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 .
Examiner’s Notes
This Office action is generated after applicant-initiated interview to examine a correct claim set received on 12/05/2024 instead of the incorrect claims set, inadvertently received on 09/30/2025, namely original PCT claims 1-30 with claims 21-30 canceled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one imager, disposed in the vault between the patient support platform and the vault entrance such that the imager forms a barrier to limit harmful neutron radiation leaving the vault” claimed in claims 1 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 12 the claimed “at least one imager, disposed in the vault between the patient support platform and the vault entrance such that the imager forms a barrier to limit harmful neutron radiation leaving the vault” is not described in the specification. The specification discloses that the imager is disposed outside the vault, contrary what is claimed.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: with respect to claim 12, in line 2, recitations “the method comprising the steps of”: should read as “the method comprising:” in order to overcome any possible claim interpretation issues. This matter was discussed during applicant’s initiate interview too. Appropriate correction is required and respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(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 1-6 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cooley et al. (US PAP 2021/0274635 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Cooley et al. teaches a proton irradiation treatment system, configured to be deployed in an existing radiotherapy treatment vault (424), the system comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0205, 0206, 0209 and 0247):
PNG
media_image1.png
531
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a patient support platform (570), disposed in a region of the vault away from a vault entrance, for limiting harmful neutron radiation leaving the vault (see paragraphs 0205 and 0206), the patient support platform (570) being a seatable platform configured for supporting a patient (406) in an upright or seated positioning during a treatment session; at least one imager on track motion (see paragraphs 0021, 0136, 0198-0220) that can be disposed in the vault between the patient support platform and the vault entrance such that the imager forms a barrier to limit harmful neutron radiation leaving the vault, the imager configured for imaging the patient in an upright or seated positioning on the patient support platform (see paragraphs 0021, 0136, 0198-0220);
PNG
media_image2.png
433
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
653
507
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a proton beam generator (912) (see Figs. 25 and 29; proton irradiation beam (1421) generated from a source (1442)), disposed in the vault, the proton beam generator comprising a synchrotron, configured to generate a proton irradiation beam having limited harmful neutron radiation (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247); and a proton beam delivery device, coupled with the synchrotron and disposed in the vault (see Fig. 29; proton irradiation beam (1421) generated from a source (1442)), the proton beam delivery device comprising a gantry-less pencil beam scanning (PBS) device (see paragraph 0079), configured to deliver at least one proton irradiation dose without a collimator and having limited harmful neutron radiation to an isocenter of a target tissue of the patient with respect to an imaging coordinate system, during a proton therapy treatment (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209).
With respect to claim 2, Cooley et al. teaches the system of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247), further comprising a controller (932), wherein during a treatment planning stage, the controller (932)is configured to receive treatment prescriptions for treating the patient, to receive at least one image of the patient on the patient support platform, and a position and orientation of the patient respective of the image (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209), and to generate a proton therapy treatment plan responsive to the received image and respective position and orientation and received treatment prescriptions, the treatment plan comprising a series of irradiation dose parameters for at least one treatment session, each of the irradiation dose parameters comprising, for each respective irradiation dose: a dosage, a position and orientation of the patient relative to an isocenter, and an irradiation angle, and wherein during a treatment application stage (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209), the controller (932) is configured to direct the proton beam delivery device to emit a proton irradiation dose, while selectively repositioning and reorienting a target tissue of the patient with respect to an isocenter of the proton irradiation beam, in accordance with treatment planning fields of the treatment plan (see paragraph 0209).
With respect to claim 3, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the system of claim 1, wherein the synchrotron is disposed adjacent to an entrance wall of the vault, and wherein the proton beam delivery device is configured to direct the proton irradiation dose toward the patient support platform disposed adjacent to a rear wall of the vault (see paragraphs 0069 and 0070).
With respect to claim 4, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the system of claim 3, wherein the synchrotron is disposed within an enclosed partition defined by an entrance wall of the vault, an outer side wall of the vault, and an inner side wall of the vault (see paragraphs 0069 and 0070).
With respect to claim 5, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the system of claim 1, wherein the synchrotron is disposed adjacent to a rear wall of the vault, and wherein the proton beam delivery device is configured to direct the proton irradiation dose toward the patient support platform disposed at a rear side of a first intermediate inner wall of the vault (see paragraphs 0069 and 0070).
With respect to claim 6, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the system of claim 5, wherein the synchrotron is configured to extend through a plurality of apertures of a second intermediate inner wall of the vault adjacent to the rear wall (see paragraphs 0069 and 0070).
With respect to claim 12, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) a method for deploying a proton irradiation treatment system in an existing radiotherapy treatment vault, the method comprising: installing a patient support platform in a region of the vault away from a vault entrance, for limiting harmful neutron radiation leaving the vault, the patient support platform being a seatable platform configured for supporting a patient in an upright or seated positioning during a treatment session (see paragraphs 0079, 0081, 0092, 0095, 0103, 0114, 0211- 0213, 0228 and 0236); installing at least one imager on track motion (see paragraphs 0021, 0136, 0198-0220) in the vault between the patient support platform and the vault entrance such that the imager forms a barrier to limit harmful neutron radiation leaving the vault, the imager configured for imaging the patient in an upright or seated positioning on the patient support platform (see paragraphs 0079, 0081, 0092, 0095, 0103, 0114, 0211- 0213, 0228 and 0236); installing a proton beam generator in the vault, the proton beam generator comprising a synchrotron, configured to generate a proton irradiation beam having limited harmful neutron radiation (see paragraphs 0079, 0081, 0092, 0095, 0103, 0114, 0211- 0213, 0228 and 0236); and installing a proton beam delivery device (see Fig. 29; proton irradiation beam (1421) generated from a source (1442)), coupled with the synchrotron, in the vault, the proton beam delivery device comprising a gantry-less pencil beam scanning (PBS) device (see paragraph 0079), configured to deliver at least one proton irradiation dose without a collimator and having limited harmful neutron radiation to an isocenter of a target tissue of the patient with respect to an imaging coordinate system, during a proton therapy treatment (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247).
With respect to claim 13, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the method of claim 12, wherein the synchrotron is disposed adjacent to an entrance wall of the vault, and wherein the proton beam delivery device is configured to direct the proton irradiation dose toward the patient support platform disposed adjacent to a rear wall of the vault (see paragraphs 0069 and 0070).
With respect to claim 14, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the method of claim 13, wherein the synchrotron is disposed within an enclosed partition defined by an entrance wall of the vault, an outer side wall of the vault, and an inner side wall of the vault (see paragraphs 0069 and 0070).
With respect to claim 15, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the method of claim 12, wherein the synchrotron is disposed adjacent to a rear wall of the vault, and wherein the proton beam delivery device is configured to direct the proton irradiation dose toward the patient support platform disposed at a rear side of a first intermediate inner wall of the vault (see paragraphs 0069 and 0070).
With respect to claim 16, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the method of claim 15, wherein the synchrotron is configured to extend through a plurality of apertures of a second intermediate inner wall of the vault adjacent to the rear wall (see paragraphs 0069 and 0070).
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 7, 8, 10, 11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooley et al. (US PAP 2021/0274635 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the system of claim 1 but fails to explicitly mention that the vault comprises at least one intermediate wall or door, comprising a concrete material having a thickness of at least 1 meter and density of at least 2.35 g/cm3.
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 the claimed invention pertains to provide an arrangement, wherein the vault comprises at least one intermediate wall or door, comprising a concrete material having a thickness of at least 1 meter and density of at least 2.35 g/cm3
for possible safety issues to protect potential bystanders, such as clinic staff members, in the apparatus of Cooley et al., since it has been held that rearrangement parts of invention without producing any new an unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 8, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the system of claim 7 but fails to explicitly mention that the vault comprises at least one additional shielding layer selected from the group consisting of: an iron shielding of approximately 20 cm thickness on an interior side of the intermediate wall; a borated polyethylene shielding of approximately 40 cm thickness on an exterior side of the intermediate wall; and a borated polyethylene shielding of approximately 40cm thickness on an interior side of an entrance door of the vault.
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 the claimed invention pertains to provide an arrangement, wherein the vault comprises at least one additional shielding layer selected from the group consisting of: an iron shielding of approximately 20 cm thickness on an interior side of the intermediate wall; a borated polyethylene shielding of approximately 40cm thickness on an exterior side of the intermediate wall; and a borated polyethylene shielding of approximately 40cm thickness on an interior side of an entrance door of the vault for possible safety issues to protect potential bystanders, such as clinic staff members, in the apparatus of Cooley et al., since it has been held that rearrangement parts of invention without producing any new an unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 10, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the system of claim 2 but fails to explicitly mention that a distance between an imaging isocenter of the patient during the treatment planning stage, and an imaging isocenter of the patient during the treatment application stage, is less than 2 meters.
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 the claimed invention pertains to provide an arrangement, wherein the distance between an imaging isocenter of the patient during the treatment planning stage, and an imaging isocenter of the patient during the treatment application stage, is less than 2 meters, since such a modification would allow user with the capabilities to provide more efficient, precise, and/or accurate in-vivo treatment of a solid cancerous tumor with minimization of damage to surrounding healthy tissue. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 11, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the system of claim 1 but fails to explicitly mention that a distance between a distal end of the proton beam delivery device and a skin portion of the patient, during the treatment application stage, is less than 1 meter.
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 the claimed invention pertains to provide an arrangement, wherein the distance between a distal end of the proton beam delivery device and a skin portion of the patient, during the treatment application stage, is less than 1 meter, , since such a modification would allow user with the capabilities to provide more efficient, precise, and/or accurate in-vivo treatment of a solid cancerous tumor with minimization of damage to surrounding healthy tissue. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 17, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the method of claim 12 but fails to explicitly teach that the vault comprises at least one intermediate wall or door, comprising a concrete material having a thickness of at least 1 meter and density of at least 2.35 g/cm3.
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 the claimed invention pertains to provide an arrangement, wherein the vault comprises at least one intermediate wall or door, comprising a concrete material having a thickness of at least 1 meter and density of at least 2.35 g/cm3
for possible safety issues to protect potential bystanders, such as clinic staff members, in the method of Cooley et al., since it has been held that rearrangement parts of invention without producing any new an unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 18, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the method of claim but fails to explicitly mention that the vault comprises at least one additional shielding layer selected from the group consisting of: an iron shielding of approximately 20 cm thickness on an interior side of the intermediate wall; a borated polyethylene shielding of approximately 40 cm thickness on an exterior side of the intermediate wall; and a borated polyethylene shielding of approximately 40cm thickness on an interior side of an entrance door of the vault.
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 the claimed invention pertains to provide an arrangement, wherein the vault comprises at least one additional shielding layer selected from the group consisting of: an iron shielding of approximately 20 cm thickness on an interior side of the intermediate wall; a borated polyethylene shielding of approximately 40cm thickness on an exterior side of the intermediate wall; and a borated polyethylene shielding of approximately 40cm thickness on an interior side of an entrance door of the vault for possible safety issues to protect potential bystanders, such as clinic staff members, in the apparatus of Cooley et al., since it has been held that rearrangement parts of invention without producing any new an unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 19, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the method of claim 12 but fails to explicitly mention that a distance between an imaging isocenter of the patient during the treatment planning stage, and an imaging isocenter of the patient during the treatment application stage, is less than 2 meters.
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 the claimed invention pertains to provide an arrangement, wherein the distance between an imaging isocenter of the patient during the treatment planning stage, and an imaging isocenter of the patient during the treatment application stage, is less than 2 meters, since such a modification would allow user with the capabilities to provide more efficient, precise, and/or accurate in-vivo treatment of a solid cancerous tumor with minimization of damage to surrounding healthy tissue. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 20, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the method of claim but fails to explicitly teach that a distance between a distal end of the proton beam delivery device and a skin portion of the patient, during the treatment application stage, is less than 1 meter.
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 the claimed invention pertains to provide an arrangement, wherein the distance between a distal end of the proton beam delivery device and a skin portion of the patient, during the treatment application stage, is less than 1 meter, , since such a modification would allow user with the capabilities to provide more efficient, precise, and/or accurate in-vivo treatment of a solid cancerous tumor with minimization of damage to surrounding healthy tissue. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooley et al. (US PAP 2021/0274635 A1). as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Balakin (US PAP 2017/0043182 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Cooley et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1-43; paragraphs 0005, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0103, 0124, 0125, 0167, 0198, 0209 and 0247) the system of claim 1, further comprising a platform adjustment mechanism (570), configured to adjust the platform translationally and rotationally about three orthogonal axes (see Fig.19) but fails but fails to explicitly mention to alter a position or orientation of the patient along six degrees of freedom.
Balakin discloses a system/method for proton beam treatment which explicitly teaches to alter a position or orientation of the patient along six degrees of freedom (see Figs. 33-35; paragraphs 0039, 0342, 0349, 0350 and 0382)
PNG
media_image4.png
462
395
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
536
389
media_image5.png
Greyscale
providing user with the capabilities to ensure targeted and controlled delivery of energy relative to a patient position resulting in efficient, precise, and/or accurate in-vivo treatment of a solid cancerous tumor with minimization of damage to surrounding healthy tissue (paragraphs 0039, 0342, 0349, 0350, 0382 and 0382).
Cooley et al. and Balakin disclose related methods/apparatuses for proton beam treatment.
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 the claimed invention pertains to provide teachings to alter a position or orientation of the patient along six degrees of freedom as suggested by Balakin disclose in the apparatus of Cooley et al., since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to a patient position resulting in efficient, precise, and/or accurate in-vivo treatment of a solid cancerous tumor with minimization of damage to surrounding healthy tissue.
It would have been obvious to treat Cooley et al. and Balakin as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claim 9 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRAKLI KIKNADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6494. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM. 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, David J. Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
Irakli Kiknadze
/IRAKLI KIKNADZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 /I.K./ July 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights