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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments, filed on October 11, 2024, to the Specification and the Abstract have been entered and made of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim recites “one or more computer-readable recording media” but does not specify that the media are non-transitory. Thus, the claim can be interpreted as a transitory propagating signal or other form of signal transmission, and transitory signals do not fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shreckenberg et al. (US 2024/0428926 A1), hereafter Shreckenberg.
Regarding claim 1, Shreckenberg teaches a system for facilitating analysis of anatomical structures, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable recording media that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to configure the system ([0035] “Each of the XR-workspace may be physically connected to another XR-workspace via cable or wireless. Each workspace may have an own personal computer including a processor.”) to:
access a subject-specific 3D representation of one or more anatomical structures, the subject-specific 3D representation being generated based on a set of 2D images of a subject ([0029] “The medical image data may be dynamically rendered (e.g. volume rendered or surface rendered) so as to be visualized in each XR-workspace as the visualization. In more detail, volume rendering may be based on spatial intensity data (i.e. voxel data).” Paragraphs [0029-0031], discuss many different methods for rendering 3D representations of raw medical imaging data for display in XR environments.);
access an idealized 3D representation of the one or more anatomical structures ([0030] “Alternatively or additionally, the medical image data may be visualized using a dynamic, computer-generated model of at least a part of an anatomical structure. Such models have the advantages that they show a simpler version/abstraction of the anatomy, make it easier to navigate and interpret the anatomy, and are not very much dependent on the medical image data quality.” See all of [0030] for further details on rendering simplified anatomical models.);
simultaneously display the subject-specific 3D representation and the idealized 3D representation in navigable form within a virtual 3D environment ([0031] “Accordingly, the visualization in each workspace may include a visualization of raw data (i.e. 3D data) and of model data (i.e. pre-processed data).”).
Regarding claim 2, Shreckenberg teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the set of 2D images comprises a set of grayscale images ([0031] “In addition to the above-outlined, the medical image data may include digital image data e.g. in DICOM standard i.e. containing a three-dimensional array of voxels, each voxel containing a grey scale value. Such medical data (3D medical images) may be obtained from a field of view containing the dynamic anatomical structure using a medical imaging modality such as MR, computed tomography (CT), position emission tomography (PET), or ultrasound (US). In case the anatomical structure is the heart, ultrasound and in particular three-dimensional echocardiography may be advantageously used.” Imaging methods such as CT and MR produce greyscale images.).
Regarding claim 3, Shreckenberg teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the set of 2D images comprises a set of cross-sectional medical images ([0031] “In addition to the above-outlined, the medical image data may include digital image data e.g. in DICOM standard i.e. containing a three-dimensional array of voxels, each voxel containing a grey scale value. Such medical data (3D medical images) may be obtained from a field of view containing the dynamic anatomical structure using a medical imaging modality such as MR, computed tomography (CT), position emission tomography (PET), or ultrasound (US). In case the anatomical structure is the heart, ultrasound and in particular three-dimensional echocardiography may be advantageously used.” Imaging methods such as CT and MR involve cross-sectional images.).
Regarding claim 4, Shreckenberg the system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to simultaneously display the subject-specific 3D representation and the idealized 3D representation on a display of an extended reality device ([0031] “Accordingly, the visualization in each workspace may include a visualization of raw data (i.e. 3D data) and of model data (i.e. pre-processed data).”).
Regarding claim 5, Shreckenberg teaches wherein the idealized 3D representation is selected based on one or more attributes of the subject or based on a use context associated with simultaneously displaying the subject-specific 3D representation and the idealized 3D representation ([0030] “In a preferred embodiment, the medical image data may be visualized using a volume rendered object which has the advantage that it is suitable for more complex anatomies or highly individual structures like valve leaflet cusps, stenosis, calcifications, bio-protheses, ruptured chordae etc. Alternatively or additionally, the medical image data may be visualized using a dynamic, computer-generated model of at least a part of an anatomical structure. Such models have the advantages that they show a simpler version/abstraction of the anatomy, make it easier to navigate and interpret the anatomy, and are not very much dependent on the medical image data quality.” [0031] “By combining model data and raw data as the shared content, each workspace has less of the usually more complex raw data to process so that the collaboration can be conducted using normal personal computers without the need for massive computation capabilities… For example, the raw data may be used to visualize the most important organ or part of an organ (i.e. a region of interest) and the model data may be used to visualize the surroundings of the region of interest. For example, the raw data may be used to visualize a heart valve and the model data may be used to visualize the rest of the heart. As a result, an optimal efficiency of the visualization may be obtained… As a result, each user may individually decide whether he/she needs both visualizations for analyzing the medical image data. Additionally, consider [Col. 38, lines 19-33] of Janna (US 11,931,107 B1; used in the 103 rejections below). Janna teaches using features present in the 2D medical images to determine the closest atlas/idealized model for simultaneous display in XR.).
Regarding claim 6, Shreckenberg teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the idealized 3D representation is modified based on one or more attributes of the subject or based on a use context associated with simultaneously displaying the subject-specific 3D representation and the idealized 3D representation ([0030] “In a preferred embodiment, the medical image data may be visualized using a volume rendered object which has the advantage that it is suitable for more complex anatomies or highly individual structures like valve leaflet cusps, stenosis, calcifications, bio-protheses, ruptured chordae etc. Alternatively or additionally, the medical image data may be visualized using a dynamic, computer-generated model of at least a part of an anatomical structure. Such models have the advantages that they show a simpler version/abstraction of the anatomy, make it easier to navigate and interpret the anatomy, and are not very much dependent on the medical image data quality.” [0031] “By combining model data and raw data as the shared content, each workspace has less of the usually more complex raw data to process so that the collaboration can be conducted using normal personal computers without the need for massive computation capabilities… For example, the raw data may be used to visualize the most important organ or part of an organ (i.e. a region of interest) and the model data may be used to visualize the surroundings of the region of interest. For example, the raw data may be used to visualize a heart valve and the model data may be used to visualize the rest of the heart. As a result, an optimal efficiency of the visualization may be obtained… As a result, each user may individually decide whether he/she needs both visualizations for analysing the medical image data.).
Regarding claim 7, Shreckenberg the system of claim 1, wherein the idealized 3D representation comprises a representation of at least part of an isolated anatomical system ([0030] “In a preferred embodiment, the medical image data may be visualized using a volume rendered object which has the advantage that it is suitable for more complex anatomies or highly individual structures like valve leaflet cusps, stenosis, calcifications, bio-protheses, ruptured chordae etc. Alternatively or additionally, the medical image data may be visualized using a dynamic, computer-generated model of at least a part of an anatomical structure. Such models have the advantages that they show a simpler version/abstraction of the anatomy, make it easier to navigate and interpret the anatomy, and are not very much dependent on the medical image data quality.” See [0030] for examples of using models for vessels, the heart, etc.).
Regarding claim 8, Shreckenberg teaches the system of claim 1, wherein simultaneously displaying the subject-specific 3D representation and the idealized 3D representation comprises visually emphasizing one or more aspects of the one or more anatomical structures represented in both the subject-specific 3D representation and the idealized 3D representation (Users of the XR system can freely move and edit models in the navigable 3D space. [0026] “The visualisation may be an effigy (i.e. an image) of a real object (e.g. a human or animal heart). That is, the visualisation may be a model representing the real object, wherein parameters of the visualisation may be changed with respect to the real object (e.g. the size, contrast, colour, partly enlarged regions etc.).” Additionally, [0036] discusses how uses have full customization over models in his/her own workspace and can edit colors, opacity, etc., and [0057-0060] discussing gestures for moving, resizing, and coloring 3D representations.).
Regarding claim 9, Shreckenberg teaches the system of claim 8, wherein visually emphasizing the one or more aspects of the one or more anatomical structures represented in both the subject-specific 3D representation and the idealized 3D representation is performed in response to user input directed to the one or more aspects of the one or more anatomical structures in the subject-specific 3D representation or the idealized 3D representation (Each user of the XR system can display the 3D representations simultaneously [0029-0031], and each user has the freedom to make any edits or annotations to the models in his/her 3D space including changes to contrast, color, size, enlargement of specific anatomical regions, etc. [0026, 0036]. Also see [0057-0060] discussing gestures for moving, resizing, and coloring 3D representations.).
Regarding claim 10, Shreckenberg teaches the system of claim 1, wherein simultaneously displaying the subject-specific 3D representation and the idealized 3D representation comprises displaying one or more annotations associated with one or more aspects of the one or more anatomical structures represented in both the subject-specific 3D representation and the idealized 3D representation ([0037] “For example, each user sees the annotations of the other users live in his own visualization of the medical image data. This makes “handing over” the medical image data between multiple users obsolete and therefore results in fewer interactions between users and a faster sharing of measurement results and annotations.” [0100] “A user can put himself in the optimal viewing position and watch other (e.g., more experienced) users live and in real 3D while they make certain measurements, annotations or position device like artificial heart valves within the visualization to determine their optimal position.” Also, see [0095-0098] discussing further functionality for annotations.).
Regarding claim 11, Shreckenberg teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the one or more annotations are determined based on pre-processing of the subject-specific 3D representation, the set of 2D images, or the idealized 3D representation ([0095] “Then the analysing process starts and each user executes the analysing process in his/her workspace 30 while having the individual view of the medical image data. That is, each user makes his/her own measurements/annotations which are results of the analysing process within his/her own workspace 30 using the controller. In other words, each user controls the medical image data in that he/she adds the result of the analysing process via his/her own workspace 30 directly into the medical image data.” In [0095-0100], annotations are discussed, and they can be applied to medical images directly or to 3D representations.).
Regarding claim 12, Shreckenberg teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the one or more annotations are determined based on user input directed to the one or more aspects of the one or more anatomical structures in the subject-specific 3D representation or the idealized 3D representation ([0100] “A user can put himself in the optimal viewing position and watch other (e.g., more experienced) users live and in real 3D while they make certain measurements, annotations or position device like artificial heart valves within the visualization to determine their optimal position.” Also, see [0095-0098] discussing further functionality for annotations.).
Regarding claim 17, Shreckenberg teaches a method for facilitating analysis of anatomical structures, the method comprising: causing one or more processors of a system to execute computer-executable instructions stored on one or more computer-readable recording media of the system to configure the system ([0035] “Each of the XR-workspace may be physically connected to another XR-workspace via cable or wireless. Each workspace may have an own personal computer including a processor.”) to:
access a subject-specific 3D representation of one or more anatomical structures, the subject-specific 3D representation being generated based on a set of 2D images of a subject ([0029] “The medical image data may be dynamically rendered (e.g. volume rendered or surface rendered) so as to be visualized in each XR-workspace as the visualization. In more detail, volume rendering may be based on spatial intensity data (i.e. voxel data).” Paragraphs [0029-0031], discuss many different methods for rendering 3D representations of raw medical imaging data for display in XR environments.);
access an idealized 3D representation of the one or more anatomical structures ([0030] “Alternatively or additionally, the medical image data may be visualized using a dynamic, computer-generated model of at least a part of an anatomical structure. Such models have the advantages that they show a simpler version/abstraction of the anatomy, make it easier to navigate and interpret the anatomy, and are not very much dependent on the medical image data quality.” See all of [0030] for further details on rendering simplified anatomical models.); and
simultaneously display the subject-specific 3D representation and the idealized 3D representation in navigable form within a virtual 3D environment ([0031] “Accordingly, the visualization in each workspace may include a visualization of raw data (i.e. 3D data) and of model data (i.e. pre-processed data).”).
Regarding claim 18, Shreckenberg teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the set of 2D images comprises a set of cross-sectional medical images ([0031] “In addition to the above-outlined, the medical image data may include digital image data e.g. in DICOM standard i.e. containing a three-dimensional array of voxels, each voxel containing a grey scale value. Such medical data (3D medical images) may be obtained from a field of view containing the dynamic anatomical structure using a medical imaging modality such as MR, computed tomography (CT), position emission tomography (PET), or ultrasound (US). In case the anatomical structure is the heart, ultrasound and in particular three-dimensional echocardiography may be advantageously used.” Imaging methods such as CT and MR involve cross-sectional images.).
Regarding claim 19, Shreckenberg teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the system is configured to simultaneously display the subject-specific 3D representation and the idealized 3D representation on a display of an extended reality device ([0031] “Accordingly, the visualization in each workspace may include a visualization of raw data (i.e. 3D data) and of model data (i.e. pre-processed data).”).
Regarding claim 20, Shreckenberg teaches one or more computer-readable recording media that store instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a system to configure the system ([0035] “Each of the XR-workspace may be physically connected to another XR-workspace via cable or wireless. Each workspace may have an own personal computer including a processor.”) to:
access a subject-specific 3D representation of one or more anatomical structures, the subject-specific 3D representation being generated based on a set of 2D images of a subject ([0029] “The medical image data may be dynamically rendered (e.g. volume rendered or surface rendered) so as to be visualized in each XR-workspace as the visualization. In more detail, volume rendering may be based on spatial intensity data (i.e. voxel data).” Paragraphs [0029-0031], discuss many different methods for rendering 3D representations of raw medical imaging data for display in XR environments.);
access an idealized 3D representation of the one or more anatomical structures ([0030] “Alternatively or additionally, the medical image data may be visualized using a dynamic, computer-generated model of at least a part of an anatomical structure. Such models have the advantages that they show a simpler version/abstraction of the anatomy, make it easier to navigate and interpret the anatomy, and are not very much dependent on the medical image data quality.” See all of [0030] for further details on rendering simplified anatomical models.); and
simultaneously display the subject-specific 3D representation and the idealized 3D representation in navigable form within a virtual 3D environment ([0031] “Accordingly, the visualization in each workspace may include a visualization of raw data (i.e. 3D data) and of model data (i.e. pre-processed data).”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shreckenberg in view of Janna et al. (US 11,931,107 B1), hereafter Janna.
Regarding claim 13, Shreckenberg teaches the system of claim 1. Shreckenberg further teaches wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to further configure the system to: while simultaneously displaying the subject-specific 3D representation and the idealized 3D representation, receive user input directed to a modification of a presentation characteristic for presenting one of the subject-specific 3D representation and the idealized 3D representation (Each user of the XR system can display the 3D representations simultaneously [0029-0031], and each user has the freedom to make any edits or annotations to the models in his/her 3D space including changes to contrast, color, size, enlargement of specific anatomical regions, etc. [0026, 0036].).
Also, in [0057-0060] Shreckenburg teaches gestures for moving, rotating, recoloring, etc. of visualizations. Although each user of Shreckenburg’s invention can fully customize the display of the 3D representations and the annotations, Shreckenberg does not specifically mention simultaneously applying a change made to one 3D representation to the other 3D representation. However, Janna teaches in response to the user input, apply the modification of the presentation characteristic for presenting both of the subject-specific 3D representation and the idealized 3D representation (Janna teaches allowing the user to sync any transformations between the internal tracker (2D medical images oriented towards the viewer in a 3D space, similar to the 3D subject-specific representation) and the atlas model (idealized model). [Col. 39, lines 16-29] “…a user may lock the relative location of the 2D and 3D figures to each other such that when they rotate, zoom, etc. on one image set (i.e., 2D or 3D) the corresponding image set moves in unison. In an alternative embodiment, the user is able to move a single 2D image, all the 2D images, or the 3D model independently. Moreover, in some embodiments, the user may remove and/or hide various images or portions of images. In a further embodiment, the movement of the 2D or 3D images may be automated and potential problem areas may be identified autonomously or automatically. In another embodiment, the 2D images may have a known position relative to each other, such that, for example, 2D images may be placed in the proper orientation and angle relative to each other.”).
Shreckenberg and Janna are analogous in the art to the claimed invention, because both teach systems which allow visualization of a 3D representation of medical image data and a 3D atlas/idealized model. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shreckenberg’s invention by applying any changes made to one 3D representation to the other simultaneously displayed 3D representation. This modification would allow for both 3D representations to remain consistent with one another during simultaneous viewing ([Janna Col. 39, lines 16-29] “…a user may lock the relative location of the 2D and 3D figures to each other such that when they rotate, zoom, etc. on one image set (i.e., 2D or 3D) the corresponding image set moves in unison.”).
Regarding claim 14, Shreckenberg and Janna teach the system of claim 13. Shreckenberg further teaches wherein the modification of the presentation characteristic comprises a modification of scale, rotation, or translation (Users of the XR system can freely move and edit models in the navigable 3D space. [0026] “The visualization may be an effigy (i.e. an image) of a real object (e.g. a human or animal heart). That is, the visualization may be a model representing the real object, wherein parameters of the visualization may be changed with respect to the real object (e.g. the size, contrast, colour, partly enlarged regions etc.).” Also see [0057-0060] discussing gestures for moving, resizing, and coloring 3D representations. Additionally, Janna teaches scaling, rotating, and translating models in [Col. 39, lines 16-29].).
Regarding claim 15, Shreckenberg and Janna teaches the system of claim 13. Shreckenberg further teaches wherein the modification of the presentation characteristic comprises visually emphasizing, annotating, displaying, hiding, selecting, sectioning, or slicing one or more aspects of the one or more anatomical structures (Each user of the XR system can display the 3D representations simultaneously [0029-0031], and each user has the freedom to make any edits or annotations to the models in his/her 3D space including changes to contrast, color, size, enlargement of specific anatomical regions, etc. [0026, 0036]. [0036] also discusses adjusting cut planes to cut through a 3D representation for viewing internal structures. Also see [0057-0060] discussing gestures for moving, resizing, and coloring 3D representations. [0060] “In the same way each user may individually cut away a part of the visualization in order to attain a visualization in which only the parts of the visualization are displayed that are of interest for the specific user.”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shreckenberg and Janna, and further in view of Lo (US 2023/0290085 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Shreckenberg and Janna teach the system of claim 13, and Shreckenberg further teaches using sliders or gestures to adjust the opacity of a visualized object ([0057] “For example, the user selects a certain parameter by touching it using hand movement in the XR workspace. He/she may then use gestures to e.g. actuate a virtual slider, or simply move the controller horizontally (or vertically) to adjust the parameter without reference to any slider. Suitable parameters are related to the visualization and may be selected from a volume rendering threshold, smoothing, lighting intensity, size, opacity of a visualized object, starting and holding the cine-mode etc.”). Although this accomplishes the same goal as using a filter to hide certain 3D structures, both Shreckenberg and Janna fail to specifically teach wherein the modification of the presentation characteristic comprises modifying a display filter that constrains display of one or more aspects of the one or more anatomical structures.
However, Lo teaches wherein the modification of the presentation characteristic comprises modifying a display filter that constrains display of one or more aspects of the one or more anatomical structures (Fig. 3 and [0072] show a human anatomical representation in AR, and the user can toggle a filter for different structures so that the structures can be shown or hidden.)
Shreckenberg, Janna, and Lo are all analogous in the art to the claimed invention, because all teach methods of displaying human anatomical representations in an XR environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shreckenberg and Janna’s invention(s) by using filters to hide or display specific anatomical structures. Toggling or filtering the display of certain structures would allow for better view of other internal anatomical structures obstructed from view ([Lo 0072] “With these layers 107 active, the user 104 can view or visualize inner anatomical features shown as a graphical representation 113 of the target individual 106.”). Shreckenberg further supports the need for this improvement by allowing for annotations to become transparent as to not obstruct view of an anatomical structure ([Shreckenberg 0097] “Since the measurements/annotations are directly transferred (i.e. synchronized with) to the medical image data 34 shared by all users, the measurements/annotations may hide or cover a part of the visualization in a workspace 30 of another user. Therefore, if in one user's workspace 30 a part of the visualization is hided and/or covers, the user may disable the respective measurement/annotation. Alternatively, the user may adjust the measurement/annotation so as to be transparent.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Izard et al. (Nextmed: Automatic Imaging Segmentation, 3D Reconstruction, and 3D Model Visualization Platform Using Augmented and Virtual Reality. Sensors (Basel). Vol 20. Issue 10.) teaches systems and methods for receiving DICOM imaging data of a patient, creating a 3D subject-specific representation of the anatomical system, and displaying the interactable representation in an extended reality environment.
Medical Holo Deck (Medicalholodeck Apps - Medical Imaging XR, Dissection Master XR and Anatomy Master XR side by side. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4STRsr_vwAQ.) shows a demo of Medical Holo Deck, which is a XR system for displaying 3D representations of medical imaging data and atlas models for medical educational purposes.
Zhang et al. (Modeling and simulation of an anatomy teaching system. Visual Computing for Industry, Biomedicine, and Art. Vol 2.) teaches methods for developing idealized anatomical models and displaying the models in a virtual reality environment for teaching human anatomy to students.
Budz et al. (US 12,068,067 B2) teaches methods for receiving a 3D (or many 2D slices) patient visual data. The data may include a CT scan or similar. The method involves mapping portions of the visual data to specific visual parameters before rendering a subject-specific 3D virtual model of the patient anatomy. For example, a section of the visual data may be identified as bone; then, when the visual data is rendered to a 3D virtual model, the section identified as bone may be rendered as white and slightly opaque for visualization.
Luo et al. (US 2026/0076754 A1) teaches methods for providing a guidance overlay to a surgeon using AR. The method involves receiving scan data of a patient and developing a subject-specific 3D anatomical model of the anatomical system being operated on. During surgery, the 3D model is aligned to the actual patient’s anatomical system using an AR display, and surgical guidance is displayed using the 3D model.
Hacker et al. (Representation and visualization of variability in a 3D anatomical atlas using the kidney as an example. Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Display. 61410B.) teaches methods of creating many variations of atlas models based on the attributes of different patients. Therefore, a specific atlas model can be selected for a patient based on age, gender, etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC JAMES SHOEMAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6605. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am to 5pm 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, JENNIFER MEHMOOD, can be reached at (571)272-2976. 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.
/Eric Shoemaker/
Patent Examiner
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights