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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The title of the invention (“Fundamentals of Semiconductor-based Photon Counting Detectors”) is not descriptive. The title does not indicate what new or improved feature or use of a photon counting detector is part of Applicant’s invention. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --Pulsed X-ray Imaging with Photon Counting Detectors to Reduce Transient Detector Effects Due to Polarization or Charge Trapping--.
Claim Numbering
The numbering of the claims is not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(g) which states in part “all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable.” See also MPEP § 608.01(n)(IV). Claims 10-11 are unnecessarily separated from claim 2. The numbering of the claims should not be changed now. Examiner will correct the numbering of the claims if still necessary if the application is allowed. Due to the irregular numbering of the claims, the following rejections of the claims may not necessarily be in numerical order.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 § U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim 1
Claim 1 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “rotatable gantry system” uses the generic placeholder “system” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to a ring or C-arm gantry (Applicant’s specification, ¶ 91) and equivalents thereof. Regarding the interpretations of claims using generic placeholders, see MPEP § 2181(I)(A).
Duplicate Claims — Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-12, 18-20, and 24-27
Claims 1-12, 18-20, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, 18, and 24
Regarding claims 1, 8, 18, and 24, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the inventions. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claims 1-11,18-20, 24, and 27
Regarding claims 1-11,18-20, 24, and 27, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements (in the apparatus claims) or omitting essential steps (in the method claims), such omissions amounting to gaps between the elements or steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements or steps are: one or more structures or steps for performing the treatment recited in the preambles of the claims. That is, the claims are directed to treatment, but recite no elements or steps for performing treatment. Claim 27 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 24. These rejections could be overcome by incorporating at least the second radiation source of claims 2, 19, and 25 in independent claims 1, 18, and 24, respectively, amending the limitations in claims 2 and 19 to be non-optionally configured for therapeutic radiation (and optionally for imaging radiation if desired).
Claims 2-12, 19-20, and 25-27
Regarding claims 2-12, 19-20, and 25-27, the claims are rejected due to their dependence on claims 1, 18, and 24.
Claim 7
Regarding claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the x-ray” in the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the semiconductor material” in the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(e). Examiner has considered claim 10 to depend on claim 3 instead of claim 2, as claim 3 provides sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 12
Regarding claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the second source of radiation” in the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(e). Examiner has considered claim 12 to depend on claim 2 instead of claim 1, as claim 2 provides sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 12, 20, and 27
Regarding claims 12, 20, and 27, with reference to representative claim 12, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c)(I). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “the imaging frame rate is 1000 frames per second or less”, and the claim also recites “the imaging frame rate is 700 frames per second or less”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. Description of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim. A narrower range or preferred embodiment may also be set forth in another independent claim or in a dependent claim.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–-----103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1)-(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shah (US 2014/0270074 A1).
Regarding claim 1, a copy of Figure 1 of Shah, annotated by Examiner to show features of the claimed invention, is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
895
1388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Shah, annotated by Examiner to show rotatable gantry system (34), patient support (15), first source of radiation (36), and radiation detector (38).
As claim 1 is best understood, Shah discloses an apparatus (shown in Fig. 1, and described in ¶¶ 21-68), comprising:
a rotatable gantry system (ring gantry 34) positioned at least partially around a patient support (15; ¶ 34-35, Fig. 1);
a first source of radiation (36) coupled to the rotatable gantry system, the first source of radiation (36) configured to emit imaging x-ray radiation after pausing for a time interval (predetermined period of time) between periodic emissions (x-ray imaging source: ¶¶ 34-35, Fig. 1; pausing and periodic emissions: ¶¶ 66-67, Fig. 9); and
a radiation detector (38) configured to receive x-ray radiation from the first radiation source (36) and generate tomographic data from the received radiation (detector generating 2D projection data: ¶¶ 34-35, Fig. 1; the 2D projection data is used to generate 3D volumetric image data of the patient, as described in ¶¶ 23-24, and is therefore by definition tomographic data; see also ¶ 4), wherein:
the radiation detector (38) is subject to a transient effect (afterglow effect) caused by at least charge trapping (¶¶ 66-67; by definition, afterglow is caused by charge trapping); and
the time interval (predetermined period of time) is sufficiently long for the transient effect (afterglow effect) to substantially dissipate (subside or be substantially reduced; ¶¶ 66-67, particularly ¶ 66: “the method waits a predetermined time period for the afterglow effects to subside before the method loops to block 500” and ¶ 67: “by waiting a predetermined period of time before emitting another first pulse 118a and second pulse 118b, the detector 38 can stop glowing, thereby substantially reducing the effects of the afterglow all together”).
The preamble recitation “treatment” merely states an intended use of the invention and does not limit the structure of the claimed circuit because no limitations pertaining to treatment are recited in the body of the claim. Accordingly, the preamble recitation is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02(II).
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 C.F.R. § 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied 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 2 and 12
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shah as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of La Riviere (US 2022/0395243 A1).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Shah discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Shah does not expressly disclose a second source of radiation coupled to the rotatable gantry system, the second source of radiation configured for at least one of imaging radiation or therapeutic radiation, wherein the second source of radiation has an energy level more than the first source of radiation.
La Riviere discloses a treatment (radiotherapy) apparatus (shown in Figs. 1-2B and described in ¶¶ 59-93), comprising: a rotatable gantry system (12) positioned at least partially around a patient support (18); a first source of radiation (30) coupled to the rotatable gantry system (12), the first source of radiation (30) configured to emit imaging x-ray radiation; and a radiation detector (34) configured to receive x-ray radiation from the first radiation source (30) and generate tomographic data from the received radiation (¶¶ 59-61, Figs. 1-2A); and
a second source of radiation (20) coupled to the rotatable gantry system (12), the second source of radiation (20) configured for at least one of imaging radiation or therapeutic radiation (i.e., both options), wherein the second source of radiation 20) has an energy level (greater than 1 MeV) more than the first source of radiation (less than 150 keV; ¶¶ 59-61, 70-73; 91-93; Figs. 2A-B; in particular, ¶ 72: “the high-energy radiation source 20 is utilized as a source of therapeutic radiation and a source of imaging radiation. As discussed in detail below, sources of radiation 20, 30 may be used in conjunction with one another to provide higher quality and better utilized
images. References to the therapeutic radiation source 20 herein are to distinguish the high-energy radiation source 20 from the low-energy radiation source 30”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Shah, in view of the teachings of La Riviere, to include a second source of radiation coupled to the rotatable gantry system, the second source of radiation configured for at least one of imaging radiation or therapeutic radiation, wherein the second source of radiation has an energy level more than the first source of radiation.
One would have been motivated to do so be able to perform the well-known procedure of image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) as recited in La Riviere (¶¶ 5-6) to permit tracking of a therapy target, using a second higher energy source for both imaging and therapy “to provide higher quality and better utilized images” as recited in La Riviere (¶ 72).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Shah modified teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein at least: the first source of radiation comprises a kilo-electron volt peak photon energy (keV) up to 150 keV and the second source of radiation comprises a mega-electron volt peak photon energy (MeV) of 1 MeV or greater (see rejection of claim 2 above, La Riviere, ¶¶ 70-71).
Claims 3-5 and 10-11
Claims 3-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shah as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Manzke (US 2016/0016009 A1).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Shah discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the radiation detector associated with the first source comprises a semiconductor material.
However, semiconductor radiation detectors were so well-known and routinely used in the art that the use of such a detector in the invention of Shah would have been instantly and immediately obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. For example, Manzke discloses a treatment apparatus (shown in Figs. 1-2 and described in ¶¶ 19-28), comprising: a rotatable gantry system (104) positioned at least partially around a patient support (115); a first source of radiation (112) coupled to the rotatable gantry system (104), the first source of radiation (112) configured to emit imaging x-ray radiation; and a radiation detector (114) configured to receive x-ray radiation from the first radiation source (112) and generate tomographic data from the received radiation (¶¶ 19-27, Figs. 1-2),
wherein the radiation detector (114) associated with the first source (102) comprises a semiconductor material (Si, Ge, GaAs, CdTe, or CdZnTe; ¶ 28).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Shah, in view of the teachings of Manzke, so that the radiation detector associated with the first source comprises a semiconductor material.
One would have been motivated to do so to obtain the well-known advantage recited in Manzke of being able to perform direct conversion of the radiation (Manzke, ¶ 28) as opposed to indirect conversion (scintillator-based conversion in Manzke, ¶ 28).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Shah modified teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the radiation detector comprises an energy-resolved photon-counting detector (Manzke, ¶ 28, claim 10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have further modified the invention of Shah, in view of the further teachings of Manzke.
One would have been motivated to do so to obtain the well-known advantage recited in Manzke of visually enhancing images (Manzke, ¶ 7).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Shah modified teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the radiation detector is configured to discriminate energies of detected x-ray photons in the received radiation to generate the tomographic data (see rejections of claims 3-4 above, and for more detail Manzke, ¶¶ 31-42, Figs. 1-2).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Shah modified teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the semiconductor material comprises at least one of silicon (Si), cadmium (Cd), tellurium (Te), and zinc (Zn; see rejection of claim 3 above, Manzke, ¶ 28: Si, CdTe, or CdZnTe).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Shah modified teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the radiation detector comprises at least one of a cadmium zinc telluride (CdZnTe) detector and a cadmium telluride (CdTe) pixel detector (see rejections of claims 3 and 10 above, Manzke, ¶ 28: CdTe or CdZnTe pixel detectors).
Claims 6-7 and 9
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shah as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shchory (US 2011/0006212 A1).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Shah discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the radiation detector comprises a semiconductor material; a bias voltage is provided to the semiconductor material when the radiation detector is receiving x-ray radiation; and the bias voltage is modified during the time interval between periodic emissions.
Shchory discloses a treatment apparatus, comprising: a gantry system (110) positioned near a patient support (104); a first source of radiation (114) coupled to the gantry system (110), the first source of radiation (114) configured to emit imaging x-ray radiation after pausing for a time interval between periodic emissions; and a radiation detector (118) configured to receive x-ray radiation from the first radiation source (114) and generate tomographic data from the received radiation (¶¶ 74-98; Figs. 1-2),
wherein the radiation detector (118) comprises a semiconductor material (¶ 83: direct semiconductor detector); and a bias voltage is provided to the semiconductor material when the radiation detector (118) is receiving x-ray radiation; and the bias voltage is modified during the time interval between periodic emissions (¶¶ 92-98, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Shah, in view of the teachings of Shchory, so that the radiation detector comprises a semiconductor material; a bias voltage is provided to the semiconductor material when the radiation detector is receiving x-ray radiation; and the bias voltage is modified during the time interval between periodic emissions.
One would have been motivated to do so to obtain the advantages recited in Shchory permitting controllable sensitivity and saturation levels (Shchory, ¶ 83) and to avoid signals from one pulse from affecting subsequent pulses as shown in Shchory (¶¶ 92-98, Fig. 2).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Shah modified teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein modification of the applied bias includes at least voltage reduction (see rejection of claim 6 above, Shchory, ¶¶ 92-98, fig. 2).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Shah modified teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the modification of the bias voltage facilitates the dissipation of the transient effect (see rejections of claims 1 and 6 above; because the transient effect in Shah is due to charge trapping, the modified bias voltages in the resetting between pulses in Shchory would necessarily facilitate the dissipation of the transient effect because trapped charges would be removed during the resetting).
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Shchory as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sako (US 2017/0153190 A1).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Shah modified teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the modification of the bias voltage is substantially applied to the interval between the periodic x-ray emission and restarting (resetting) the first source (see rejection of claim 6 above, Shchory, 92-98, ¶¶ fig. 2). Shah modified does not expressly disclose the modification can be initiated while the first source is still emitting x-rays continue while the first source is restarted.
However, beginning the reset process of a detector during the tail end of x-ray emission, with the reset process continuing while x-ray emission has stopped, was well-known and routinely practiced in the art. For example, Sako discloses, and describes as conventional, x-ray detection signal processing wherein a detector is reset during the tail end of x-ray emission, with the reset process continuing while x-ray emission has stopped (¶ 8, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have further modified the invention of Shah, in view of the teachings of Sako, so that the modification can be initiated while the first source is still emitting x-rays continue while the first source is restarted.
One would have been motivated to do so to begin the resetting process earlier as compared to waiting for x-ray emission to completely cease between pulses.
Claims 18 and 24
Claims 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Shchory.
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, the claim is substantially a duplicate of claim 9 (which depends upon claims 1 and 6). See the rejections of claims 1, 6, and 9 above.
Claim 24
Regarding claim 24, as best understood, see the rejection of claim 18 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 19 and 25-26
Claims 19 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Shchory as applied to claims 18 and 24 above, and further in view of La Riviere.
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claims 25-26
Regarding claims 25-26, as best understood, see the rejections of claims 2 and 12 above, respectively.
Claims 20 and 27
Claims 20 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Shchory as applied to claims 18 and 24 above, and further in view of Manzke.
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, see the rejections of claims 4-5 pertaining to energy-resolved photon counting.
Claim 27
Regarding claim 27, as best understood, see the rejections of claims 4-5 for the limitations pertaining to energy-resolved photon counting, and the rejection of claim 10 for the radiation detector materials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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 571-272-2995. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884