [0054]-[0055])
based on first input received through a requester computer that includes an image viewer, receiving, from the requester computer, over a computer network, a first request that includes image data; (Haslam: Fig. 1 (10 Request 3D Print (displaying ipad with image on display image viewer), 11 Medical Imaging (CT/MRI) – Securely Transferred to axial3D); [0076]-[0080] (Register on theAxial3D ordering platform https://orders.axial3d.com/ (10); Select New print and complete patient details such as birth date, gender, anatomical region of interest, dispatch date, anatomical model service required, material type, pathology description, lead consultant details; Send request to PACS manager or radiologist or upload DICOMS themselves (11);); [0185]-[0186] (The set of 2D medical images are images from the patient taken from one or a combination of the following: CT, MRI, PET and/or SPCET scanner.); [0082] (3G/4G network that can send a receive data to Axial3D's web application))
generating, in a database, a record that indicates a print order that is based on the first request and that includes the image data; (Haslam: Fig. 1; [0076]-[0080] (Send request to PACS manager or radiologist or upload DICOMS themselves (11); 3D annotation or written description is given of request Data is proceed by Axial3D software or personnel into a 3D printable file (12); [0237]-[0246] ((a) uploading 2D medical images to a server, (b) processing at the server the 2D medical images into a 3D printable model of the patient specific anatomic feature . . . A hash of a file corresponding to the file of the 3D printable model is created and stored within a central repository. The central repository is accessed by the server, in which the central repository is a file, a database or a distributed ledger. The hash is used to recreate or validate the printing or any subsequent printing of the 3D patient specific anatomic feature.); [0092]-[0094])
transmitting, to an entity associated with the requester computer, a second request for data about 3D printing the image data; (Haslam: Fig. 1; [0076]-[0080] (. . . complete patient details such as birth date, gender, anatomical region of interest, dispatch date, anatomical model service required, material type, pathology description, lead consultant details;); [0082] (3G/4G network that can send a receive data to Axial3D's web application); see also [0237] (The end-user remotely schedules, initiates or approves the printing of a 3D printable model on one or more printers via a Web application.); [0087]-[0088] (This enables remote printing of 3D anatomical models, where the printing is done in one location and controlled remotely in another location. Once 3D physical models are ordered, 3D models are generated from 2D medical scans, and are then remotely reviewed, approved and controlled by a 3D printing technician.); [0095], [0098])
receiving, from the entity, through a web portal, second input that includes instructions for segmenting the image data. (Haslam: [0076]-[0080] (Register on theAxial3D ordering platform https://orders.axial3d.com/ (10); . . . complete patient details such as . . . anatomical region of interest, . . . , anatomical model service required, . . . , pathology description, . . . ;); [0082] (3G/4G network that can send a receive data to Axial3D's web application); [0181]-[0208] ((b) a machine learning based image segmentation technique is used to segment the generated 3D image . . . The segmentation technique is based on one or a combination of the following techniques: threshold-based, decision tree, chained decision forest or a neural network method; Voxel based classification technique is used in which voxel information from each axis or plane is taken into account. The likelihood of a voxel of the 3D image having properties similar to the patient specific anatomic feature is calculated using a logistic or probabilistic function. The neural network determines a weight for each axis or plane in a voxel of the 3D image. Segmentation technique is further improved using multi-channel training.))
As per claim 7, Haslam teaches wherein the second input includes a ship-to-address, 3D model requirements, an anatomy, and a pathology. (Haslam: [0076]-[0080] (complete patient details such as birth date, gender, anatomical region of interest, dispatch date, anatomical model service required, material type, pathology description, lead consultant details;))
Examiner Note: While prior art has been applied, the Examiner notes that what is included in the second input is merely nonfunctional descriptive material and is not functionally involved in the steps recited. The receiving of the second input would be performed the same regardless of the specific type of information included in it. This descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 70 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
As per claims 12 and 18, these claims are substantially similar to claims 1 and 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as these claims, as set forth above.
As per claim 20, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in the same manner as this claim, as set forth above.
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 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 of this title, 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 2-6, 13-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haslam in view of Accomazzi (US PGP 2020/0335199).
As per claim 2, Haslam teaches the invention of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Haslam teaches wherein the instructions, when processed by the one or more processors, further cause:
sending, to an entity associated with the requester computer, . . . a segmented version of the image data is available for viewing. (Haslam: [0082]-[0084] (3G/4G network that can send a receive data to Axial3D's web application. . . . Axial3D prints and sends a 3D model to customer.); [0237] (The end-user remotely schedules, initiates or approves the printing of a 3D printable model on one or more printers via a Web application.); [0087]-[0088] (This enables remote printing of 3D anatomical models, where the printing is done in one location and controlled remotely in another location. Once 3D physical models are ordered, 3D models are generated from 2D medical scans, and are then remotely reviewed, approved and controlled by a 3D printing technician.); [0095])
Haslam, however, does not explicitly disclose that a notification is sent. Still, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such features to be obvious, as they were well established at the time of invention.
For example, Accomazzi teaches
sending, to an entity associated with the requester computer, a notification . . . (Accomazzi: [0310] (cause the notification to be transmitted to the imaging modality responsible for generating the digital image))
This known technique is applicable to the method of Haslam as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to processing medical images.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that applying the known technique of Accomazzi would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved method. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Accomazzi to the teachings of Haslam would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such notification features into similar methods. Further, applying the sending a notification to the teachings of Haslam would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would allow technicians to take action for images as needed and in a timely manner (Accomazzi: Para [0310]).
As per claim 3, Haslam/Accomazzi teach the invention of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, Haslam/Accomazzi teach wherein the instructions, when processed by the one or more processors, further cause:
receiving, from the entity, a response, . . . , that the segmented version is approved. (Haslam: [0082]-[0084] (3G/4G network that can send a receive data to Axial3D's web application); [0237] (The end-user remotely schedules, initiates or approves the printing of a 3D printable model on one or more printers via a Web application.); [0087]-[0088] (This enables remote printing of 3D anatomical models, where the printing is done in one location and controlled remotely in another location. Once 3D physical models are ordered, 3D models are generated from 2D medical scans, and are then remotely reviewed, approved and controlled by a 3D printing technician.); [0095])
receiving, from the entity, a response, to the notification, (Accomazzi: [0310] (cause the notification to be transmitted to the imaging modality responsible for generating the digital image to which the second image processing function was applied. In such a scenario, the technician does the imaging of a patient again . . . ))
The motivation for applying the known techniques of Accomazzi to the teachings of Haslam is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of Claim 2.
As per claim 4, Haslam teaches the invention of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Haslam teaches wherein:
receiving the image data is performed by a service in a first . . . network; (Haslam: Fig. 1 (10 Request 3D Print, 11 Medical Imaging (CT/MRI) – Securely Transferred to axial3D); [0076]-[0080] (Register on theAxial3D ordering platform https://orders.axial3d.com/ (10); Select New print and complete patient details such as birth date, gender, anatomical region of interest, dispatch date, anatomical model service required, material type, pathology description, lead consultant details; Send request to PACS manager or radiologist or upload DICOMS themselves (11);); [0185]-[0186] (The set of 2D medical images are images from the patient taken from one or a combination of the following: CT, MRI, PET and/or SPCET scanner.); [0082] (3G/4G network that can send a receive data to Axial3D's web application));)
receiving the second input is performed by a service in a . . . network . . . (Haslam: [0076]-[0080] (Register on theAxial3D ordering platform https://orders.axial3d.com/ (10); . . . complete patient details such as . . . anatomical region of interest, . . . , anatomical model service required, . . . , pathology description, . . . ;); [0082] (3G/4G network that can send a receive data to Axial3D's web application); [0181]-[0208] ((b) a machine learning based image segmentation technique is used to segment the generated 3D image . . . The segmentation technique is based on one or a combination of the following techniques: threshold-based, decision tree, chained decision forest or a neural network method; Voxel based classification technique is used in which voxel information from each axis or plane is taken into account. The likelihood of a voxel of the 3D image having properties similar to the patient specific anatomic feature is calculated using a logistic or probabilistic function. The neural network determines a weight for each axis or plane in a voxel of the 3D image. Segmentation technique is further improved using multi-channel training.))
Haslam, however, does not explicitly disclose that the network is a first and second cloud network. Still, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such features to be obvious, as they were well established at the time of invention.
For example, Accomazzi teaches
. . . in a first cloud network; (Accomazzi: [0031] (first cloud-based network))
. . . in a second cloud network that is different than the first cloud network. (Accomazzi: [0031] (a second cloud-based network, wherein the first cloud-based network is programmatically separate and distinct from the second cloud-based network))
This known technique is applicable to the method of Haslam as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to processing medical images.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that applying the known technique of Accomazzi would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved method. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Accomazzi to the teachings of Haslam would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such cloud network features into similar methods. Further, applying the first cloud network and second cloud network that is different than the first cloud network to the network of Haslam would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would allow users to view very bandwidth intensive images with greater accuracy, and very little lag or latency. (Accomazzi: Para [0015]).
As per claim 5, Haslam/Accomazzi teach the invention of claim 4 as set forth above. Additionally, Haslam/Accomazzi teaches wherein the instructions, when processed by the one or more processors, further cause:
storing, by the service . . . , the image data; (Haslam: Fig. 1; [0076]-[0080] (Send request to PACS manager or radiologist or upload DICOMS themselves (11); 3D annotation or written description is given of request Data is proceed by Axial3D software or personnel into a 3D printable file (12); [0237]-[0246] ((a) uploading 2D medical images to a server, (b) processing at the server the 2D medical images into a 3D printable model of the patient specific anatomic feature . . . A hash of a file corresponding to the file of the 3D printable model is created and stored within a central repository. The central repository is accessed by the server, in which the central repository is a file, a database or a distributed ledger. The hash is used to recreate or validate the printing or any subsequent printing of the 3D patient specific anatomic feature.); [0092]-[0094])
transmitting, from the service in the first cloud network, to the service in the second cloud network, a notification that includes data about the image data; wherein the request is transmitted in response to the service in the second cloud network receiving the notification. (Haslam: [0081] (SLT/OBJ of final print ready file is sent securely via a VPN to a 3D printer on site with each printer having its own wireless (13);))
. . . in the first cloud network . . . (Accomazzi: [0031] (first cloud-based network))
The motivation for applying the known techniques of Accomazzi to the teachings of Haslam is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of Claim 2.
As per claim 6, Haslam/Accomazzi teach the invention of claim 4 as set forth above. Additionally, Haslam/Accomazzi teaches wherein the instructions, when processed by the one or more processors, further cause:
receiving, from a segmenting computer, over a second computer network, at the service of the first cloud network, a download request for the image data; (Haslam: [0095]-[0096] (A service is provided that allows the download of the file and of any subsequent testing of the files for correctness.)
in response to receiving the download request, transmitting, over the second computer network, to the segmenting computer, the image data. (Haslam: [0095]-[0096] (We have implemented a system that allows for the crytographic signing of files and their subsequent distribution. The distribution of files for printing is managed by providing a decentralised file signing service. This is done by cryptographically signing the files using private/public key based encryption. This allows the verification of files by remote parties in a secure manner. A service is provided that allows the download of the file and of any subsequent testing of the files for correctness. Files can be stored on object file system like S3 along with hash of file. A ‘central’ repository of hashes then links the file to the order.))
As per claims 13-17, these claims are substantially similar to claims 2-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as these claims, as set forth above.
As per claims 21-23, these claims are substantially similar to claims 2-4, respectively, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as these claims, as set forth above.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haslam in view of Stump (US PGP 2014/0279177).
As per claim 8, Haslam teaches the invention of claim 1 as set forth above. Haslam does not explicitly disclose the following known techniques which are taught by Stump:
wherein the instructions, when processed by the one or more processors, further cause:
sending, to an entity associated with the requester computer, a notification that includes a quote for printing a 3D model based on the image data; (Stump: Fig. 4; [0005] (providing price quotes for 3D objects molded from a 3D printed mold may include providing an initial file to be uploaded to a server. The initial file can be, or can be converted to, a 3D Computer Aided Design (“CAD”) file, and parameters such as dimensional units, materials, finish, and quantity of products can be entered and/or selected. After selection of the parameters, a price quote may be generated for the product.); [0082]; [0109] (At step 1112, a price quote for the object described by the uploaded file may be generated. In some embodiments, the object may printed after the quote is generated. For example, the user may be prompted to a user interface similar to user interface 300 of FIG. 3. In this scenario, the user may proceed with attempting to purchase the object having any number of parameters selected, as previously described with relation to FIG. 3.))
receiving, through the web portal, an indication of whether a user associated with the requester computer accepts the quote. (Stump: [0005] (After selection of the parameters, a price quote may be generated for the product. In some embodiments, a checkout option may be provided so that a user may place an order for the product or products based on the received price quotes); Fig. 5; [0066]-[0067] (After a user is satisfied with their selections of parts and options based on user interface 400, the user may complete the order and/or remit payment by selecting proceed to checkout button 407. . . In some embodiments, the user may also be able to purchase or checkout with a purchase order. Upon approval from the server, the user may be able to complete the checkout for their object using their purchase order.); [0082]-[0083] (In some embodiments, the checkout option may allow the user to review the generate price quote and determine whether or not to proceed with the purchase order.))
This known technique is applicable to the method of Haslam as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to 3D printing.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that applying the known technique of Stump would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved method. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Stump to the teachings of Haslam would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such quote features into similar methods. Further, applying the sending, to an entity associated with the requester computer, a notification that includes a quote for printing a 3D model based on the image data; receiving, through the web portal, an indication of whether a user associated with the requester computer accepts the quote to the teachings of Haslam would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would allow printing 3D objects as well as 3D molding structures for rapidly creating 3D objects while accurately anticipating costs. (Stump: Para [0003]).
As per claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to claim 8 and is therefore rejected in the same manner as this claim, as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
S Byrne, N., et al. "A systematic review of image segmentation methodology, used in the additive manufacture of patient-specific 3D printed models of the cardiovascular system." JRSM cardiovascular disease 5 (2016): 2048004016645467. -- novel image segmentation procedures for patient-specific 3D printed models
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER V LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM 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, JEFFREY A. SMITH can be reached at (571)272-6763. 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.
/JENNIFER V LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights