DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response, filed 5/29/2026, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and examined on the merits.
Priority
The instant application does not claim priority to any other applications. At this point in examination, the effective filing date of claims 1-8 is 28 July 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 August 2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The objection to Figure 2 in the drawings filed 7/28/2022 is maintained. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "23" and "24" have both been used to designate "Initial values" in Fig. 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 5/29/2026, with respect to the drawings filed 7/28/2022 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the reference characters “23” and “24” are correctly referred to as “initial values” and come from two distinct categories: a system parameter such as the volume distribution and parameters relating to the drug behavior and properties as a chemical or biochemical compound such as coefficient
L
e
q
, respectively (pg. 6-7 of Applicant’s Remarks). This argument is not persuasive because Figure 2 in the drawings do not make this distinction of two different initial values referenced by different reference characters and instead, label different reference characters to the same part of the drawings. Therefore, the objection to Figure 2 in the drawings is maintained.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 2-4 and 6 are withdrawn, in view of the claim amendments filed 5/29/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Any newly recited portions herein are necessitated by claim amendment.
Claim 1, step h), lines 1.
Because dependent claims 2-5 and 7-8 incorporate the unsupported limitations of independent claims 1 and 6, they are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 5/29/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 6, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument that the specification describes the characteristic time, time of experiment, and the β-value (kinetic parameter) along with seven explicit examples for the calculation of a non-dimensional Deborah rate number (pg. 7-8 of Applicant’s Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. While the specification may provide a way of calculating the non-dimensional Deborah rate number, the scope of the claims is broader than those particular examples. Therefore, the specification does not provide written support for the full scope of the claims, as amended.
The Applicant further argues that the specification mentions that all parameters needed to calculate Dr numbers are accessible only during the real experiment and they must be assessed simultaneously, as amended in claims 1 and 6 (pg. 7-8 of Applicant’s Remarks). This argument is not persuasive. Claims 1 and 6 are written using results-based language without setting forth how the results are achieved. For example, the amended claim 1, step d) and claim 6, step d) recites simultaneously with step c) processing the measured data from step c) by time convolution procedure in real numbers without application of a preselected kinetic model. Claims 1 and 6 do not provide the data required to carry out the “processing” step nor do they specify how the time convolution procedure is carried out based on the periodic measuring in claim 1, step c) and claim 6, step c), respectively. Therefore, claim 1, step d) and claim 6, step d) are missing the necessary and sufficient limitations required to carry out the time convolution procedure in real numbers. The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 “merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed." LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See MPEP 2161.01(I) and 2163.
Therefore, the rejection to claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is maintained with modifications as necessitated by amendment of the claims, filed 5/29/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The previous rejections to claims 1-4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. However, new grounds for rejection were necessitated by amendment to the claims, received 5/29/2026.
Claims 1 and 6 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.
Claims 1 and 6 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the elements required to carry out each limitation and fail to point out how each desired goal is to be carried out. It is unclear whether the claims provide the necessary and sufficient data to make all the required calculations. For example, the only data measured is a defined amount of a drug or a chemical compound and periodic concentration of the drug or the chemical compound. However, the drug or chemical compound concentrations are processed by time convolution procedure. There is uncertainty on whether the limitation recited in claim 1, step d) and claim 6, step d) particularly points out and distinctly claims how time convolution is intended to be carried out with the data at hand. It is also unclear if the claims particularly point out and distinctly claim how a model-free equation is to be generated with time-invariant parameters calculated from time convolution data recited in claim 1, step g) and claim 6, step g). A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is" (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or specific ingredients). In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). When claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See MPEP 2173 and 2173.05(g). Therefore, claims 1 and 6 are rendered indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “multiple experiments” in claim 1, step j), line 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “multiple experiments” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear which steps in the method of claim 1 the "multiple experiments" encompasses. The specification is also silent as to which definition the term "multiple experiments" takes. For examination purposes, the term “multiple experiments” has been construed to be steps b)-g) in the method of claim 1.
The term “specimens” in claim 1, step j), line 24 and claim 6, step i), line 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “specimens” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what specimens are used to calculate a comparison criterion between since only one Therefore, claims 1 and 6 are rendered indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 5/29/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 6, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claims were amended to clarify the “specimens” recited in claim 1, step j), line 24 and claim 6, step i), line 21, and that the instant specification refers specimen as being a drug or a chemical specimen (pg. 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. It is unclear what steps the recited multiple experiments in claim 1 encompass, therefore there is uncertainty as to what the specimens are. It is also unclear that there can be multiple specimens in claim 6 as the steps recited only include one drug or chemical compound specimen. Therefore, claims 1 and 6 are rendered indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: (a) mathematical concepts, (e.g., mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and (b) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Any newly recited portions herein are necessitated by claim amendment.
Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP 2106:
Eligibility Step 1: Claims 1-5 are directed to a method (process) for determining model-free time-invariant transport and/or efficacy properties of a chemical compound. Claims 6-8 are directed to a method (process) for determining whether a drug or chemical compound is suitable for an intended purpose. Therefore, these claims are encompassed by the categories of statutory subject matter, and thus satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirements under Step 1.
[Step 1: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A: First, it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in Prong Two whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, examination is performed that analyzes whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth described in the claim.
Claims 1 and 5-6 recite the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groups of abstract ideas, as noted below.
Independent claim 1 further recites:
d) simultaneously with step c) processing the measured data from step c) by time convolution procedure in real numbers without application of a preselected kinetic model (i.e., mental processes, mathematical concepts);
e) calculation of time-invariant parameters comprising a set including at least a transport constant, coefficient of partition, kinetic parameter and optionally efficacy coefficient, from the processed data from step d) (i.e., mental processes, mathematical concepts);
f) ending the experiment comprising steps b) to e) and recording time of the experiment (i.e., mental processes);
g) generating a model-free equation with the time-invariant parameters experimentally obtained in step e) for the compound transport between the compartments (i.e., mental processes, mathematical concepts);
h) calculating a non-dimensional Deborah rate number for data comprising the set of time invariant parameters from step e), and recorded experiment time from step f) (i.e., mental processes, mathematical concepts);
j) optionally running multiple experiments and calculating a comparison criterion between the specimens or with a reference or a control specimen (i.e., mental processes, mathematical concepts).
Dependent claim 5 further recites:
composing a comparison criterion for an intended application of the drug or chemical composition from a set of variables (i.e., mental processes).
Independent claim 6 further recites:
d) simultaneously with step c) processing the measured data from step c) by time convolution procedure in real numbers without application of a preselected kinetic model (i.e., mental processes, mathematical concepts);
e) calculation of time-invariant parameters comprising a set including at least a transport constant, coefficient of partition, kinetic parameter and optionally efficacy coefficient, from the processed data from step d) (i.e., mental processes, mathematical concepts);
f) ending the experiment comprising steps b) to e) and recording time of the experiment (i.e., mental processes);
g) generating a model-free equation with the time-invariant parameters experimentally obtained in step e) for the compound transport between the compartments (i.e., mental processes, mathematical concepts);
h) calculating a non-dimensional Deborah rate number for data comprising the set of time invariant parameters from step e), and recorded experiment time from step f) (i.e., mental processes, mathematical concepts);
i) optionally calculating a comparison criterion between multiple specimens or with a reference or a control specimen (i.e., mental processes, mathematical concepts);
k) based on model-free time-invariant transport and/or efficacy properties determine whether the drug or compound is suitable for the intended purpose (i.e., mental processes).
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification. As noted in the foregoing section, the claims are determined to contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pencil and paper, and therefore recite judicial exceptions from the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind. Dependent claims 2-4 and 7-8 recite information further limiting the judicial exceptions indicated above.
Therefore, claims 1 and 5-6 recite an abstract idea.
[Step 2A, Prong One: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that, when examined as a whole, integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)).
The judicial exceptions identified in Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One are not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons noted below.
Claim 5 does not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception, and thus is part of the judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 6 recite the additional non-abstract elements of data gathering:
a) placing a defined amount of a drug or a chemical compound specimen in a source compartment (claim 1);
b) starting an experiment by establishing a contact of the specimen with a transfer media which is able to transport the compound to at least one target compartment (claims 1 and 6);
c) periodically measuring the concentration of the drug or the chemical compound or its derivatives, or at least one efficacy coefficient, in at least one of the target compartments (claims 1 and 6);
i) based on the calculated non-dimensional Deborah rate number in step h), provide model-free time-invariant transport and/or efficacy properties of the drug or chemical compound (claim 1);
j) optionally running multiple experiments (claim 1);
a) placing a defined amount of the drug or chemical compound specimen in a source compartment (claim 6);
j) based on the calculated non-dimensional Deborah rate number in step h), provide a model-free time-invariant transport and/or efficacy properties of the drug or chemical compound (claim 6).
which are each a data gathering step, or a description of the data gathered.
Data gathering steps are not an abstract idea, they are extra-solution activity, as they collect the data needed to carry out the JE. The data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the JE, or how the JE is performed. The additional limitation (data gathering) must have more than a nominal or insignificant relationship to the identified judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04/.05, citing Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantee Corp, McRO, TLI communications, OIP Techs. Inc. v. Amason.com Inc., Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstrom S.A.).
Thus, the additionally recited elements merely invoke a computer as a tool, and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, and as such, when all limitations in claims 1-8 have been considered as a whole, the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1 and 6 contain additional elements that would not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and are further probed for inventive concept in Step 2B.
[Step 2A, Prong Two: NO]
Eligibility Step 2B: Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are probed for a specific inventive concept. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05A i-vi).
The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because of the reasons noted below.
With respect to claims 1 and 6: The limitations identified above as non-abstract elements (EIA) related to data gathering do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. Activities such as data gathering do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field. The limitations do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide an unconventional step (citing McRO and Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG). Data gathering steps constitute a general link to a technological environment. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception are insufficient to provide significantly more (as discussed in Alice Corp.,).
The additional element of a) placing a defined amount of a drug or chemical compound specimen in a source compartment (claims 1 and 6) is conventional. Evidence for conventionality is shown by Yartsev (Deranged Physiology, CICM Primary Exam, Pharmacokinetics, 2017, 1-20). Yartsev reviews “Again, the same dose of drug is administered into the same compartment. Let us call it the “central” compartment.” (pg. 4, para. 4, lines 1-2). Also, further reviews “This is the drug. Its dose is 1g.” (pg. 3, Figure in Section “The single compartment model”). This shows that a defined amount of a drug is administered in a source compartment, which makes it a conventional practice in the art.
The additional element of b) establishing a contact of the specimen with a transfer media which is able to transport the compound to at least one target compartment (claims 1 and 6) is conventional. Evidence for conventionality is shown by Yartsev (Deranged Physiology, CICM Primary Exam, Pharmacokinetics, 2017, 1-20). Yartsev reviews “Again, the same dose of drug is administered into the same compartment. Let us call it the “central” compartment. There is now also a “peripheral” compartment in the system. Though the drug is still distributed instantly and homogeneously into all of the central compartment, it now also diffuses gradually into (and out of) the peripheral compartment.” (pg. 4-5, para. 4, lines 1-5). Also, further reviews “Let us assume that each compartment has the volume of 1L.” (pg. 5, para. 2, line 1). This shows that the central compartment contains a volume of 1L, which is the transfer media that allows the administered drug to be transported to the peripheral compartment. Therefore, establishing contact of a specimen with a transfer media is a conventional practice in the art.
The additional elements of c) measuring the concentration of the drug or chemical compound or its derivatives, or at least one efficacy coefficient, in at least one of the target compartments (claims 1 and 6) and j) running experiments (claim 1) is conventional. Evidence for conventionality is shown by Yartsev (Deranged Physiology, CICM Primary Exam, Pharmacokinetics, 2017, 1-20). Yartsev reviews “If there is no elimination taking place, the compartments will achieve an equilibrium. If we were to sample the central compartment, the concentration of the drug will be measured as 0.5g/L.” (pg. 5, para. 2, lines 4-6). This shows that the concentration of a drug can be measured in a target compartment, which is further supported by the figure at the bottom of page 5 depicting the peripheral compartment concentration as 0.5 g/L after both the central compartment and peripheral compartments reach equilibrium. This also shows steps in conducting an experiment. Therefore, measuring the concentration of a drug in a target compartment and running experiments is a conventional practice in the art.
[Step 2B: NO]
Therefore, claims 1-8 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-17, filed 5/29/2026, with respect to claims 1-8, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument that the amended claim 1 includes specifically defined physical elements and steps that preclude the method to be capable of being performed in the mind and that while the claims still may recite an abstract idea, they are not directed to an abstract idea (pg. 10-12 of Applicant’s Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The amended claim 1 recites steps a) to c) that are additional elements not capable of being performed in the mind and thus were not included in the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1. Steps d) to h) in claim 1 recites processing data through time convolution procedure, calculating time-invariant parameters, ending an experiment, recording time of the experiment, generating a model-free equation, and calculating a non-dimensional Deborah rate number, all of which are mental processes or mathematical concepts. While the Examiner acknowledges that step d) is intended to be performed simultaneously with step c), the steps recited in claim 1 are still sequential as one cannot process measured data until the measurement is taken. Therefore, the claims recite abstract ideas and are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claimed combination of steps including testing of chemicals and drugs transport kinetics and assessing time-invariant parameters simultaneously produces a technical result and transforms experimental data in a technically meaningful way or imposes meaningful limits for tested drug application (pg. 12-14 of Applicant’s Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The testing of chemicals and drugs transport kinetics represents insignificant extra-solution activity and necessary data gathering, which is not sufficient to provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Applicant further argues that the calculative steps of the current invention are all embedded in the physical steps a-c in amended claim 1 and are not abstract ideas because they’re based on physical instrumentation used to obtain data experimentally from physical conditions (pg. 13-14 of Applicant’s Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The calculation steps in the amended claims recite abstract ideas such as mental processes or mathematical concepts that cannot be integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims do not integrate into a practical application.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument that the additional elements of the amended claims are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and that the common-like terminology provided in the claims have different meanings from commonly used, widely known deployments (pg. 14-17 of Applicant’s Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The additional elements recited in the amended claims are data gathering steps, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Yartsev is a general textbook guide for pharmacokinetics that describes placing an amount of a drug or a chemical compound in a source compartment, establishing contact of the drug or chemical compound with a transfer media, and measuring the concentration of the drug or chemical compound, which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the limitations in steps a)-c) recited in the amended claim 1 and thus is a reference supported under the Berkheimer guidance.
Therefore, the rejection to claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained with modifications as necessitated by amendment of the claims, filed 5/29/2026.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jammy Luo whose telephone number is (571)272-2358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Larry D Riggs can be reached at (571)270-3062. 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.
/J.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/LARRY D RIGGS II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686
