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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8, 24 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities: at line 1 of claim 6, “method of claim 5,” should apparently read –method of claim 5, further comprising,--; at line 1 of claim 8, “method of claim 7,” should apparently read –method of claim 7, further comprising,--; at line 1 of claim 24, “method of claim 23,” should apparently read –method of claim 23, further comprising,--; at line 1 of claim 26, “method of claim 25,” should apparently read –method of claim 25, further comprising,--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “user interface” and “biological sample collection device” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 12-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 at line 3 recites the limitation "the desired target state". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 at line 2 recites the limitation "the current state". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
At line 3 of claim 14, it is unclear if “a user” is the same as or different than “the user” recited at line 2.
In claims 15-19, it is unclear which “the stress indicator” is being referenced as claim 14 at line 2 recites “one or more stress indicators”.
In claim 18, it is unclear what limitation/element/component “continued use” is with respect to.
In claim 19, it is unclear what limitation/element/component “continued use” is with respect to.
Claim 20 at line 3 recites the limitation "the desired target state". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 limitation “biological sample collection device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 30 at line 13 recites the limitation "the recommended next course of action". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method of measuring a biomarker, subjecting a user to transcutaneous vibratory output and then repeating the measurement. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the method can be performed by a human and implemented with pen/paper. With respect to claims 1-4, 6 and 8, with no particular definition on how the “measuring” is performed, a human could look at a piece of paper containing data of an epigenetic marker, subject a user to transcutaneous vibratory output via spoken words or a song that would have a perceived pitch, beat and intensity via hearing/listening, and then “repeating the measurement” and determining if a change existed in the new data as a result of the transcutaneous vibratory output/song.
With respect to claims 14, 21 and 22, with no particular definition on how the “measuring” is performed, a human could look at a piece of paper containing data of a stress indicator, subject a user to transcutaneous vibratory output via spoken words or a song that would have a perceived pitch, beat and intensity via hearing/listening, and then “repeating the measurement” and determining if a change existed in the new data as a result of the transcutaneous vibratory output/song.
With respect to claim 2, the “subjecting” step simply amounts to singing a different song which would provide a different pitch, beat and intensity.
Further, the claims not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. While claims 5 and 23 teach sensing a physiological parameter of the user, such is a well-known and understood element in the art such as taking the blood pressure of a user to indicate a stress level as disclosed by Sunnen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0073313; [0097] and [0133]).
Regarding claims 7 and 25, “receiving a user input” could amount to a practitioner prompting a patient/user for a verbal response on whether a target state was achieved or not.
Claims 9, 10, 27 and 28 simply amount to performing a mathematical equation which can be performed via pen/paper.
Claims 11and 29 could simply amount to songs that are sung by different people, which would provide different frequencies of oscillation.
Claims 12 and 13 could simply amount to a practitioner/user selecting a type of output or song to be sung to the user based on their current state of being.
With respect to claims 14-19 the “measuring” step entails “measuring one or more stress indicators in a communication by the user” which could simply amount to a practitioner listening to a patient speak and then determining that the patient appears to be stressed.
With respect to claims 20, 24 and 26, the “subjecting” step simply amounts to singing a different song which would provide a different pitch, beat and intensity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kalensky (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0224444). (Support for the claimed invention for purposes of prior art appears to be that of provisional application 62867591, filed 27 June 2019). Regarding claim 30, Kalensky teaches a kit (interpreted as a system), comprising: a stimulation device (Figs. 1-2) configured to emit a transcutaneous vibratory output to a user to assist the user in achieving a target state, the transcutaneous vibratory output comprising a first perceived pitch, a first perceived beat, and a perceived intensity (“calming operation mode” [0042] which could be music, cat meows, purring, breathing sounds, etc. [0041],[0043], [0046], [0053], [0060]-[0061], [0082], [0087]); the stimulation device comprising a physiological sensor configured to sense a physiological parameter of the user to determine whether the user has achieved the target state [0037]; a user interface of the stimulation device configured to output an indication that the user has achieved the target state based on the physiological parameter ([0079], [0045] and [0021]); and a biological sample collection device (interpreted as sensor which detects touching/petting in light of the indefinite nature of “biological sample collection device”), wherein the user is prompted, through the user interface, to provide a biological sample for epigenetic change testing to at least one of determine that the user has achieved the target state or provide the recommended next course of action ([0076] – “the device can detect when it has been left unattended and make an animal sound such as a bark or meow to remind the user of its presence in an attempt for them to re-engage with it; [0085]-[0086]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0246579). (Support for the claimed invention for purposes of prior art appears to be that of provisional application 62867591, filed 27 June 2019). Regarding claim 1, Cohen teaches a method of causing an epigenetic change in a user, comprising: subjecting a user with diabetes/high blood pressure/heart disease ([0138]-[0140]) to a first transcutaneous vibratory output selected to assist the user in achieving a target state ([0104]-[0105]), the first transcutaneous vibratory output comprising a first perceived pitch, a first perceived beat, and a perceived intensity (“feel the music”; [0080], [0083], [0084], [0086], [0089]) and measuring an epigenetic marker in the user (bonding of insulin with insulin reception [0109]; excessive release of cortisol [0100]), wherein the epigenetic marker is at least one of a regulation of a protein or a gene; or a methylation, acetylation, or phosphorylation status of at least one of a gene, histone, or portion of DNA (blood pressure and blood sugar levels tested to see if the stimulation (“EVPS”) had resulted in improvement of blood sugar levels and blood pressure ([0114], [0139]-[0140], [0100]). While Cohen does not explicitly disclose the step of measuring before subjecting the user to the vibratory/music stimulation, or repeating the measurement after the step of providing the stimulation, Cohen makes such obvious as one or ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a measurement would have been conducted regarding high blood sugar levels or high blood pressure before subjecting a user to the stimulation. Moreover, Cohen teaches the user’s blood sugar levels and blood pressure improved after months of sessions of the stimulation, which would require repeating the testing/measurement of the blood sugar levels or blood pressure in order to determine an improvement thereof ([0138]-[0140]).
Regarding claim 2, while Cohen does not explicitly disclose the step of subjecting the user to a second transcutaneous vibratory output to assist the user in achieving the desired target state, the second transcutaneous vibratory output comprising a second perceived pitch, a second perceived beat, and a second perceived intensity if the repeated measurement does not reveal an epigenetic change, Cohen makes such obvious as Cohen teaches that chemical reactions can be altered by repeated exposure to fluctuating mechanical and electrical forces which could shift the balance between glucose and fat metabolism ([0114] and [0147]), and further that a plurality of different musical selections may be provided to the user [0052], in addition to a variety of different vibrating, resonant frequencies ([0078], [0116]-[0119]) which are known to have a synergistic affect on various organs ([0122]-[0123]). Moreover, Cohen recognizes that variance in perceived pitch, beat and intensity promotes relaxation ([0004], [0041], [0071]) and therefore lower cortisol and blood pressure levels ([0099]-[0100]).
Regarding claim 3, the target state is at least one of calm, focus, flow, presence of being, asleep, wakeful, relaxed, aroused, or euphoric (reduction in stress; both psychological and physiological, which leads to calmness [0143], [0071], [0153]).
Regarding claim 4, while Cohen does not explicitly disclose the step of subjecting the user to the first transcutaneous vibratory output is repeated multiple times before the measurement is repeated, Cohen makes such obvious as Cohen teaches that the subject may participate in the treatment for two months, and/or for daily sessions, wherein improvements were seen within a few days or after one week ([0138]-[0139]), which would indicate/obviate repetition of the therapy before testing to determine its efficacy.
Regarding claim 5, the method further comprises sensing a physiological parameter (glucose or blood pressure) of the user to determine whether the user has achieved the target state ([0138]-[0139]).
Regarding claim 6, while Cohen does not explicitly disclose before repeating the measurement, if the user has not achieved the target state, continuing to subject the user to the first transcutaneous vibratory output, Cohen makes such obvious as Cohen teaches that the subject may participate in the treatment for two months, and/or for daily sessions, wherein improvements were seen within a few days or after one week ([0138]-[0139]), which would indicate/obviate repetition of the therapy before testing to determine its efficacy.
Regarding claim 7, the method further comprises receiving a user input from the user (symptoms) to determine whether the user has achieved the target state ([0138]-[0139]).
Regarding claim 8, while Cohen does not explicitly disclose before repeating the measurement, if the user has not achieved the target state, continuing to subject the user to the first transcutaneous vibratory output, Cohen makes such obvious as Cohen teaches that the subject may participate in the treatment for two months, and/or for daily sessions, wherein improvements were seen within a few days or after one week ([0138]-[0139]), which would indicate/obviate repetition of the therapy before testing to determine its efficacy.
Regarding claim 11, while Cohen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first transcutaneous vibratory output is generated in part by a first oscillation at a first frequency, and a second oscillation at a second frequency that differs from the first frequency by less than 10 Hz, Cohen makes such obvious as Cohen teaches layering music from a plurality of different musical selections [0011], wherein the frequency range of such music is 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz [0050], and the transducer is capable of producing vibrational frequencies from 0.5 Hz to 1 kHz [0065]. Further, Cohen recognizes that mechanical receptors of the human body typically only register vibrations below 400 Hz [0065], obviating a difference in frequencies of less than 10 Hz to facilitate a frequency range that enables the user the ability to “feel the music content” [0084]).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the first transcutaneous vibratory output is selected based on the current state of the user, which is based on the measured epigenetic marker ([0071]; [0114]-[0118]; [0139]-[0140]).
Claims 14-26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalensky (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0224444). Regarding claims 14 and 21, Kalensky teaches a method of causing an epigenetic change in a user, comprising: measuring one or more stress indicators in a communication by the user via a microphone ([0042] and [0067]); and subjecting a user to a first transcutaneous vibratory output [0087] selected to assist the user in achieving a target state, the first transcutaneous vibratory output comprising a first perceived pitch, a first perceived beat, and a perceived intensity (“calming operation mode” [0042] which could be music, cat meows, purring, breathing sounds, etc. [0041],[0043], [0046], [0053], [0060]-[0061], [0082], [0087]).
While Kalensky does not explicitly disclose the step of repeating the measurement of the stress indicator to identify an epigenetic change as a result of subjecting the user to the first transcutaneous vibratory output, Kalenksy makes such obvious as Kalensky discloses synchronizing the output of the stimulation with the biometric data, over a time window, to change the output to a target biometric pattern/rate [0041], [0060]-[0062]), which would require repeating the measurement to identify whether or not the user reached a desired target state (of reduced stress or relaxation [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, the stress indicator is a presence, an absence, or a frequency of one or more positive words (“screaming…or asking for help” [0042]).
Regarding claim 16, the stress indicator is a presence, an absence, or a frequency of one or more negative words (“screaming…or asking for help” [0042]).
Regarding claim 17, the stress indicator is at least one of a vocal tone, a pitch, or a vocal rate (“elevated volumes in speech, which may be associated with agitation” [0042]).
Regarding claim 18, and in view of its indefinite nature, the stress indicator is a time to reach the target state after continued use ([0060 indicates that “the purr-system initiates purring in response to an agitated user, similarly as described for the heartbeat module,” which states at [0061] that “the heartbeat frequency can be set to a first high rate. In implementations where the heartbeat of the user can be sensed, the high rate could be substantially matched to that of the patient. Then the frequency can be decreased overtime to facilitate returning the user to a calmer state”). Hence, the agitated user will be calmed down over time [0061].
Regarding claim 19, and in view of its indefinite nature, the stress indicator is a dwell time in the target state after continued use ([0060 indicates that “the purr-system initiates purring in response to an agitated user, similarly as described for the heartbeat module,” which states at [0061] that “the heartbeat frequency can be set to a first high rate. In implementations where the heartbeat of the user can be sensed, the high rate could be substantially matched to that of the patient. Then the frequency can be decreased overtime to facilitate returning the user to a calmer state”). Hence, the agitated user will be in an agitated state however such will decrease over time to facilitate returning the user to a calmer state [0060].
Regarding claim 20, while Kalensky does not explicitly disclose the step of subjecting the user to a second transcutaneous vibratory output to assist the user in achieving the desired target state, the second transcutaneous vibratory output comprising a second perceived pitch, a second perceived beat, and a second perceived intensity if the repeated measurement does not reveal an epigenetic change, Kalensky makes such obvious as Kalensky teaches that the simulated purring, which comprises a perceived pitch, beat and intensity, can be synchronized with sensed heart rate and/or respiration rate [0041], which would obviate a different, or “second” perceived pitch, beat and intensity to synchronize with an increase or decrease in heart rate and/or respiration rate.
Regarding claim 22, while Kalensky does not explicitly disclose the step of subjecting the user to the first transcutaneous vibratory output is repeated multiple times before the measurement is repeated, Kalensky makes such obvious as Kalensky teaches that the subject may participate in repeated interaction with the system [0071], during the day and over long durations ([0094] and [0070]), wherein the patient’s behavior improves over time [0012], which would indicate/obviate repetition of the therapy before testing to determine its efficacy.
Regarding claim 23, the method further comprises sensing a physiological parameter of the user to determine whether the user has achieved the target state [0060].
Regarding claim 24, while Kalensky does not explicitly disclose before repeating the measurement, if the user has not achieved the target state, continuing to subject the user to the first transcutaneous vibratory output, Kalensky makes such obvious as Kalensky teaches that the device is expected to have extended physical contact with patients during the day and over long durations ([0094] and [0070]) which would indicate/obviate repetition of the therapy before measuring to determine its efficacy.
Regarding claim 25, the method further comprises receiving a user input from the user to determine whether the user has achieved the target state ([0012], [0015], [0067]-[0068], [0075], [0085]-[0086]).
Regarding claim 26, while Kalensky does not explicitly disclose before repeating the measurement, if the user has not achieved the target state, continuing to subject the user to the first transcutaneous vibratory output, Kalensky makes such obvious as Kalensky teaches that the device is expected to have extended physical contact with patients during the day and over long durations ([0094] and [0070]) which would indicate/obviate repetition of the therapy before measuring to determine its efficacy.
Regarding claim 29, while Kalensky does not explicitly disclose wherein the first transcutaneous vibratory output is generated in part by a first oscillation at a first frequency, and a second oscillation at a second frequency that differs from the first frequency by less than 10 Hz, Kalensky makes such obvious as Kalensky teaches that the system may play music, a relaxing mantra [0046], and purring sounds, of which the intensity and rate of the purring is controllable [0061]. Given the known frequency range of human voices such as by a repeated mantra, and the known frequency of a cat’s purring, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a differing of frequencies by less than 10 Hz such that the vibration/sounds would be perceivable by the human user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791