DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under pre-AIA first-to-invent provisions.
Status of claims
Canceled:
none
Pending:
1-15
Withdrawn:
5-8 and 10
Examined:
1-4, 9 and 11-15
Independent:
1
Allowable:
none
Rejections applied
Abbreviations
x
112/2nd Indefiniteness
PHOSITA
"a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention"
112/2nd "Means for"
BRI
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
112/1st Enablement,
Written description
CRM
"Computer-Readable Media" and equivalent language
112 Other
IDS
Information Disclosure Statement
x
102, 103
JE
Judicial Exception
x
101 JE(s)
112/1st
35 USC 112, 1st para. and similarly for 112/ 2nd, etc.
101 Other
N:N
page:line
x
Double Patenting
MM/DD/YYYY
date format
Priority
As detailed on the 2/3/2021 filing receipt, this application claims priority to no earlier than 8/29/2011. All claims have been interpreted as being accorded this priority date.
Restriction/election
Applicant’s 4/9/2026 election is acknowledged. Because no errors in the restriction requirement were alleged distinctly and specifically, the election has been treated as an election constructively without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). As listed above, claims are withdrawn as drawn to nonelected inventions pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), and the remaining claims have been examined as listed above. The restriction requirement is made final.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
One or more IDSs have been entered and considered, with exceptions as noted on the attached annotated IDS form(s) 1449.
Claim objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. In each objection the claims are definite with respect to the issues cited here because interpretation would have been sufficiently clear to PHOSITA, but nonetheless the claims are objected to for consistency among the claims or as otherwise indicated. With regard to any suggested amendment below to overcome an objection, in the subsequent examination it is assumed that each amendment is made. However, equivalent amendments also would be acceptable. Any amendments in response to the following objections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate.
The following issues are objected to:
Claim
Recitation
Comment
1
wherein the computing device is configured to:
...,
...,
...;
...;
...
The list following this "configured to:" inconsistently uses a combination of commas and semi-colons.
1
in response...
based on:
..., and
...
No comma should precede this "and,"
i.e. "X and Y," not "X, and Y."
Claim rejections - 112/2nd
The following is a quotation of 112/2nd:
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 1-4, 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 112/2nd, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted, and any amendments in response to the following rejections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate. With regard to any suggested amendment below, for claim interpretation during the present examination it is assumed that each amendment suggested here is made. However, equivalent amendments also would be acceptable.
The following issues cause the respective claims to be rejected under 112/2nd as indefinite:
Claim
Recitation
Comment (suggestions in bold)
1
...system comprising:...
one or more first sensors that:
...;
wherein...;
one or more second sensors...;
wherein...
The claim recites a semi-colon-separated list beginning after "...system comprising:..."
First, the relationships among the list elements are unclear at least for lack of a grammatical conjunction in the list, e.g. "and" vs. "or."
Second, a comma would be more appropriate before the first, if not each, of these "wherein" clauses because each is part of and modifies the preceding list element of "one or more... sensors..." The "wherein" clauses themselves are not independently elements of the list.
1, 3, 12
wherein the computing device is configured to:
... measure...
... perform...
Claim 1 is to a 101 machine or manufacture, i.e. a "system" in this instance, interpreted by statute according to its claimed physical structure, and comprising a "computing device," but it is not clear what is the structure associated with the recited "...measure...," "...perform..." and similar steps. Therefore, it is not clear whether the claim is limited according to these steps. MPEP 2106.03, 5th-6th paras. pertain. The recited "system" and "computing device" are interpreted as not clearly requiring structure linking the "system" to the recited steps in a structural sense appropriate to a claim to a machine or manufacture. PHOSITA may understand these elements to comprise computer processors, but structure should be recited specifically corresponding to the recited, stored software. While these elements may comprise software storage in some embodiments, it is not clear that all embodiments of these elements must comprise software storage corresponding to the recited process steps. This rejection might be overcome by, for example, reciting a data storage device, comprised by the "system," and instructions stored therein and configured according to the recited elements and steps, as supported at, for example, [18]. MPEP 2173.05(p).II pertains regarding a claim directed to both product and process.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected similarly regarding their recitations of "configured to..." followed by one or more process steps.
1
detect... the magnitude...
Requires but lacks clear antecedent
1
detect when changes in the magnitude of values from the vascular function information
cross a particular threshold...
The required relationships are unclear between the recited "values," "one or more first parameters," "vascular function information" and "a particular threshold" at least because the "values" and the possible plurality of "parameters" appear inconsistent with the singular "threshold."
2
determining the one or more recommendations of treatment
Requires but lacks clear antecedent at least because claim 1 recited "generate... recommendations..."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 3-4, 9, 11-13 and 15
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stivoric (US 2008/0167572 as cited on the 9/29/2025 IDS) in view of Castellanos (US 2002/0183599 as cited on the 1/19/2021 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, the cited art teaches:
a computing device (Stivoric: FIG. 1, element 75; and entire document);
first sensor as an ultrasound sensor acoustically measuring blood flow (Castellanos: [6, 54, 102-108]; and entire document);
obtaining sensor data from a mobile measurement device configured to process information from physiology of a human wearer (Stivoric: [0139]; and entire document);
a blood glucose sensor (Stivoric: Table 1, [216, 150]; and entire document); and
generating, based on the blood glucose data, a report of expected effects of several aspects of treatment (Stivoric: [52, 217]; and entire document).
Stivoric further teaches determining whether sensor data has crossed a threshold that is associated with a physiological condition or change (Stivoric: [50-51]; and entire document).
Castellano further teaches:
a vascular sensor, obtaining bidirectional Doppler ultrasound waveforms based on the vascular system sensor (Castellano: [52, 54]; and entire document);
correlating the blood glucose data with the vascular function information including data representing vascular condition based on a bidirectional waveform Doppler ultrasound analysis (Castellano: [54, 103]; and entire document);
generating, based on correlating the blood glucose data with the vascular function information including data representing vascular condition (Castellano: [102-104]; and entire document);
detecting magnitude changes exceeding a threshold (Castellano: FIG. 6; [126-135]; and entire document);
treatment recommendations (Castellano: [102-104, 108]; and entire document).
Stivoric and Castellano teach each of the limitations as described above, however they do not teach the limitations in a single embodiment in the same, consecutive sequence as recited. It would have been prima facie obvious to try the recited sequence as an example of combining prior art elements taught within the same reference according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Castellano teaches wrist-mounting (Castellano: [79]; and entire document).
Regarding claim 4, Stivoric teaches a laptop (Stivoric: FIG. 1; and entire document).
The art is applied to claims 9 and 11 as described for claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Castellano addresses breathing and vascular Doppler and teaches an exercise recommendation (Castellano: [54, 69, 103, 163]; and entire document).
Regarding claim 13, Stivoric and Castellano each teach use of an electrocardiogram (Castellano: [10]; and entire document and Stivoric: [114]; and entire document).
Regarding claim 15, Stivoric teaches a ring-mounted device (Stivoric: [109, 111; and entire document).
Combining Stivoric and Castellanos
In the absence of a secondary consideration to the contrary, it would have been prima facie obvious for PHOSITA to modify the physiology monitoring of Stivoric using the related teaching of Castellanos. As motivation to combine, an advantage taught by Castellanos of modifying methods such as those of Stivoric would have been the teaching of Castellanos that "...there is a need for a way for improved Systems and methods for treatment of Vascular disease" ([12]; also [12-15] generally). Thus, PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify Stivoric using the above techniques of Castellanos in order to achieve the above advantage. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Stivoric and Castellanos are generally drawn to related teaching, and PHOSITA would have understood how to and would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Castellanos to the related teaching of Stivoric.
Claim 14
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stivoric in view of Castellanos as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hu (as cited on the attached form 892).
Regarding claim 14, Hu teaches steering-wheel-mounted ECG (Hu: title; and entire document).
Combining Stivoric, Castellanos and Hu
Previously cited references are combined as described above.
In the absence of a secondary consideration to the contrary, it would have been prima facie obvious for PHOSITA to modify the physiology monitoring of Stivoric using the related teaching of Hu. As motivation to combine, an advantage taught by Hu of modifying methods such as those of Stivoric would have been the teaching of Hu that "...we make full use of the environment settings in a car to develop two non-intrusive real-time ECG measurement methods for drivers" (p. 1, 1st para.). Thus, PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify Stivoric using the above techniques of Hu in order to achieve the above advantage. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Stivoric and Hu are generally drawn to related teaching, and PHOSITA would have understood how to and would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Hu to the related teaching of Stivoric.
Claim rejections - 101
35 USC 101 reads:
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.
For each rejection below, dependent claims are rejected similarly as not remedying the rejection, unless otherwise noted.
Judicial exceptions (JE) to 101 patentability
Claims 1-4, 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed inventions are not directed to patent eligible subject matter. After consideration of relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, each claim is directed to one or more JEs (i.e. an abstract idea, a natural phenomenon, a law of nature and/or a product of nature), as identified below. Any elements or combination of elements beyond the JE(s) (i.e. "additional elements") are conventional and do not constitute significantly more than the JE(s). Thus, no claim includes additional elements amounting to significantly more than the JE(s), as explained below.
In Alice, citing Mayo and Bilski, two Mayo/Alice questions determine eligibility under 101: First, is a claim directed to a JE? And second, if so, does the claim recite significantly more than the JE?
MPEP 2106 organizes JE analysis into Steps 1, 2A (1st & 2nd prongs) and 2B as follows below.
MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.03
[Step 1: claims 1-4, 9 and 11-15: YES]
Step 2A, 1st prong: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? -- abstract idea -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.04
Preliminarily, in a 1st prong of Step 2A, elements of independent claim 1 are interpreted as directed to the abstract idea of analysis of physiological data to arrive at a treatment recommendation including the JE elements of "perform...," "determine... vascular function information...," "determine... second parameters...," "detect..." and "generate...," each of which, including all recitation within each listed element, in at least some embodiments within a BRI, involves only manipulation of data. While manipulation of data is not per se directed to an abstract idea, in this instance the above-identified elements are directed to the abstract ideas identified below.
BRIs of the claims are analogous to an abstract idea in the form of at least a mental process, at least equivalent to a computer-implemented process, including obtaining and comparing intangible data (e.g. Cybersource, Synopsys and Electric Power Group). In a BRI, it is not clear that the claim embodiments are limited so as to require complexity precluding analogy to a mental process.
BRIs of the claims also are analogous to an abstract idea in the form of a mathematical concept, including mathematical relationships and calculations, as found in the following case law, as cited and discussed above: collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) and/or obtaining and comparing intangible data (e.g. Cybersource, Ambry and Myriad CAFC) and/or execution of an algorithm to implement mathematical relationships and/or formulas, including image processing (e.g. TLI, Digitech, Benson, Flook, Diehr, FuzzySharp, In re Grams and In re Abele all as cited in MPEP 2106).
Instant examples of math concepts include the recited bidirectional waveform Doppler ultrasound analysis, determination of parameters and threshold crossing determination, as well as relationships inherent in recitations as the only supported embodiments.
The preceding case law examples are cited for the basic form of their identified abstract ideas, and analogy to these example abstract ideas need not be within the same technology field, 101 analysis generally being assumed to be neutral with respect to technology field.
Regarding inherency of abstract ideas, MPEP 2106.04.II.A.1 includes: "the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 'described' the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words 'intermediated' or 'settlement'" (emphasis added, p. 1). Similarly, inherency can effectively be recitation, as in, for example, "By claiming simply 'crystalline paroxetine hydrochloride hemihydrate' with no reference to how it was produced, SKB effectively claimed 'crystalline paroxetine hydrochloride hemihydrate whether non-naturally occurring or arising through natural conversion.' Claim 1, as issued, therefore combines patentable and unpatentable subject matter, and is invalid under Section 101." (capitalization added, SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 365 F.3d 1306, 1321-33, Fed. Cir. 2004).
In the instant type of data processing claims, the specification is not merely adding background explanation as to how a claimed process works, e.g. a physical process based on, involving or further explained by abstract ideas and natural laws. Rather, the specification is detailing the only disclosed way that a programmer may proceed from the recited inputs to the recited outputs, e.g. through actual performance of the disclosed judicial exceptions (JEs).
Regarding the "Meaning of 'Recites,'" MPEP 2106.04.II.A.1 states:
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
While the "set forth" language approximates explicit recitation, it also is fundamental that all recitation must be interpreted and that to be patent eligible a claim must satisfy 101 according to its properly interpreted scope, e.g. for all embodiments on which the claim reads, e.g. according to any inherency pertinent to a given claim and disclosure accompanying that claim, i.e. consistent with the "described" meaning of "recites" as in the MPEP. Thus, within a BRI, the identified abstract idea elements read on one or more embodiments which only involve manipulation of data. It is not clear than any improvement argument clearly on the record causes a claim not to be directed to a JE for all embodiments within the scope of the claim.
As in Alice (at 306, as cited in the MPEP above) and Bilski (as cited in Alice, id), an abstract idea may comprise multiple abstract elements or steps (i.e. from Alice: "a series of steps" at 306) and need not be a single equation, relationship or principle.
It is not clear that the identified elements must represent other than an abstract idea according to any relevant analysis or case law.
[Step 2A, 1st prong, abstract idea: claim 1: YES]
Step 2A, 2nd prong: If the claims recite a judicial exception under the 1st prong, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application? -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.04(d)
MPEP 2106.04(d).I lists the following example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In Step 2A, 1st prong above, claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more judicial exceptions (JEs).
In Step 2B below, any remaining steps and/or elements are therefore in addition to the identified JE(s). Any such additional steps and additional elements are further discussed in Step 2B.
Here in Step 2A, 2nd prong, no additional step or element clearly demonstrates integration of the JE(s) into a practical application.
At this point in examination it is not yet the case that any of the Step 2A, 2nd prong considerations enumerated above clearly demonstrates integration of the identified JE(s) into a practical application. Referring to the considerations above, none of 1. an improvement, 2. treatment, 3. a particular machine or 4. a transformation is clear in the record.
For example, regarding the first consideration at MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), the record, including for example the specification, does not yet clearly disclose an explanation of improvement over the previous state of the technology field. The claims do not yet clearly result in such an improvement (e.g. specification: [26 and 33]).
[Step 2A, 2nd prong: claim 1: NO]
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of additional elements in addition to the identified JEs? -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.05
Addressing the second Mayo/Alice question, all elements of claim 1 are part of one or more identified JEs (as described above), except for elements identified here as conventional elements in addition to the above judicial exceptions:
The recited computing device, ultrasound sensor, second sensor and their operation for data acquisition are conventional elements of a laboratory and/or computing environment and/or conventional data gathering/input/output elements, as exemplified in MPEP 2106.05(d).II and 2106.05(f-g), and as exemplified by Stivoric (US 2008/0167572 as cited on the 9/29/2025 IDS), Castellanos (US 2002/0183599 as cited on the 1/19/2021 IDS) and Hu (as cited on the attached form 892), and generally it is understood that the examples in the reference are well-known and routine.
Data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the judicial exceptions or on how the judicial exceptions are performed. Data gathering is insufficient to integrate judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
It is emphasized that, outside of an improvement argument, analysis of what is conventional generally pertains to the above-identified additional elements and not to elements identified as part of a JE.
[Step 2B: claim 1: NO]
Summary and conclusion regarding claim 1
Summing up the above analysis of claim 1, each viewed as a whole and considering all elements individually and in combination, no claim recites limitations that transform the claim, finally interpreted as directed to the identified JE(s), into patent eligible subject matter, and it is not clear that any claim is sufficiently analogous to controlling case law identifying an example of an eligible claim.
Remaining claims
Claims 2 and 11-12 add elements which also are part of the identified JEs for the same reasons described above regarding the independent claims and therefore do not provide the something significantly more necessary to satisfy 101.
Elements of claims 3-4, 9 and 13-15 are additional elements but nonetheless are conventional elements of a laboratory or computing environment, conventional data gathering elements or conventional post-processing elements, as in the specific examples cited in the above art rejections, and generally it is understood that the examples in the reference are well-known and routine.
Data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the judicial exceptions or on how the judicial exceptions are performed. Data gathering is insufficient to integrate judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
None of the dependent claim elements provides the something significantly more than the identified JE(s) necessary to satisfy 101.
Nonstatutory double patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine to prevent the improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent multiple suits against an accused infringer by different assignees of the same invention (MPEP 804.II.B, 1st para.). A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims (instant v. reference) are not identical, but an examined-application claim (instant claim) is not patentably distinct from a reference claim because the instant claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim (MPEP 804.II.B, 2nd para.).
In cases of double patenting rejections versus reference claims of pending applications, as opposed to claims of an issued patent, the rejections are provisional because the reference claims have not been patented. Presently, no rejections are provisional.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the application or patent of the reference claim either is shown to be commonly owned with the instant application or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must comply fully with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Applicant may wish to consider electronically filing a terminal disclaimer (MPEP 1490.V pertains, along with https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer). Electronic filing may lead to faster approval of the disclaimer. Also, if filing electronically, Applicant is encouraged to notify the examiner by telephone so that examination may resume more quickly.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used.
A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Double patenting rejections of instant claims 1-4, 9 and 11-15
Instant claims 1-4, 9 and 11-15 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over one or more claims in reference patents:
7,074,183 (from application 10/164,229),
7,364,544 (from application 11/448,354),
9,402,597 (from application 13/733,079),
10,925,580 (from application 13/598,371),
11,742,062 (from application 15/225,331) and
12,557,994 (from application 18/136,542) and
one or more claims in reference applications:
19/442,670,
18/136,545 and
18/136,539,
each in view of Stivoric (US 2008/0167572 as cited on the 9/29/2025 IDS), Castellanos (US 2002/0183599 as cited on the 1/19/2021 IDS) and Hu (as cited on the attached form 892).
Each reference patent and application as well as the instant application recite claims which require waveform analysis of vascular data to arrive at a treatment recommendation.
Although the reference claims are not identical to the instant claims, in a BRI they also are not patentably distinct from the instant claims: either (i) because the instant claims recite obviously equivalent or broader limitations in comparison to the reference claims or (ii) because the instant claims recite limitations which are obvious over the cited art. It is not clear that the instant claims recite limitations which are narrower than limitations in the reference claims.
It would have been obvious in view of the cited art to modify reference claims to arrive at the rejected instant claims. Either the instant limitations are interpreted as reading on a reference limitation, or the instant limitations would have been obvious in view of the cited art. That is, to the extent that any instant claims are narrower than reference claims, then any such narrowing would have been obvious over the cited art.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, rejections refer to the portions of each document cited as example portions as well as to the entirety of each document, unless otherwise noted in the situation of lengthy, multi-subject documents. Other passages not specifically cited within a document may apply as well.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
Inquiries
Information regarding the filing, management and status of patent applications which are published (available to all users) or unpublished (available to registered users) may be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Further information is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center, and information about filing in DOCX format is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
The Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) is available for additional questions, and assistance from a Customer Service Representative is available at 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
The examiner for this Office action, G. Steven Vanni, may be contacted at:
(571) 272-3855 Tu-F 8-7 (ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Larry D. Riggs, II, may be reached at (571) 270-3062.
/G. STEVEN VANNI/Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686
Prosecution Insights