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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 is objected to because the acronyms “CT”, “PET”, and “SPECT” should be defined upon their usage.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that either (1) use the word “means” (or “step”); or (2) do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“display device for displaying ...” in claims 8 - 15
“input device for inputting ...” in claims 8 - 15
“reconstruction parameter generating unit … configured to …” in claims 11 and 13
“transmitting unit for transmitting …” in claim 14
“step of training...” and “step of re-training …” in claim 18. Examiner note: claim 17, from which claim 18 depends, is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because claim 17 is a single-means claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites a “user interface including: a display device for displaying the first radiological image, re-acquisition factor, and second acquisition parameter; and an input device for inputting an instruction to execute imaging using the second acquisition parameter.”
However, the detailed description of the invention ([0041], as published) describes that the third radiation image and the re-acquisition factor included in the third radiation image and the acquisition parameter used at the time of re-acquisition, which are specified by the trained model, are specified and displayed, and imaging based on the specified acquisition parameter used at the time of re-acquisition is executed, but does not describe or suggest that "the first radiation image, the re-acquisition factor, and the second acquisition parameter are displayed" and "imaging based on the second acquisition parameter" is "executed". Similarly, the configurations of the inventions according to claims 9-15, depending on claim 8 are neither described nor suggested in the detailed description of the invention. In particular, executing or canceling imaging based on the acquisition parameters used at the time of re-acquisition, displaying a simulation image, and correcting the numerical value of the feature amount are processes performed at the operation stage of the learned model, whereas the "first radiation image", the "first acquisition parameter", and the "second acquisition parameter" are data used at the training stage of the learning model. It is noted that in claims 8-15, the matters related to the operation stage of the learned model and the matters related to the training stage of the learning model are confounded.
Consequently, applicant has not sufficiently disclosed the algorithm necessary to achieve the invention of claims 8 - 15. Claims 8 - 15 therefore lack adequate written description support.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (i.e., the claim recites “step of…”), but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 - 18 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.
Claims 1 - 18 are indefinite because the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, claim 1 generally recites a list of characterizations of functions, rather than setting forth structural features of the claimed system. Similarly, claim 17 generally characterizes activities, rather than explicitly reciting a series of steps that the method comprises. Applicant is urged to re-write the claims using standard claim language that conforms with current U.S. practice.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the following reasons:
The claim is directed toward a “system” but recites activities (i.e., : “using … a first radiological image”, “the trained model outputs”), rather than setting forth structural features. The claim is therefore a hybrid apparatus/method claim, which the Federal Circuit has held are indefinite under §112, second paragraph. See Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC, 641F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding apparatus claim reciting active transmitting step indefinite). This is a critical defect because it is unclear whether the claim covers a device that is merely capable of performing the recited function or if the function must actually be performed.
It is unclear how the “additional imaging” (line 3) refers to. No ‘imaging’ has been set forth as initial imaging, such that the imaging in line 3 would be “additional”.
There is unclear antecedent basis for “additional imaging” in line 5. It is unclear if this is the “additional imaging” recited in line 3 or not.
There is unclear antecedent basis for “additional imaging” in line 7. It is unclear how this “additional imaging” relates to the previously recited “additional imaging”.
It is unclear how “the trained model outputs, … a need for additional imaging”, as computational models are not understood to have “needs” or to output them. It is unclear what the output of the model is.
It is unclear what the structural configuration of the system is. The only structure that has been recited is “a storing medium having a trained model”. Those of ordinary skill in the art would not understand what structures that the system comprises, and what the structures are configured to do.
Claim 6 is indefinite because there is unclear antecedent basis for “the radiological image”. It is unclear radiological image is being referred to.
Claims 8 - 15 are indefinite because it is unclear what algorithm is used to achieve the claimed invention. As discussed in the written description rejections above, applicant has not sufficiently disclosed the algorithm necessary to achieve the invention of claims 8 - 15.
Claim 8 is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the … second acquisition parameter”. It is unclear what is being referred to.
Claim 10 is indefinite because there is unclear antecedent basis for “the reconstruction parameter”. It is unclear if this is the “first reconstruction parameter” or not.
Claim 11 is indefinite for the following reasons:
It is unclear what structural feature of the claimed system is intended by recitation that “an operator can modify the numerical value via the input device”, as the limitation does not recite any structural feature of the claimed system or material modification thereof.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the reconstruction parameter generating unit”. It is unclear what is being referred to.
Claim 13 is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the reconstruction parameter generating unit”. It is unclear what is being referred to.
Claim 14 is indefinite because there is unclear antecedent basis for “the reconstruction parameter”. It is unclear if this is the “first reconstruction parameter” or not.
Claim 15 is indefinite because it is unclear what structural feature of the claimed system is intended by recitation of “a first imaging device that images the radiological image with a first acquisition parameter”. It is unclear if the claim attempts to require a step of ‘imaging the radiological image’ using the ‘first imaging device’ as a structural component of the claimed system. If so, the claim is a hybrid apparatus/method claim, which the Federal Circuit has held are indefinite.
Claim 15 is indefinite because there is unclear antecedent basis for “the radiological image”. It is unclear radiological image is being referred to.
Claim 16 is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the second acquisition parameter”. It is unclear what is being referred to.
Claim 16 is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first acquisition parameter”. It is unclear what is being referred to.
Claim 17 is indefinite for the following reasons:
It is unclear whether “obtained using a first condition” attempts to recite that the method comprises a step of ‘obtaining the first radiological image’, or merely to characterize the first radiological image.
It is unclear whether “obtained by additional imaging using a second condition” attempts to recite that the method comprises a step of ‘obtaining by additional imaging’, or merely to characterize the second radiological image.
It is unclear what “additional imaging” (line 3) refers to. No ‘imaging’ has been set forth as initial imaging, such that the imaging in line 3 would be “additional”.
It is unclear whether “set on the basis of the first radiological image” attempts to recite that the method comprises a step of ‘setting the second condition’, or merely to characterize the second radiological image.
There is unclear antecedent basis for “additional imaging” in line 5. It is unclear if this is the “additional imaging” recited in line 3 or not.
There is unclear antecedent basis for “additional imaging” in line 7. It is unclear how this “additional imaging” relates to the previously recited “additional imaging”.
It is unclear what is meant by “the learning model is trained to obtain a trained model”. It is unclear if “is trained” is another training step, required in addition to the training recited in line 2. It is unclear if “a trained model” is the model in line 2, or if the model in line 2 is trained to perform a step of ‘obtaining a trained model’.
It is unclear whether “which then outputs … a need for additional imaging” attempts to recite that the method comprises a step of ‘outputting the need’, or merely to characterize the trained model’s function.
It is unclear how the “…trained model … outputs, … a need for additional imaging”, as computational models are not understood to have “needs”, or to output them. It is unclear what the output of the model is.
Claim 18 is indefinite for the following reasons:
It is unclear whether “obtained using a third condition” attempts to recite that the method comprises a step of ‘obtaining the third radiological image’, or merely to characterize the third radiological image.
It is unclear whether “obtained by additional imaging” attempts to recite that the method comprises a step of ‘obtaining by additional imaging’, or merely to characterize the fourth radiological image.
There unclear antecedent basis for “additional imaging”. It is unclear how this “additional imaging” relates to the previously recited “additional imaging”.
It is unclear whether “set on the basis of the third radiological image” attempts to recite that the method comprises a step of ‘setting the fourth condition’, or merely to characterize the second radiological image.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims (i.e., “system, comprising a storing medium…” read on software per se. See MPEP 21063.03(I).
Claims 1 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is not directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, as discussed above. However, the claimed subject matter is analyzed even assuming arguendo that step 1 is satisfied, the claim fails step 2A and 2B as follows.
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim recites limitations directed towards ‘training a learning model’. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the training step is an algorithm that computes neural network parameters ([0050] - [0052] of the instant published specification, and fig. 5) using a series of mathematical calculations. The step is therefore directed towards a mathematical concept.1
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 2, the claim recites an additional element setting forth that the training uses “a first radiological image obtained using a first condition and a second radiological image obtained by additional imaging using a second condition set on the basis of the first radiological image, wherein the learning data has, as annotation information, at least a reason for additional imaging”. However, these limitations merely limit the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim also recites that the “trained model outputs …. a need for additional imaging and a reason why the additional imaging is necessary as a re-acquisition factor”. However, these limitations are considered mere extra-solution activity. The claim further requires that the output is “when a third radiological image is input”, which merely limit the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not, either individually or as a whole, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to Step 2B, as explained above, the additional limitations merely limit the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or amount to extra-solution activity. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2 - 3, 5 - 6, and 15 - 16 recite additional limitations that characterize various claim elements. These characterizations merely limit the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Dependent claim 4 recites limitations directed towards ‘identify an image quality index corresponding to the re-acquisition factor’, which read on a mental step. The limitations directed towards the ‘identifying’ being performed by the model amount to an instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The limitations characterizing the image quality index merely limit the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Dependent claim 7 recites limitations directed towards ‘output a contrast agent protocol …’, which is extra-solution activity. The limitations characterizing the protocol merely limit the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Dependent claims 8 - 14 recite generic computer hardware components for extra-solution activity. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations of dependent claims 2 - 16 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or result in the claims amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 17:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., a method for producing a trained model.
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim recites “a step of training a learning model”. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the training step is an algorithm that computes neural network parameters ([0050] - [0052] of the instant published specification, and fig. 5) using a series of mathematical calculations. The step is therefore directed towards a mathematical concept.2
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 2, the claim recites an additional element setting forth that the training uses “a first radiological image obtained using a first condition and a second radiological image obtained by additional imaging using a second condition set on the basis of the first radiological image, wherein the learning data has, as annotation information, at least a reason for additional imaging”. However, these limitations merely limit the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim also recites that the training step is “to obtain a trained model, which then outputs, when a third radiological image is input, a need for additional imaging and a reason why the additional imaging is necessary as a re-acquisition factor”. However, the claimed method is not recited as comprising the ‘output’ step. Consequently, these limitations merely characterize an intended result of the training step. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not, either individually or as a whole, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to Step 2B, as explained above, the additional limitations merely limit the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and characterize an intended result of the training step. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 18 recites additional limitations directed towards “re-training the learning model”, which reads on a mathematical concept for reasons similar to those discussed above. The claim recites an additional element setting forth that the re-training uses “as learning data, a third radiological image obtained using a third condition and a fourth radiological image obtained by additional imaging using a fourth condition set on the basis of the third radiological image”. However, these limitations merely limit the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or result in the claims amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 - 6 and 16 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugahara (WO 2022/210753, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Sugahara shows a radiological imaging system, comprising a storing medium having a trained model (‘shooting loss determiner is a machine learning model’, [0025]) using, as learning data (learning processing, [0095]- [0099]), a first radiological image obtained using a first condition and a second radiological image obtained by additional imaging using a second condition set on the basis of the first radiological image ([0095]- [0099]), wherein the learning data has, as annotation information, at least a reason for additional imaging (reason for the shooting loss, [0032] - [0034]; failed images in fig. 2, and discussion thereof; [0095]- [0099]), and the trained model outputs, when a third radiological image is input, a need for additional imaging and a reason why the additional imaging is necessary as a re-acquisition factor (‘the radiation image P is input as the input data, the shooting loss determiner outputs the failure determination result RS as output data’, [0025]; ‘primary determination result RS 1 and the secondary determination result RS 2 are included as the imaging loss determination result RS’, [0067]).
Regarding claims 2 - 3, Sugahara discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Sugahara further shows that the first condition includes a first imaging parameter used when acquiring the first radiological image (implicit - the images are necessarily obtained using imaging parameters), and the second condition includes a second imaging parameter used when acquiring the second radiological image (implicit - the images are necessarily obtained using imaging parameters).
Regarding claim 4, Sugahara discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Sugahara further shows that the trained model is configured to identify an image quality index corresponding to the re-acquisition factor, and the image quality index is two or more of spatial resolution, contrast resolution, noise, and an artifact (reason for the shooting loss, [0032] - [0034]; failed images in fig. 2, and discussion thereof).
Regarding claims 5 - 6, Sugahara discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Sugahara further shows that the first radiological image is an image of a human (see fig. 1), acquired by any one of a CT device (see fig. 1), and the re-acquisition factor includes noise included in the radiological image, an artifact included in the radiological image, spatial resolution, contrast resolution, and/or information on a lesion present or suspected to be present in the subject ([0032] - [0034]; fig. 2, and discussion thereof).
Regarding claim 16, Sugahara discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Sugahara further shows that the second acquisition parameter is different from the first acquisition parameter in one or more of the following: acquisition range, acquisition pitch, number of radiation energies used for acquisition, and energy intensity of radiation used for acquisition ([0032] - [0034]; fig. 2, and discussion thereof).
Regarding claim 17, Sugahara shows a method for producing a trained model, comprising: a step of training a learning model (‘shooting loss determiner is a machine learning model’, [0025]) using, as learning data (learning processing, [0095]- [0099]), a first radiological image obtained using a first condition and a second radiological image obtained by additional imaging using a second condition set on the basis of the first radiological image ([0095]- [0099]), wherein the learning data has, as annotation information, at least a reason for additional imaging (reason for the shooting loss, [0032] - [0034]; failed images in fig. 2, and discussion thereof; [0095]- [0099]), and the learning model is trained to obtain a trained model, which then outputs, when a third radiological image is input, a need for additional imaging and a reason why the additional imaging is necessary as a re-acquisition factor (‘the radiation image P is input as the input data, the shooting loss determiner outputs the failure determination result RS as output data’, [0025]; ‘primary determination result RS 1 and the secondary determination result RS 2 are included as the imaging loss determination result RS’, [0067]).
Regarding claim 18, Sugahara discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Sugahara further shows a step of re-training the learning model using, as learning data, a third radiological image obtained using a third condition and a fourth radiological image obtained by additional imaging using a fourth condition set on the basis of the third radiological image (learning processing, [0095]- [0099]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIE R DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 6:00 PST.
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.
/AMELIE R DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
1 Refer to “July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples”, Example 47, claim 2, finding that broadest reasonable interpretation of the training step encompassed mathematical concepts.
2 Refer to “July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples”, Example 47, claim 2, finding that broadest reasonable interpretation of the training step encompassed mathematical concepts.