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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7-13 is/are objected to because of antecedent basis informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radicke et al. (US 2023/0200754).
In regard to claim 1, Radicke et al. disclose a generating method of a scanning image, comprising:
(a) scanning different positions of a target object, respectively, by changing a passing region of an imaging beam emitted from a scanning imaging source (e.g., “… X-ray source, which is guided in a circular movement around a detector to produce a plurality of projection images, wherein an X-ray beam collimated by a collimator aperture is turned on and off many times during the movement, and wherein, for FFS deflection, the FFS X-ray system comprises an FFS deflection coil with which a focal point of an electron beam generating the X-ray beam can be deflected … move the collimator aperture …” in paragraphs 34 and 52), and obtaining a plurality of scanning data of the target object (e.g., “… produce a plurality of projection images …” in paragraph 34); and
(b) obtaining a scanning image corresponding to the target object based on the plurality of scanning data of the target object (e.g., “… tomographic methods of X-ray diagnosis … For example, in breast tomosynthesis … aforementioned components of the system or the control facility, can be implemented wholly or partially in the form of software modules in a processor of a corresponding computing system …” in paragraphs 3, 7, and 42).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 2, Radicke et al. also disclose that a part of the detector is enabled to receive the imaging beam, and the part of the detector is irradiated by the imaging beam (e.g., “… detector is often surrounded by a peripheral region that is used for support and also for radiation protection. This region is usually made of a material that is transparent to radiation, for example GRP. Parts of a person often lie directly on this region, for example the arms of a patient during mammography … X-ray source, which is guided in a circular movement around a detector to produce a plurality of projection images …” in paragraphs 23 and 34).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1, Radicke et al. also disclose that either or both of the target object and a carrier that carries the target object remain at a fixed position during scanning (e.g., “… detector is often surrounded by a peripheral region that is used for support and also for radiation protection. This region is usually made of a material that is transparent to radiation, for example GRP. Parts of a person often lie directly on this region, for example the arms of a patient during mammography … For the examination, the breast O is … fixed by lowering the plate 6 onto it …” in paragraphs 23 and 78).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1, Radicke et al. also disclose that the scanning imaging source is an imaging beam source of Fan-beam tomography or Cone-beam tomography (e.g., “… cross-radiation can be more effectively prevented by this movement of the collimator aperture since the beam cone can be more effectively directed from the focal point onto the detector …” in paragraph 55).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, Radicke et al. also disclose that an imaging beam collimating apparatus is disposed between the scanning imaging source and the target object (e.g., “… collimator aperture should usually be adjusted so that only the region of the detector on which breast tissue is also projected is irradiated …” in paragraph 20), the imaging beam collimating apparatus is configured to limit the imaging beam of the scanning imaging source to a preset irradiation range along an axial direction (e.g., “… cone from the focal point which is limited by the collimator aperture …” in paragraph 20).
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 6, Radicke et al. also disclose that scanning different positions of the target object, respectively, by changing the passing region of the imaging beam emitted from the scanning imaging source, and obtaining the plurality of scanning data of the target object further comprises: irradiating the imaging beam emitted from the scanning imaging source to different positions of the target object by adjusting a position relationship between the imaging beam collimating apparatus and the scanning imaging source (e.g., “… move the collimator aperture …” in paragraph 52), scanning different positions of the target object, and obtaining the plurality of scanning data of the target object (e.g., “… produce a plurality of projection images …” in paragraph 34).
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 7, Radicke et al. also disclose that irradiating the imaging beam emitted from the scanning imaging source to different positions of the target object by adjusting a position relationship between the imaging beam collimating apparatus and the scanning imaging source, scanning different positions of the target object, and obtaining the plurality of scanning data of the target object further comprises: scanning the target object in an initial position relationship between the imaging beam collimating apparatus and the scanning imaging source; adjusting the initial position relationship to a next position relationship, and scanning the target object in the next position relationship; and taking the next position relationship as a new initial position relationship, returning to the step of adjusting the initial position relationship to the next position relationship, and scanning the target object in the next position relationship until scanning of the target object is completed, and obtaining the scanning data of the target object corresponding to each position relationship (e.g., “… move the collimator aperture … Prior to the recording (of a projection image), therefore, the collimator aperture "jumps" to the starting position, is then continuously tracked during the FFS deflection, for example so that it is stationary in space together with the focal point, and then jumps back to the new starting position. This has the advantage that cross-radiation can be more effectively prevented by this movement of the collimator aperture since the beam cone can be more effectively directed from the focal point onto the detector …” in paragraphs 52 and 55).
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 8, Radicke et al. also disclose that the imaging beam collimating apparatus comprises a movable collimator, and adjusting the initial position relationship to the next position relationship, and scanning the target object in the next position relationship further comprises: moving the movable collimator, so that the initial position relationship is adjusted to the next position relationship; and scanning the target object in the next position relationship (e.g., “… move the collimator aperture … Prior to the recording (of a projection image), therefore, the collimator aperture "jumps" to the starting position, is then continuously tracked during the FFS deflection, for example so that it is stationary in space together with the focal point, and then jumps back to the new starting position. This has the advantage that cross-radiation can be more effectively prevented by this movement of the collimator aperture since the beam cone can be more effectively directed from the focal point onto the detector …” in paragraphs 52 and 55).
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 8, Radicke et al. also disclose that the scanning imaging source comprises an imaging source with a fly focus, and adjusting the initial position relationship to the next position relationship, and scanning the target object in the next position relationship further comprises: adjusting a focus of the imaging source with the fly focus, so that the initial position relationship is adjusted to the next position relationship; and scanning the target object in the next position relationship (e.g., “… FFS X-ray system (i.e., an X-ray system with a "flying focal spot") is known in principle to the person skilled in the art … X-ray source, which is guided in a circular movement around a detector to produce a plurality of projection images, wherein an X-ray beam collimated by a collimator aperture is turned on and off many times during the movement, and wherein, for FFS deflection, the FFS X-ray system comprises an FFS deflection coil with which a focal point of an electron beam generating the X-ray beam can be deflected …” in paragraphs 11 and 34).
In regard to claim 14, Radicke et al. disclose a generating system of a scanning image, comprising a scanning device and a computer device, wherein the scanning device is configured for scanning different positions of a target object, respectively, by changing a passing region of an imaging beam emitted from a scanning imaging source (e.g., “… X-ray source, which is guided in a circular movement around a detector to produce a plurality of projection images, wherein an X-ray beam collimated by a collimator aperture is turned on and off many times during the movement, and wherein, for FFS deflection, the FFS X-ray system comprises an FFS deflection coil with which a focal point of an electron beam generating the X-ray beam can be deflected … move the collimator aperture …” in paragraphs 34 and 52), and obtaining a plurality of scanning data of the target object (e.g., “… produce a plurality of projection images …” in paragraph 34); and the computer device is configured for obtaining a scanning image corresponding to the target object based on the plurality of scanning data of the target object (e.g., “… tomographic methods of X-ray diagnosis … For example, in breast tomosynthesis … aforementioned components of the system or the control facility, can be implemented wholly or partially in the form of software modules in a processor of a corresponding computing system …” in paragraphs 3, 7, and 42).
In regard to claim 15, Radicke et al. disclose a generating device of a scanning image, comprising a scanning imaging source, an imaging beam collimating apparatus, a detector, and a processor, wherein the imaging beam collimating apparatus is configured for changing a passing region of an imaging beam emitted from the scanning imaging source, so that the imaging beam scans different positions of a target object, respectively (e.g., “… X-ray source, which is guided in a circular movement around a detector to produce a plurality of projection images, wherein an X-ray beam collimated by a collimator aperture is turned on and off many times during the movement, and wherein, for FFS deflection, the FFS X-ray system comprises an FFS deflection coil with which a focal point of an electron beam generating the X-ray beam can be deflected … move the collimator aperture …” in paragraphs 34 and 52); the detector is configured for receiving the imaging beam (e.g., “… a detector to produce a plurality of projection images …” in paragraph 34), and obtaining a plurality of scanning data corresponding to the different positions of the target object based on the imaging beam (e.g., “… produce a plurality of projection images …” in paragraph 34); and the processor is configured for obtaining a scanning image corresponding to the target object based on the plurality of scanning data of the target object (e.g., “… produce a plurality of projection images …” in paragraph 34).
In regard to claim 17, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 1 above. Radicke et al. disclose a computer-readable storage medium (e.g., “… computer-readable medium …” in paragraph 42), on which a computer program is stored, wherein the computer program is executed by a processor to implement steps of the method (e.g., “… aforementioned components of the system or the control facility, can be implemented wholly or partially in the form of software modules in a processor of a corresponding computing system …” in paragraph 42).
In regard to claim 19 which is dependent on claim 17, Radicke et al. also disclose that the target object remains at a fixed position during scanning (e.g., “… detector is often surrounded by a peripheral region that is used for support and also for radiation protection. This region is usually made of a material that is transparent to radiation, for example GRP. Parts of a person often lie directly on this region, for example the arms of a patient during mammography … For the examination, the breast O is … fixed by lowering the plate 6 onto it …” in paragraphs 23 and 78).
In regard to claim 20 which is dependent on claim 17, Radicke et al. also disclose that the scanning imaging source is an imaging beam source of Fan-beam tomography or Cone-beam tomography (e.g., “… cross-radiation can be more effectively prevented by this movement of the collimator aperture since the beam cone can be more effectively directed from the focal point onto the detector …” in paragraph 55).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 2 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Radicke et al. (US 2023/0200754).
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, Radicke et al. also disclose that a detector configured for receiving the imaging beam is rotatable during scanning (e.g., “… rotating X-ray source, with or without the use of FFS, the problem can arise that cross-radiation of peripheral regions takes place, i.e., that the X-ray beam irradiates regions other than the detector that should not be irradiated … device may be otherwise oriented (rotated 90 degrees or at other orientations) …” in paragraphs 23 and 108). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to “rotated 90 degrees or at other orientations” in order to obtain a mediolateral oblique view.
In regard to claim 18 which is dependent on claim 17, Radicke et al. also disclose that a detector configured for receiving the imaging beam is rotatable during scanning (e.g., “… rotating X-ray source, with or without the use of FFS, the problem can arise that cross-radiation of peripheral regions takes place, i.e., that the X-ray beam irradiates regions other than the detector that should not be irradiated … device may be otherwise oriented (rotated 90 degrees or at other orientations) …” in paragraphs 23 and 108). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to “rotated 90 degrees or at other orientations” in order to obtain a mediolateral oblique view.
Claim(s) 10, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radicke et al. (US 2023/0200754) in view of Schwoebel et al. (US 2020/0305809).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 8, while Radicke et al. also disclose that the imaging beam collimating apparatus comprises a movable collimating array, and adjusting the initial position relationship to the next position relationship, and scanning the target object in the next position relationship further comprises: moving the movable collimating array, so that the initial position relationship is adjusted to the next position relationship; and scanning the target object in the next position relationship (e.g., “… FFS X-ray system (i.e., an X-ray system with a "flying focal spot") is known in principle to the person skilled in the art … move the collimator aperture … Prior to the recording (of a projection image), therefore, the collimator aperture "jumps" to the starting position, is then continuously tracked during the FFS deflection, for example so that it is stationary in space together with the focal point, and then jumps back to the new starting position. This has the advantage that cross-radiation can be more effectively prevented by this movement of the collimator aperture since the beam cone can be more effectively directed from the focal point onto the detector …” in paragraphs 11, 52, and 55), the method of Radicke et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… collimator aperture …” such as the imaging beam collimating apparatus comprises a movable collimating array. However, “… collimator aperture …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… stationary multisource X-ray imaging system based on a novel approach to integrating two technologies used in medical X-ray imaging: an array of thermionic cathodes and a rotating anode. Integrating these technologies results in a reliable, long-lived, highly capable stationary multisource X-ray imaging system with scan times that are factors of 3 to over 10 times shorter than those of commercial tomosynthesis (TS) systems using mechanical source translation. Short scan times are key to exploiting the improved imaging sensitivity of tomosynthesis because they reduce the chance of blurring resulting from patient motion … generated X-rays 207 are then guided by a collimator 208 (provided across from the anode 202) toward the subject that is being imaged (e.g. the collimator 208 is positioned between the anode 202 and the subject). The collimator 208 may be a lead or tungsten collimator 208 composed of a set of apertures to collimate the X-ray beam 207 from each source element 204 … slight differences in anode diameter are used to toggle the focal spot up and down spatially, creating a “flying focal spot” with simple mechanical rotation instead of magnetic steering coils (and necessary logic) …” in paragraphs 34, 42, and 75 of Schwoebel et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional collimator (e.g., comprising details such as “set of apertures”, in order “to collimate the X-ray beam 207 from each source element 204”) for the unspecified collimator of Radicke et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional collimator (e.g., comprising details such as the imaging beam collimating apparatus comprises a movable collimating array) as the unspecified collimator of Radicke et al.
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 8, while Radicke et al. also disclose adjusting the initial position relationship to the next position relationship, and scanning the target object in the next position relationship further comprises: switching a current scintillating imaging source to a next scintillating imaging source according to a switching direction, so that the initial position relationship is adjusted to the next position relationship; and scanning the target object in the next position relationship (e.g., “… FFS X-ray system (i.e., an X-ray system with a "flying focal spot") is known in principle to the person skilled in the art … move the collimator aperture … Prior to the recording (of a projection image), therefore, the collimator aperture "jumps" to the starting position, is then continuously tracked during the FFS deflection, for example so that it is stationary in space together with the focal point, and then jumps back to the new starting position. This has the advantage that cross-radiation can be more effectively prevented by this movement of the collimator aperture since the beam cone can be more effectively directed from the focal point onto the detector …” in paragraphs 11, 52, and 55), the method of Radicke et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… flying focal spot …” such as the scanning imaging source comprises an imaging source array. However, “… flying focal spot …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… stationary multisource X-ray imaging system based on a novel approach to integrating two technologies used in medical X-ray imaging: an array of thermionic cathodes and a rotating anode. Integrating these technologies results in a reliable, long-lived, highly capable stationary multisource X-ray imaging system with scan times that are factors of 3 to over 10 times shorter than those of commercial tomosynthesis (TS) systems using mechanical source translation. Short scan times are key to exploiting the improved imaging sensitivity of tomosynthesis because they reduce the chance of blurring resulting from patient motion … generated X-rays 207 are then guided by a collimator 208 (provided across from the anode 202) toward the subject that is being imaged (e.g. the collimator 208 is positioned between the anode 202 and the subject). The collimator 208 may be a lead or tungsten collimator 208 composed of a set of apertures to collimate the X-ray beam 207 from each source element 204 … slight differences in anode diameter are used to toggle the focal spot up and down spatially, creating a “flying focal spot” with simple mechanical rotation instead of magnetic steering coils (and necessary logic) …” in paragraphs 34, 42, and 75 of Schwoebel et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional source (e.g., comprising details such as “an array of thermionic cathodes and a rotating anode” with “slight differences in anode diameter”, in order to “creating a “flying focal spot” with simple mechanical rotation instead of magnetic steering coils (and necessary logic)”) for the unspecified source of Radicke et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional source (e.g., comprising details such as the scanning imaging source comprises an imaging source array) as the unspecified source of Radicke et al.
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 8, Radicke et al. also disclose adjusting the initial position relationship to the next position relationship, so that the initial position relationship is adjusted to the next position relationship; and scanning the target object in the next position relationship (e.g., “… FFS X-ray system (i.e., an X-ray system with a "flying focal spot") is known in principle to the person skilled in the art … move the collimator aperture … Prior to the recording (of a projection image), therefore, the collimator aperture "jumps" to the starting position, is then continuously tracked during the FFS deflection, for example so that it is stationary in space together with the focal point, and then jumps back to the new starting position. This has the advantage that cross-radiation can be more effectively prevented by this movement of the collimator aperture since the beam cone can be more effectively directed from the focal point onto the detector …” in paragraphs 11, 52, and 55), the method of Radicke et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… flying focal spot …” such as the scanning imaging source comprises two imaging sources, and scanning the target object in the next position relationship further comprises: switching the two imaging sources to a first imaging source or a second imaging source according to a scanning parameter. However, “… flying focal spot …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… stationary multisource X-ray imaging system based on a novel approach to integrating two technologies used in medical X-ray imaging: an array of thermionic cathodes and a rotating anode. Integrating these technologies results in a reliable, long-lived, highly capable stationary multisource X-ray imaging system with scan times that are factors of 3 to over 10 times shorter than those of commercial tomosynthesis (TS) systems using mechanical source translation. Short scan times are key to exploiting the improved imaging sensitivity of tomosynthesis because they reduce the chance of blurring resulting from patient motion … generated X-rays 207 are then guided by a collimator 208 (provided across from the anode 202) toward the subject that is being imaged (e.g. the collimator 208 is positioned between the anode 202 and the subject). The collimator 208 may be a lead or tungsten collimator 208 composed of a set of apertures to collimate the X-ray beam 207 from each source element 204 … slight differences in anode diameter are used to toggle the focal spot up and down spatially, creating a “flying focal spot” with simple mechanical rotation instead of magnetic steering coils (and necessary logic) …” in paragraphs 34, 42, and 75 of Schwoebel et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional source (e.g., comprising details such as “an array of thermionic cathodes and a rotating anode” with “slight differences in anode diameter”, in order to “creating a “flying focal spot” with simple mechanical rotation instead of magnetic steering coils (and necessary logic)”) for the unspecified source of Radicke et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional source (e.g., comprising details such as the scanning imaging source comprises two imaging sources, and scanning the target object in the next position relationship further comprises: switching the two imaging sources to a first imaging source or a second imaging source according to a scanning parameter) as the unspecified source of Radicke et al.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radicke et al. (US 2023/0200754) in view of Brooks et al. (US 2009/0080602).
In regard to claim 16, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 14 above. The system of Radicke et al. lacks a radiation delivery device configured for performing radiation delivery to the target object based on the scanning image of the target object. However, Brooks et al. teach (paragraphs 3, 6, 25, and 26) that “… Radiation therapy has long been used in medicine … it is still desirable to improve breast radiation therapy by making it more effective and efficient … one or more imaging systems discussed below in more detail for localizing and identifying a lesion or abnormality or target volume, a radiation source such as a special Linear Accelerator (LINAC) 105 for producing therapy radiation … Preferably the LINAC device 105 is a compact version capable of producing penetrating radiation uniquely suited to breast-related tissue rather than optimized for whole-body radiation therapy. Preferably, the imaging and therapy systems move about the patient's breast, preferably though not necessarily in rotation, and preferably the motion is centered on the lesion or target volume for therapy irradiation. However, as discussed below the system may include provisions for moving the therapy and/or imaging components in a manner suitable for patients in other patient positions, such as the supine patient position … motion can be about a center 107 that can be at the lesion or target volume or some other center. The x-ray imaging system(s) may be used to derive projection tomosynthesis image data, for example by using motion and image reconstruction as disclosed …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a radiation delivery device the system of Radicke et al., wherein the radiation delivery device is configured for performing radiation delivery to the target object based on the scanning image of the target object, in order to achieve “more effective and efficient” “breast radiation therapy”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5,757,951 teaches CT.
US 2010/0054395 teaches CT.
US 2018/0322665 teaches extra-oral imaging.
US 2019/0261930 teaches CT.
US 2023/0200754 teaches CT.
US 2023/0017353 teaches CT.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights