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, 11, 15; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in pg.9 of the remarks that Scoullar et al. do not teach the digitization itself is carried out free of a clock signal. The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the detector signal is analog) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2145(VI). Applicant argues analog-to-digital conversion "typically" requires a clock signal and that Scoullar et al. teach an embodiment wherein a clock signal is used to perform analog-to-digital conversion. While Applicant's specification describes performing analog-to-digital conversion without a clock signal, claim 1 does not recite that the detector signal is analog. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes the claimed digitization step as being a part of the overall digitization process, such that analog-to-digital conversion may be performed in a different digitization step. Scoullar does not disclose using a clock signal for the limitations described in the rejection. As Scoullar et al. teach the transferring step as claimed, and do not teach using a clock signal for performing the transferring step as claimed, the rejection is maintained and made final.
para. [0013] of the specification of the present applicant teaches that the digitalization is free of clock and carried out by a digital pulse processor. Para. [0072] of Scoullar et al. teaches a digital pulse processor which is similar to the device described in para. [0013] of the specification. The digital pulse processor of Scoullar et al. should cable of a digitalization that is free of clock.Therefore, the rejection is maintained and made final.
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, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212273 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Scouller et al. disclose in a first method: A method for processing a detector signal comprising a sequence of signal peaks, the method comprising:
a digitization step (para. [0006], [0008])
wherein, in the digitization step,
- the detector signal is processed and binned in at least one region of interest depending on an area of the signal peaks (para. [0019], [0052]), and
- at least one number of counts is determined by a counter, wherein the number of counts corresponds to a number of signal peaks in the region of interest (para. [0052]).
In the first the method Scouller et al. are silent about: a transferring step, in the transferring step, the numbers of counts is provided as an output signal, and wherein during the digitization step the method is free of a clock signal.
In a further method Scouller et al. disclose: a transferring step, in the transferring step, the numbers of counts is provided as an output signal, and wherein during the digitization step the method is free of a clock signal (para. [0450]-[0451], [0468]) motivated by the benefits for accurate detection (Scouller et al. para. [0451]).
In light of the benefits for accurate detection as taught by Scouller 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 combine the two methods of Scouller et al.
Regarding claim 10, Scouller et al. disclose: the detector signal is provided by at least one silicon drift detector (para. [0142]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212273 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019) in view of Scott et al. (US 2003/0058440 A1; pub. Mar. 27, 2003).
Regarding claim 2, Scouller et al. are silent about: the clock signal is provided exclusively during the transferring step.
In a similar field of endeavor Scott et al. disclose: the clock signal is provided exclusively during the transferring step (para. [0037]) motivated by benefits for improved detection accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improved detection accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Scouller et al. with the teachings of Scott et al.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212273 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019) in view of Kolber (US 4,566,110; pub. Jan. 21, 1986).
Regarding claim 3, Scouller et al. are silent about: in the transferring step, a reset signal is provided such that during provision of the reset signal, the counter is terminated and the output signal is provided.
In a similar field of endeavor Kolber discloses: in the transferring step, a reset signal is provided such that during provision of the reset signal, the counter is terminated and the output signal is provided (col.8 L59-68) motivated by the benefits for improving detection accuracy (Kolber col.3 L44-52).
In light of the benefits for improving detection accuracy as taught by Kolber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Scouller et al. with the teachings of Kolber.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212273 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019) in view of Kolber (US 4,566,110; pub. Jan. 21, 1986) and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2003/0033097 A1; pub. Feb. 13, 2003).
Regarding claim 4, the combined references are silent about: the reset signal is provided for a reset time, and wherein the reset time is determined by a period for resetting an integration unit or by a period for providing the output signal.
In a similar field of endeavor Tanaka et al. disclose: the reset signal is provided for a reset time, and wherein the reset time is determined by a period for resetting an integration unit or by a period for providing the output signal (para. [0091]) motivated by the benefits for measuring signal pulse energy which are capable of accurately and precisely measuring the energies of individual signal pulses even at high count rates (Tanaka et al. para. [0014]).
In light of the benefits for measuring signal pulse energy which are capable of accurately and precisely measuring the energies of individual signal pulses even at high count rates as taught by Tanaka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Scouller et al. and Kolber with the teachings of Tanaka et al.
Claims 7 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212273 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019) in view of Dierickx (US 2012/0305786 A1; pub. Dec. 2012).
Regarding claim 7, Scouller et al. are silent about: in the digitization step, the detector signal is processed to an integrated signal by integrating the detector signal by an integration unit, the integrated signal is processed to a shaped signal comprising a plurality of shaped peaks by a shaping unit, the shaped signal is binned in at least one region of interest depending on a height of the shaped peaks by comparing the height of each of the shaped peaks to at least one upper interest level defining the region of interest by a comparator, and the number of counts corresponding to the region of interest is increased for every shaped peak whose height is in the region of interest by the counter.
In a similar field of endeavor Dierickx discloses: in the digitization step, the detector signal is processed to an integrated signal by integrating the detector signal by an integration unit (fig.2 item 22), the integrated signal is processed to a shaped signal comprising a plurality of shaped peaks by a shaping unit (fig.2 item 21), the shaped signal is binned in at least one region of interest depending on a height of the shaped peaks by comparing the height of each of the shaped peaks to at least one upper interest level defining the region of interest by a comparator (para. [0021]-[0022]), and the number of counts corresponding to the region of interest is increased for every shaped peak whose height is in the region of interest by the counter (para. [0021]-[0023], [0029]) motivated by the benefits for a noise free radiation detection (Dierickx para. [0068]).
In light of the benefits for a noise free radiation detection as taught by Dierickx, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Scouller et al. with the teachings of Dierickx.
Regarding claim 11, Scouller et al. are silent about: A detection module comprising: an evaluation unit comprising: an integration unit configured to process the detection signal, comprising a plurality of signal peaks, to an integrated signal by integrating the detection signal; a shaping unit configured to process the integrated signal to a shaped signal comprising a plurality of shaped peaks; a comparator configured to compare a height of each of the shaped peaks to at least two upper interest level defining the at least one region of interest; the counter configured to increase the number of counts corresponding to the region of interest for every shaped peak whose height is in the region of interest; a storage configured to store the number of counts of the region of interest; and an output configured to output the number of counts as the output signal wherein the detection module is configured to perform the method of claim 1.
In a similar field of endeavor Dierickx discloses: A detection module comprising: an evaluation unit comprising: an integration unit (fig.2 item 22) configured to process the detection signal, comprising a plurality of signal peaks, to an integrated signal by integrating the detection signal; a shaping unit (fig.2 item 21) configured to process the integrated signal to a shaped signal comprising a plurality of shaped peaks (para. [0021]-[0022]); a comparator configured to compare a height of each of the shaped peaks to at least two upper interest level defining the at least one region of interest (para. [0021]-[0022]); the counter configured to increase the number of counts corresponding to the region of interest for every shaped peak whose height is in the region of interest (para. [0021]-[0023], [0029]); a storage configured to store the number of counts of the region of interest (para. [0021]-[0023]); and an output configured to output the number of counts as the output signal (para. [0021]-[0023], [0029]) wherein the detection module is configured to perform the method of claim 1 motivated by the benefits for a noise free radiation detection (Dierickx para. [0068]).
In light of the benefits for a noise free radiation detection as taught by Dierickx, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Scouller et al. with the teachings of Dierickx.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212273 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019) in view of Dierickx (US 2012/0305786 A1; pub. Dec. 2012) and further in view of Zhao (US 2003/0232102 A1; pub. Dec. 18, 2003).
Regarding claim 8, the combined references are silent about: the integrated signal comprises a plurality of steps, wherein each step corresponds to a signal peak of the detection signal, and wherein a height of each step corresponds to an area of the corresponding signal peak.
In a similar field of endeavor Zhao discloses: the integrated signal comprises a plurality of steps, wherein each step corresponds to a signal peak of the detection signal, and wherein a height of each step corresponds to an area of the corresponding signal peak (para. [0249]) motivated by the benefits for improved detection accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improved detection accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Scouller et al. and Dierickx with the teachings of Zhao.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212273 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019) in view of Kotov et al. (US 2024/0014337 A1; pub. Jan. 11, 2024) and further in view of Daerr et al. (US 2016/0076935 A1; pub. Mar. 17, 2016).
Regarding claim 9, Scouller et al. are silent about: in the digitization step, the detector signal is processed to an integrated signal by integrating the detector signal by an integration unit, the integrated signal is processed to a shaped signal comprising a plurality of shaped peaks by a shaping unit, the shaped signal is binned in at least one region of interest depending on a height of the shaped peaks by comparing the height of each of the shaped peaks to at least one upper interest level and at least one lower interest level defining the region of interest by a comparator, and the number of counts corresponding to the region of interest is increased for every shaped peak whose height is in the region of interest by the counter.
In a similar field of endeavor Kotov et al. disclose: in the digitization step, the detector signal is processed to an integrated signal by integrating the detector signal by an integration unit, the integrated signal is processed to a shaped signal comprising a plurality of shaped peaks by a shaping unit (para. [0022]), the shaped signal is binned in at least one region of interest depending on a height of the shaped peaks by comparing the height of each of the shaped peaks to at least one upper interest level and at least one lower interest level defining the region of interest (para. [0022]) motivated by the benefits for improved signal-to-noise ratio and eliminate the long-integrated tail of the CSA pulse (Kotov et al. para. [0022]).
In light of the benefits for improved signal-to-noise ratio and eliminate the long-integrated tail of the CSA pulse as taught by Kotov et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Scouller et al. with the teachings of Kotov et al.
Kotov et al. are silent about: the shaped signal is binned in at least one region of interest depending on a height of the shaped peaks by comparing the height of each of the shaped peaks to at least one upper interest level and at least one lower interest level defining the region of interest by a comparator, and the number of counts corresponding to the region of interest is increased for every shaped peak whose height is in the region of interest by the counter.
In a similar field of endeavor Daerr et al. disclose: the shaped signal is binned in at least one region of interest depending on a height of the shaped peaks by comparing the height of each of the shaped peaks to at least one upper interest level and at least one lower interest level defining the region of interest by a comparator (para. [0054], [0064]-[0065]), and the number of counts corresponding to the region of interest is increased for every shaped peak whose height is in the region of interest by the counter (para. [0054], [0064]-[0065]) motivated by the benefits for improved detection accuracy (para. [0009]).
In light of the benefits for improved detection accuracy as taught by Daerr et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Scouller et al. and Kotov et al. with the teachings of Daerr et al.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212273 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019) in view of Dierickx (US 2012/0305786 A1; pub. Dec. 2012) and further in view of Chappo (US 2018/0217274 A1; pub. Aug. 2, 2018).
Regarding claim 12, the combined references are silent about: a reset logic configured check both whether a reset of the integration unit is complete and whether a transferring is complete.
In a similar field of endeavor Chappo discloses: a reset logic configured check both whether a reset of the integration unit is complete and whether a transferring is complete (para. [0028]) motivated by the benefits for improved pulse count accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improved pulse count accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Scouller et al. and Dierickx with the teachings of Chappo.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212273 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019) in view of Dierickx (US 2012/0305786 A1; pub. Dec. 2012) in view of Ohi et al. (US 2012/0184848 A1; pub. Jul. 19, 2012) and further in view of Liu et al. (US 11,101,886 B1; pub. Aug. 24, 2021).
Regarding claim 13, the combined references are silent about: the integration unit and the shaping unit are arranged on a first electronic chip and the comparator, the counter and the storage are arranged on a second electronic chip distinct from the first electronic chip.
In a similar field of endeavor Ohi et al. disclose: the integration unit and the shaping unit are arranged on a first section and the comparator (para. [0050]), and the counter are arranged on a second section distinct from the first section (para. [0051]) motivated by the benefits for reducing cross-talk.
In light of the benefits for improved pulse count accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Scouller et al. and Dierickx with the teachings of Ohi et al.
Ohi et al. are silent about: the integration unit and the shaping unit are arranged on a first electronic chip and the comparator, the counter and the storage are arranged on a second electronic chip distinct from the first electronic chip.
In a similar field of endeavor Liu et al. disclose: the comparator, the counter and the storage are arranged on a separate electronic chip (col.8 L47-49) motivated by the benefits for a modular device.
In light of the benefits for a modular device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Scouller et al., Dierickx and Ohi et al. with the teachings of Liu et al. to have: the integration unit and the shaping unit are arranged on a first electronic chip and the comparator, the counter and the storage are arranged on a second electronic chip distinct from the first electronic chip.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212273 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019) in view of Dierickx (US 2012/0305786 A1; pub. Dec. 2012) in view of Balan et al. (US 2009/0008564 A1; pub. Jan. 8, 2009).
Regarding claim 14, the combined references are silent about: at least the integration unit, the shaping unit, the comparator, the counter and the storage are arranged on a common electronic chip.
In a similar field of endeavor Balan et al. disclose: at least the integration unit, the shaping unit, the comparator, the counter and the storage are arranged on a common electronic chip (para. [0027]) motivated by the benefits for a compact apparatus.
In light of the benefits for a compact apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Scouller et al. and Dierickx with the teachings of Balan et al.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212273 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019) in view of Dierickx (US 2012/0305786 A1; pub. Dec. 2012) in view of Morichi et al. (US 2010/0264319 A1; pub. Oct. 21, 2010).
Regarding claim 15, Dierickx discloses: a detector unit (para. [0013]) configured to generate a detector signal from detected electromagnetic radiation (para. [0066]), and a processor configured to process the output signal and to control the detection module (para. [0023]).
The combined references are silent about: the detector unit comprises at least one silicon drift detector.
In a similar field of endeavor Morichi et al. disclose: the detector unit comprises at least one silicon drift detector (para. [0050]) motivated by the benefits for a detector that can be operated at higher count rates.
In light of the benefits for a detector that can be operated at higher count rates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Scouller et al. and Dierickx with the teachings of Morichi et al.
Regarding claim 16, Morichi et al. disclose: a plurality of silicon drift detectors and a plurality of evaluation units, wherein each silicon drift detector is assigned to exactly one evaluation unit (para. [0050]) motivated by the benefits for a detector that can be operated at higher count rates.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212273 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019) in view of Dierickx (US 2012/0305786 A1; pub. Dec. 2012) in view of Morichi et al. (US 2010/0264319 A1; pub. Oct. 21, 2010) and further in view of Kindt (US 2023/0296796 A1; pub. Sep. 21, 2023).
Regarding claim 17, the combined references are silent about: the evaluation units are connected to each other and are configured to receive a reset signal via a common data line.
In a similar field of endeavor Kindt discloses: the evaluation units are connected to each other and are configured to receive a reset signal via a common data line (para. [0025], [0068]) motivated by the benefits for a more reliable determination of the energy associated with absorbed photons over time (Kindt para. [0020]).
In light of the benefits for a more reliable determination of the energy associated with absorbed photons over time as taught by Kindt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Scouller et al., Dierickx and Morichi et al. with the teachings of Kindt.
Claims 18 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212273 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019) in view of Dierickx (US 2012/0305786 A1; pub. Dec. 2012) in view of Kindt (US 2023/0296796 A1; pub. Sep. 21, 2023).
Regarding claim 18, the combined references are silent about: the comparator comprises N comparators and is configured to compare the height of each shaped peak to N upper interest levels defining N regions of interest, and wherein N is a natural number greater than two.
In a similar field of endeavor Kindt discloses: the comparator comprises N comparators and is configured to compare the height of each shaped peak to N upper interest levels defining N regions of interest, and wherein N is a natural number greater than two (para. [0024]-[0025], [0068]) motivated by the benefits for a more reliable determination of the energy associated with absorbed photons over time (Kindt para. [0020]).
In light of the benefits for a more reliable determination of the energy associated with absorbed photons over time as taught by Kindt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Scouller et al. and Dierickx with the teachings of Kindt.
Regarding claim 19, the combined references are silent about: the comparator comprises 2N comparators and is configured to compare the height of each shaped peak to N lower interest level and N upper interest levels defining N regions of interest, and wherein N is a natural number greater than two.
In a similar field of endeavor Kindt discloses: the comparator comprises 2N comparators and is configured to compare the height of each shaped peak to N lower interest level and N upper interest levels defining N regions of interest, and wherein N is a natural number greater than two (para. [0024]-[0025], [0068]) motivated by the benefits for a more reliable determination of the energy associated with absorbed photons over time (Kindt para. [0020]).
In light of the benefits for a more reliable determination of the energy associated with absorbed photons over time as taught by Kindt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Scouller et al. and Dierickx with the teachings of Kindt.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212273 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019) in view of Dierickx (US 2012/0305786 A1; pub. Dec. 2012) in view of Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212273 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019).
Regarding claim 20, the combined references are silent about: a conveyer band configured to transport a material to be sorted; an X-ray source configured to radiate a part of the conveyer band; the detection module according to claim 11, the detection module configured to at least partially detect a material composition of the material to be sorted passing the X-ray source via X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy; and a sorting device configured to sort the material based on the material composition.
In a similar field of endeavor Scoullar et al. disclose: a conveyer band (fig.1 item 1) configured to transport a material to be sorted (para. [0666]); an X-ray source (para. [0017]) configured to radiate a part of the conveyer band; the detection module according to claim 11, the detection module configured to at least partially detect a material composition of the material to be sorted passing the X-ray source via X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (para. [0017], [0050]); and a sorting device configured to sort the material based on the material composition (para. [0666]) motivated by the benefits for an apparatus with high throughput, accuracy, resolution, elemental sensitivity, safety and operating cost (Scoullar et al. para. [0004]).
In light of the benefits for an apparatus with high throughput, accuracy, resolution, elemental sensitivity, safety and operating cost as taught by Scoullar et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Scouller et al. and Dierickx with the teachings of Scoullar et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the prior arts alone or combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the reset signal comprises at least one reset pulse, wherein a rising or falling edge of the reset pulse terminates the counter and activates resetting of an integration unit, and wherein a falling or rising edge of the reset pulse actives the counter and terminates resetting of the integration unit.
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts alone or combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: in the digitization step, the detector signal is integrated by an integration unit, and wherein, in the transferring step, the integration unit is reset such that a cumulated signal at an input of the integration unit is set to zero or essentially zero.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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