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 .
Claims status: amended claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-22; canceled claims 16, 23-25; new claim: 26; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new primary and secondary references are currently being used in the present rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Cai et al. (US 2022/0330907 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Claus et al. disclose: A detector system for molecular imaging of a radionuclide comprising: a three-dimensional (3D) silicon detector comprising a plurality of sensor stacks (col.1 L28-32, fig.4, col.6 L13-27), wherein each sensor stack of the plurality of sensor stacks comprises a plurality of silicon sensors each comprising a plurality of pixels (fig.4, col.6 L13-27); a read-out circuitry (fig.2A item 312) connected to the pixels in the 3D silicon detector and configured to output, for each interaction induced by an incident gamma ray in the 3D silicon detector (col.12 L9-17), a signal representative of a time, a position and an energy of the interaction in the 3D silicon detector (col.13 L27-35);
Claus et al. are silent about: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: predict, based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry, the interactions in the 3D silicon detector belonging to a same event induced by the incident gamma ray; estimate, based on the predicted interactions in the 3D silicon detector belonging to the same event, a direction of the incident gamma ray inducing the same event; and reconstruct an image based on the estimated directions of incident gamma rays.
In a similar field of endeavor Cai et al. disclose: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: predict, based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry, the interactions in a 3D detector (para. [0023], [0034] teaches a layer stacked detector which means a 3D detector) belonging to a same event induced by the incident gamma ray (Abstract, para. [0060]); estimate, based on the predicted interactions in the 3D detector belonging to the same event, a direction of the incident gamma ray inducing the same event (para. [0044]); and reconstruct an image based on the estimated directions of incident gamma rays (Abstract, para. [0038]) motivated by the benefits for improved medical imaging (Cai et al. para. [0033]).
In light of the benefits for improved medical imaging as taught by Cai et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nelson et al. with the teachings of Cai et al.
Regarding claim 4, Cai et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: group interactions having a respective time, represented by the signals output by the read-out circuitry, within a defined time interval; and
predict, based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry, the interactions in the 3D detector belonging to the same event induced by the incident gamma ray among the grouped interactions (Abstract, para. [0060) motivated by the benefits for improved medical imaging (Cai et al. para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Cai et al. disclose: the interactions in the 3D detector comprise at least one Compton scatter interaction; and the read-out circuitry is configured to output, for Compton scatter interaction induced by the incident gamma ray in the 3D detector, the signal representative of the time, the position of a creation of a Compton recoil electron and the energy of the Compton recoil electron induced by the Compton scatter interaction in the 3D detector (Abstract, para. [0040]) motivated by the benefits for improved medical imaging (Cai et al. para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 7, Cai et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to sort the predicted interactions in the 3D detector belonging to the same event in an order of consecutive interactions based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry (Abstract, para. [0033]-[0034]) motivated by the benefits for improved medical imaging (Cai et al. para. [0033]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Cai et al. (US 2022/0330907 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2022) and further in view of Kastalsky et al. (US 2008/0191138 A1; pub. Aug. 14, 2008).
Regarding claim 2, the combined references are silent about: the event induced by the incident gamma ray comprises at least one Compton scatter interaction in the 3D silicon detector followed by absorption by photoelectric effect in the 3D silicon detector or escape.
In a similar field of endeavor Kastalsky et al. disclose: the event induced by the incident gamma ray comprises at least one Compton scatter interaction in the 3D detector followed by absorption by photoelectric effect in the 3D detector or escape (para. [0019]) motivated by the benefits for a detector with improved efficiency (Kastalsky et al. para. [0010]).
In light of the benefits for a detector for improved efficiency as taught by Kastalsky et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Cai et al. with the teachings of Kastalsky et al.
Regarding claim 3, Kastalsky et al. disclose: the event induced by the incident gamma ray comprises multiple Compton scatter interactions in the 3D detector followed by absorption by photoelectric effect in the 3D detector or escape (para. [0019]) motivated by the benefits for a detector with improved efficiency (Kastalsky et al. para. [0010]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Cai et al. (US 2022/0330907 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2022) in view of Teshigawara (US 2022/0104781 A1; pub. Apr. 7, 2022) and further in view of Sven et al. “Directional Recoil Detection”, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2021. 71, pg.189-224.
Regarding claim 6, the combined references are silent about: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to predict the position of the creation of the Compton recoil electron using straggling.
In a similar field of endeavor Sven et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to predict the position of the creation of the Compton recoil electron using straggling (pg.204 2nd para. pg.212 4.1., pg.215 4.4.) motivated by the benefits for improved imaging (Sven et al. pg.212 4.1).
In light of the benefits for improved imaging as taught by Sven et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nelson et al., Clinthorne and Teshigawara with the teachings of Sven et al.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Cai et al. (US 2022/0330907 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2022) and further in view of Furenlid et al. (US 2022/0211334 A1; pub. Jul. 7, 2022).
Regarding claim 8, the combined references are silent about: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to predict an initial interaction of the same event induced by the incident gamma ray track in the 3D silicon detector based on energies in the signals output by the read-out circuitry.
In a similar field of endeavor Furenlid et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to predict an initial interaction of the same event induced by the incident gamma ray track in the 3D detector based on energies in the signals output by the read-out circuitry (para. [0151]) motivated by the benefits for improved spatial resolution (Furenlid et al. para. [0151]).
In light of the benefits for improved spatial resolution as taught by Furenlid et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Cai et al. with the teachings of Furenlid et al.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Cai et al. (US 2022/0330907 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2022) and further in view of Hindi et al. (US 2008/0210875 A1; pub. Sep. 4, 2008).
Regarding claim 9, the combined references are silent about: the Compton recoil electron induces at least one electron-hole pair along an electron track in the3D silicon detector; and the detector system further comprises a charge circuitry configured to estimate the energy of the Compton recoil electron based on charges induced by the at least one electron-hole pair along the electron track.
In a similar field of endeavor Hindi et al. disclose: the Compton recoil electron induces at least one electron-hole pair along an electron track in the 3D detector; and the detector system further comprises a charge circuitry configured to estimate the energy of the Compton recoil electron based on charges induced by the at least one electron-hole pair along the electron track (para. [0060]) motivated by the benefits for improved gamma ray detection (Hindi et al. para. [0006]).
In light of the benefits for improved gamma ray detection as taught by Hindi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Cai et al. with the teachings of Hindi et al.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Cai et al. (US 2022/0330907 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2022) and further in view of Clinthorne (US 6,323,492 B1; pub. Nov. 27, 2001)
Regarding claim 10, the combined references are silent about: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: compare an estimated energy of a gamma ray with a reference energy defined based on the radionuclide; and
reject a gamma ray as being Compton scattered in an object to be imaged if the estimated energy differs from the reference energy with more than a minimum amount.
In a similar field of endeavor Clinthorne discloses: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: compare an estimated energy of a gamma ray with a reference energy defined based on the radionuclide; and
reject a gamma ray as being Compton scattered in an object to be imaged if the estimated energy differs from the reference energy with more than a minimum amount (col.6 L61-67 – col.7 L1-7) motivated by the benefits for an improved Compton camera which increases its spatial resolution by reducing the uncertainty of the scattering angle (Clinthorne col.2 L64-66).
In light of the benefits for an improved Compton camera which increases its spatial resolution by reducing the uncertainty of the scattering angle as taught by Clinthorne, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Cai et al. with the teachings of Clinthorne
Claims 11-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Cai et al. (US 2022/0330907 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2022) and further in view of Polf et al. (US 2019/0094390 A1; pub. Mar. 28, 2019).
Regarding claim 11, the combined references are silent about: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to predict, based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry, the interactions in the 3D silicon detector belonging to the same event induced by the incident gamma ray in the 3D silicon detector by imposing kinematic constraints on a Compton scattered gamma ray.
In a similar field of endeavor Polf et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to predict, based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry, the interactions in the 3D detector belonging to the same event induced by the incident gamma ray in the 3D detector by imposing kinematic constraints on a Compton scattered gamma ray (para. [0097]) motivated by the benefits for improved medical imaging (Polf et al. para. [0009]).
In light of the benefits for improved medical imaging as taught by Polf et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Cai et al. with the teachings of Polf et al.
Regarding claim 12, Polf et al. disclose: the interactions in the 3D semiconductor detector comprise at least one Compton scatter interaction; and
the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
estimate, based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry and for each Compton scatter interaction in the 3D detector, a momentum of a Compton recoil electron induced by the Compton scatter interaction in the 3D detector; and
calculate a kinematic constraint for the Compton scatter interaction based on the estimated momentum of the Compton recoil electron (para. [0097]) motivated by the benefits for improved medical imaging (Polf et al. para. [0009]).
Regarding claim 14, Polf et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to calculate an opening angle of a constrained cone based on the estimated momentum of the Compton recoil electron; and
the constrained cone restricts the volume in the 3D detector, within which a next interaction belonging to the same event induced by the incident gamma ray is allowed to take place (para. [0097]) motivated by the benefits for improved medical imaging (Polf et al. para. [0009]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Cai et al. (US 2022/0330907 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2022) in view of Polf et al. (US 2019/0094390 A1; pub. Mar. 28, 2019) and further in view of Suhami (US 2006/0202125 A1; pub. Sep. 14, 2006).
Regarding claim 13, the combined references are silent about: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to estimate, based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry and for each Compton scatter interaction in the 3D silicon detector, the momentum of the Compton recoil electron by linear fit.
In a similar field of endeavor Suhami discloses: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to estimate, based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry and for each Compton scatter interaction in the 3D detector, the momentum of the Compton recoil electron by linear fit (para. [0312]) motivated by the benefits for a cost-effective device.
In light of the benefits for a cost-effective device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al., Cai et al. and Polf et al. with the teachings of Suhami.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Cai et al. (US 2022/0330907 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2022) and further in view of Behar et al. (US 2022/0268953 A1; pub. Aug. 25, 2022).
Regarding claim 15, the combined references are silent about: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to
estimate the direction of the incident gamma ray by a maximum likelihood estimation based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry for the predicted interactions in the 3D silicon detector belonging to the same event induced by the incident gamma ray.
In a similar field of endeavor Behar et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to estimate the direction of the incident gamma ray by a maximum likelihood estimation based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry for the predicted interactions in the detector belonging to the same event induced by the incident gamma ray (para. [0062]) motivated by the benefits for reduced sampling error.
In light of the benefits for reduced sampling error, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Cai et al. with the teachings of Behar et al.
Claims 17 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Cai et al. (US 2022/0330907 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2022) and further in view of Tumer et al. (US 2009/0290680 A1; pub. Nov. 26, 2009).
Regarding claim 17, the combined references are silent about: the plurality of silicon sensors comprises complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) electronics comprising an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) comprising analogue to digital converts (ADCs) and the read-out circuitry.
In a similar field of endeavor Tumer et al. disclose: the plurality of silicon sensors comprises complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) electronics (para. [0073], [0084], [0176]) comprising an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) comprising analogue to digital converts (ADCs) and the read-out circuitry (para. [0073], [0084], [0176]) motivated by the benefits for a compact device (Tumer et al. para. [0176]).
In light of the benefits for a compact device as taught by Tumer et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Cai et al. with the teachings of Tumer et al.
Regarding claim 20, Tumer et al. disclose: external field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) interconnected between i) the 3D silicon detector and/or the read-out circuitry and ii) the at least one processor and/or the at least one memory (para. [0047]) motivated by the benefits for a compact device (Tumer et al. para. [0176]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Cai et al. (US 2022/0330907 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2022) in view of Tumer et al. (US 2009/0290680 A1; pub. Nov. 26, 2009) and further in view of Schmand et al. (US 2010/0074396 A1; pub. Mar. 25, 2010).
Regarding claim 18, the combined references are silent about: each silicon sensor of the plurality of silicon sensors is a monolithic silicon semiconductor sensor integrating the CMOS electronics and the plurality of pixels on the monolithic silicon sensor.
In a similar field of endeavor Schmand et al. disclose: each silicon sensor of the plurality of silicon sensors is a monolithic silicon semiconductor sensor integrating the CMOS electronics and the plurality of pixels on the monolithic silicon sensor (para. [0035]-[0037]) motivated by the benefits for a compact and cost-effective device.
In light of the benefits for a compact device as taught by Tumer et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Cai et al. with the teachings of Tumer et al.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Cai et al. (US 2022/0330907 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2022) in view of Tumer et al. (US 2009/0290680 A1; pub. Nov. 26, 2009) and further in view of Orava et al. (US 2011/0095193 A1; pub. Apr. 28, 2011).
Regarding claim 19, the combined references are silent about: each silicon sensor of the plurality of silicon sensors is a hybrid silicon sensor comprising the CMOS electronics flip chipped at a side of the plurality of pixels in the silicon sensor.
In a similar field of endeavor Orava et al. disclose: each silicon sensor of the plurality of silicon sensors is a hybrid silicon sensor comprising the CMOS electronics flip chipped (fig.13 item 107, para. [0120]) at a side of the plurality of pixels (fig.13 item 106) in the silicon sensor (para. [0058]) motivated by the benefits for a detector with fast charge collection and with excellent radiation hardness (Orava et al. para. [0014]).
In light of the benefits for a detector with fast charge collection and with excellent radiation hardness as taught by Orava et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Cai et al. with the teachings of Orava et al.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Cai et al. (US 2022/0330907 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2022) and further in view of Lee (US 4,529,882; pub. Jul. 16, 1985).
Regarding claim 21, the combined references are silent about: the plurality of silicon sensors has a cross section for Compton scattering of more than 40 % at 140 keV.
In a similar field of endeavor Lee discloses: the plurality of silicon sensors has a cross section for Compton scattering of more than 40 % at 140 keV (col.10 L62-68) motivated by the benefits for accurately measuring the position and energy of gamma rays.
In light of the benefits for accurately measuring the position and energy of gamma rays, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Cai et al. with the teachings of Lee.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Cai et al. (US 2022/0330907 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2022) and further in view of Barrett et al. (US 2017/0343460 A1; pub. Nov. 30, 2017).
Regarding claim 22, the combined references are silent about: a field applying device configured to apply an electric field at least partly over the 3D silicon detector so that the silicon sensors in the 3D silicon detector are at least partly depleted.
In a similar field of endeavor Barrett et al. disclose: a field applying device configured to apply an electric field at least partly over the 3D silicon detector so that the silicon sensors in the 3D silicon detector are at least partly depleted (para. [0023], [0077], [0087) motivated by the benefits for a fast gamma ray camera with negligible spatial pileup (Barrett et al. para. [0022]).
In light of the benefits for a fast gamma ray camera with negligible spatial pileup as taught by Barrett et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Cai et al. with the teachings of Barrett et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 26, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious:
PNG
media_image1.png
372
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights