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 .
This action is in response to communications filed on 08/15/2025.
Claims 1-34 have been canceled.
Claims 35-52 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional on application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61/844761, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. For example, application 61/844761 does not provide support for claims 35-52 (“wherein said second plurality of fields remain empty to receive data entries of said user” (claims 35-52), transceiver features (claim 45), image capture features (paragraph 46), comparing prescription features (claims 50-52), etc.). Accordingly, the claims are not entitled to benefit of the prior application.
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 35-52 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.
As per claim 35, it is unclear whether “said medical record” in lines 29 and 33 are referring to the “electronic medical record”, or is different. Dependent claims 36-52 incorporate the features of claim 35, and thus are also indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn in view of amendments.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn in view of amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance that the references allegedly do not teach the newly amended features. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, Phillips teaches segregating user interaction with patient information into two parts between a first GUI and a second GUI (e.g. in paragraphs 9, 29, and 37, “physician entering a patient's room can have his or her handheld computer automatically associated with the patient's electronic medical record… input provided on either the tablet computer… provider device 110…presented with a control interface for manipulating that electronic medical record and displaying information from the record on the secondary display 140 in the patient's room”, i.e. user interaction with patient information segregated into two parts). Furthermore, Kwak also teaches segregating into two parts with synchronizing (e.g. in paragraphs 122, 203, and 273-274, e.g. “synchronizes the first and second screens with each other by sensing the editing in one of the first and second screens and reflecting the edits in the other of the first and second screens… if new contents are added on the first screen, or previous contents on the first screen are modified, these modifications of the first screen are automatically reflected in the second screen. Thus, the first screen and the second screen can be synchronized with each other… a first screen for a patient… a second screen for a doctor”). As such, the combination teaches the claimed features. See rejections below for details.
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 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.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claims 35-43, 45, and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20120253851 A1) in view of Kwak (US 20140101577 A1), Rosenfeld et al (US 20040111296 A1), and Wurster (US 20020116222 A1).
As per independent claim 35, Phillips teaches a computer system, comprising:
a server computer configured to serve an electronic medical record associated with a patient identifier (e.g. in paragraph 10, “electronic medical record system server is configured to receive an identification of the patient transmitted from the healthcare provider computing device and provide access to patient medical data in an electronic medical record”);
a first computer having a first processor in communication with a first computer non-transitory memory element, said first computer having a first display surface (e.g. in paragraph 28, “secondary display 140 may be a computing device including a processor, memory, network interface, input and output devices configured to receive instructions and to display information from electronic medical record system”);
a second computer having a second computer processor in communication with a second computer non-transitory memory element, said second computer having a second display surface (e.g. in paragraph 24, “Provider device 110 is preferably a tablet computing device, but may be implemented using a number of different types of computing systems… a processor connected via an internal bus with a memory”);
a program code when executed by said first computer or said second computer functions to:
display, on said first display surface of said first computer, a first graphical user interface depicting a first plurality of data fields (e.g. in paragraphs 37, “information [displayed on device 140] may be…the information displayed on device 110” and figure 5 showing a plurality of fields);
display on said second display surface of said second computer a second graphical user interface depicting a second plurality of data fields (e.g. in paragraphs 37, “information [displayed on device 140] may be…the information displayed on device 110” and figure 5 showing a plurality of data fields);
segregate user interaction with patient information into two different parts between said first plurality of data fields displayed on said first graphical user interface and said second plurality of data fields displayed on said second graphical user interface (e.g. in paragraphs 9, 29, and 37, secondary display 140 for the room and device 110 for the physician), wherein a first part of said patient information consisting of said electronic medical record associated with said patient identifier populates said first plurality of fields depicted in said first graphical user interface, said electronic medical record viewable by a user in said first graphical user interface (e.g. in paragraphs 9, 29, and 37, “displaying information from the record on the secondary display 140 in the patient's room”, and figure 5 showing a plurality of data fields); wherein a second part of said patient information consists of data entries made by said user into said second plurality of data fields depicted in said second graphical user interface (e.g. in paragraphs 9, 29, and 37, a “physician entering a patient's room can have his or her handheld computer automatically associated with the patient's electronic medical record… input provided on…the tablet computer… provider device 110…presented with a control interface for manipulating that electronic medical record”); wherein said medical record is depicted in said first graphical user interface concurrently with said second plurality of data fields depicted in said second graphical user interface (e.g. in paragraphs 37, 52 and 56, “information [displayed on device 140] may be…the information displayed on device 110” and figure 5 showing a plurality of data fields); and
associating each of said first plurality of data fields depicted in said first graphical user interface depicting said medical record to a corresponding one of said second plurality of data fields depicted in said second graphical user interface depicting said second plurality of data fields (e.g. in paragraphs 37, 52 and 56, “information [displayed on device 140] may be…the information displayed on device 110” and figure 5 showing a plurality of data fields),
wherein data entries entered by said user in said second plurality of data fields are depicted in corresponding ones of said first plurality of data fields in modification of said electronic medical record viewable by said user (e.g. in paragraphs 9, 29, and 37, a “physician entering a patient's room can have his or her handheld computer automatically associated with the patient's electronic medical record… input provided on either the tablet computer… provider device 110…presented with a control interface for manipulating that electronic medical record and displaying information from the record on the secondary display 140 in the patient's room”),
but does not specifically teach said second plurality of data fields as a progress note; wherein associating includes synchronizing, wherein data entries entered by said user in said second plurality of data fields of said progress note are depicted in corresponding synchronized ones of said first plurality of data fields, and wherein said second plurality of data fields in said progress note remain empty until receipt of data entries of said user.
However, Kwak teaches associating elements including synchronizing elements (e.g. in paragraph 203, “if new contents are added on the first screen, or previous contents on the first screen are modified, these modifications of the first screen are automatically reflected in the second screen. Thus, the first screen and the second screen can be synchronized with each other”) and data entries entered by a user in elements depicted on a second graphical user interface are depicted in corresponding synchronized ones of elements of a first graphical user interface (e.g. in paragraphs 214-216 and 273-274, “If previous contents are determined to be modified at operation S1050-Y, descriptions of the previous contents included in the first screen are modified and the second screen reflecting the modified contents is created at operation S1052… modifying parts in previous contents and synchronizing the modification” and figure 12 including a plurality of text and image fields). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Phillips to include the teachings of Kwak because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of facilitating synchronization of data,
but does not specifically teach said second plurality of data fields as a progress note, said second plurality of data fields of said progress note, and wherein said second plurality of data fields in said progress note remain empty until receipt of data entries of said user.
However, Rosenfeld teaches a plurality of data fields as/of/in a progress note (e.g. in paragraphs 137-139 and 142, “provides the physician with a means of documenting changes in patient status, updates and interventions. The progress note consists of 3 data fields… authorized clinician's P.I.N. in the sign field”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Rosenfeld because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of allowing to a physician to document relevant patient information (also amounting to a simple substitution that yields predictable results; e.g. see KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398,82 USPQ2d 1385,1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(B)),
but does not specifically teach wherein said second plurality of data fields in said progress note remain empty until receipt of data entries of said user.
However, Wurster teaches a plurality of fields remaining empty until receipt of data entries of a user (e.g. in paragraphs 64 and 66, “fields will be blank. The user simply types in the necessary information, or selects from the dropdown list… field may be left blank… secondary diagnosis can be selected from the available drop-down list or can be entered directly by typing in the field”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Wurster because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of representing unfilled information and/or incorporating well-known features (amounting to a simple substitution that yields predictable results; e.g. see KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398,82 USPQ2d 1385,1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(B)).
As per claim 36, the rejection of claim 35 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein said first computer comprises a first tablet computer, and wherein said second computer comprises a second tablet computer (e.g. Phillips, in paragraph 9; Kwak, in paragraph 98 and figure 12 showing “multi display apparatus… as various types of devices [each including] a tablet”).
As per claim 37, the rejection of claim 35 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein said first graphical user interface comprises a first plurality of images which said program code overlays in said first graphical user interface, wherein said second graphical user interface comprises a second plurality of images which said program overlays in said second graphical user interface (e.g. Philips, in figure 5; Kwak, in figure 12), wherein said program code couples one or more of said first plurality of images overlaid in said first graphical user interface with one or more of said second plurality of images overlaid in said second graphical user interface, whereby user interaction with one of said first plurality of images or said second plurality of images coupled by said program code causes said program code to display coupled ones of said first plurality of images and said second plurality of images in respective said first graphical user interface and said second graphical user interface for said user to view (e.g. Phillips, in paragraphs 37 and 52, “information can be a subset in that the healthcare provider may not want to display all of the information… stage a presentation of information”; Kwak, paragraphs 215-216, and figure 12 including a plurality of images and/or paragraphs 241-243 and figure 17).
As per claim 38, the rejection of claim 37 is incorporated, but Phillips does not specifically teach wherein one or more of said first plurality of images overlaid in said first graphical user interface remain uncoupled with one or more of said second plurality of images overlaid in said second graphical user interface, wherein user interaction with said one or more of said first plurality of images which remain uncoupled to one of said second plurality of images causes said program code to display said one of said first plurality of images in said first graphical user interface for said to user view without affecting said second plurality of images in said second graphical user interface. However, Kwak teaches depict one or more of first plurality of images overlaid in a first graphical user interface remain uncoupled with one or more of second plurality of images overlaid oin a second graphical user interface, wherein user interaction with said one or more of said first plurality of images which remain uncoupled to one of said second plurality of images causes program code to display said one of said first plurality of images in said first graphical user interface for user viewing without affecting said second plurality of images in said second graphical user interface (e.g. paragraphs 248 and 241-243, and figures 17-18 and paragraph 405 and figure 39(2) – figure 40(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Kwak because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of allowing content to be viewed without affecting the other device.
As per claim 39, the rejection of claim 38 is incorporated, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein said first plurality of images is selectable by user interaction with one of a first plurality of index tabs displayed on said first display surface of said first computer. However, Wurster teaches images selectable by user interaction with one of a plurality of index tabs displayed (e.g. paragraph 97 and figures 17a-i). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first plurality of images of the combination to include the teachings of Wurster because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of organizing relevant information, further amounting to a simple substitution that yields predictable results.
As per claim 40, the rejection of claim 39 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein said first plurality of index tabs includes a medical history tab (e.g. Wurster, in paragraph 97).
As per claim 41, the rejection of claim 38 is incorporated, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein said second plurality of images is selectable by user interaction with one of a second plurality of index tabs displayed on said second display surface of said second computer. However, Wurster teaches images selectable by user interaction with one of a plurality of index tabs displayed (e.g. paragraph 97 and figures 17a-i). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second plurality of images of the combination to include the teachings of Wurster because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of organizing relevant information, further amounting to a simple substitution that yields predictable results.
As per claim 42, the rejection of claim 41 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein said second plurality of index tabs includes a progress note tab and an orders tab (e.g. Wurster, in paragraph 97; note: “Meds” interpreted as orders).
As per claim 43, the rejection of claim 35 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein data entries are entered directly by said user into said second plurality of data fields concurrently depicted in said first graphical user interface (e.g. Phillips, in paragraphs 37 and 55-56, “make annotations to the image”; Kwak, paragraphs 215-216, “previous contents included in the first screen are modified and the second screen reflecting the modified content…synchronizing the modification” and figure 12 including a plurality of text and image fields).
As per claim 45, the rejection of claim 37 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein said first computer and said second computer each further include a transceiver, wherein said program code when executed by said first computer or said second computer further functions to operate each said transceiver to exchange communication signals directly between said first computer and said second computer to coordinate display of said first plurality of images in said first graphical user interface and display of said second plurality of images in said second graphical user interface (e.g. Philips, in paragraphs 24, 28, 30 and 37, 52, and 56, “wireless network port… network interface… Provider device 110 may further communicate directly with display 140 using, for example, a Bluetooth communication standard, near field communication, etc… communication between device 110 and display 140”, e.g. devices have a network interface for exchanging information via BLUETOOTH, i.e. transceiver, to facilitate “information [displayed on device 140] may be…the information displayed on device 110… provider can click a "display to patient" icon 620 to transmit the annotations to electronic medical record system 120 for display on secondary display… "fling" the image from the device 110 to the display 140 by selecting the image and moving their finger rapidly along a touch screen to, the edge of device 110” ).
As per claim 47, the rejection of claim 35 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein said program code when executed further functions to depict a submit control icon which by user interaction stores said data entries entered by said user in said second plurality of data fields to said electronic medical record associated with said patient identifier and concurrently depict said data entries in said first plurality of data fields displayed in said first graphical user interface (e.g. Phillips, in paragraphs 37 and 55-56 and claim 6, “provider can click a "display to patient" icon 620 to transmit the annotations to electronic medical record system 120 for display on secondary display”; Kwak, paragraphs 215-216, “previous contents included in the first screen are modified and the second screen reflecting the modified content…synchronizing the modification” and figure 12).
As per claim 48, the rejection of claim 35 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein said first computer operated at a distance from said second computer, said first graphical user interface depicting said first plurality of data fields populated with said electronic medical record viewable by a first user, said second display graphical user interface depicting said second plurality of fields viewable by a second user (e.g. Phillips, in paragraph 37, secondary display 140 for the room and device 110 for the physician, and figure 5; Kwak, in paragraph 273), wherein data entries by said second user in said second plurality of data fields results in modification of said electronic medical record populated in said first plurality of data fields depicted in said first graphical user interface viewable by said first user (e.g. Phillips, in paragraphs 55-56, “make annotations to the image”; Kwak, paragraphs 215-216, “previous contents included in the first screen are modified and the second screen reflecting the modified content…synchronizing the modification” and figure 12 including a plurality of text and image fields).
Claims 44 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20120253851 A1) in view of Kwak (US 20140101577 A1), Rosenfeld et al (US 20040111296 A1), and Wurster (US 20020116222 A1) and further in view of Experton (US 20140207686 A1).
As per claim 44, the rejection of claim 35 is incorporated, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein said program code when executed further functions to translate said plurality of electronic medical records associated with said patient identifier into a common format configured to be displayed only in said first plurality of data fields. However, Experton teaches translate a plurality of electronic medical records into a common format configured to be displayed in a first plurality of data fields (e.g. in paragraph 50, “in a standardized format [and/or] compiled health records may be presented in a consistent summary format regardless of the format used by the originating source”, and figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Experton because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of facilitating consistency.
As per claim 46, the rejection of claim 35 is incorporated, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein said program when executed further functions to: configure said second computer as an image capture device capable of capturing an image; configure said first computer to receive said image captured by said second computer; associate said image captured by said second computer with said plurality of electronic medical records associated with said patient identifier; and display said image captured by said second computer on said first display surface. However, Experton teaches configure a second computer as an image capture device capable of capturing an image (e.g. in paragraph 93); configure a first client computer to receive said image captured by said second computer (e.g. in paragraphs 53 and 93); associate said image captured by said second computer with a plurality of electronic medical records (e.g. in paragraph 93); and display said image captured by said second computer on a first display surface (e.g. in paragraphs 53 and 93). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Experton because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of allowing the physician to easily update records to include relevant images.
Claims 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20120253851 A1) in view of Kwak (US 20140101577 A1), Rosenfeld et al (US 20040111296 A1), and Wurster (US 20020116222 A1) and further in view of Brenner et al. (US 20070067186 A1).
As per claim 49, the rejection of claim 35 is incorporated, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein entries in said second plurality of fields comprises a prescription for a medication. However, Brenner teaches entries in fields comprising a prescription for a medication (e.g. in paragraphs 3, 13, 15, 68, and 75-76, “prescription medication information”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Brenner because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of quickly and easily interacting with relevant medical information.
As per claim 50, the rejection of claim 49 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein said program code when executed functions to: compare said prescription entered into said second plurality of data fields to prescription equivalents contained in a prescription database, depict said prescription associated with a prescription price in said second graphical user interface, and depict said prescription equivalents associated with prescription equivalents prices in said second graphical user interface (e.g. Brenner, in paragraphs 3, 13, 15, 68, and 75-76, “prescription medication and the alternative prescription medications… cost”).
As per claim 51, the rejection of claim 50 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein said program code when executed further functions to: depict sensorially perceivable prescription price comparison indicia in said second graphical user interface, said sensorially perceivable prescription price comparison indicia varying based on comparison of said prescription price against said prescription equivalents prices, wherein variance of said sensorially perceivable prescription price comparison indicia distinguish at least between said prescription price being greater than said prescription equivalents prices or being lesser than said prescription equivalents prices (e.g. Brenner, in paragraphs 3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 68, and 75-76, “provide a cost savings… choose an alternative preferred prescription, which may be based upon cost… a preference status greater… any other system could be employed such as $” and figures 11-12).
As per claim 52, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein said program when executed further functions to: compare said prescription or said prescription equivalents entered into said second plurality of data fields against an insured prescriptions database containing insured prescriptions, depict said insured prescriptions in said second graphical user interface, and depict insured prescription equivalents in said second graphical user interface (e.g. Brenner, in paragraphs 3, 13, 15, 68, and 75-76, “medication in the patient's insurance plan”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example,
Yolleck et al. (US 20060179404 A1) teaches “information have been used to fill in information for the available fields using information previously entered into the tool by the user. If information is not available, the field may be left blank to allow the user to manually fill in the information” (e.g. in paragraph 64).
Garber et al. (US 20050091082 A1) teaches a submit control icon to submit information inputted in fields (e.g. in paragraph 48).
Hosein et al (US 20120188147 A1) teaches segregating (e.g. in paragraphs 20-21, “form fields requesting information from the user may be displayed on either…device… a user can enter information into a form field displayed on second device 106 using controller 116, and the entered information can be transmitted to, and displayed on, first device”, i.e. includes an embodiment where only one device displays content including previously information that has been entered, while the other device is used to enter information).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241. 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.
/W.W/Examiner, Art Unit 2144 11/06/2025
/TAMARA T KYLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2144