DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding to 103 rejections, applicant argues that Dehghan Marvast, Zhao and Zou are addressing different technical problems using different technical means and a person skilled in the art would have no motivation to combine them (page 2). Specifically, applicant argues that Dehghan Marvast is merely a probe calibration method and does not address any surgical planning or image display issues, and has no motivation to combine with other references. Zhao is step by step intermediate transformation matrices to provide a standard navigation path for cardiac puncture, while present invention is direct conversion between the cross-sectional image coordinate to sagittal image coordinate for the purpose of real-time follow-up display between two image planes, thus, problems solved in Zhao is entirely different from the claimed invention. Zou is directed to displaying different planar views while present application addresses case where sagittal and cross sectional images are acquired using a biplanar ultrasound probe and invention establishes association between the two image planes without requiring 3D reconstruction, providing convenient viewing perspective at low cost and with high efficiency, and Zou does not disclose the matrices, transformation and would not have combined with other prior arts to arrive at claim 1 (pages 2-3).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Pending claim 1 of instant application does not recite whether it is for surgical planning or others, rather it is reciting steps of calibrations using conversion matrixes, and displaying the result. The examiner notes that Dehghan Marvast teaches ultrasound image planning method as it discloses calibration using conversion matrix of axial image and the probe and the matrix of sagittal image and the probe. Since, Dehghan Marvast discloses calibration matrix of axial image and the probe and calibration matrix of sagittal image and the probe, can incorporate teaching of Zhao to sequentially translate or rotate the coordinate system of sagittal to axial or axial to sagittal image, to calculate a third or fourth matrix as claimed. The examiner further submits that Dehghan Marvast and Zhao are analogous in trying to solve transformation matrix for conversion of coordinates in image frames in ultrasound images. Thus, Zhao teaches a third or fourth conversion transformation matrix obtained from rotating, translating plane around the origin of the coordinate system based on a first transformation matrix, second transformation matrix and a third transformation matrix (Figure 6, [0022]; [0077]-[0080]), thus reads on the limitation of calculating a third or fourth conversion matrix based on the first and second conversion matrix.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify calibration matrix as taught by Dehghan Marvast to incorporate teaching of Zhao, since transformation matrix determination based on was well known in the art as taught by Zhao. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Dehghan Marvast with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide overall resulting sequence of rotation and translation of the coordinate system ([0022]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Moreover, with argument for Zou, the examiner notes that Zou was not incorporated for teaching matrix, conversion matrix and transformation, rather it was for displaying two image frames, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sagittal and transverse (axial) images as taught by Dehghan Marvast to incorporate teaching of Zou, since displaying scan planes was well known in the art as taught by Zou. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Dehghan Marvast with no change in their respective functions, simply displaying the determined sagittal and its corresponding transverse (Axial) images containing a target, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide doctor more accurate localized sectional images and region of interest in the image, related parameter information, and provide more friendly display and operation manner [0430]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, rejection is proper and maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites “a biplanar ultrasound imaging planning method” twice in lines 1-2 page 1. It is not clear whether applicant intends to recite two distinct and different method or meant to refer to same method (in case, second method should be “the biplanar ultrasound image planning method”).
Claim 8 recites the limitations “the position relationship between the second ultrasonic probe and the sagittal image” and "the second ultrasonic probe" in line 10 page 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claims 1 and 4 do not recite “a position relationship between a second ultrasonic probe and the sagittal image” and “a second ultrasonic probe” prior to the limitation.
Claim 9 recites “a follow up manner” and is not clear whether it is same or different from recited “a follow u manner” of claim 4.
Claim 10 recites “a follow up manner” and is not clear whether it is same or different from recited “a follow u manner” of claim 3.
Claim 15 recites “the execution mechanism is a motion motor and/or an energy generation apparatus” and is not clear whether it is same or different from recited “a motion and/or an energy generation apparatus” of claim 14.
Claims 2-15 are rejected as they inherit rejection of claim 1 as set forth above due to their dependency.
Claim 16 recites “using the method according to any one of claims 1” and it is not definite whether applicant intends to any of the claims 1-15 or a single claim 1.
Moreover, claim 6 recites claim limitation “”an ultrasonic imaging module” “a control module,” and “a display module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The figure 7(b) which visually shows each module are presented as a box, and specification does not clearly provide whether each module is a processor or processing unit executed in a computer and paragraphs [0290] and [0292] do disclose processors but does not explicitly disclose that the module is processor.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 9-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and amended to overcome 112 rejection 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.
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 1-2, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Dehghan Marvast et al.,” US 2018/0132821 (hereinafter Dehghan Marvast) and “Zhao et al.,” US 2021/0282743 (hereinafter Zhao), and “Zou et al.,” US 2017/0367685 (hereinafter Zou).
Regarding to claim 1, Dehghan Marvast teaches a biplanar ultrasound image planning method, which is a biplanar ultrasound image planning method captured by an ultrasonic probe (two orthogonal frames by an ultrasound probe [0035]-[0036]), characterized in that, and comprising the following steps:
calibrating a position relationship between a first ultrasonic probe and a cross-sectional image to obtain a first conversion matrix, the first conversion matrix being a matrix converted from a coordinate system of the cross-sectional image to a coordinate system of the first ultrasonic probe (image localizer processes the unique frame imaging of the ultrasound image to determine a position of ultrasound image within the frame coordinate system and to compute a transformation matrix between the ultrasound image and the frame, to compute a transformation matrix between ultrasound probe and the ultrasound image [0027]-[0028]; calibrate axial array of the ultrasound probe [0037]);
calibrating a position relationship between the first ultrasonic probe and a sagittal image to obtain a second conversion matrix, the second conversion matrix being a matrix converted from a coordinate system of the sagittal image to a coordinate system of the first ultrasonic probe (image localizer processes the unique frame imaging of the ultrasound image to determine a position of ultrasound image within the frame coordinate system and to compute a transformation matrix between the ultrasound image and the frame, to compute a transformation matrix between ultrasound probe and the ultrasound image [0027]-[0028]; calibrate the sagittal array of the ultrasound probe [0037] );
Dehghan Marvast does not explicitly disclose limitations of third or fourth conversion matrix as claimed.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound imaging method, Zhao teaches a third or fourth conversion transformation matrix obtained from rotating, translating plane around the origin of the coordinate system based on a first transformation matrix, second transformation matrix and a third transformation matrix (Figure 6, [0022]; [0077]-[0080]), thus reads on the limitation of calculating a third or fourth conversion matrix based on the first and second conversion matrix.
Since, Dehghan Marvast discloses calibration matrix of axial image and the probe and calibration matrix of sagittal image and the probe, can incorporate teaching of Zhao to sequentially translate or rotate the coordinate system of sagittal to axial or axial to sagittal image, to calculate a third or fourth matrix as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify calibration matrix as taught by Dehghan Marvast to incorporate teaching of Zhao, since transformation matrix determination based on was well known in the art as taught by Zhao. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Dehghan Marvast with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide overall resulting sequence of rotation and translation of the coordinate system ([0022]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Dehghan Marvast and Zhao do not further teach displaying a target position displayed in any of the coordinate system of the cross-sectional image and the coordinate system of the sagittal image in the other coordinate system in a follow-up manner.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound imaging method, Martins teaches displaying individual image scan planes, such as sagittal and transverse scan planes ([0027]-[0028]).
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound imaging method, Zou teaches processing method for ultrasound imaging, displaying sagittal section image and extract transverse section image set containing target as well as displaying transverse section ([0120], [0313], [0347]), wherein transformation matrix of sagittal or transverse section relative to the original coordinate, can be reconstructed using its transformation matrix of sagittal section and transverse section relative to the original coordinate ([0403]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sagittal and transverse (axial) images as taught by Dehghan Marvast to incorporate teaching of Zou, since displaying scan planes was well known in the art as taught by Zou. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Dehghan Marvast with no change in their respective functions, simply displaying the determined sagittal and its corresponding transverse (Axial) images containing a target, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide doctor more accurate localized sectional images and region of interest in the image, related parameter information, and provide more friendly display and operation manner [0430]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 2, Dehghan Marvast, Zhao, and Zou together teach all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Dehghan Marvast disclose the first ultrasonic probe is a biplanar ultrasonic probe (probe having two orthogonal planes [0036]).
Regarding to claim 7, Dehghan Marvast, Zhao, and Zou together teach all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Zhao further teaches converting a planned position in the coordinate system of the cross-sectional image or the coordinate system of the sagittal image into a motion or energy execution parameter, the motion or energy execution parameter being a parameter for controlling the motion and energy of an execution mechanism (planned path [0084]; obtain the planned path of needle in an image plane containing the ultrasound image of the lesion, coordinate information of the needle recorded and displayed, and orientation of a puncture needle is adjusted with the chest wall puncture point [0088], [0135]).
Regarding to claim 16, Dehghan Marvast teaches a biplanar ultrasound image planning apparatus, which is a biplanar ultrasound image planning apparatus captured by an ultrasonic probe (two orthogonal frames by an ultrasound probe [0035]-[0036]), characterized in that, and comprising: an ultrasonic imaging module ([0025]), a control module (image localizer [0027]), and a display module (11a displaying image in the monitor Fig. 1), characterized in that,
The ultrasonic imaging module is configured to acquire a position of a first ultrasonic probe and generate a cross-sectional image and a sagittal image (EM sensors for probe [0035], ultrasound imager generating an ultrasound image [0025]);
The control module configured to:
Establish a coordinate system of the first ultrasonic probe according to the position of the first ultrasonic probe, and respectively and correspondingly establish a coordinate system of the cross-sectional image and a coordinate system of the sagittal image according to the positions of the cross-sectional image and the sagittal image (establishing a coordinate system [0022], process the frame imaging to determine a position of the ultrasound image within the frame coordinate system [0027])
Calculate a first conversion matrix being a matrix converted from a coordinate system of the cross-sectional image to a coordinate system of the first ultrasonic probe and a second conversion matrix converted from the coordinate system of the sagittal image to the coordinate system of the first ultrasonic probe (image localizer processes the unique frame imaging of the ultrasound image to determine a position of ultrasound image within the frame coordinate system and to compute a transformation matrix between the ultrasound image and the frame, to compute a transformation matrix between ultrasound probe and the ultrasound image [0027]-[0028]; calibrate axial array of the ultrasound probe and sagittal array of the probe [0037]);
Dehghan Marvast does not explicitly disclose limitations of third or fourth conversion matrix as claimed.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound imaging method, Zhao teaches a third or fourth conversion transformation matrix obtained from rotating, translating plane around the origin of the coordinate system based on a first transformation matrix, second transformation matrix and a third transformation matrix (Figure 6, [0022]; [0077]-[0080]), thus reads on the limitation of calculating a third or fourth conversion matrix based on the first and second conversion matrix.
Since, Dehghan Marvast discloses calibration matrix of axial image and the probe and calibration matrix of sagittal image and the probe, can incorporate teaching of Zhao to sequentially translate or rotate the coordinate system of sagittal to axial or axial to sagittal image, to calculate a third or fourth matrix as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify calibration matrix as taught by Dehghan Marvast to incorporate teaching of Zhao, since transformation matrix determination based on was well known in the art as taught by Zhao. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Dehghan Marvast with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide overall resulting sequence of rotation and translation of the coordinate system ([0022]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Dehghan Marvast and Zhao do not further teach displaying a target position displayed in any of the coordinate system of the cross-sectional image and the coordinate system of the sagittal image in the other coordinate system in a follow-up manner.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound imaging method, Martins teaches displaying individual image scan planes, such as sagittal and transverse scan planes ([0027]-[0028]).
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound imaging method, Zou teaches processing method for ultrasound imaging, displaying sagittal section image and extract transverse section image set containing target as well as displaying transverse section ([0120], [0313], [0347]), wherein transformation matrix of sagittal or transverse section relative to the original coordinate, can be reconstructed using its transformation matrix of sagittal section and transverse section relative to the original coordinate ([0403]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sagittal and transverse (axial) images as taught by Dehghan Marvast to incorporate teaching of Zou, since displaying scan planes was well known in the art as taught by Zou. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Dehghan Marvast with no change in their respective functions, simply displaying the determined sagittal and its corresponding transverse (Axial) images containing a target, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide doctor more accurate localized sectional images and region of interest in the image, related parameter information, and provide more friendly display and operation manner [0430]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan Marvast, Zhao, and Zou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “TOMA et al.,” US 2012/0316441 (hereinafter Toma).
Regarding to claims 3-4, Dehghan Marvast, Zhao, and Zou together teach all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Dehghan Marvast, Zhao, and Zou do not further disclose the limitation of establishing a first index relationship table or a second index relationship table in the movement process of the first ultrasonic probe, the first index relationship table being an index relationship table of a physical position of the first ultrasonic probe and a cross-sectional position, and the second index relationship table being an index relationship table of storage position information of the cross-sectional image and the cross-sectional position; and displaying a target position and a planned position in the cross-sectional image in a follow-up manner by means of the first index relationship table or the second index relationship table and according to a target position and a planned position in the sagittal image.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound imaging method, Toma teaches ultrasonic image generating method including establishing a first index relationship table or a second index relationship table in the movement process of the first ultrasonic probe (positional information table including information of the movement speed of the ultrasonic probe [0156]), the first index relationship table being an index relationship table of a physical position of the first ultrasonic probe and a cross-sectional position (table generating unit associates the positional information of ultrasonic frame with the index number based on the positional information [0127]-[0129]), and the second index relationship table being an index relationship table of storage position information of the cross-sectional image and the cross-sectional position ([0129]); and displaying a target position and a planned position in the cross-sectional image in a follow-up manner (displaying cross-sectional image [0130]) by means of the first index relationship table or the second index relationship table and according to a target position and a planned position in the sagittal image (cross-sectional position information generated and displayed [0133], [0133]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sagittal and transverse (axial) images as taught by Dehghan Marvast to incorporate teaching of Zou, since displaying scan planes was well known in the art as taught by Zou. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Dehghan Marvast with no change in their respective functions, simply displaying the determined sagittal and its corresponding transverse (Axial) images containing a target, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide association of positional information with the index number of the images ([0128]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan Marvast, Zhao, and Zou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Jin et al.,” US 2016/0022247 (hereinafter Jin).
Dehghan Marvast further discloses method according to claim 1 characterized in that, firstly, the position relationship between the second ultrasonic probe and the sagittal image is calibrated (image and the probe [0027]-[0028]), then the position relationship between the second ultrasonic probe and the first ultrasonic probe is calibrated (two imaging arrays calibrated to the EM tracker on the probe [0036]), and the second conversion matrix is obtained by the matrix conversion relationship (matrix [0033]).
Dehghan Marvast, Zhao, and Zou do not explicitly disclose the probes are convex and linear array.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound imaging method, Jin discloses that the transducers may be linear, convex array transducers arranged in a row or matrix ([0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify transducers as taught by Dehghan Marvast to incorporate teaching of Jin, since convex and linear array was well known in the art as taught by Jin. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Dehghan Marvast with no change in their respective functions, configuring its two arrays to be convex and linear respectively, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide multiple ultrasonic images with a single transmission of ultrasounds ([0075]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan Marvast, Zhao, and Zou as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of “Aljuri et al.,” US 2020/0330118 (hereinafter Aljuri).
Regarding to claims 14-15, Dehghan Marvast, Zhao, and Zou together teach all limitations of claim 7 as discussed above.
Dehghan Marvast, Zhao, and Zou do not further teach the execution mechanism is a motion motor and/or energy generation apparatus of a laser knife, an ultrasound knife, a water jet cutter, and/or an electrome.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound imaging method, Aljuri discloses water jet cutting method that the water jet movement is motorized and under computer control with preselected routines ([0226]) and surgeon can adjust cutting parameters in real-time with feedback provided by the ultrasound images ([0227]), the ultrasonic images can be shown in axial and sagittal views ([0325]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ultrasonic imaging guidance method as taught by Dehghan Marvast, Zhao, and Zou to incorporate teaching of Aljuri, since controlling water jet movement via motor and energy apparatus was well known in the art as taught by Aljuri. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Dehghan Marvast, Zhao, and Zou, with no change in their respective functions, using its ultrasound imaging method to provide feedback for water jet controller, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide automated control of the water jet using feedback by ultrasound image ([0227]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICIA J PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 am - 3 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 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 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.
/PATRICIA J PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights