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 .
1. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment/Response to Arguments
2. 2.1 The rejection under 112 has been withdrawn since remarks filed 06/26/2026, page 7, are persuasive and overcome the rejection.
2.2 The rejection under 101 has been maintained since applicant amendments and remarks are not persuasive and fail to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues that since the claim 1 and 11 discloses a database of 3D descriptors indexed by tooth type, each descriptor comprising spatial parameters that define a location in a 3D descriptor space, wherein distances between descriptors correspond to similarity between tooth shapes, and selecting at least one descriptor based on a minimum-distance relationship relative, the claims are not directed to an abstract mental process, but to a specific technological improvement in computer-implemented modeling of tooth geometry. In addition, applicants argue the claims are structured mathematical representation of 3D geometry and a computation of distances within a descriptor space to determine a representative shape.
However, examiner disagrees since the claims are defined as what in the databased is stored without using any technology structure that integrated with the database to produce such data, is considered as a generic steps of collecting 3D dental data and the 3D tooth model in a databased, it is mere collecting information without changing how the system operates is considered an ineligible abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (collecting, organizing, or saving digital files on a generic computer does not transform an abstract concept into an inventive practical application, insignificant extra-solution or post-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ) unless it includes a specific, unconventional inventive concept or improves computer functionality). In addition, using the computer (processor and memory) for receiving a tooth type of at least partially un-erupted tooth of a patient is considered as a data-gathering or pre-/post-solution activity (claiming merely the use of generic computer components as a tool to perform general processes of collecting data into an abstract concept without improving technology, it can be treated as insignificant extra-solution activity). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Such limitation is not integrated the abstract aide to a practical application and does not add or provide an inventive concept.
Furthermore, the step of “estimating a shape of the at least partially un-erupted tooth based on at least one of the plurality of 3D descriptors with the same tooth type of the at least partially un-erupted tooth” is considered a mental process, because evaluating data and estimating a shape without a specific technical mechanism can conceptually be performed in the human mind, (falls under an abstract idea grouping, a mental process of observations, evaluations, judgments, or calculations performed in the mind). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
For this reason, the rejection under 101 has been maintained. See the rejection below.
2.3 Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed 06/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the rejection under 102 has been withdrawn in light of the amendments made and replace a new ground(s) of rejection in its place, Kitching (US 20080294405 A1) in view of Abdelmunim et al. (A 3D HUMAN TEETH DATABASE CONSTRUCTION BASED ON A POINT-BASED SHAPE REGISTRATIONA).
Applicant argues Kitching fails disclose the amended limitation, each of the plurality of 3D descriptors representing a shape of a respective tooth, each of the 3D descriptors including spatial parameters that define a location in a 3D descriptor, wherein distances between the 3D descriptors in 3D descriptor space correspond to similarity between shapes of respective teeth.
However, Abdelmunim (newly found prior art) discloses each of the plurality of 3D descriptors (page 1617, column 1, par. 1, Fig. 2, 3-D library of teeth models for extraction of the best-matching root information 3D tooth model), representing a shape of a respective tooth (Fig. 2, page 1618, column 2, par. 2, the use of Shape from Shading (SFS) to extract crown information from a human tooth in order to perform non-rigid registration to find appropriately matching root information and thus generate a 3-D model of the human tooth two shape models; Figure 3 shows different 3D teeth models, including the Twelve ones (in Figure2) from (1) to (12), and more results from(13)to(40)). The shape models and active appearance models can be built based on our database for either single tooth type or a whole jaw that contains all types), each of the 3D descriptors including spatial parameters that define a location in a 3D descriptor (page 1619, Figure 2(a) shows the geometrical locations of all the twelve teeth, which are numbered from 1 to 12 clockwise. Figure 2 (b), (c) and (d)s how the 3D segmentation and model visualization of the 12-teeth dataset from top, front and bottom views, respectively), and wherein distances between the 3D descriptors in 3D descriptor space correspond to similarity between shapes of respective teeth (Fig. 2, page 1619, column 1, par. 4, measuring distance between surfaces based on their cloud of points. Initially, each 3D model is aligned to a virtual model that contains only two points. The two points lie at the center of the top and bottom squares of the cube that contains the 3D volume. That alignment does not include any scaling. Figure 3 shows results of segmented models lined up vertically to make them reasonable for the modeling process. After this step, 3D models will almost have no rotation and translation differences but still have scale differences).
For this reason, the combination of references renders the instant limitations unpatentable. See the rejection below.
2.4 The rejection under 103, claim 10 and 19, has been modified accordingly to the rejection of the independent claims. See the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “similarity” in claims 1 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similarity” is not defined by the claim, 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 invention. Appropriate correction is required.
As claims 1-10 and 12-20 are directly or indirectly dependent on claims 1 and 11, those claims are also rejected at least by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims 1 and 11 recites a database includes of the three-dimensional descriptors that are indexed by tooth type …, receiving a tooth type of partially un-erupted of a patient; and estimating a shape of partially un-erupted tooth based on the 3D descriptors…,
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are
presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted
by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory
category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including receiving
tooth type. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories
of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The step of “estimating a shape of partially un-erupted tooth based on the 3D descriptors…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component (database, processor and memory). The step of “estimating…” fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. That is, other than reciting “processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: his part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether
the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying
whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether
the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of databases collection the 3D description of the tooth.. and receiving a tooth type of un-erupted tooth of patient are performed by a computer. For the step of collecting 3D data in the database and receiving…, the claim does not put any limits on how the tooth type data is received, are mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP
2106.05. Thus, judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitation, “receiving…” are considered an abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as wholes amount to
significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination
of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
Additional elements describing what data is in the database ….and receiving data… were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering (receiving), are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a computer to perform limitations receiving and estimating amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
As independent claims 2-5 and 8-16 and 19-20 are not patent eligible.
As claims 2, 8, 10, 13 and 19, recite the 3D descriptors represent virtual surface, average shape and include elliptical Fourier descriptors, spherical harmonic functions, fall within the groupings of abstract ideas Mathematical concepts MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Ac claims 3 and 20, recites the teeth are based on the subject, abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
As claims 4, 5, 12, 14 and 16, recite “identify”, “estimate” and “determine” the shape, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
As claims 9 and 15, recite “views of the teeth” displaying data amounts to no more than insignificant pre-activity of displaying data. Further, the “displaying” step simply appends well-understood and conventional activity of receiving data over a network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i):
Claims 6-7 and 17-19, these claims are at least rejected for their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on the rejected claims 1 and 11. They are therefore rejected as set forth above.
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.
5. 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.
5.1 Claim(s) 1-9, 11-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitching (US 20080294405 A1) in view of Abdelmunim et al. (A 3D HUMAN TEETH DATABASE CONSTRUCTION BASED ON A POINT-BASED SHAPE REGISTRATIONA).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kitching discloses a system comprising:
a database including a plurality of three-dimensional (3D) descriptors that are indexed by tooth type (Fig. 2, [0020], [0051], a reference library of model tooth shapes. FIG. 2 includes reference teeth for the upper right and lower left groupings of teeth), each of the plurality of 3D descriptors including spatial parameters associated with a plurality of teeth of the same tooth type ([0052], the reference library of model tooth shapes can also contain several reference points and axes for one or more teeth in the library. For instance, an example of a tooth with a plurality of reference points is illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B),
wherein each of the 3D descriptors has a minimum distance to other 3D descriptors in 3D descriptor space ([0106], a dental appliance 710 can include a number of tooth apertures for the placement of teeth 766 therein and one or more spaces 768 formed by analysis of information about a patient's mouth and wherein the space represents a position of a fully erupted virtual tooth 741 representing a tooth that has not fully erupted 742 and wherein an appliance space portion 768 is oriented to be received over the position of the tooth that has not fully erupted in the mouth of the patient);
one or more processors (processor 620); and
memory (memory 630) coupled to the one or more processors (Fig. 6),
wherein the memory stores computer-program instructions ([0099], execute instruction 650 Such functions can be provided by executable instructions stored in memory and executable by a logic circuit such as a processor), that when executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 6, [0082], [0090], executable by a logic circuit such as a processor), perform a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a tooth type of an at least partially un-erupted tooth of a patient (Abstract, [0106], [0108], receiving a patient information file for a treatment plan patient and analyzing the patient information file to determine whether the patient is a non-adult patient; and received over the position of the tooth that has not fully erupted in the mouth of the patient); and
estimating a shape of the at least partially un-erupted tooth based on at least one of the plurality of 3D descriptors with the same tooth type of the at least partially un-erupted tooth ([0134], [0135], [0138], claim 19, a space formed by analysis of information about a patient's mouth and wherein the space represents a position of a fully erupted virtual tooth representing a tooth that has not fully erupted and estimated tooth shape based upon information obtained from a database of ideal teeth and/or from one or more particular teeth in the patient information file, as indicated above).
Kitching fails to disclose the amended limitation, each of the plurality of 3D descriptors representing a shape of a respective tooth, each of the 3D descriptors including spatial parameters that define a location in a 3D descriptor, wherein distances between the 3D descriptors in 3D descriptor space correspond to similarity between shapes of respective teeth.
However, Abdelmunim (newly found prior art) discloses each of the plurality of 3D descriptors (page 1617, column 1, par. 1, Fig. 2, 3-D library of teeth models for extraction of the best-matching root information 3D tooth model), representing a shape of a respective tooth (Fig. 2, page 1618, column 2, par. 2, the use of Shape from Shading (SFS) to extract crown information from a human tooth in order to perform non-rigid registration to find appropriately matching root information and thus generate a 3-D model of the human tooth two shape models; Figure 3 shows different 3D teeth models, including the Twelve ones (in Figure2) from (1) to (12), and more results from(13)to(40)). The shape models and active appearance models can be built based on our database for either single tooth type or a whole jaw that contains all types), each of the 3D descriptors including spatial parameters that define a location in a 3D descriptor (page 1619, Figure 2(a) shows the geometrical locations of all the twelve teeth, which are numbered from 1 to 12 clockwise. Figure 2 (b), (c) and (d)s how the 3D segmentation and model visualization of the 12-teeth dataset from top, front and bottom views, respectively), and wherein distances between the 3D descriptors in 3D descriptor space correspond to similarity between shapes of respective teeth (Fig. 2, page 1619, column 1, par. 4, measuring distance between surfaces based on their cloud of points. Initially, each 3D model is aligned to a virtual model that contains only two points. The two points lie at the center of the top and bottom squares of the cube that contains the 3D volume. That alignment does not include any scaling. Figure 3 shows results of segmented models lined up vertically to make them reasonable for the modeling process. After this step, 3D models will almost have no rotation and translation differences but still have scale differences).
Abdelmunim and Kitching are analogous art since both are in dental alignment field. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify building a 3D database for human teeth, taught by Abdelmunim, incorporated with receiving a patient information file for a treatment plan patient, taught by Kitching, in order to perform non-rigid registration to find appropriately matching root information and thus generate a 3-D model of the human tooth.
Regarding claim 2, Kitching discloses the 3D descriptors represent virtual surface contours of the plurality of teeth ([0015] FIG. 1A-1D the partially erupted tooth of FIG. 1C and includes an outline of a model shape of the unerupted portion of the tooth or teeth).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Kitching discloses the plurality of teeth is based on a plurality of subjects ([0100], Fig. 1A-1D, Fig. 2-Fig. 5C, the memory of the computing device includes the reference library including a set of model tooth shapes with model tooth geometries, where each model tooth shape includes the predefined dental references).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kitching discloses scaling the estimated shape of the at least partially un-erupted tooth to match an anticipated size of the at least partially un-erupted tooth of the patient ([0127], the size of the space available between teeth and other mouth features used to aid in the shaping and scaling of the tooth sample to be selected and shaped to be used in the virtual model).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Kitching discloses determining a shape of a cavity of a dental appliance for accommodating the at least partially un-erupted tooth using the estimated shape (Fig. 7, [0106], FIG. 7, a dental appliance 710 can include a number of tooth apertures for the placement of teeth 766 therein and one or more spaces 768 formed by analysis of information about a patient's mouth and wherein the space represents a position of a fully erupted virtual tooth 741 representing a tooth that has not fully erupted 742 and wherein an appliance space portion 768 is oriented to be received over the position of the tooth that has not fully erupted in the mouth of the patient).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Kitching discloses the estimated shape of the at least partially un-erupted tooth into one or more virtual dentition models of the patient's dentition in accordance with an orthodontic treatment plan for treating the patient's dentition (Fig. 7, [0031], [0036], [0108]-[0112], Accordingly, in some embodiments, where several appliances are created for the movement of teeth over time, the appliance space portion can be created to increase or change the size of the space portion from one appliance to the next subsequent appliance as the teeth are move to accommodate the erupting tooth. For example, where initially there may not be enough room for an unerupted or partially erupted tooth to erupt, the various appliances can be designed through use of the virtual model to create such space based upon the use of a virtual erupted tooth being illustrated for a virtual unerupted tooth in the virtual model).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Kitching discloses providing instructions to form the dental appliance including the cavity for accommodating the at least partially un-erupted tooth (Abstract, Fig. 7, [0031], [0106]-[0109], tooth modeling includes receiving a patient information file for a treatment plan patient. The modeling of teeth can use virtual teeth models to aid in the formation of dental appliances for use, for example in the administration of dental treatment plans. in forming an appliance that can accommodate the tooth as it is erupting or as it will be reconstructed and in forming the appliance so that the gingival line of the appliance is close to that of the gingiva line of the erupting or reconstructed one or more unerupted teeth).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Kitching discloses estimating the shape of the at least partially unerupted tooth gingiva ([0137], information can be obtained from an estimated gingiva shape based upon information obtained from a database of ideal gingiva shapes and gingiva surrounding one or more particular teeth in the patient information file) includes determining an average shape for the tooth type (Fig.1C and 1D, [0126], [0129], [0134]-[0137], obtained from an estimated tooth shape based upon information obtained from a database of ideal teeth. The partially erupted tooth of FIG. 1C and includes an outline of a model shape of the unerupted portion of the tooth).
Regarding claim 9 and 15, Kitching discloses the plurality of 3D descriptors are based on orthoscopic views of the plurality of teeth ([0004],[0084]-[0085], [0110], [0117], the virtual erupted tooth can replace the virtual unerupted or partially erupted tooth on the display. The treatment professional can use a computing interface device to identify points on an image of a tooth displayed on a graphical user interface).
Regarding claim 12, Kitching discloses identify the tooth type of the at least partially un-erupted tooth of the patient ([0033]-[0035], determining if a tooth or teeth are missing or partially erupted. In some embodiments, executable instructions can be provided to identify which tooth or teeth are missing or present, such as whether molars, generally, first and/or second molars, separately, canines, and/or bicuspids are present or missing).
5.2 Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitching (US 20080294405 A1) in view of Abdelmunim et al. (A 3D HUMAN TEETH DATABASE CONSTRUCTION BASED ON A POINT-BASED SHAPE REGISTRATIONA) further in view of Chen (US 20150220683 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the combination of Kitching and Abdelmunim disclose the limitations of claim 1 and 11 but fail to disclose the limitations of claim 10 and 19. However, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 10 and 19 as follows:
Chen discloses plurality of 3D descriptors includes one or more of: elliptical Fourier descriptors (EFDs), spherical harmonic functions that use voxelated spheres, and spherical harmonic functions that use non-voxelated spheres ([0033]-[0055], Fig. 1 - Fig. 2, applying spherical harmonics Fourier expansion on the parameterized surface after the spherical-parameterization).
Abdelmunim, Chen and Kitching are analogous arts since both are in dental alignment field. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify creating a statistical average mode, taught by Chen, incorporated with teaching of Abdelmunim and Kitching, as stated above, for segmenting the obtained surface using a curvature-based clustering algorithm to remove a bottom of the enamel-dentine junction; spherical-parameterizing, by means of spherical harmonic analysis, the surface of the enamel-dentine junction after removal of the bottom; and aligning different samples of the tooth to obtain a statistical average model.
Citation Pertinent prior art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choe (US 2016/0135924A1) discloses creating a dental appliance having a cavity for an unerupted or erupting tooth), wherein a shape of the one or more second cavities is formed based on a predicted tooth shape for the at least partially un-erupted tooth.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kidest Worku, whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad, can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217 - 9197.
/KIDEST WORKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights