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 .
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 11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the notch" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-17 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Divine et al. (US Pub No. 2016/0081635) in view of Mu (US Pub No. 2020/0146641), as evidenced by Mu.
With regards to claims 1 and 20, Divine et al. discloses a single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging system (paragraphs [0002], [0011], referring to the imaging systems combining CT with Nuclear Medicine (NM) Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) system; paragraph [0049], referring to the medical imaging system being a SPECT imaging scanner that includes a plurality of detectors with a combination of different types of detectors that acquire SPECT and CT image information) comprising:
a detector including detecting modules (22, 320) arranged along a circumference direction of an imaging apparatus (20, 310) and configured to form an accommodation space (i.e central space of gantry (21/310) as depicted in Figures 2 and 20) (paragraph [0049], referring to providing a Nuclear Medicine (NM) imaging system, such as a SPECT imaging scanner, that includes a plurality of detectors with a combination of different types of detectors that acquire SPECT and CT image information; paragraphs [0052], [0054], [0062], referring to the dual CT/SPECT detector columns (22a-22f); paragraphs [0096], [0099], referring to the detectors (320) being oriented to receive “emission radiation” from the object (302) and “The detectors 320 may be generally similar in certain respects to detectors discussed in connection with other embodiments herein”; Figures 2-3, 17, 20); and
a collimator (26) including collimating modules (i.e. 26a-26f) are arranged along the circumference direction and configured to rotate around an axis of the accommodation space that is perpendicular to the circumference direction (paragraphs [0054], [0056], referring to each of the detector columns (22) having a corresponding collimator (26a-26f) mounted or coupled thereto; paragraph [0057], referring to the movement controller (30) controlling movement of the detector columns (22) such as to rotate or orbit the detector columns (22) around a patient (24), wherein such a rotation of the detector columns (22) would provide a rotation of the corresponding collimating modules which are coupled/mounted to the detector columns (22); paragraphs [0062]-[0063], referring to the detector column (22) comprising a detector head (50) which includes detector elements (54) and collimator (56); Figures 2-3, 20); paragraphs [0096], [0099], [0145], referring to the above described embodiments and aspects thereof may be used in combination with each other; Figures 2-3, 10, 17, 20-24),
wherein one of the collimating modules includes multiple collimating units (paragraph [0054], referring to the one or more detector columns (22) being coupled to a different type of collimator (26), “e.g. parallel hole, pin-hole, fan-beam, cone-beam, etc.”, wherein it is well known in the art that parallel-hole, fan-beam, cone-beam types of collimators are inherently defined by multiple collimating units formed by the different collimating segments/portions separated by holes/apertures [note that this is further evidenced by Mu, which describes in paragraph [0028] a fan-beam/cone-beam/parallel hole/pin-hole type of collimator as comprising a plurality of holes (i.e. parallel, fan beams, pinholes, etc.), thus resulting in “multiple collimating units” corresponding to collimator portions that are separated by the fan-beams/cone-beams/parallel holes/pin-holes),
the multiple collimating units are arranged along the circumference direction, each of the multiple collimating units is switched between an effective state (i.e. “active” state corresponding to an active detector column [which includes the collimator]) and an invalid state (i.e. “inactive” state corresponding to an inactive detector column [which includes the collimator]) via a rotation of the collimator around the axis of the accommodation space (paragraphs [0071]-[0077], referring to the system detecting which detector columns may be best for a specific scan (i.e. step 104), wherein adjustments which include (step 110) adjusting the orbital location (i.e. via rotation of the detector column(s)) of one or more detector columns radially around the circumference of the bore are made according to the information developed in step (104) or step (118), wherein for NM imaging by detecting emission data from within a subject, some or all of the detector columns may be activated for step (116), which comprise of performing adjustments if needed, including the rotation of the detector columns, and thus comprising a corresponding rotation of the collimator which is coupled/mounted to the detector columns; in particular, see paragraph [0076] which sets forth the x-ray tube (66) moving around the circumference of the gantry such that the fan beam includes an inactive column (64), the system can change the column into an active column (66), which can operate in dual acquisition mode such that the detector column can acquire both x-ray and emission information; paragraph [0068], referring to both detector columns (62) and x-ray tube (68) being attached to the gantry via a rotatory member (70), and thus the detector columns [comprising the collimators] would rotate with the rotation of the x-ray tube, etc; paragraphs [0066]-[0067], referring to active detector columns and inactive detector columns; paragraphs [0081]-[0082], referring to the gaps existing between the image detectors, wherein gap angles (inside the beam but not hitting a detector) can be calculated and the system can instruct an adaptive collimator to block transmission to the gap angles; paragraphs [0103]-[0122]; Figures 2-3, 5-8, 17 and 20).
However, Divine et al. do not specifically disclose that the multiple collimating units included in the one of the collimating modules are in “different configurations”.
Mu discloses a medical imaging system including collimators (112, 122) which have openings (113, 123) having irregular shapes, wherein the collimators increases imaging sensitivity while reducing noise (Abstract; paragraphs [0018]-[0019], [0026]-[0027]). For example, an opening (113) may have a different width from another opening (113), and an opening (123) may have a different width from another opening (123) (paragraph [0026], note that the different widths amongst the openings corresponds to the collimating module (i.e. 112) including multiple collimating units (i.e. collimator portions separated by the openings (113)) being in “different configurations” due to the different widths amongst the openings and/or openings having irregular shapes, etc.; Figures 1-3). An opening (113) or (123) itself may have a varying width (paragraph [0026]). The allowable pass-through angles of radiation may be controlled by tailoring various parameters such as length, size, shape, and tilt orientation of each opening (113, 123) (paragraph [0027]). Openings (113, 123) may have any suitable shape, size, number and/or distribution within their respective collimators, wherein the openings (113) may include parallel holes, fan beams, con beams, slit-slat, pinholes, multi-pinholes, or any other suitably shaped openings, or combinations thereof (paragraph [0028]). The imaging modality used by the imaging system may include SPECT (paragraph [0034]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the multiple collimating units included in the one of the collimating modules of Divine et al. be in “different configurations”, as taught by Mu, in order to control the allowable pass-through angles of radiation by tailoring various parameters such as length, size, shape, and tilt orientation of each opening, thereby increasing imaging sensitivity while reducing noise (paragraphs [0018]-[0019], [0027]).
With regards to claim 2, as discussed above, the above combined references meet the limitations of claim 1. However, the above combined references do not specifically disclose that the multiple collimating units include a first portion and a second portion, and when the first portion of the multiple collimating units is in the effective state, the second portion of the multiple collimating units is in the invalid state. Mu discloses that the system may include a FOV restrictor (418) and/or one or more radiation shielding devices, including 416 and 418, which may block radiation from hitting the collimator (422), which may have multiple pinholes capable of receiving photons with a wide incident angle range, thus restricting the FOV of the collimator (122) (paragraphs [0046]-[0047]; Figure 4, note that the devices (416,418) thus result in the multiple collimating units (i.e. pinholes/elements between pinholes of collimator) would thus include a first portion (i.e. unblocked portion considered to be in the “effective” state) and a second portion (i.e. blocked/shielded portion considered to be in the ”invalid” state)). The position of an FOV restrictor (418) may change during imaging, for example, in combination with imager motion, which includes a rotating motion (paragraphs [0046], [0049]; Figure 4). Imager (110) may also act as an FOV limiter, which limits the area that can be seen by collimator (122) (paragraph [0033]). For example, imager (110) may partially block the FOV of one or more openings (123) that are disposed closest to imager (110) (paragraph [0033], note that this may also result in a first portion of the multiple collimating units being in the effective state (i.e. unblocked state) and a second portion being in the invalid state (i.e. blocked state); Figure 2). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the multiple collimating units of the above combined references include a first portion and a second portion, and when the first portion of the multiple collimating units is in the effective state, the second portion of the multiple collimating units is in the invalid state, as taught by Mu, in order to effectively restrict the FOV of the collimator, thereby not allowing undesired photons to pass through which may increase noise (paragraphs [0018], [0046]-[0047]).
With regards to claim 3, Mu discloses that in the effective state, a projection (i.e. B1, B2) of the first portion of the multiple collimating units along a radial direction on the detector is located within a detecting module corresponding to the collimating module, and in the invalid state, a projection (i.e. C1) of the second portion of the multiple collimating units along the radial direction on the detector is located within one or more gaps (i.e. gaps between the detectors (114)) each of which is between two adjacent detecting modules (114)) (paragraphs [0033]-[0034], referring to the blocking of the FOV and allowing radiation in certain directions to pass through the collimators to reach a certain position on the detectors; Figure 2).
With regards to claim 4, Mu discloses that each of the collimating modules corresponds to one of the detecting modules, in the effective state (i.e. unblocked state), a radiation ray passing through the first portion of the multiple collimating units is irradiated on the detecting module corresponding to the collimating module, in the invalid state (i.e. blocked state), a radiation ray passing through one collimating unit of the second portion of the multiple collimating units is irradiated in one of the one or more gaps (i.e. gaps between the detectors (114)) each of which is between two adjacent detecting modules (114)) each of which is between the detecting module and the adjacent detecting module (paragraphs [0033]-[0034], referring to the blocking of the FOV and allowing radiation in certain directions to pass through the collimators to reach a certain position on the detectors; Figure 2).
With regards to claim 5, Divine et al. disclose that a projection, along a radial direction, of each of any two of the multiple collimating units on the detector is independent (paragraphs [0053]-[0056], referring to the collimators (26a-26f) which may be parallel hole, pin-hole, fan-beam, cone-beam, etc., and thus inherently have multiple holes/openings which are independent/non-overlapping from one another and thus a projection along a radial direction of each of any two of the multiple collimating units will be independent as well; Figure 2). Mu further discloses this (see Figure 2, wherein the openings/holes of the collimators (112, 122) are independent/non-overlapping).
With regards to claim 6, Divine et al. disclose a gap being involved between adjacent detecting modules among the detecting modules, a length of the gap along the circumference direction exceeds a length of a collimating module (26a-26f) along the circumference direction (paragraph [0056], referring to the system having two or more detector columns (22) and each detector column (22) having a collimator (26), wherein if there are only two detector columns (22), such as only 22(c) and 22(f) (see Figure 2), then it would inherently clear that the gap between the two detecting modules (22(c), 22(f); see Figure 2) exceeds a length of the collimating module (i.e. 26c, 26f) along the circumference direction; Figure 2). Alternatively, with regards to the length of the gap along the circumference direction exceeding a length of a collimating module along the circumference direction, if it is not viewed inherent that this limitation is disclosed, Divine et al. further disclose that the position of the detector columns (22) may be varied, including the relative position (i.e. gap) between detector columns (22), and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to modify the length of the gap between the detector columns, including to adopt a length that exceeds a length of a collimating module along the circumference direction, in order to determine the optimal relative position between the detector columns that provides a desired imaging sensitivity.
With regards to claim 7, Mu discloses that a gap exists between adjacent detecting modules (114, 114) among the detecting modules, a length of the gap along the circumference direction exceeds a length of the second portion (i.e. 122 or portion of 122) of the multiple collimating units along the circumference direction (paragraphs [0032]-[0034]; Figure 2, note that the gap between the detectors (114) has a length that exceeds a length of the collimator (122)).
With regards to claim 8, Mu discloses that when the first portion of the multiple collimating units is in an edge region of the collimating module and in the effective state, the projection of the second portion of the multiple collimating units along a radial direction on the detector is located within one single gap between a detecting module among the detecting modules corresponding to the collimating module and an adjacent detecting module (paragraphs [0033]-[0034]; Figures 2, 4, in particular, note the radiation associated with the collimating units which are in an edge/peripheral region of the collimating module).
With regards to claim 9, Mu disclose that when the first portion of the multiple collimating units is in a middle region of the collimating module and in the effective state, the second portion of the multiple collimating units is in two edges region (i.e. top/side edges) of the collimating module, the projection of the second portion of the multiple collimating units along the radial direction on the detector is located within two gaps each of which is between a detecting module corresponding to the collimating module and an adjacent detecting module (paragraphs [0033]-[0034], [0043]-[0047]; Figures 2, 4, note, for example, Figure 4B, which depicts two gaps each of which is between the detecting module (414) and adjacent detecting module (414, 424)).
With regards to claims 11 and 12, the limitations “wherein the notch is used for calibration of each of the detecting modules by rotating the collimator to cause the projection of the notch along a radial direction to cover each of the detecting modules” and “wherein when one of the multiple collimating units is in the effective state, the collimator is driven to rotate an angle based on a sampling rate of the imaging system” are directed to an intended use and/or manner of operating the claimed apparatus/system. Examiner notes that the claims are directed to an apparatus/system, wherein the system is set forth as comprising a detector and a collimator but does not positively set forth a structure for performing the recited calibration or a structure for driving the collimator. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Since the system of Divine et al. includes a processor (32) that is capable of performing any type of processing, including the recited calibration and further comprises a movement controller (30) which is capable of driving the collimator to rotate at any angle, including the recited angle (paragraphs [0059]-[0060], [0063], [0084]), and/or the system of Divine is capable of being used for any function, including the functions set forth in claims 11-12, the system of Divine et al. meet the above limitations.
With regards to claim 13, Divine et al. disclose the imaging system further includes a rotation transmission apparatus configured to drive the collimator to rotate, the rotation transmission apparatus including a rotating support (184, 194, 312) and a driving component (30), the collimating modules are arranged on the rotating support, and the driving component is configured to drive the rotating support to rotate (paragraph [0089], referring to the rotary member 184), wherein the image detectors (and thus the collimators (26a-26f)) are attached to the rotary member; paragraph [0090], [0100], referring to the rotatory member (194); paragraph [0057], referring to the movement controller (30) that operates to control the movement of the x-ray source and other moving parts in the gantry, such as its rotary member; paragraph [0129]; Figures 2, 16-17, 20).
With regards to claim 14, Divine et al. disclose that the rotation transmission apparatus further includes a positioning component (i.e. positional sensor) configured to determine positions of the collimator modules (paragraphs [0127]-[0128], referring to the position of the x-ray source being determined using an associated positional sensor, wherein the detectors positions may be determined as a function of the x-ray source rotational position, and thus the position of the collimator modules (26a-26f), which are part of the detectors, is ultimately determined based on the positioning component).
With regards to claim 15, Divine et al. disclose that a configuration of the one of the multiple collimating units is defined by one or more structure parameters including at least one of an aperture of a hole in the one of the multiple collimating units, a length of the hole, a taper angle of the hole, each of the multiple collimating units corresponds to one imaging requirement on one or more imaging parameters (paragraph [0054], referring to the collimator (26a-f) being a parallel-hole, pin-hole, fan-beam, cone-beam, etc., type, and thus the one of the multiple collimating units is defined by at least one of an aperture of a hole in the one of the multiple collimating units; further, the collimators are used for imaging and therefore each of the collimating units corresponds to one imaging requirement on one or more imaging paramters). Mu further discloses this (see Figures 2 and 4, wherein the collimators includes at least one of an aperture of a hole, etc.).
With regards to claim 16, Divine et al. disclose that the multiple collimating units include a first collimating unit and a second collimating unit, the first collimating unit corresponds to a first field of view (FOV), and the second collimating unit corresponds to a second FOV that is different than the first FOV (paragraphs [0049], [0054]-[0056], referring to the detectors having different collimation, and therefore having different FOVs and referring to one detector obtaining information for an entire FOV while another detector combination is configured to focus on a smaller ROI, and thus different FOVs are acquired with the respective collimators; Figure 2). Mu et al. further disclose this limitation (paragraphs [0043]-[0047], referring to the FOV restrictors which would provide the different FOVs; Figures 2, 4, referring to, for example, FOV1, FOV2).
With regards to claim 17, Divine et al. disclose that the multiple collimating units include a third collimating unit corresponding to a third FOV and a center of the third FOV is misalign with a center of a circumference plane where the third collimating unit is located (paragraphs [0054]-[0056], referring to the collimators (26a-26f) corresponding to a different type of collimator, e.g., parallel hole, pin-hole, fan-beam, cone-beam, etc., wherein such collimators comprise a plurality of holes which can be divided into three portions such that a third collimating unit can correspond to a third FOV as claimed). Mu further discloses this limitation (paragraphs [0043]-[0047], referring to the FOV restrictors which would provide the different FOVs, including the third FOV as claimed; Figures 2, 4, referring to, for example, FOV1, FOV2).
With regards to claim 21, Mu discloses that the collimator includes a notch (i.e openings/holes in the collimator or the gap between the collimators (112)) between two adjacent collimating modules (i.e. portions of the collimator adjacent to the openings/holes and/or collimators (112S, 112l)), a distance between the two adjacent collimating modules (i.e. 112S, 112l) is greater than a length of a detecting module (i.e. 124 or 114) along the circumferential direction, a projection of the notch along a radial direction covers the detecting module, such that radiation rays passing through the notch is irradiated on the detecting module (paragraphs [0030]-[0037], [0043]-[0048]; see Figure 2, wherein a projection of the opening portion (i.e. notch) of the collimator (114, 122) at least partially covers the associated detecting module (i.e. 114 or 124), wherein if a radiation ray did pass through the notch, such a radiation ray would irradiate on the detecting module (114 or 124); Figures 2, 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 11-17 and 20-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are directed to the source collimator of Divine. However, Examiner is no longer referring to the source collimator (340) of Divine as corresponding to the claimed collimator. Instead, Examiner is now referring to the collimators (26a-26f) of Divine as corresponding to the collimator, etc., wherein Divine explicitly discloses that the system corresponds to a SPECT imaging system, as is now claimed, and wherein the collimators (26a-26f) of Divine et al. are configured to collimate radiation rays emitted from a subject reaching the detector, etc. (paragraphs [0054], [0056], referring to each of the detector columns (22) having a corresponding collimator (26a-26f) mounted or coupled thereto; paragraph [0049], referring to providing a Nuclear Medicine (NM) imaging system, such as a SPECT imaging scanner, that includes a plurality of detectors with a combination of different types of detectors that acquire SPECT and CT image information; paragraphs [0052], [0054], [0062], referring to the dual CT/SPECT detector columns (22a-22f); paragraphs [0096], [0099], referring to the detectors (320) being oriented to receive “emission radiation” from the object (302) and “The detectors 320 may be generally similar in certain respects to detectors discussed in connection with other embodiments herein”; Figures 2-3, 17, 20). Divine further discloses that the multiple collimating units are arranged along the circumference direction, each of the multiple collimating units is switched between an effective state (i.e. “active” state corresponding to an active detector column [which includes the collimator]) and an invalid state (i.e. “inactive” state corresponding to an inactive detector column [which includes the collimator]) via a rotation of the collimator around the axis of the accommodation space (paragraphs [0071]-[0077], referring to the system detecting which detector columns may be best for a specific scan (i.e. step 104), wherein adjustments which include (step 110) adjusting the orbital location (i.e. via rotation of the detector column(s)) of one or more detector columns radially around the circumference of the bore are made according to the information developed in step (104) or step (118), wherein for NM imaging by detecting emission data from within a subject, some or all of the detector columns may be activated for step (116), which comprise of performing adjustments if needed, including the rotation of the detector columns, and thus comprising a corresponding rotation of the collimator which is coupled/mounted to the detector columns; in particular, see paragraph [0076] which sets forth the x-ray tube (66) moving around the circumference of the gantry such that the fan beam includes an inactive column (64), the system can change the column into an active column (66), which can operate in dual acquisition mode such that the detector column can acquire both x-ray and emission information; paragraph [0068], referring to both detector columns (62) and x-ray tube (68) being attached to the gantry via a rotatory member (70), and thus the detector columns [comprising the collimators] would rotate with the rotation of the x-ray tube, etc; paragraphs [0066]-[0067], referring to active detector columns and inactive detector columns; paragraphs [0081]-[0082], referring to the gaps existing between the image detectors, wherein gap angles (inside the beam but not hitting a detector) can be calculated and the system can instruct an adaptive collimator to block transmission to the gap angles; paragraphs [0103]-[0122]; Figures 2-3, 5-8, 17 and 20). Mu has further been introduced to teach multiple collimating units in the different configurations and is further relied upon to teach claim 21.
With regards to claim 21, Examiner notes that Mu is now relied upon to teach the “notch” limitation and thus Applicant’s arguments directed to Divine is moot. However, it is noted that Applicant argues that Divine does not disclose that the projection of the opening can “completely cover” a detector. Examiner notes that claim 21 currently does not set forth that the projection of the notch “completely” covers the detecting module and therefore Mu is considered to disclose that the projection of the notch “covers” the detecting module as the projection of the notch at least partially covers the detecting module. Mu may further be considered to teach that the notch (i.e. spacing between adjacent collimators (112)) completely covers the detecting module (124) (associated with collimator (122) (see Figure 2), though this is not a requirement of the claims as currently set forth.
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 KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (ET).
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798