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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The applicant submitted a terminal disclaimer over U.S. Patent No. 12,097,048 on 02/12/2026, and the terminal disclaimer is acknowledged and approved; thus, the Double Patenting Rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
Claims 13-15 and 18 are cancelled, claims 21-24 are added, and claims 1-13, 16-17, and 19-24 remain pending in the application in response to the applicant’s amendments to the rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/14/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For claims 1, 19, and 20, the applicant argues that “Therefore, the calibration plate is only placed on the treatment couch during the calibration phase before treatment…Therefore, Hale fails to disclose "the table including a positioning line" recited in amended claim 1.” (see pg. 12, para. 2 of applicant’s remarks), and “Additionally, the stages of use of Hale differ from that of amended claim 1: the set of lines on the calibration plate in Hale is solely utilized during the system calibration phase before patient treatment, whereas the positioning line in amended claim 1 is applied during and after patient treatment.” (see pg. 14, para. 3), and the examiner disagrees.
The claim does not recite that the steps are not performed during the calibration phase before treatment, and the positioning line is “applied” during and after patient treatment. There is no recitation of the word “treatment” or its synonyms in any claim. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Hale teaches “the table including a positioning line” (see 102(a) rejection below).
For claims 1, 19, and 20, the applicant argues that “Additionally, Hale does not obtain images using a medical imaging component, but rather using a monitoring system that includes at least one motion monitor camera and at least one setup camera.” (see pg. 13, para. 2 of applicant’s remarks), and the examiner disagrees.
The claim does not specify what is considered a “medical imaging component”. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Hale’s camera monitoring a patient is a “medical imaging component” (see 102(a) rejection below).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are claims that recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “actuating a table…”, “obtaining a first image…”, and “determining…a relative position…” steps in claims 1, 19, and 20 does not specify how to actuate the table, obtain the image, and determine the relative position. The physician can view move the table with their hands, print and view an image of the table, and determine a relative position of the table based on the printed image using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
General system elements (i.e., storage device, processor) related to the insignificant extra solution activity steps that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 2-3 merely specifies what is considered a relative position of the table. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 4 merely specifies what is considered a positioning line of the table. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 5 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “identifying a second cross section…” and “determining…the relative position…” steps in claim 5 does not specify how to identify a second cross section of a table, and determine the relative position. The physician can print and view an image of a table and determine a relative position of the table based on the printed image using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 6 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “determining a third position…”, “determining a feature value…”, “identifying…the second cross section…”, “determining a fourth position…”, “determining…the relative position…” steps do not specify how to determine positions of the table, determine values, identify a second cross section of a table, and determine the relative position. The physician can print and view an image of a table, assign a value to the table, identify a cross section of the table, and determine a relative position of the table based on the printed image using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 7 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). Claim 7 merely specifies the positions include coordinates. The “determining…the distance…” step does not specify how to determine the distance. The physician can determine a distance of the table based on the printed image using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 8 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “obtaining a lookup table…” and “determining…the feature value…” does not specify how to obtain a lookup table and determine the feature value. The physician can write a lookup table and determine the feature value of the printed image using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claims 9-10 merely specifies where the positioning line is mounted. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 11 merely specifies the density and material of the positioning line. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 12 merely specifies the material of the positioning line. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 16 merely specifies shape of the positioning line, and what is considered a cross section. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 17 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “obtaining a second image…”, “transforming the second image…”, “transforming the first image…”, “aligning…”, “registering…” does not specify how to obtain the images, transform the images, align the images, and register the images. The physician can print and view the images, redraw the images, align the redrawn images, and register the aligned images using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
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)(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.
Claims 1-13, 16-17, 19-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hale (US 20190321657 A1, published October24, 2019), hereinafter referred to as Hale.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly for claims 19 and 20, Hale teaches a system for image registration, comprising:
at least one storage device storing a set of instructions for registering (see para. 0098 "a processor enables a model surface of the patient 220 to be generated and compared with a previously stored model so that any differences between the generated surface and the stored model surface can be identified and the positioning of the patient 220 adjusted so that the surface of the patient 220 matches the surface defined by the stored model [registering]."); and
at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations (see para. 0058 " the computer14 is configured by software into a number of functional modules 15-19.") including:
actuating a table to move a subject from a first position to a second position (see para. 0098 "In use, initially a patient 220 is positioned on the mechanical couch 13 [table] with the mechanical couch 13 in the setup position shown in FIG. 12 [first position]." see para. 0099 "Subsequently, during treatment the mechanical couch 13 is translated by a fixed amount so as to be moved into the position illustrated in FIG. 13 [second position]."),
the table including a positioning line (Fig. 15; see para. 0109 "Additionally, the calibration markings also comprise a set of lines 265-267 [positioning line] etched on the surface of the calibration plate 250..."; see para. 0110 "FIG. 16 is a schematic plan view of the exemplary calibration plate 250 positioned on a mechanical couch 13 of the treatment system of FIGS. 12 and 13.");
obtaining a first image including the subject and at least one portion of the positioning line using a medical imaging component, the subject being located at the second position during the acquisition of the first image (Fig. 13, second position; see para. 0099 "In this position the portion (i.e. the target area) of the surface of the patient 220 which was previously viewed by the two outer cameras 230, 234 (i.e. also denoted the setup camera(s) throughout the description) of the patient monitoring system 10is now viewed by the central camera 232(also denoted as a motion monitor camera throughout the description) of the patient monitoring system 10which again enables a model of the surface of the patient 220to be generated..."); and
determining, based on the first image and the positioning line, a relative position of the second position to the first position (see para. 0122 "Theoretically, if the physical translation of the mechanical couch 13 accurately corresponds to the offset between the highlighted set up location 228 and the treatment room iso-center226, the models generated by processing images from the outer two cameras 230, 234 and the central camera 232 should correspond.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 2, Hale further teaches wherein the relative position includes a distance between the second position and the first position along a moving direction of the table and/or a distance between the second position and the first position along a direction perpendicular to the moving direction of the table (see para. 0098 "In use, initially a patient 220 is positioned on the mechanical couch 13 [table] with the mechanical couch 13 in the setup position shown in FIG. 12 [first position]."; see para. 0099 "Subsequently, during treatment the mechanical couch 13 is translated by a fixed amount so as to be moved into the position illustrated in FIG. 13 [second position].").
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, Hale further teaches wherein the relative position includes at least one of: a distance between the second position and the first position along a length direction of the table and a distance between the second position and the first position along a width direction of the table (see para. 0098 "In use, initially a patient 220 is positioned on the mechanical couch 13 [table] with the mechanical couch 13 in the setup position shown in FIG. 12 [first position]."; see para. 0099 "Subsequently, during treatment the mechanical couch 13 is translated [distance in length direction] by a fixed amount so as to be moved into the position illustrated in FIG. 13 [second position].").
Furthermore, regarding claim 4, Hale further teaches wherein the positioning line includes a positioning feature having a plurality of feature values, and each of the plurality of feature values corresponds to a cross section of the table (Fig. 15; see para. 0108 "In an embodiment, the calibration object 250 is in the form of a rectangular calibration plate 250 which is made of a stiff rigid material such as aluminum onto which a high precision pattern of calibration markings [feature values of positioning lines] have been machined or printed.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, Hale further teaches wherein the determining the relative position of the second position to the first position includes: identifying a second cross section of the table in the first image that matches a first cross section of the table; and determining, based on the second cross section and the first cross section, the relative position of the second position to the first position (see para. 0059 "The matching module 19 then proceeds to determine translations required to matcha generated model with a target model. When positioning a patient the difference between a current model surface and a target model surface obtained from an earlier session is identified and the positioning instructions necessary to align the surfaces determined and sent to the mechanical couch 13.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 6, Hale further teaches wherein the determining the relative position of the second position to the first position includes: determining a third position of the first cross section of the table in a first coordinate system; determining a feature value of the positioning feature corresponding to the first cross section of the table; identifying, based on the feature value of the positioning feature corresponding to the first cross section, the second cross section of the table in the first image that matches the first cross section; determining a fourth position of the second cross section in the first coordinate system; and determining, based on the third position and the fourth position, the relative position of the second position to the first position (see para. 0117 "Co-ordinates for the points within the image corresponding to the new estimated circle centers are then determined from these x,y co-ordinates and these updated estimates of the centers of the larger circles 255-258; 259-262 are then utilized to determine a more accurate estimated transformation to account for the location and orientation of the calibration plate 250.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, Hale further teaches wherein the third position of the first cross section includes a first coordinate of the first cross section, the fourth position of the second cross section includes a second coordinate of the second cross section, the relative position includes a distance between the second position and the first position, and the determining the relative position of the second position to the first position includes: determining, based on the first coordinate and the second coordinate, the distance between the second position and the first position (see para. 0117 "Co-ordinates for the points within the image corresponding to the new estimated circle centers are then determined from these x,y co-ordinates and these updated estimates of the centers of the larger circles 255-258; 259-262 are then utilized to determine a more accurate estimated transformation to account for the location and orientation of the calibration plate 250.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, Hale further teaches wherein the determining the feature value of the positioning feature corresponding to the first cross section of the table includes: obtaining a lookup table recording feature values of the positioning feature corresponding to a plurality of cross sections of the table; and determining, based on the third position of the first cross section, the feature value of the positioning feature corresponding to the first cross section of the table by looking up the lookup table (see para. 0098 "...a processor enables a model surface of the patient 220 to be generated and compared with a previously stored model [lookup table] so that any differences between the generated surface and the stored model surface can be identified...").
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, Hale further teaches wherein the positioning line is mounted on a surface of the table on which the subject lies (Fig. 16, calibration plate 250 on surface of table 13; see para. 0116 "FIG. 16 is a schematic plan view of the exemplary calibration plate 250 [positioning line] positioned on a mechanical couch 13 [table] of the treatment system of FIGS. 12 and 13.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, Hale further teaches wherein the positioning line is mounted within the table (Fig. 16; see para. 0109 "Additionally, the calibration markings also comprise a set of lines 265-267 etched [within table] on the surface of the calibration plate 250.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, Hale further teaches wherein a density of the positioning line is different from a density of the table, or a material of the positioning line is different from a material of the table (see para. 0108 "In an embodiment, the calibration object 250 [positioning line] is in the form of a rectangular calibration plate 250 which is made of a stiff rigid material such as aluminum onto which a high precision pattern of calibration markings have been machined or printed.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, Hale further teaches wherein the material of the positioning line is associated with a type of the imaging component (see para. 0129 "In this example a first monitoring system380 is arranged to monitor a patient 220 when the patient 220 is located within a bore 382 of an imaging apparatus 384, for example a CT or MRI scanner or the like."; see para. 0108 "In an embodiment, the calibration object 250 is in the form of a rectangular calibration plate 250which is made of a stiff rigid material such as aluminum onto which a high precision pattern of calibration markings have been machined or printed. ").
Furthermore, regarding claim 16, Hale further teaches wherein: the positioning line has an N-shape, a cross section of a plurality of cross sections has a first point, a second point, and a third point of the positioning line, the second point being located between the first point and the third point, and the positioning feature includes at least one of a first distance between the first point and the second point, a second distance between the second point and the third point, a ratio of the first distance to the second distance, a ratio of the second distance to the first distance, or a difference between the first distance and the second distance (Fig. 15, position of lines 265-267 makes an N-shape; see para. 0117 "Co-ordinates for the points within the image corresponding to the new estimated circle centers are then determined from these x,y co-ordinates and these updated estimates of the centers of the larger circles 255-258; 259-262 are then utilized to determine a more accurate estimated transformation to account for the location and orientation of the calibration plate 250.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 17, Hale further teaches wherein the operations further comprises:
obtaining a second image of the subject, the second image being captured prior to the first image; and registering, based on the relative position of the second position to the first position, the first image and the second image with each other (Fig. 16; see para. 0111-0112 "More specifically, images of the set of calibration markings 252 located in the vicinity of the treatment room iso-center 226 are captured by the center camera 232of the monitoring system 10 and images of the set of calibration markings 254 in located in the vicinity of the point of intersection 228 of the planes of laser lighting 222, 224 are captured by the two other cameras 230, 234 of the monitoring system10. The images obtained by the cameras 230-234 can then be used (S4) to calibrate [register] the monitoring system 10."), includes:
transforming the second image into a transformed second image in a second coordinate system; transforming the first image into a transformed first image in the second coordinate system based on the relative position of the second position to the first position (Fig. 15; see para. 0114 "From the relative positions of circles 255-258; 259-262, for each image a first projective transformation is determined which accounts for the estimated centers of the identified circles, wherein the estimated centers define the corners of a projected distorted square due to the relative orientation of the calibration plate 250 and the camera 230; 232; 234 obtaining the image.");
aligning the transformed second image with the transformed first image to generate an aligned second image and an aligned first image; and registering the aligned first image with the aligned second image (see para. 0119 "When the co-ordinates for all the centers of each of the representations of the circles on the calibration plate 250 as viewed by a camera 230; 232; 234 have been calculated, the relative orientation of the central camera 232to the treatment room iso-center226 and the other cameras 230, 234 to the point in space highlighted by the intersection 228 of the planes of laser light 222, 224 can then be calculated from the relative positions of these points in the images and the known relative locations of these circles on the surface of the calibration sheet...").
Furthermore, regarding claim 22, Hale further teaches wherein the determining the third position of the first cross section of the table in the first coordinate system includes: obtaining a lookup table storing X-coordinates of points in a plurality of cross sections of the table in the first coordinate system; determining X-coordinates of the first cross section in the first coordinate system based on the position of the first cross section relative to the table by looking up the look-up table (see para. 0098 "...a processor enables a model surface of the patient 220 to be generated and compared with a previously stored model [lookup table] so that any differences between the generated surface and the stored model surface can be identified...").
Furthermore, regarding claim 23, Hale further teaches wherein the determining the fourth position of the second cross section in the first coordinate system includes:
representing the first image in a coordinate system with respect to the imaging component (see para. 0114 – “From the relative positions of circles 255-258; 259-262, for each image a first projective transformation is determined which accounts for the estimated centers of the identified circles, wherein the estimated centers define the corners of a projected distorted square due to the relative orientation of the calibration plate 250 and the camera 230; 232; 234 obtaining the image.”);
determining the fourth position according to the first image and a transformation relationship between the first coordinate system and the coordinate system with respect to the imaging component (see para. 0115 – “This calculated transform is then utilized to determine estimated three-dimensional co-ordinates centers of each of the circles in the calibration area 252; 254 imaged by the camera 230; 232; 234. These calculated co-ordinates centers are then used to identify an estimated location and orientation for a plane corresponding to a surface of the calibration plate 250 relative to the position, from which an image has been obtained.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 24, Hale further teaches wherein the positioning line includes a positioning feature having a plurality of unique feature values, and each of the plurality of feature values corresponds to a distinctive cross section of the table (Fig. 15; see para. 0117 "Co-ordinates for the points within the image corresponding to the new estimated circle centers are then determined from these x,y co-ordinates and these updated estimates of the centers of the larger circles 255-258; 259-262 are then utilized to determine a more accurate estimated transformation to account for the location and orientation of the calibration plate 250.").
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale in view of Jones et al. (US 20070237306 A1, published October 11, 2007), hereinafter referred to as Jones.
Regarding claim 21, Hale teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 6 above.
Hale teaches determining a position of a cross section of a table, but does not explicitly teach determining a Y-coordinate of the table via an encoder.
Whereas, Jones, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the determining the third position of the first cross section of the table in the first coordinate system includes: detecting a Y-coordinate of the table in the first coordinate system by an encoder; determining Y-coordinates of the first cross section in the first coordinate system based on the Y-coordinate of the table and a position of the first cross section relative to the table (Fig. 4A; see para. 0037 – “Attached to the Y-axis recirculating ball guide block in the upper-left corner is a Y-axis linear optical encoder 86. These encoders provide the XY position of the tabletop, which information is required to locate or register the reconstructed cross-sectional images in space.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified determining a position of a cross section of a table, as disclosed in Hale, by also determining a Y-coordinate of the table via an encoder, as disclosed in Jones. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to present 3-D representations of the breast, where all the slice images are assembled into a single volumetric image, as taught in Jones (see para. 0037).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Little et al. (US 20200114173 A1, published April 16, 2020 with a priority date of October 15, 2019) discloses the couch top may comprise reference points, lines etc. to facilitate alignment of the phantom by a dashed line.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights