DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment of 03/04/2025 is noted where claim 1 is canceled and new claims 2-20 have been added.
Priority
This application is a continuation of application no. 17/806,180 filed 06/09/2022 now U.S. Patent 12,205,285 which further claims the benefit of application no. 63/259,906 filed 06/16/2021.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 comprises the phrase, “a third perspective view that correspondence to the first…” (see that fifth to last line of claim 9) of which should instead read, “a third perspective view that corresponds to the first…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-14 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.
In reference to claim 9, claim 9 comprises the phrase, “a third perspective view that correspondence to the first perspective view, the second perspective view or a third perspective view generated to emphasize…” (see the last 5 lines of the claim) of which is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards as the invention. The particular issue arises in that the language requires “a third perspective view” to “correspond” to itself (e.g. “a third perspective view”). This language does not form a proper logical claim limitation such that it distinctly and particularly points out that which Applicant regards as the invention and as such claim 9, and dependent claims 10-14 at least inherently, are insufficient under 35 USC 112(b). Note, as per prior art rejection purposes the Examiner will do his best to apply prior art to the limitation as claimed however revision to the language is required.
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.
Claim(s) 2-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guendel et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0325645) and Althof et al. ("Automatic Quantification of Pulmonary Fissure Integrity: A Repeatability Analysis", 2020 EEE 17TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON BIOMEDICAL IMAGING (ISBI), IEEE, (3 April 2020), 581-585.).
In reference to claim 2, Guendel et al. discloses a method for computer generation of a lung report (see paragraphs 6, 8-9 and Figures 2 & 8 wherein Guendel et al. discloses systems and methods for generating a visualization of a lung fissure using an imaging system comprising at least an image processor and display.) the method comprising:
receiving, into memory on a computer, three-dimensional image data of at least a portion of a lung having lung fissures, the three-dimensional image data comprises voxels (see paragraphs 27-28, 31 and Figure 2 wherein Guendel et al. discloses the invention comprising a medical imaging device that scans the lungs of a patient and acquires the image data therefrom or alternatively, acquires image data from storage or memory. Guendel et al. discloses the lung images comprising lungs and fissures. Guendel et al. discloses the image data also in the form of a three-dimensional volume of the patient using voxels.);
categorizing, on the processor accessing the memory on the computer, the voxels as at least one of lung lobe voxels, airway voxels, or lung fissure voxels (see paragraphs 7, 34, 37, 39, 40, 71, 75-76, Figure 2 and #520, 530, 540, 560 of Figure 8 wherein Guendel et al. discloses identifying voxels as lobes and fissures using their boundaries. Guendel et al. further discloses defining voxels as non-airway vs. airway. Note, it is clear that by “identifying” the voxels, Guendel et al. at least inherently performs some sort of “categorization” or the equivalent thereof. Guendel et al. further discloses the image processor receiving acquired imaging data from memory which stores the imaging data.);
generating, on the processor accessing the memory on the computer, a fissure integrity score for the lung fissure voxels of the plurality of categorized lung lobe voxels based on at least one of a predefined radio density value threshold or a radio density value threshold range;
generating, on the processor accessing the memory on the computer, a lung fissure display area including (see paragraphs 33, 40, 47, 71, 75-76, Figures 2-3 and #520, 530, 540, 560 of Figure 8 wherein Guendel et al. discloses the invention generating a mesh of the lungs including the voxels defining the different lobes of the lungs including fissure data.):
a first perspective view that corresponds to a first point of view, the first perspective view generated to emphasize a first subset of a lung fissure voxels displayed in reference to lung lobe voxels and airway voxels from the first point of view (see paragraphs 33, 35, 37, 40, 43, 47 and Figures 2-3 wherein Guendel et al. discloses the invention generating a mesh of the lungs including the voxels defining the different lobes of the lungs. Guendel et al. discloses the mesh comprising voxels representing boundaries of fissures. Guendel et al. discloses the mesh comprising voxels representing boundaries of airway vs. non-airway voxels. Guendel et al. further explicitly discloses projecting the mesh onto a plane wherein a projection point is selected which represents a viewpoint from which a fissure is to be viewed.);
a second perspective view that corresponds to a second point of view, the second perspective view generated to emphasize a second subset of lung fissure voxels displayed in reference to lung lobe voxels and airway voxels from the second point of view; a third perspective view that corresponds to a third point of view, the third perspective view generated to emphasize a third subset of lung fissure voxels displayed in reference to lung lobe voxels and airway voxels from the third point of view; (see paragraphs 43, 47-48, 64 and Figures 2-3 wherein Guendel et al. discloses projecting the mesh onto a plane wherein a projection point is selected which represents a viewpoint from which a fissure is to be viewed. Guendel et al. further explicitly discloses that a user may select from different projection points which, when combined with different planes, may provide different preset visualizations for different lobes or fissures. Note, it is clear that allowing a user to select the projection point combined with different planes creating different preset visualizations in Guendel et al. at least inherently provides “multiple” (second, third, fourth, etc.) perspective views of the lung, lobes, fissures etc.. Lastly, Guendel et al. discloses not only displaying fissures but also identifying airway regions from the image data.) and
outputting a report including the lung fissure display area.
Although Guendel et al. discloses projecting the 3D voxel data to a user with the user defining the different projection points to view different visualizations of the lungs (see at least paragraph 47), Guendel et al. does not explicitly disclose generating the claimed fissure integrity score or outputting a report comprising the generated views. Althof et al. discloses a method for automatically computing fissure integrity from lung CT images (see abstract). Althof et al. discloses a fissure integrity computation pipeline that results in a fissure integrity computation based upon voxels of the lungs (see pages 582-583, section 2.2). Althof et al. explicitly discloses that a fissure integrity score is computed (see page 582, sections 2.2.4 and 583, section 3). Althof et al. discloses a 3D surface visualization, inherently comprising a perspective/viewpoint, where the lungs are displayed as translucent and fissure regions, based upon fissure integrity computations, are shown as blue (see page 583 and Figure 4). Althof et al. discloses the 3D surface visualization part of an “assessment” for a test patient which is shown as an output (see page 583, section 3, Figures 3-4), of which the Examiner interprets functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “report.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the fissure integrity score computations and results outputting techniques of Althof et al. with the medical image lung visualization techniques of Guendel et al. in order to extend the accuracy of fissure detection from, for example CT images, by providing an automatic means which can operate especially when collateral ventilation is present (see at least abstract, page 581 of Althof et al.).
In reference to claims 3-4 and 16, Guendel et al. and Althof et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 2 and 15. Althof et al. discloses processing each fissure separately to compute fissure integrity using each fissure voxel within a radius defining a 3D spherical neighborhood to compare a maximum fissure probability for that fissure within the neighborhood as compared to a fixed threshold (see section 2.2.4, pages 582-583). Althof et al. discloses displaying such fissure integrities in a fissure integrity completeness mask as shown in Figures 3-4 (see section 3, page 583 and Figures 3-4, page 583). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the fissure integrity score computations and results outputting techniques of Althof et al. with the medical image lung visualization techniques of Guendel et al. in order to extend the accuracy of fissure detection from, for example CT images, by providing an automatic means which can operate especially when collateral ventilation is present (see at least abstract, page 581 of Althof et al.).
In reference to claims 5, 13 and 17, Guendel et al. and Althof et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 2, 9 and 15 respectively. Guendel et al. discloses displaying both right and left lungs (see at least paragraph 32 and Figure 3A). Guendel et al. explicitly discloses the display including a right lung view comprising an oblique and horizontal fissure while the left lung including lobes with one fissure, the oblique fissure (see at least paragraph 22 and Figure 1). Althof et al. discloses a 3D surface visualization, inherently comprising a perspective/viewpoint, where the lungs are displayed as translucent and fissure regions, based upon fissure integrity computations, are shown as blue (see page 583 and Figure 4). Note, the Examiner points to the explicit usage of the claim language of claims 6-7 whereby “at least one of” is used to specify claim features thereby solely requiring one feature from the prior art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the fissure integrity score computations and results outputting techniques of Althof et al. with the medical image lung visualization techniques of Guendel et al. in order to extend the accuracy of fissure detection from, for example CT images, by providing an automatic means which can operate especially when collateral ventilation is present (see at least abstract, page 581 of Althof et al.).
In reference to claims 6-7 and 18-19, Guendel et al. and Althof et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 2 and 15 respectively. Guendel et al. discloses displaying both right and left lungs (see at least paragraph 32 and Figure 3A). Althof et al. discloses a 3D surface visualization, inherently comprising a perspective/viewpoint, where the lungs are displayed as translucent and fissure regions, based upon fissure integrity computations, are shown as blue (see page 583 and Figure 4). Note, the Examiner points to the explicit usage of the claim language of claims 6-7 whereby “at least one of” is used to specify claim features thereby solely requiring one feature from the prior art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the fissure integrity score computations and results outputting techniques of Althof et al. with the medical image lung visualization techniques of Guendel et al. in order to extend the accuracy of fissure detection from, for example CT images, by providing an automatic means which can operate especially when collateral ventilation is present (see at least abstract, page 581 of Althof et al.).
In reference to claims 8 and 20, Guendel et al. and Althof et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 2 and 15 respectively. Althof et al. discloses a 3D surface visualization, inherently comprising a perspective/viewpoint of both, right or left lungs, where the lungs are displayed as translucent and fissure regions, based upon fissure integrity computations, are shown as blue (see page 583 and Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the fissure integrity score computations and results outputting techniques of Althof et al. with the medical image lung visualization techniques of Guendel et al. in order to extend the accuracy of fissure detection from, for example CT images, by providing an automatic means which can operate especially when collateral ventilation is present (see at least abstract, page 581 of Althof et al.).
In reference to claim 9, Guendel et al. discloses a method for computer generation of a lung report (see paragraphs 6, 8-9 and Figures 2 & 8 wherein Guendel et al. discloses systems and methods for generating a visualization of a lung fissure using an imaging system comprising at least an image processor and display.) the method comprising:
receiving, into memory on a computer, three-dimensional image data of at least a portion of a lung having lung fissures, the three-dimensional image data comprises voxels (see paragraphs 27-28, 31 and Figure 2 wherein Guendel et al. discloses the invention comprising a medical imaging device that scans the lungs of a patient and acquires the image data therefrom or alternatively, acquires image data from storage or memory. Guendel et al. discloses the lung images comprising lungs and fissures. Guendel et al. discloses the image data also in the form of a three-dimensional volume of the patient using voxels.);
categorizing, on the processor accessing the memory on the computer, the voxels as at least one of lung lobe voxels, airway voxels, or lung fissure voxels (see paragraphs 7, 34, 37, 39, 40, 71, 75-76, Figure 2 and #520, 530, 540, 560 of Figure 8 wherein Guendel et al. discloses identifying voxels as lobes and fissures using their boundaries. Guendel et al. further discloses defining voxels as non-airway vs. airway. Note, it is clear that by “identifying” the voxels, Guendel et al. at least inherently performs some sort of “categorization” or the equivalent thereof. Guendel et al. further discloses the image processor receiving acquired imaging data from memory which stores the imaging data.);
generating, on the processor accessing the memory on the computer, a fissure integrity score for the lung fissure voxels of the plurality of categorized lung lobe voxels based on at least one of a predefined radio density value threshold or a radio density value threshold range;
generating, on the processor accessing the memory on the computer, a lung fissure display area including (see paragraphs 33, 40, 47, 71, 75-76, Figures 2-3 and #520, 530, 540, 560 of Figure 8 wherein Guendel et al. discloses the invention generating a mesh of the lungs including the voxels defining the different lobes of the lungs including fissure data.):
a first perspective view that corresponds to a first point of view, the first perspective view generated to emphasize a first subset of a lung lobe voxels from the plurality of characterized lung lobe voxels characterized as a first lung anatomy (see paragraphs 33, 40, 43, 47, 71, 75-76, 80 and Figures 2-3 wherein Guendel et al. discloses the invention generating a mesh of the lungs including the voxels defining the different lobes of the lungs. Guendel et al. discloses identifying voxels as lobes and fissures using their boundaries generating mesh data of at least two adjacent lobes. Guendel et al. further explicitly discloses projecting the mesh onto a plane wherein a projection point is selected which represents a viewpoint from which a lobe fissure is to be viewed.);
a second perspective view that corresponds to the first perspective view or a second perspective view generated to emphasize the lung fissure voxels of the plurality of characterized lung love voxels; a third perspective view that correspondence to the first perspective view, the second perspective view, or a third perspective view generated to emphasize a second subset of lung lobe voxels from the plurality of characterized lung lobe voxels characterized as a second lung anatomy type; (see paragraphs 43, 47-48, 64 and Figures 2-3 wherein Guendel et al. discloses projecting the mesh onto a plane wherein a projection point is selected which represents a viewpoint from which a lobe fissure is to be viewed. Guendel et al. further explicitly discloses that a user may select from different projection points which, when combined with different planes, may provide different preset visualizations for different lobes or fissures. Note, it is clear that allowing a user to select the projection point combined with different planes creating different preset visualizations in Guendel et al. at least inherently provides “multiple” (second, third, fourth, etc.) perspective views of the lung, lobes, fissures etc.. Note, the Examiner points to the explicit usage of the claim language “or” type language is used to specify multiple claim features thereby solely requiring one feature from the prior art. ) and
outputting a report including the lung fissure display area.
Although Guendel et al. discloses projecting the 3D voxel data to a user with the user defining the different projection points to view different visualizations of the lungs (see at least paragraph 47), Guendel et al. does not explicitly disclose generating the claimed fissure integrity score or outputting a report comprising the generated views. Althof et al. discloses a method for automatically computing fissure integrity from lung CT images (see abstract). Althof et al. discloses a fissure integrity computation pipeline that results in a fissure integrity computation based upon voxels of the lungs (see pages 582-583, section 2.2). Althof et al. explicitly discloses that a fissure integrity score is computed (see page 582, sections 2.2.4 and 583, section 3). Althof et al. discloses a 3D surface visualization, inherently comprising a perspective/viewpoint, where the lungs are displayed as translucent and fissure regions, based upon fissure integrity computations, are shown as blue (see page 583 and Figure 4). Althof et al. discloses the 3D surface visualization part of an “assessment” for a test patient which is shown as an output (see page 583, section 3, Figures 3-4), of which the Examiner interprets functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “report.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the fissure integrity score computations and results outputting techniques of Althof et al. with the medical image lung visualization techniques of Guendel et al. in order to extend the accuracy of fissure detection from, for example CT images, by providing an automatic means which can operate especially when collateral ventilation is present (see at least abstract, page 581 of Althof et al.).
In reference to claim 10, Guendel et al. and Althof et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 9 above. Guendel et al. discloses displaying both right and left lungs (see at least paragraph 32 and Figure 3A). Guendel et al. discloses displaying lobes for a right lung (see at least paragraph 56 and Figure 3A-B). Althof et al. discloses a 3D surface visualization, inherently comprising a perspective/viewpoint, where the lungs are displayed as translucent and fissure regions, based upon fissure integrity computations, are shown as blue (see page 583 and Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the fissure integrity score computations and results outputting techniques of Althof et al. with the medical image lung visualization techniques of Guendel et al. in order to extend the accuracy of fissure detection from, for example CT images, by providing an automatic means which can operate especially when collateral ventilation is present (see at least abstract, page 581 of Althof et al.).
In reference to claims 11-12 and 14, Guendel et al. and Althof et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 9 above. Guendel et al. discloses displaying both right and left lungs (see at least paragraph 32 and Figure 3A). Guendel et al. discloses the mesh comprising voxels representing boundaries of airway vs. non-airway voxels (see at least paragraph 37). Althof et al. discloses a 3D surface visualization, inherently comprising a perspective/viewpoint, where the lungs are displayed as translucent and fissure regions, based upon fissure integrity computations, are shown as blue (see page 583 and Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the fissure integrity score computations and results outputting techniques of Althof et al. with the medical image lung visualization techniques of Guendel et al. in order to extend the accuracy of fissure detection from, for example CT images, by providing an automatic means which can operate especially when collateral ventilation is present (see at least abstract, page 581 of Althof et al.).
In reference to claim 15, claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 2 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. In addition to the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, claim 15 further recites, “A system comprising: a processing device; a memory configured to store computer-readable instructions configured to cause the processing device to…” Guendel et al. discloses the system comprising the imaging system which further comprises an image processor, a memory and a display, the memory storing various data including instructions for performing the invention while the processor executing the instructions (see paragraphs 69, 76-81 and Figure 8). Althof et al. further discloses the techniques of the method executing a convolutional neural network (see at least section 2.2.2, page 582) of which the Examiner interprets inherently executes upon some sort of computing device which inherently comprises some sort of processor/processing unit/etc. executing instructions/software/code/etc..
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-4, 6, 15, 16 and 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 9-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,205,285. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 2-4, 6, 15, 16 and 18, which are not explicitly recited in the combination of claims 1-6 and 9-14, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or would have been interpreted equivalent to those limitations recited in the Patent as seen to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In reference to claim 2, claim 2 of the instant application can be found in the combination of Patent claims 1, 3 and 5 and therefore is unpatentable under the judicially created doctrine of “obviousness-type” double patenting. The application claim 2 defines an obvious variation of the invention claimed in the Patent therefore, the instant application claim is anticipated by the Patent and contains all the limitation of the combination of Patent claims thus, is it not patentably distinct from the earlier Patent claims and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
In reference to claim 3, claim 3 of the instant application can be found in the combination of Patent claims 2, 4 and 6 and therefore is unpatentable under the judicially created doctrine of “obviousness-type” double patenting.
In reference to claim 4, claim 4 of the instant application can be found in the combination of Patent claims 2, 4 and 6 and therefore is unpatentable under the judicially created doctrine of “obviousness-type” double patenting.
In reference to claim 6, claim 6 of the instant application can be found almost word-for-word in Patent claim 1, lines 23-25 and therefore is unpatentable under the judicially created doctrine of “obviousness-type” double patenting.
In reference to claim 15, claim 15 of the instant application can be found in the combination of Patent claims 9, 11 and 13 and therefore is unpatentable under the judicially created doctrine of “obviousness-type” double patenting. The application claim 15 defines an obvious variation of the invention claimed in the Patent therefore, the instant application claim is anticipated by the Patent and contains all the limitation of the combination of Patent claims thus, is it not patentably distinct from the earlier Patent claims and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
In reference to claim 16, claim 16 of the instant application can be found in the combination of Patent claims 10, 12 and 14 and therefore is unpatentable under the judicially created doctrine of “obviousness-type” double patenting.
In reference to claim 18, claim 18 of the instant application can be found almost word-for-word in Patent claim 9, lines 14-16 and therefore is unpatentable under the judicially created doctrine of “obviousness-type” double patenting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
7/21/26
Prosecution Insights