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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 9, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on March 9, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1 have been amended, claim(s) 6 and 12 have been cancelled, and no claim(s) have been added. Thus, claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-19 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant principally argues that the newly amended claims overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims as the specific arrangement provides a technological improvement, specifically a significant increase in sensitivity. The examiner notes that while the applicant has shown how this specific arrangement improves sensitivity of the monitoring apparatus this appears to be well-known or conventional in the detection of glucose. As further detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection below, the examiner has noted that prior art Connor (US 2016/0317060 A1) details the ground plane can have different sizes and shapes, Hancock (US 2008/0319285 A1) details that is preferable for the area of the ground plane to be greater than the microstrip feed line (e.g. [0080]), and Min (US 2016/0338625 A1) details it is preferred that the ground plane is larger than the shape and dimensions of the microstrip (e.g. [0083]-[0085]). Therefore, it appears that this arrangement is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of glucose monitoring.
Applicant’s arguments, in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-19 have been considered but the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the new grounds of rejection set forth above. The applicant asserts that the prior art rejections do not teach or suggest the features as now amended into the amended claims; therefore, the examiner has applied a new combination of prior art to reject the claims and address the arguments necessitated by such amendment.
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 1-5, 7-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention details a system (Step 1) directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-15 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-15 recites at least one step or instruction for determining a glucose concentration of the user which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, each of Claims 21-40 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
A non-invasive glucose monitoring apparatus, comprising:
a ring-shaped housing; (additional element)
at least one microstrip transmission line component comprising:
a curved ground plane embedded in or attached to a first portion of an inner
surface of the ring-shaped housing; (additional element)
a microstrip conductor that is embedded in or attached to a second portion of the
inner surface of the ring-shaped housing relative to the curved ground plane such that
a body part of a user is receivable in a space defined between the microstrip
conductor and the curved ground plane, the body part of the user also in contact with
the microstrip conductor and the curved ground plane, to function as a dielectric
substrate of the microstrip transmission line component, the microstrip transmission
line component having an input port, the microstrip conductor having a smaller width
than the curved ground plane; (additional element)
a signal input component for transmitting an input signal to the input port; and (additional element)
a concentration determining component (additional element) configured to:
determine at least one parameter of an output signal of the microstrip
transmission line component; and (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determine, based on a comparison of the at least one parameter to at least one respective calibration curve, a glucose concentration of the user, wherein (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
the microstrip transmission line component is configured such that a
main field of an electromagnetic field of the input signal received via the
input port and passing through the microstrip transmission line component
interacts with the body part functioning as the dielectric substrate of the
microstrip transmission line component to produce the output signal of the
microstrip transmission line component, (insignificant extra-solution activity)
the at least one parameter of the output signal of the microstrip
transmission line component for determining the glucose concentration of
the user being due to interaction of the main field with the body part. (insignificant extra-solution activity)
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-5, 7-11 and 13-15) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1) either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: ring-shaped housing, ground plane, microstrip conductor, signal input, and concentration determining component are generic and used for data gathering adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., external programming device or computer as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 21, 30 and 38 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-15 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: ring-shaped housing, ground plane, microstrip conductor, signal input, and concentration determining component. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, pg. 12 lines 3-5 details the use of a housing that may be in the form of a finger stall, ring or bracelet so as to accommodate the microstrip conductor and ground plane which are generic and commercially available. Furthermore, the instant specification details on pg. 8 lines 10-15 can be a signal input component for capturing a reflected signal or be a vector network analyser or a similar signal generation/measurement device which are vastly different items that detail that a variety of components can be used for the signal input component and are generic and commercially available. Lastly, the instant specification details on pgs. 8 lines 17-26, pg. 28 lines 8-15 and pg. 31 lines 18-18 that the concentration determining component may be in the form of computer-readable instructions stored on non-volatile storage in communication with at least one processor, or be implemented as a processor which are generic computer components and are commercially available.
Additionally, in applicant’s specification pg. 31 lines 29-31 that the microstrip conductor and the ground plane together function as a microstrip transmission line.
The prior art Connor (US 2016/0317060 A1) demonstrates an electromagnetic field passing through a microstrip transmission line component that interacts with the body part (e.g. [0509]; [0519]-[0525] specifically details utilizing a microwave energy emitter being a microstrip [0509] and further comprising a series of ground structures [0525]) which shows that this additional element is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Hancock (US 2008/0319285 A1) details that is preferable for the area of the ground plane to be greater than the radiating patch that is utilizing a microstrip feed line (e.g. [0080]). Min (US 2016/0338625 A1) details a device and method for sensing blood glucose wherein the location and size of the ground plane affects the performance of the microstrip feedline of the antenna and it is preferred that the ground plane is larger than the shape and dimensions of the microstrip (e.g. [0083]-[0085]).
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term processor is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for computers. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method and system of Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-15 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 1 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-15 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-15 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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) 1, 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor (US 2016/0317060 A1) in view of Devaney (US 2006/0131616 A1), Hancock (US 2008/0319285 A1), and Min (US 2016/0338625 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Connor discloses a non-invasive glucose monitoring apparatus (e.g. Fig 28 [0275]; [0509]-[0512]), comprising: a ring-shaped housing (e.g. Fig 28 [0512] the combination of 2801/2802/2803/2804 ); at least one microstrip transmission line component (e.g. Fig 28:2807/2808]) comprising: a curved ground plane (e.g. ) a microstrip conductor that is embedded in or attached to a second portion of the inner surface of the ring-shaped housing, the body part of the user also in contact with the microstrip conductor, to function as a dielectric substrate of the microstrip transmission line component (e.g. Fig 28:2806 the enclosure houses the biometric sensors which can be a microwave sensor such as a microstrip [0507]-[0509]), the microstrip transmission line component having an input port (e.g. [0511]-[0512] the microwave sensor can have an microwave energy emitter and a microwave energy receiver); a signal input component for transmitting an input signal to the input port (e.g. [0509]-[0518]); and a concentration determining component configured to: determine at least one parameter of an output signal of the microstrip transmission line component (e.g. [0497]); the microstrip transmission line component is configured such that a main field of an electromagnetic field of the input signal received via the input port and passing through microstrip transmission line component interacts with the body part functioning as the dielectric substrate of the microstrip transmission line component to produce the output signal of the microstrip transmission line component (e.g. [0496]-[0498]; [0505]-[0507]), the at least one parameter of the output signal of the microstrip transmission line component for determining the glucose concentration of the suer being due to interaction of the main field with the body part (e.g. [0505]-[0507]; [0557]-[0558]).
Connor is silent regarding a curved ground plane embedded in or attached to a first portion of an inner surface of the ring-shaped housing, wherein the microstrip conductor is relative to the ground plane such that a body part of a user is receivable in a space defined between the microstrip conductor and the curved ground plane, the body part of the user also in contact with the curved ground plane, the microstrip having a smaller width than the curved ground plane, the concentration determining component configured to: determine, based on a comparison of the at least one parameter to at least one respective calibration curve, a glucose concentration of the user.
Connor does disclose that the wearable glucose-monitoring microwave sensor can comprise ground structures having different sizes, shapes, gaps, material compositions and/or rotations in conjunction with the microwave sensor than can be a microstrip also having different sizes, shapes, gaps, material compositions and/or rotations in order to create the glucose-monitoring sensor (e.g. [0509]; [0519]-[0525]).
However, Devaney discloses a flexible circuit for use in monitoring a person’s glucose levels wherein the system utilizes a ground plane feature on the opposite side of the circuit in order to minimize cross talk between two traces (e.g. [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Connor to incorporate the teachings of Devaney to incorporate a ground plane into the system. While Connor doesn’t explicitly detail the circuitry of the sensors, the ground plane could be an additional component added to the ring shaped housing so that it is embedded in or attached to a first portion of an inner surface of the ring-shaped housing, causing it to be curved (due to the ring-shaped nature of the housing) and wherein the microstrip conductor is relative to the curved ground plane such that a body part of a user is receivable in a space defined between the microstrip conductor and the curved ground plane so that the crosstalk is minimized without compromising the actual structure of the sensors (e.g. Devaney [0014])
Additionally, Hancock discloses an apparatus and method for measuring glucose utilizing microstrips wherein the concentration determining component configured to: determine, based on a comparison of the at least one parameter to at least one respective calibration curve, a glucose concentration of the user (e.g. [0044]-[0049]; [0063]; [0088]; [0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Connor to incorporate the teachings of Hancock wherein the concentration determining component configured to: determine, based on a comparison of the at least one parameter to at least one respective calibration curve, a glucose concentration of the user for the purpose of utilizing a known method of measuring glucose utilizing electromagnetic fields.
Lastly, Min discloses a device and method for sensing blood glucose wherein the microstrip has a smaller width than the curved ground plane (e.g. [0083]-[0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Connor to incorporate the teachings of Min of having the microstrip a smaller width than the curved ground plane as it improves the performance of the microstrip (e.g. Min [0083]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Connor discloses wherein the at least one parameter comprises at least one parameter derived from the input impedance and/or the reflection coefficient (e.g. Hancock [0044]-[0049]; [0063]; [0088]; [0100]; the system utilizes an input impedance to match to a calibration curve to determine the glucose Connor [0557]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Connor discloses wherein the at least one parameter comprises one or more of: the real part of the input impedance, the imaginary part of the input impedance, the magnitude of the input impedance, the phase of the input impedance, the real part of the reflection coefficient, the imaginary part of the reflection coefficient, the magnitude of the reflection coefficient, and the phase of the reflection coefficient (e.g. Hancock [0058]-[0061] specifically detailed in [0061] the system utilizes a phase/magnitude detector on the input impedance to feed that information into the signal processor/controller).
Regarding claim 11, modified Connor discloses wherein the concentration determining component is configured to determine the glucose concentration based on a plurality of parameters derived from the output signal (Hancock [0049]; [0063]; [0088]; [0100] Connor [0505]-[0507]; [0557]-[0558]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Connor discloses wherein the signal input component is within, extends from, or is attached to the housing (e.g. Connor [0511]-[0512] the microwave sensor can have a microwave energy emitter and a microwave energy receiver).
Regarding claim 14, modified Connor discloses wherein the concentration determining component is in the form of computer-readable instructions stored on non-volatile storage in communication with at least one processor (e.g. Hancock [0046]-[0047] Fig 1:120).
Regarding claim 15, modified Connor discloses wherein the microstrip transmission line component is supported within a housing (e.g. Connor Fig 28:2806 the enclosure houses the biometric sensors which can be a microwave sensor such as a microstrip [0507]-[0509]). Modified Connor is silent regarding wherein the non-volatile storage and the at least one processor are housed within the housing.
However, it is well known in the art to modify biological sensors to have the processors and non-volatile storage housed within the housing in order to make the system portable and for use in the field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Connor to make it one integral system. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor in view of Devaney, Hancock and Min as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jean (US 2012/0310055 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Connor is silent regarding wherein the microstrip conductor is patterned.
However, Jean discloses a biological sensor that utilizes a plurality of resonant circuits (i.e. microstrip conductors) at various points along a line (i.e. a pattern) in which they are situated on a variety of geometric patterns on the ground plane (e.g. [0020] [0059]; [0066] Fig 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Connor to incorporate the teachings of Jean wherein the microstrip conductor is patterned for the purpose of increasing the depth of penetration into the tissues and increase the sensitivity of the sensor (e.g. Jean [0066]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Connor discloses wherein a pattern of the microstrip conductor comprises a plurality of repeating units spaced at regular intervals (e.g. Jean [0020] [0059]; [0066] Fig 2).
Regarding claim 4, modified Connor discloses wherein individual units are one or more of: a rectangular element, an interdigitated capacitor; a meander inductor; or a spiral inductor (e.g. Jean [0020] [0059]; [0066] Fig 2).
Regarding claim 5, modified Connor discloses wherein the curved ground plane is patterned (e.g. Jean [0066]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Connor is silent regarding wherein an output port of the microstrip transmission line component is terminated via a load.
However, Jean discloses wherein an output port of the resonant element (i.e. microstrip transmission line) component is terminated via a load (e.g. [0021]; [0024] [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Connor to incorporate the teachings of Jean wherein an output port of the resonant element (i.e. microstrip transmission line) component is terminated via a load for the purpose of choosing the proper parameters to get the desired output such as the glucose level in blood (e.g. Jean [0021] ).
Regarding claim 8, modified Connor discloses wherein the load is an open circuit, a short circuit, an impedance-matched load, a capacitive load or an inductive load (e.g. Jean [0021]; [0024] [0064]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSANDRA F HOUGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am - 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
Jessandra Hough March 28, 2026
/J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796