DETAILED ACTION
The following is a FINAL Office action (“Action”) to the response with claim amendments submitted Jan. 15, 2026 (“Jan. Resp.”), which was filed from the non-final Office action mailed July 16, 2025 based on the filing of this reissue application on April 1, 2022 from U.S. Patent No. 9,775,570 (U.S. patent application no. 15/583,718) (hereinafter “’570 patent”).
The following is a summary of the prior art applied in this Action:
U.S. Patent No. 7,079,035, to Bock et al. (“Bock”).
U.S. Patent No. 6,597,933, to Kiani et al. (“Kiani”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0145854, to Hickle.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0035315, to Ali et al. (“Ali”).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
While the examination of the current reissue application falls under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions due to the effective filing date of the parent U.S. Patent No. 9,775,570 (i.e., March 1, 2010), the filing date of this reissue application is on or after September 16, 2012, which subjects this application to the reissue rule changes enacted under the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act (“AIA ”). See Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 157, pg. 48820, August 16, 2012. As a result, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.75, and 3.73 are to the current provisions enacted under the AIA . See id.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on Jan. 15, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97 and 1.98 and the information cited therein has been considered.
Patent Family History
This reissue application (no. 17/711,987) is a continuation reissue application of reissue application number 16/800,971, now U.S. patent no. RE49,007, which is a continuation reissue application of reissue application number 16/184,908, now U.S. patent no. RE47,882, which is a continuation reissue application of reissue application number 15/881,602, now U.S. patent no. RE47,218, which is a reissue application of the ‘570 patent, which is a continuation of U.S. application number 13/037,184, now U.S. patent no. 9,724,024, which claims a benefit to two U.S. provisional applications filed April 27, 2010 (61,328,630) and March 1, 2010 (61/309,419).
On June 11, 2020, an inter partes review (IPR2020-01078, hereinafter “’01078 IPR”) was filed challenging claims 1-10 and 11-18 of reissued patent RE47,218. In a Final Written Decision (“’01078 FWD”) of the ‘01078 IPR, which issued on November 29, 2021, all challenged claims were canceled, which was subsequently affirmed at the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. While the claims in RE47,218 are of a different scope than the claims in this reissue application, there is substantial overlap, thus, to the extent applicable the same prior art and reasoning applied in the ‘01078 FWD is applied in the rejections below with appropriate citations.
Arguments and Amendments
Reissue Declaration and 35 U.S.C. § 251
The previously presented objection to the reissue declaration and corresponding section 251 claim rejections are withdrawn in light of the corrected reissue declaration submitted with the Jan. Resp.
Consent
The previously presented objection to the consent is maintained because the title of the signer, “Deputy General Counsel,” is not a recognized title that conveys the signer has apparent authority to act on behalf of the assignee. See MPEP §§ 324, subsection V, 325, subsection V, and 1410.02, subsection I.
To remedy this issue either a new consent should be filed or a statement placed on the record that the signer of the consent has authorization to act on behalf of the assignee. See MPEP § 1410.02, subsection I.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Claim Rejections
Applicant’s arguments presented with respect to the previously presented 35 U.S.C. § 103 claim rejections over Bock, Kiani, Hickle, and Ali are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant reprints much of the rejection of claim 19 and the citations in the rejections to Bock. Jan. Resp. 7-10. Applicant then argues, with emphasis being original, that they
disagree[] with the Office Action's interpretation on p. 5, namely alleging "the limit 306" in Figure 2 of Bock teaches the "a limit that corresponds to a reference level for determining an alarm threshold" and "the tracking thresholds 314, 315" in Figure 2 of Bock teach the "alarm thresholds." Further, as shown above in Figure 5 of Bock, even under the Office Action's interpretation, the cited portions of Bock still do not teach the tracking threshold 314, 315 being adjusted in response to a trend of data stream 312 or calculated representative value 310 approaching or moving away from the limit 306.
Therefore, Applicant submits that Bock at least has not been shown to teach adjusting the alarm threshold "in response to a trend of a first set of the values indicates the first set of the values is approaching the limit" or "in response to a trend of a second set of the values indicates the second set of the values is moving away from the limit."
Jan. Resp. 10.
Initially, these arguments are not persuasive because they are merely conclusory and do not explain why the various claim limitations are not taught in Bock. However, for the sake of completeness, these statements are addressed as follows.
Bock describes element 306 and element 308 as a “limits” that “represent values that are extreme for the characteristic being monitored.” In other words, these are the maximum or extreme data values representing reference limits by which a patient’s data is evaluated and which bound the determination of whether or not an alarm sounds after crossing other values representing alarm thresholds. See Bock 3:50-58.
The “tracking thresholds 314, 315,” especially threshold 314, is described in Bock as being capable of triggering an alarm after the “alarm limit 316” line crosses the threshold 314. See Bock 4:4-25. In other words, while there is also described an “alarm limit 316” in Bock, this is intertwined and the thresholds 314, 315, which also act as alarm limits if crossed.
Lastly, Fig. 2 of Bock clearly shows that the thresholds 314, 315, and alarm limit 316, change in response to a change in patient values represented by “acquired data 312” and “calculated representative value 310” over time.
Applicant lastly argues that the remaining claims are distinguishable from Bock for the same reasoning as presented for claim 19. See Jan. Resp. 10-12. However, as explained above, Applicant’s argument with respect to Bock is not persuasive. For this reason, and because Applicant does not present any additional arguments, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Objection – Amendments
Claims 19-38 are objected to because the amendment markings are not proper for showing the changes with respect to the original patent as required under 37 CFR § 1.173(b)(2),(d),(g). Specifically, since claims 19-38 are newly presented with respect to the originally patented claims, they must not show any deletion markings, even if different than the previously filed claim set. The entirety of new claims must always be completely underlined with no other markings. Amended new claims, however, should have a status identifier of “New – Amended” or similar for the first amendment, and “New – Twice Amended”, “New – Three Times Amended”, etc. See MPEP § 1453.
Lastly, the sections of the underlying patent providing support for any and all amendments must be identified in the accompanying response. See 37 CFR § 1.173(c); see also MPEP § 1453. In this case, the Jan. Resp. does not identify where in the underlying patent there is support for the amendments, even though they are not extensive.
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.
Claims 19, 23, 26, 27, 33, 34, and 38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bock in view of Kiani, both of which are in the same field of measuring patient physiological parameters as the claimed invention.
Independent Claim 19
Claim 19 recites and Bock teaches:
A patient monitoring system which reduces a likelihood of nuisance alarms (Bock 1:18-20, 52-2:37, Figs. 1, 4), the patient monitoring system comprising:
one or more hardware processors in communication with [a] … sensor that is configured to monitor a patient (Bock 3:31-40, 5:3-16, Figs. 1, 4, processor 27 and/or controller 15 communicates with at least data acquisition device (sensor) 13; see also ‘01078 FWD 37-41), the one or more hardware processors being configured to:
determine values of an oxygen saturation of the patient from a signal output from the … sensor (Bock 5:3-16, 52-6:6, Fig. 5, step 100, acquired data stream 312, which is then processed into a calculated representative (set of) value(s) 310, is received from a patient by the sensor 13, which can include SpO2 (oxygen saturation); see also ‘01078 FWD 41),
define a limit that corresponds to a reference level for determining an alarm threshold (Bock 3:40-57, Fig. 2, either of the extremity limits 306 and 308 are defined limits that correspond to a reference for defining tracking thresholds 314 and 315, both of which are “alarm thresholds”),
adjust the alarm threshold over time relative to the limit according at least to the values (Bock 6:23-63, 7:34-44, Figs. 2, 5, step 116, the tracking thresholds 314, 315 are adjusted over time relative to the calculated representative value(s) 310, which is representative of the acquired data stream 312) so that the alarm threshold:
adjusts a first amount in response to a trend of a first set of the values indicates the first set of the values is approaching the limit (Bock 7:19-44, if a first set of values of acquired data 312 as represented by calculated representative value(s) 310 are approaching the limit 306, as shown in Fig. 2, 312, between minutes 28 and 31, the tracking thresholds 314, 315 are adjusted by an amount, i.e., the thresholds are adjusted in response to the change in trend toward limit 306), and
adjusts a second amount in response to a trend of a second set of the values indicates the second set of the values is moving away from the limit, the second amount being greater than the first amount (Bock 7:19-44, if another, second, set of values of acquired data are moving away from the limit 306, such as acquired data 312 as shown by value(s) 310 between minutes 21 and 28, the tracking thresholds 314, 315 are adjusted by another amount, which is “greater” or larger than the amount of adjustment between minutes 28 and 31, in response to the change in trend away from limit 306), and
activate an alarm responsive to one of the values satisfying the alarm threshold (Bock 7:4-13, 27-33, 8:20-24); and
a memory device configured to store the alarm threshold (Bock 3:24-30, 5:52-55, Fig. 1, storage 22).
Bock does not teach that the sensor is “an optical sensor,” as further recited in claim 19. However, Kiani remedies this and teaches a physiological device with an optical sensor. See Kiani 2:15-17, 3:5-11, the photodiode detector 130 is an optical sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a photodiode detector, as in Kiani, as the sensor of Bock to sense light and detect oxygen status through pulse oximetry, which is “a widely accepted noninvasive procedure for measuring the oxygen saturation level of arterial blood, an indicator of oxygen supply.” See Kiani 1:17-21.
Independent Claim 27
Claim 27 recites and Bock teaches:
A method of reducing a likelihood of nuisance alarms in patient monitoring system (Bock 1:18-20, 52-2:37 and at least Figs. 1, 4, 5), the method comprising:
generating a signal with [a] … sensor; determining values of an oxygen saturation of a patient from the signal; (Bock 5:3-16, 52-6:6, Fig. 5, step 100, acquired data stream 312, which is then processed into a calculated representative (set of) value(s) 310, is received from a patient by the sensor 13, which can include SpO2 (oxygen saturation); see also ‘01078 FWD 41)
defining a limit that corresponds to a reference level for determining an alarm threshold (Bock 3:40-57, Fig. 2, either of the extremity limits 306 and 308 are defined limits that correspond to a reference for defining tracking thresholds 314 and 315, both of which are “alarm thresholds”);
adjusting the alarm threshold over time relative to the limit according at least to the values (Bock 6:23-63, 7:34-44, Figs. 2, 5, step 116, the tracking thresholds 314, 315 are adjusted over time relative to the calculated representative value(s) 310, which is representative of the acquired data stream 312), wherein said adjusting comprises:
adjusting the alarm threshold a first amount in response to a trend of a first set of the values indicates the first set of the values is approaching the limit (Bock 7:19-44, if a first set of values of acquired data 312 as represented by calculated representative value(s) 310 are approaching the limit 306, as shown in Fig. 2, 312, between minutes 28 and 31, the tracking thresholds 314, 315 are adjusted by an amount, i.e., the thresholds are adjusted in response to the change in trend toward limit 306), and
adjusting the alarm threshold a second amount in response to a trend of a second set of the values indicates the second set of the values is moving away from the limit, the second amount being greater than the first amount (Bock 7:19-44, if another, second, set of values of acquired data are moving away from the limit 306, such as acquired data 312 as shown by value(s) 310 between minutes 21 and 28, the tracking thresholds 314, 315 are adjusted by another amount, which is “greater” or larger than the amount of adjustment between minutes 28 and 31, in response to the change in trend away from limit 306);
activating an alarm responsive to one of the values satisfying the alarm threshold (Bock 7:4-13, 27-33, 8:20-24); and
storing the alarm threshold to a memory device (Bock 3:24-30, 5:52-55, Fig. 1, storage 22).
Bock does not teach that the sensor is “an optical sensor,” as further recited in claim 27. However, Kiani remedies this and teaches a physiological device with an optical sensor. See Kiani 2:15-17, 3:5-11, the photodiode detector 130 is an optical sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a photodiode detector, as in Kiani, as the sensor of Bock to sense light and detect oxygen status through pulse oximetry, which is “a widely accepted noninvasive procedure for measuring the oxygen saturation level of arterial blood, an indicator of oxygen supply.” See Kiani 1:17-21.
Independent Claim 34
Claim 34 recites and Bock teaches:
A non-transitory physical computer storage comprising computer- executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, are configured to implement a process (Bock 3:31-40, 5:3-16, Figs. 1, 4, processor 27 and/or controller 15 communicates with at least data acquisition device (sensor) 13 and operates off instructions stored in a memory; see also ‘01078 FWD 37-41) comprising:
receiving a signal generated by [a] … sensor monitoring a patient; determining values of an oxygen saturation of the patient from the signal; (Bock 5:3-16, 52-6:6, Fig. 5, step 100, acquired data stream 312, which is then processed into a calculated representative (set of) value(s) 310, is received from a patient by the sensor 13, which can include SpO2 (oxygen saturation); see also ‘01078 FWD 41);
defining a limit that corresponds to a reference level for determining an alarm threshold (Bock 3:40-57, Fig. 2, either of the extremity limits 306 and 308 are defined limits that correspond to a reference for defining tracking thresholds 314 and 315, both of which are “alarm thresholds”);
adjusting the alarm threshold over time relative to the limit according at least to the values (Bock 6:23-63, 7:34-44, Figs. 2, 5, step 116, the tracking thresholds 314, 315 are adjusted over time relative to the calculated representative value(s) 310, which is representative of the acquired data stream 312), wherein said adjusting comprises:
adjusting the alarm threshold a first amount in response to a trend of a first set of the values indicates the first set of the values is approaching the limit (Bock 7:19-44, if a first set of values of acquired data 312 as represented by calculated representative value(s) 310 are approaching the limit 306, as shown in Fig. 2, 312, between minutes 28 and 31, the tracking thresholds 314, 315 are adjusted by an amount, i.e., the thresholds are adjusted in response to the change in trend toward limit 306), and
adjusting the alarm threshold a second amount in response to a trend of a second set of the values indicates the second set of the values is moving away from the limit, the second amount being greater than the first amount (Bock 7:19-44, if another, second, set of values of acquired data are moving away from the limit 306, such as acquired data 312 as shown by value(s) 310 between minutes 21 and 28, the tracking thresholds 314, 315 are adjusted by another amount, which is “greater” or larger than the amount of adjustment between minutes 28 and 31, in response to the change in trend away from limit 306);
activating an alarm responsive to one of the values satisfying the alarm threshold (Bock 7:4-13, 27-33, 8:20-24).
Bock does not teach that the sensor is “an optical sensor,” as further recited in claim 34. However, Kiani remedies this and teaches a physiological device with an optical sensor. See Kiani 2:15-17, 3:5-11, the photodiode detector 130 is an optical sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a photodiode detector, as in Kiani, as the sensor of Bock to sense light and detect oxygen status through pulse oximetry, which is “a widely accepted noninvasive procedure for measuring the oxygen saturation level of arterial blood, an indicator of oxygen supply.” See Kiani 1:17-21.
Dependent Claim 23
Claim 23 recites and Bock teaches “[t]he patient monitoring system of claim 19, further comprising the … sensor.” Bock 5:3-16, Fig. 4, sensor 13. As explained above in the rejection of claim 19, Bock does not teach that the sensor is “an optical sensor,” as further recited in claim 23. However, Kiani remedies this and teaches a physiological device with an optical sensor. See Kiani 2:15-17, 3:5-11, the photodiode detector 130 is an optical sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a photodiode detector, as in Kiani, as the sensor of Bock to sense light and detect oxygen status through pulse oximetry, which is “a widely accepted noninvasive procedure for measuring the oxygen saturation level of arterial blood, an indicator of oxygen supply.” See Kiani 1:17-21.
Dependent Claims 26, 33, and 38
Claims 26, 33, and 38 recite virtually identical limitations. As a representative claim, claim 26 recites and Bock teaches “the one or more hardware processors are configured to determine the first set of values over a first time period and the second set of values over a second time period.” Bock 7:19-44, the first set of values of acquired data 312 as represented by calculated representative value(s) 310 are between minutes 28 and 31 (“a first time period”), and the second set of values of acquired data are between minutes 21 and 28 (“a second time period”). However, the time periods in Bock do not necessarily reflect the limitation that “the second time period being subsequent to the first time period,” as further recited in the claims.
Even so, Bock teaches that the data representing oxygen saturation of a patient is not consistent over time and “may go from a high point in a range that is not alarming for a subject to a low point in the range that is also not alarming … [but] the change in value may be significant.” Bock 1:32-36. And as such, “[a] system that can indicate when the readings are fluctuating , when such fluctuation is important, would be preferable … [and a] system that can identify a relevant event indicated by the fact that the readings are changing over longer periods of time would be desirable.” Id. 1:40-44. In other words, changes in oxygen saturation of a patient, and thus also the changes in the tracking thresholds 314 and 315, as described in Bock, may be small in a first time period and large in a second time period, or vice versa. So, the time period in which these changes are evaluated is not dependent on any particular previous or subsequent time period, but rather is determined based on the change of the underlying oxygen data received from a patient, which independently fluctuates over time. See Bock 2:29-33, 3:65-4:1, 7:7-13.
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Bock not only teaches a larger change in threshold for a second time period compared with a first time period, as claimed, but also strongly suggests that a change in the first time period may be larger than a change in the second. And as noted, regardless of which change is larger in which time period, the same benefits and expected results of the system in Bock, namely determining when fluctuations in physiological parameters are significant, including over longer periods of time, would be expected. See Bock 1:32-44.
Claims 20-22, 28-30, and 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bock in view of Kiani, and in further view of Hickle, all of which are in the same field of measuring patient physiological parameters as the claimed invention.
Dependent Claims 20 and 28
Claim 20 recites “[t]he patient monitoring system of claim19, wherein the limit is set to be 85% oxygen saturation,” and similarly claim 28 recites “[t]he method of claim27, wherein the limit is set to be 85% oxygen saturation.” Neither Bock nor Kiani teach the specific limit recited in claims 20 and 28. Hickle remedies this and teaches that an upper limit of an alarm “range” is 85% oxygen saturation. See Hickle ¶197. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a limit of 85% oxygen saturation, such as in Hickle, with the combination of Bock and Kiani as a way to have more granularity in the alarms sounded for low oxygen, thus, indicating the “level of concern or critically” of a patient’s state. See Hickle ¶196.
Dependent Claims 21 and 29
Claim 21 recites “[t]he patient monitoring system of claim19, wherein the limit is set to be 80% oxygen saturation,” and similarly claim 29 recites “[t]he method of claim27, wherein the limit is set to be 80% oxygen saturation.” Neither Bock nor Kiani teach the specific limit recited in claims 21 and 29. Hickle remedies this and teaches that a lower limit of an alarm “range” is 80% oxygen saturation. See Hickle ¶197. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a limit of 80% oxygen saturation, such as in Hickle, with the combination of Bock and Kiani as a way to have more granularity in the alarms sounded for low oxygen, thus, indicating the “level of concern or critically” of a patient’s state. See Hickle ¶196.
Dependent Claims 22, 30, and 35
Claim 22 recites “[t]he patient monitoring system of claim19, wherein the limit is set to be between 80% and 85% oxygen saturation,” similarly claim 30 recites “[t]he method of claim27, wherein the limit is set to be between 80% and 85% oxygen saturation,” and claim 35 also recites “[t]he non-transitory physical computer storage of claim 34, wherein the limit is set to be between 80% and 85% oxygen saturation.” Neither Bock nor Kiani teach the specific limit recited in claims 22, 30, and 35. Hickle remedies this and teaches that an alarm “range” is 80% to 85% oxygen saturation. See Hickle ¶197. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a range limit of between 80% and 85% oxygen saturation, such as in Hickle, with the combination of Bock and Kiani as a way to have more granularity in the alarms sounded for low oxygen, thus, indicating the “level of concern or critically” of a patient’s state. See Hickle ¶196.
Claims 24, 25, 31, 32, 36, and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bock in view of Kiani, and in further view of Ali, all of which are in the same field of measuring patient physiological parameters as the claimed invention.
Dependent Claims 24, 31, and 36
Claim 24 recites “[t]he patient monitoring system of claim19, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to wait for a time delay prior to activating the alarm responsive to the one of the values satisfying the alarm threshold,” claim 31 recites, similarly, “[t]he method of claim 27, further comprising waiting for a time delay prior to activating the alarm responsive to the one of the values satisfying the alarm threshold,” and claim 36 recites “[t]he non-transitory physical computer storage of claim 34, wherein the process comprises waiting for a time delay prior to activating the alarm responsive to the one of the values satisfying the alarm threshold.” Neither Bock nor Kiani teach the additionally recited limitations.
Ali remedies this and teaches delaying an alarm responsive to an alarm threshold being crossed. See Ali ¶¶100-102, Figs. 19B-D. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a delay, as in Ali, prior to triggering an alarm as in the combination of Bock and Kiani, to reduce the probability of false alarms and reduce the probability of missed true alarms. See Ali ¶98.
Dependent Claims 25, 32, and 37
Claim 25 recites “[t]he patient monitoring system of claim 24, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to determine the time delay from the alarm threshold,” claim 32 recites, similarly, “[t]he method of claim 31, further comprising determining the time delay from the alarm threshold,” and claim 37 recites “[t]he non-transitory physical computer storage of claim 36, wherein the process comprises determining the time delay from the alarm threshold.” Neither Bock nor Kiani teach the additionally recited limitations.
Ali teaches that “the delay is a function of at least one of said signal quality measures, and comparing the data set to the threshold to create a first limit output.” Id. ¶20. In other words, the delay can be a function of at least the (alarm) threshold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the delay, as in Ali, and use it to delay triggering an alarm, such as in the one in the combination of Bock and Kiani, to reduce the probability of false alarms and reduce the probability of missed true alarms. See Ali ¶98.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment required updated rejections as 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 JOSHUA KADING whose telephone number is (571)270-3413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/JOSHUA KADING/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/Laura Davison/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/ SPRS, Art Unit 3993