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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/25/2026. As directed by the amendment: Claims 1, 3, 8, 11-12, and 19-20 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Claims 4-7 and 9 were previously withdrawn due to a Restriction Requirement. Thus, claims 1-3, 8, and 10-20 are presently under consideration in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 02/25/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 02/25/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 02/25/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered. Amendments to the claim obviate the claimed human organism. However, the patent ineligibly is maintained due to the recitation of mental process and additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into practices application. The rejection of the claims has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 02/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendments obviate the rejection of record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brumfield et al. (US 20140364750)(IDS)(Hereinafter Brumfield) in view of Tran et al. (US 20080294019)(Hereinafter Tran), Dentinger (US20100312115)(Hereinafter Dentinger), and Sun et al. (US 20200100686)(Hereinafter Sun).
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “one or more types of stimulus” should be amended to recite “one or more types of stimuli”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3, 8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 1 and 19-20 has been amended to include the limitation, "the obtained physiologic data comprising a photophlethysmogram (PPG) waveform, one or more ultrasound waveforms and sonic waveform energy transmitted from at least one of the one or more sensors". The limitation does not have support in the instant specification nor in the parent application.
The specification provides support for “ultrasound waveforms. The ultrasound waveforms may be enabled or captured using one or more down-facing micro- ultrasound transducers” ([0180]), “The data may include high or low frequency sonic waveform energy in a "chirp" mode (e.g., in a range of 100 kilohertz (kHz) to 20 megahertz (MHz))” ([0175]), and a PPG sensor for collecting PPG ([0189]). However, the specification does not provide support for a single sensor capable of for collecting ultrasound waveform, PPG, and sonic waveform energy. Applicant has not indicated where the disclosure provides adequate written description support for the instant claim limitation, " the obtained physiologic data comprising a photophlethysmogram (PPG) waveform, one or more ultrasound waveforms and sonic waveform energy transmitted from at least one of the one or more sensors”. Therefore, the new claim limitations introduce new matter.
Claim 1-3, 8, and 10-20 is 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.
Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.
When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may “express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted).It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Applicant’s measurement of vascular structures via processing of sensor signals (claim 1) lacks written description support. The mere statement and recitation of “ultrasound waveform signals characterizing arterial blood flow of the subject combined with changes in arterial compliance of the subject” (claim 1 and 19-20 and [00183] of the instant specification), provides insufficient disclosure of the detail of how the: Ultrasound waveform signals are processed to determine arterial blood flow of the subject combined with changes in arterial compliance. Specifically, the instant specification nominally recites the function of obtaining these measurements without showing the processing steps required to obtain each determination. Ultimately, the specification is written generically such that it only defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but does not sufficiently identify how the function is performed, thereby lacking written description (see MPEP §2161.01).
Applicant’s measurement of vascular structures via processing of sensor signals (claim 1) lacks written description support. The mere statement and recitation of “to detect, utilizing the transmitted sonic waveform energy, a timing of carotid changes of the heart of the subject relative to the heart sounds of the heart of the subject” (claim 1 and 19-20 and [00175] of the instant specification), provides insufficient disclosure of the detail of how the sonic waveform energy is used to detect timing of carotid changes. Specifically, the instant specification nominally recites the function of obtaining these measurements without showing the processing steps required to obtain each determination. Applicant fails to disclose what within the sonic waveform energy is used to characterize carotid changes and how to determine these timings of carotid changes. It is further unknown how the differences are determined/calculated for the timing of carotid change and how it is used to detect an anomalous event indicative of hypovolemic shock. Ultimately, the specification is written generically such that it only defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but does not sufficiently identify how the function is performed, thereby lacking written description (see MPEP §2161.01).
Applicant’s measurement of vascular structures via processing of sensor signals (claim 1) lacks written description support. The mere statement and recitation of “to determine one or more measured physiologic metrics utilizing the obtained physiologic data, at least one of the one or more measured physiologic metrics characterizing arterial blood flow of the subject determined based at least in part utilizing the PPG waveform and the one or more ultrasound waveforms” (claim 1 and 19-20, [0014], and [00183] of the instant specification), provides insufficient disclosure of the detail of how the combination of PPG and ultrasound waveform can be used to determine arterial blood flow. Specifically, the instant specification nominally recites the function of obtaining these measurements without showing the processing steps required to obtain the determination of arterial blood flow. Applicant fails to disclose what within the PPG and ultrasound waveform is used to any type pf physiologic metric, and more specifically, arterial blood flow and how to combine both PPG and ultrasound waveform to make this determination. It is further unknown how the differences are determined/calculated for the arterial blood flow and how it is used to detect an anomalous event indicative of hypovolemic shock. Ultimately, the specification is written generically such that it only defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but does not sufficiently identify how the function is performed, thereby lacking written description (see MPEP §2161.01).
Claims 1-3, 8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, does not reasonably provide enablement for the PPG waveform, one or more ultrasound waveforms and sonic waveform energy transmitted from one sensor. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, for “PPG waveform, one or more ultrasound waveforms and sonic waveform energy transmitted from one sensor” as the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
In making a determination as to whether an application has met the requirements for enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the following factors enumerated In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, at 1404 (CAFC 1988) are considered:
(1) the breadth of the claims,
(2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples,
(4) the nature of the invention,
(5) the state of the prior art,
(6) the relative skill of those in the art,
(7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, &
(8) the quantity of experimentation necessary.
While it is not essential that every factor be examined in detail, those factors deemed most relevant should be considered.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Taking into account the factors discussed in MPEP 2164.01 (a), there is insufficient guidance and direction for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use single sensor that can collect 3 different mutually exclusive signals . The nature of the invention is highly technical, and the level of predictability in the art is low, as the single sensor that can collect PPG waveform, one or more ultrasound waveforms and sonic waveform energy lacks sufficient working examples in the instant specification.
Absence of Working Examples/The Amount of Direction
In view of the absence of a specific and detailed description in Applicant’s specification of how to effectively use the method as claimed, and absence of working examples providing evidence which is reasonably predictive that the claims 1, 3, 5-18, and 20-30 would work, and the lack of predictability in the art at the time the invention was made, an undue amount of experimentation would be required to practice the claimed methods with a reasonable expectation of success. Although the instant specification merely states that “ultrasound waveforms. The ultrasound waveforms may be enabled or captured using one or more down-facing micro- ultrasound transducers” ([0180]), “The data may include high or low frequency sonic waveform energy in a "chirp" mode (e.g., in a range of 100 kilohertz (kHz) to 20 megahertz (MHz))” ([0175]), and a PPG sensor for collecting PPG ([0189]), there is no explicit disclosure of a singular gathering structure for collecting all three signals. The applicant has provided no direction whatsoever with regards to how PPG waveform, one or more ultrasound waveforms and sonic waveform energy transmitted from one sensor. As such, the Examiner believes the quantity of experimentation needed to make and use the invention based on the lack of content in the disclosure would be high.
The State of the Prior Art
The state of the art fails to show PPG waveform, one or more ultrasound waveforms and sonic waveform energy transmitted from one sensor. For example, Brumfield et al. (US 20140364750) teaches the use of pulse oximetry PPG for obtaining PPG ([0018]), Kim et al. (US 20160120416) shows that the heart sounds are collected from microphones ([0040]), and Kimball et al. (US 6258046) shows that the doppler blood flow sensor senses blood flow (Col. 3 lines 20-21). Thus, the state of the art fails to show a single sensor obtaining all 3 signals.
Taking all of the factors into consideration leads to a conclusion that there is no enablement for the limitations discussed above. The dependent claims also lack enablement based on their association with claims 1-3, 8, and 10-20.
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 1-3, 8, and 10-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 19-20, it is unclear how the PPG signal, ultrasound waveform, and the sonic waveform energy can all be obtained from a single sensor when each waveform represents a different signal that must be obtained from different sensors. Examiner notes that no physiological sensor is actively claimed as a component of the apparatus. As noted in the enablement rejection where multiple types of signals cannot be obtained from a single sensor, Examiner will interpret the claim to have the processor capable of obtaining each waveform.
Claims 1 and 19-20 are directed to an apparatus wherein a sensor is configured to measure “ultrasound waveform characterizing arterial blood flow of the subject combined with changes in arterial compliance of the subject ”. What are “ultrasound waveform characterizing arterial blood flow of the subject combined with changes in arterial compliance” and what is the structure of the sensors that are capable of measuring the processed arterial blood flow? What sensors are used to obtain ultrasound waveform?
Claims 1 and 19-20 are directed to an apparatus wherein a sensor is configured to measure “the sonic waveform energy characterizing heart sounds of a heart of the subject”. What are “the sonic waveform energy characterizing heart sounds of a heart of the subject” and what is the structure of the sensors that are capable of measuring the heart sounds? What sensors are used to obtain sonic waveform energy?
Regarding claims 1 and 19-20, it is unclear which obtained physiologic data (PPG, sonic and ultrasound waveforms) is used to determine differences between one or more measured physiologic metrics. If all 3 waveforms are being used (PPG, sonic and ultrasound waveforms), how is it possible to compare the 3 waveforms to only one baseline metric.
Regarding claims 1 and 19-20, it is unclear if the “one or more measured physiologic metrics” of line 19 the same or different than the “one or more measured physiologic metrics” of line 15.
Regarding claims 1 and 19-20, the claim recites that the “obtained physiologic data” comprises PPG, ultrasound, and sonic waveforms. Further, the “one or more measured physiologic metric” utilizes the “obtained physiologic data”, meaning all 3 waveforms. Therefore, it is unclear how one of the “one or more measured physiologic metric” can use only PPG and/or ultrasound waveform, while omitting the use of sonic waveform energy, when the claim requires the use of all 3 waveforms to determine “one or more measured physiologic metric”. It is further unclear how only 1 baseline physiologic metric is used when there are 3 waveforms for the obtained physiologic data and only two waveforms used for the one or more measured physiologic metrics. Examiner will interpret the difference determination to be done using one of the three waveforms because all 3 waveforms are not required to be used for determining the difference.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear if the “the one or more anomalous physiologic events indicative of hypovolemic shock” is the same or different than the “the one or more anomalous physiologic events indicative of hypovolemic shock” of claim 1.
Claims 8 is directed to an apparatus wherein one sensor is configured to measure autonomic tone signals, local EMG signals, SpO2 signals, movement signals, electrodermal or somatosensory signals, muscle tremor or core temperature signals and ultrasound waveform. The claim is not clear with regard how one sensor can measure all these different types of waveforms.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear of the ultrasound waveform signals are the same or different than the ultrasound waveform of claim 1.
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 1-3, 8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 recites a step to detect, utilizing the transmitted sonic waveform energy, a timing of carotid changes of the heart of the subject relative to the heart sounds of the heart of the subject; to determine one or more measured physiologic metrics utilizing the obtained physiologic data, at least one of the one or more measured physiologic metrics characterizing arterial blood flow of the subject determined based at least in part utilizing the PPG waveform and the one or more ultrasound waveforms; to determine differences between one or more measured physiologic metrics in the obtained physiologic data and one or more baseline physiologic metrics; to detect one or more anomalous physiologic events indicative of hypovolemic shock of the subject based at least in part on the determined differences between the one or more measured physiologic metrics and the one or more baseline physiologic metrics, which is a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements (ie. a memory, a processing device), determining values, and detecting hypovolemic shock do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are to receiving data, processing data, and detecting hypovolemic shock, which are all well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
MPEP 2106(III) outlines steps for determining whether a claim is directed to statutory subject
matter. The stepwise analysis for the instant claim is provided here.
Step 1 – Statutory categories
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine) and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Claim 20 is directed to a method and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Claim 19 is directed to a tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. a product), and
thus, meets the step 1 requirements.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Judicial exception (j.e.)
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, the following step is an abstract idea:
“to detect, utilizing the transmitted sonic waveform energy, a timing of carotid changes of the heart of the subject relative to the heart sounds of the heart of the subject; to determine one or more measured physiologic metrics utilizing the obtained physiologic data, at least one of the one or more measured physiologic metrics characterizing arterial blood flow of the subject determined based at least in part utilizing the PPG waveform and the one or more ultrasound waveforms; to determine differences between one or more measured physiologic metrics in the obtained physiologic data and one or more baseline physiologic metrics; to detect one or more anomalous physiologic events indicative of hypovolemic shock of the subject based at least in part on the determined differences between the one or more measured physiologic metrics and the one or more baseline physiologic metrics”, which is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could analyze the differences between the physiologic metrics from obtained physiologic data and one or more baseline and detecting a hypovolemic event based on the differences. Further, detecting timing carotid changes from heart sounds and determining metrics from PPG and ultrasound waves can be done by evaluating the signals.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – additional elements to integrate j.e. into a practical application
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “a wearable device”, “a memory”, and “a processing device” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “sensors” are data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “physiological data”, “difference”, “physiologic metrics”, “PPG”, “ultrasound waveforms”, “sonic waveform energy”, “changes in pulsatile arterial blood flow”, “changes in arterial compliance”, “heart sounds”, “timing of carotid changes”, “baseline physiologic metrics”, “one or more anomalous physiologic events (hypovolemic shock)”, and “notifications (settings)” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Step 2B – significantly more/inventive concept
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “a wearable device”, “a memory”, and “a processing device” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “sensors” are data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “physiological data”, “difference”, “physiologic metrics”, “PPG”, “ultrasound waveforms”, “sonic waveform energy”, “changes in pulsatile arterial blood flow”, “changes in arterial compliance”, “heart sounds”, “timing of carotid changes”, “baseline physiologic metrics”, “one or more anomalous physiologic events (hypovolemic shock)”, and “notifications (settings)” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)].
The additional elements of claims 1, 19, and 20, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (ie. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the wearable device, processing device, and memory, along with their associated functions, are recited at a high level of generality and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The sensors are claimed very generically and are used only to gather the data they are designed for. These are well-understood, routine and conventional structure since the diagnostic art in Brumfield et al. (US 20140364750) teaches the use of pulse oximetry PPG for obtaining PPG ([0018]), Kim et al. (US 20160120416) shows that the heart sounds are collected from microphones ([0040]), and Kimball et al. (US 6258046) shows that the doppler blood flow sensor senses blood flow (Col. 3 lines 20-21).
Dependent claims 2-3, 8, and 10-18 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of claim 1 and 10. The dependent claim limitations are directed to the data gathering (extra-solution activity) by a generic acquisition device (claims 2-3, 8, and 17-18) and to extra-solution activity of displaying (claims 10-16), which are insignificant extra-solution activity and do not amount to more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In summary, claims 1-3, 8, and 10-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and, therefore, are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brumfield et al. (US 20140364750)(IDS)(Hereinafter Brumfield) in view of Tran et al. (US 20080294019)(Hereinafter Tran), Dentinger (US20100312115)(Hereinafter Dentinger), and Sun et al. (US 20200100686)(Hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Brumfield teaches An apparatus/ method/ computer program product comprising a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein executable program code which, when executed, causes at least one processing device comprising ([0067] “a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium in operable communication with the computing device, an input device in operable communication with the computing device... a computing device such as one depicted in FIG. 5 may be used as a basis for system for predicting a hypovolemic hypotensive condition” [0060] “CPU 502 is the central processing unit of the system, performing calculations and logic operations required to execute at least some calculations for the method.”):
at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory ([0062] “pulse volume waveform data or other data used by the computing device may be stored on one or more removable memory devices”);
the at least one processing device being configured ([0067] “a computing device such as one depicted in FIG. 5 may be used as a basis for system for predicting a hypovolemic hypotensive condition”):
to obtain physiologic data from one or more sensors associated with a wearable device of a subject, the one or more sensors being attached to skin of the subject over one or more vascular structures of the subject ([0007] “a method for predicting a hypovolemic hypotensive condition resulting from cardiac bradycardia behavior may include, receiving, by a computing device, a biological signal emulating an arterial pulse wave from a sensor in data communication with a human body, determining, by the computing device, a plurality of pulse rate metrics from the biological signal” [0018] “such a sensor can be used as a standalone monitoring device or may be readily integrated in a hemodynamic monitoring system [wearable device].”);
to determine differences between one or more measured physiologic metrics in the obtained physiologic data and one or more baseline physiologic metrics ([0067] “wherein each pulse rate difference is determined from a first pulse rate metric and a pulse rate baseline, determine a plurality of pulse strength differences, wherein each pulse strength difference [multiple differences] is determined from a first pulse strength metric and a pulse strength baseline, and predict a hypovolemic hypotensive condition resulting from cardiac bradycardia behavior in the human body in response to at least one anomalous pulse rate difference and at least one anomalous pulse strength difference. Examiner notes that the “one or more measured physiologic metrics” are not limited to the arterial blood flow since line 19 does not recite “the one or more measured physiologic metrics”.);
to detect one or more anomalous physiologic events indicative of hypovolemic shock of the subject based at least in part on the determined differences between the one or more measured physiologic metrics and the one or more baseline physiologic metrics ([0067] “determine a plurality of pulse rate differences, wherein each pulse rate difference is determined from a first pulse rate metric and a pulse rate baseline, determine a plurality of pulse strength differences, wherein each pulse strength difference is determined from a first pulse strength metric and a pulse strength baseline, and predict a hypovolemic hypotensive condition resulting from cardiac bradycardia behavior in the human body in response to at least one anomalous pulse rate difference and at least one anomalous pulse strength difference.” [0072] “The warning indicator may be triggered if any data associated with patient status, including data associated with pulse waveform peak amplitude differences, pulse waveform peak time differences, and one or more time difference dispersion metrics meet one or more warning criteria.”);
to generate one or more notifications responsive to detecting the one or more anomalous physiologic event indicative of hypovolemic shock of the subject ([0072] “An indicator regarding patient status, such as a warning indicator [notification], may also be provided to a user of the computing device. The warning indicator may be triggered if any data associated with patient status, including data associated with pulse waveform peak amplitude differences, pulse waveform peak time differences, and one or more time difference dispersion metrics meet one or more warning criteria. The warning criteria may be used by the health care provider as an indicator of a potential hypovolemic hypotensive condition resulting from cardiac bradycardia behavior.”); and
to deliver the one or more notifications in accordance with notification settings associated with the subject ([0072] “The warning indicator may be triggered if any data associated with patient status, including data associated with pulse waveform peak amplitude differences, pulse waveform peak time differences, and one or more time difference dispersion metrics meet one or more warning criteria [notification settings]. The warning criteria may be used by the health care provider as an indicator of a potential hypovolemic hypotensive condition resulting from cardiac bradycardia behavior.”).
However, Brumfield does not teach the sonic waveform energy characterizing heart sounds of a heart of the subject and to detect, utilizing the transmitted sonic waveform energy, a timing of carotid changes of the heart of the subject relative to the heart sounds of the heart of the subject. Tran, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the determining of an anomalous event relating to hypovolemia, specifically the determining of a heart attack or stroke attack by observing heartbeat motion ([0007]) relating to hypovolemia (claim 12), and further teaches the sonic waveform energy characterizing heart sounds of a heart of the subject ([0165] “heart sound is captured using a sound transducer located near the heart or near the carotid artery. Once the heart sound signal has been digitized and captured into the memory, the digitized heart sound signal is parameterized into acoustic features by a feature extractor. The output of the feature extractor is delivered to a sound recognizer. The feature extractor can include the short time energy, the zero crossing rates, the level crossing rates, the filter-bank spectrum, the linear predictive coding (LPC), and the fractal method of analysis.”); and to detect, utilizing the transmitted sonic waveform energy, a timing of carotid changes of the heart of the subject relative to the heart sounds of the heart of the subject ([0165] “heart sound is captured using a sound transducer located near the heart or near the carotid artery. Once the heart sound signal has been digitized and captured into the memory, the digitized heart sound signal is parameterized into acoustic features by a feature extractor. The output of the feature extractor is delivered to a sound recognizer. The feature extractor can include the short time energy, the zero crossing rates, the level crossing rates, the filter-bank spectrum, the linear predictive coding (LPC), and the fractal method of analysis.” Examiner notes that zero-crossings are changes in heart sounds at the carotid artery.) to characterize cardiac conditions ([0153]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Brumfield, with the sonic waveform energy characterizing heart sounds of a heart of the subject and to detect, utilizing the transmitted sonic waveform energy, a timing of carotid changes of the heart of the subject relative to the heart sounds of the heart of the subject of Tran, because such a modification would allow to characterize cardiac conditions.
However, Brumfield in view of Tran do not teach the one or more ultrasound waveforms characterizing arterial blood flow of the subject combined with changes in arterial compliance of the subject and to determine one or more measured physiologic metrics utilizing the obtained physiologic data, at least one of the one or more measured physiologic metrics characterizing arterial blood flow of the subject determined based at least in part utilizing the waveform and the one or more ultrasound waveforms. Dentinger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring of arterial hemodynamic parameters (Abstract), and further teaches the obtained physiologic data comprising … one or more ultrasound waveforms … transmitted from at least one of the one or more sensors ([0008] “The method includes acquiring continuous ultrasound data via an ultrasound transducer attached to the subject. The method also includes estimating multiple continuous arterial waveforms based upon the acquired ultrasound data.”), the one or more ultrasound waveforms characterizing arterial blood flow of the subject combined with changes in arterial compliance of the subject ([0025] “The compliance curve is calibrated using arterial waveforms derived from the ultrasound data and an independent reading of the arterial blood pressure measured with an automated blood pressure device.”), determine one or more measured physiologic metrics utilizing the obtained physiologic data, at least one of the one or more measured physiologic metrics characterizing arterial blood flow of the subject determined based at least in part utilizing the … waveform and the one or more ultrasound waveforms (Fig. 1 and [0013] “FIG. 3 is an exemplary graphical illustration of a contour in 2D hemodynamic space for mean arterial area and peak blood flow rate identifying the limits on the hemodynamic parameters for the current hemodynamic state.”) to predict the hemodynamic state at a higher accuracy ([0035]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Brumfield in view of Tran, with the one or more ultrasound waveforms characterizing arterial blood flow of the subject combined with changes in arterial compliance of the subject and the determine one or more measured physiologic metrics utilizing the obtained physiologic data, at least one of the one or more measured physiologic metrics characterizing arterial blood flow of the subject determined based at least in part utilizing the waveform and the one or more ultrasound waveforms of Dentinger, because such a modification would allow to predict the hemodynamic state at a higher accuracy.
Although Dentinger teaches the combination ultrasound and blood pressure signal for the physiologic metric, Brumfield in view of Tran and Dentinger do not teach the obtained physiologic data comprising a photophlethysmogram (PPG) waveform…characterizing arterial blood flow of the subject determined based at least in part utilizing the PPG waveform. Sun, in the same field of endeavor, teaches monitoring and evaluating blood pressure for hypovolemia (Abstract and [0026]), and further teaches the obtained physiologic data comprising a photophlethysmogram (PPG) waveform…characterizing arterial blood flow of the subject determined based at least in part utilizing the PPG waveform ([0051] “The signal acquisition unit 21 may e.g. be an arterial line that provides an ABP signal or a photoplethysmographic sensor that provides a PPG signal as input signal… the signal acquisition unit 21 include elements for acquiring a blood flow signal”) to observe changes of the fluid responsiveness ([0050])). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Brumfield in view of Tran and Dentinger, with the characterizing arterial blood flow of the subject determined based at least in part utilizing the PPG waveform of Sun, because such a modification would allow to observe changes of the fluid responsiveness.
Regarding claim 2 claim 1 is obvious over Brumfield, Tran, Dentinger, and Sun. However, Brumfield in view of Tran, Dentinger, and Sun do not teach one or more sensors are attached to the skin of the subject over one or more arteries and veins of a neck of the subject. Tran, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a wearable physiological acquisition device for detecting hypovolemia (Abstract and [0180]), and further teaches wherein the one or more sensors are attached to the skin of the subject over one or more arteries and veins of a neck of the subject ([0165] “The magnet provides a magnetic field, and one or more electrodes similar to electrode 1383 are positioned on the wrist band to measure voltage drops which are proportional to the blood velocity. The electromagnetic embodiment may be mounted on the upper arm of the patient, on the ankle or on the neck where peripheral blood vessels pass through and their blood velocity may be measured with minimal interruptions… The flow information is derived based on the periodicity of the signals. The decoded signal is filtered over several periods and then analyzed for changes used to estimate artery and vein blood flow. Systemic stroke volume and cardiac output may be calculated from the peripheral SV index value.”) to detect hypovolemia with minimal interruption ([0165]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Brumfield, with the one or more sensors are attached to the skin of the subject over one or more arteries and veins of a neck of the subject of Tran, because such a modification would allow to detect hypovolemia with minimal interruption.
Regarding claim 3, Brumfield teaches wherein detecting a given one of the one or more anomalous physiologic events indicative of hypovolemic shock of the subject comprises detecting pulse volume of the subject correlated with at least one of a heart rate of the subject, a pulse rate of the subject, an amplitude of a pulse of the subject, a contour of the pulse of the subject, and a pulse wave of the pulse of the subject ([0026] “The pulse volume waveforms in FIG. 3A may be characterized by peak amplitudes 310a [amplitude of a pulse] and differences in occurrence times 320a between successive waveform peaks (corresponding to an ECG R-R interval [heart rate]).”).
Regarding claim 13, Brumfield teaches wherein delivering the one or more notifications in accordance with the notification settings associated with the subject comprises delivering the one or more notifications to at least one of the wearable device and one or more additional devices ([0070] “In some embodiments the biological signal displayed on the output device may be updated over time. In some embodiments, the computing device may display on the output device [additional device] one or more annotations including a hypovolemia indicator and a hypotensive indicator.”).
Regarding claim 18, Brumfield teaches wherein the at least one processing device is coupled to the wearable device over at least one network (Fig. 5 [0065] “biological signals acquired by a pulse volume sensor or other sensors of biological signals may be communicated to the computing device via a sensor input 515 through the interface 512 to the bus 528.”).
Claim(s) 10 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brumfield et al. (US 20140364750)(IDS)(Hereinafter Brumfield) in view of Tran et al. (US 20080294019)(Hereinafter Tran), Dentinger (US20100312115)(Hereinafter Dentinger), Sun et al. (US 20200100686)(Hereinafter Sun), and Drinan et al. (US 20060058593)(IDS)(Hereinafter Drinan).
Regarding claim 10, Brumfield teaches wherein generating a given one of the one or more notifications comprises selecting a notification type of the given notification based at least in part on identifying that a difference between at least one of the one or more measured physiologic parameters and at least one of the one or more baseline physiologic metrics exceeds at least one designated threshold specified in the notification settings associated with the subject ([0072] “An indicator regarding patient status, such as a warning indicator [notification], may also be provided to a user of the computing device. The warning indicator may be triggered if any data associated with patient status, including data associated with pulse waveform peak amplitude differences, pulse waveform peak time differences, and one or more time difference dispersion metrics meet one or more warning criteria. The warning criteria may be used by the health care provider as an indicator of a potential hypovolemic hypotensive condition resulting from cardiac bradycardia behavior.”).
However, Brumfield does not teach a selected notification type and that the difference exceeds at least one designated threshold specified in the notification settings associated with the subject. Drinan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the monitoring of hydration of a user for detection of hypovolemia and blood loss (Abstract and Title), and further teaches wherein generating a given one of the one or more notifications comprises selecting a notification type of the given notification… exceeds at least one designated threshold specified in the notification settings associated with the subject ([0165] “when hydration decreases by a certain threshold amount (e.g., 3%) [exceeds threshold], a data collection apparatus and/or data management system can record the decrease and then trigger an alarm signal at the probe and/or the data collection apparatus.” [0101] “The received input can identify monitoring parameters that are to be adjusted, such as the level at which an alert is to be sounded at probe 100 and/or data collection apparatus 1105.”) to indicate a state of dehydration of a user ([0165]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Brumfield in view of Tran, Dentinger, and Sun, with the selected notification type and that the difference exceeds at least one designated threshold specified in the notification settings associated with the subject of Drinan, because such a modification would allow to indicate a state of dehydration of a user.
Regarding claim 16, claim 1 is obvious over Brumfield, Tran, Dentinger, and Sun. However, Brumfield in view of Tran, Dentinger, and Sun do not teach wherein the one or more additional devices comprise one or more mobile computing devices associated with one or more users responsible for monitoring a health status of the subject. Drinan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the monitoring of hydration of a user for detection of hypovolemia and blood loss (Abstract and Title), and further teaches wherein the one or more additional devices comprise one or more mobile computing devices associated with one or more users responsible for monitoring a health status of the subject ([0165] “the extent of dehydration can be displayed along with a recommended fluid replacement volume and a recommended recovery time. Further, the alert can be relayed to a third party such as an athlete's coach, a supervisor, or medical personnel.”) to indicate a state of dehydration of a user ([0165]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Brumfield in view of Tran, Dentinger, and Sun, with the one or more additional devices comprise one or more mobile computing devices associated with one or more users responsible for monitoring a health status of the subject of Drinan, because such a modification would allow to indicate a state of dehydration of a user.
Regarding claim 17, claim 1 is obvious over Brumfield, Tran, Dentinger, and Sun. However, Brumfield in view of Tran, Dentinger, and Sun do not teach at least one processing device is part of the wearable device. Drinan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the monitoring of hydration of a user for detection of hypovolemia and blood loss (Abstract and Title), and further teaches wherein the at least one processing device is part of the wearable device (Fig. 2(controller 235) [0027] “the measured electrical conductivity can reflect the hydration of the measured organism or the measured portion of the organism.”) to indicate a state of dehydration of a user ([0165]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Brumfield in view of Tran, Dentinger, and Sun, with the at least one processing device is part of the wearable device of Drinan, because such a modification would allow to indicate a state of dehydration of a user.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brumfield et al. (US 20140364750)(IDS)(Hereinafter Brumfield) in view of Tran et al. (US 20080294019)(Hereinafter Tran), Dentinger (US20100312115)(Hereinafter Dentinger), Sun et al. (US 20200100686)(Hereinafter Sun), and Kianl et al. (US 20110270094)(IDS)(Hereinafter Kianl).
Regarding claim 11, Brumfield teaches wherein selecting the notification type comprises selecting one or more types of stimulus to apply to the subject utilizing one or more indicator devices associated with the wearable device ([0070] “In some embodiments the biological signal displayed on the output device may be updated over time. In some embodiments, the computing device may display on the output device [indicator device] one or more annotations including a hypovolemia indicator and a hypotensive indicator.”).
However, Brumfield and Kianl do not teach selecting a notification type. Although Kianl discloses an alarm that can be either visual or audible ([0006]), the user can select which alarm to be used to attract a caregiver's attention (claim 16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select which alarm to be used, for the purpose of attracting a caregiver's attention, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known notification on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 is obvious over Brumfield, Tran, Dentinger, and Sun. However, Brumfield in view of Tran, Dentinger, Kianl, and Sun do not teach selecting a notification type. Although Kianl discloses an alarm that can be either visual or audible ([0006]), the user can select which alarm to be used to attract a caregiver's attention (claim 16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select which alarm to be used, for the purpose of attracting a caregiver's attention, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known notification on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brumfield et al. (US 20140364750)(IDS)(Hereinafter Brumfield) in view of Tran et al. (US 20080294019)(Hereinafter Tran), Dentinger (US20100312115)(Hereinafter Dentinger), and Sun et al. (US 20200100686)(Hereinafter Sun), and Drinan et al. (US 20060058593)(IDS)(Hereinafter Drinan).
Regarding claim 14, claim 1 is obvious over Brumfield, Tran, Dentinger, and Sun. However, Brumfield in view of Tran, Dentinger, and Sun do not teach wherein delivering the one or more notifications to the wearable device comprises and delivering the one or more notifications via the selected one or more indicator devices. Drinan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the monitoring of hydration of a user for detection of hypovolemia and blood loss (Abstract and Title), and further teaches wherein delivering the one or more notifications to the wearable device comprises …and delivering the one or more notifications via the selected one or more indicator devices ([0059] “FIG. 10A shows another implementation of a strap probe, namely a strap probe 1000. In addition to electrodes 245, 250, 255, 260, battery 305, circuitry 310, data communication device 505, and transceiver 510, main body 205 also includes an output device 1005. Output device 1005 can be a visual display device (such as a light emitting diode or a liquid crystal display), an audio output device (such as a speaker or a whistle), or a mechanical output device (such as a vibrating element).”) to indicate a state of dehydration of a user ([0165]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Brumfield, with the delivering the one or more notifications to the wearable device comprises and delivering the one or more notifications via the selected one or more indicator devices of Drinan, because such a modification would allow to indicate a state of dehydration of a user.
However, Brumfield does not teach selecting one or more indicator devices from a set of available indicator devices associated with the wearable device. Tran, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a wearable physiological acquisition device for detecting hypovolemia (Abstract and [0180]), and further teaches selecting one or more indicator devices from a set of available indicator devices associated with the wearable device ([0138] “users may set up alerts or reminders that are triggered when one or more reading meet a certain set of conditions, depending on parameters defined by the user. The user chooses the condition that they would like to be alerted to and by providing the parameters (e.g. threshold value for the reading) for alert generation. Each alert may have an interval which may be either the number of data points or a time duration in units such as hours, days, weeks or months. The user chooses the destination where the alert may be sent. This destination may include the user's portal, e-mail, pager, voice-mail or any combination of the above.” [0137] “to connect to the repository on the server 200 using a PC as conduit or through a connection established using an embedded modem (connected to a phone line), a wireless router (DSL or cable wireless router), a cellular modem, or another network-connected appliance (such as, but not limited to, a web-phone, video-phone, embedded computer, PDA or handheld computer).”) to indicate sudden changes in a state of a user ([0165]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Brumfield in view of Tran, Dentinger, and Sun, with the selecting one or more indicator devices from a set of available indicator devices associated with the wearable device of Tran, because such a modification would allow to indicate sudden changes in a state of a user.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brumfield et al. (US 20140364750)(IDS)(Hereinafter Brumfield) in view of Tran et al. (US 20080294019)(Hereinafter Tran), Dentinger (US20100312115)(Hereinafter Dentinger), and Sun et al. (US 20200100686)(Hereinafter Sun), and Musiol et al. (US 20120306652)(IDS)(Hereinafter Musiol).
Regarding claim 15, claim 1 is obvious over Brumfield, Tran, Dentinger, and Sun. However, Brumfield in view of Tran, Dentinger, and Sun do not teach wherein the notification settings comprise a first threshold for delivering the one or more notifications to the wearable device and a second threshold for delivering the one or more notifications to the one or more additional devices. Musiol, in the same field of endeavor, teaches detecting anomalies of a user and generating an alert that is sent or a user and or a third party(Abstract), and further teaches wherein the notification settings comprise a first threshold for delivering the one or more notifications to the wearable device and a second threshold for delivering the one or more notifications to the one or more additional devices ([0052] “If a visit to the doctor is needed, a warning [first threshold] (feedback notification) will be sent to the user's phone (the mobile communication device 4) while in critical or severe circumstances [second threshold], alerts will be sent additionally to the paramedics as well as to caregivers named by the user (relatives, neighbors, etc.).”) to alert for an anomaly ([0054]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Brumfield in view of Tran, Dentinger, and Sun, with the wherein the notification settings comprise a first threshold for delivering the one or more notifications to the wearable device and a second threshold for delivering the one or more notifications to the one or more additional devices of Musiol, because such a modification would allow to alert for an anomaly.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brumfield et al. (US 20140364750)(IDS)(Hereinafter Brumfield) in view of Tran et al. (US 20080294019)(Hereinafter Tran), Dentinger (US20100312115)(Hereinafter Dentinger), Sun et al. (US 20200100686)(Hereinafter Sun), and van Leuteren et al. (“Processing transcutaneous electromyography measurements of respiratory muscles, a review of analysis techniques” Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology Volume 48, October 2019, Pages 176-186)(Hereinafter VL).
Regarding claim 8, Brumfield teaches the invention of claim 1. Brumfield further teaches wherein the one or more sensors attached to the skin of the subject over the one or more vascular structures of the subject are configured to independently measure (Examiner notes that there is one sensor that is claimed and therefore, one of these limitations can be met as each limitation requires its own sensor.):
autonomic tone signals;
local electromyographic signals;
oxygen saturation signals ([0018] “A pulse oximeter is a sensor capable of detecting the pulsatile flow of blood through the vasculature and producing a pulse waveform that can emulate an arterial pulse wave from a patient. Such a sensor can be used as a standalone monitoring device or may be readily integrated in a hemodynamic monitoring system. One non-limiting example of a pulse oximeter may include a photoplethysmograph. The pulse oximeter may not be capable of capturing cardiac electrophysiology signals. However, cardiac dysrhythmia, such as bradycardia, may be deduced from alterations in normal pulse waveform patterns due to the effects of cardiac dysrhythmia on blood flow.”);
movement signals;
at least one of electrodermal and somatosensory signals;
at least one of muscle tremor and core temperature signals; and
ultrasound waveform signals.
However, Brumfield does not teach local electromyographic signals that are processed to determine at least one of respiration rhythm and respiration effort of the subject. VL, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the measurement of respiratory muscles used in pulmonology. Although VL is not directed to hypovolemia, hypovolemia is the detection of fluid loss, which can be done by the monitoring of the lungs, similar to VL. VL further teaches local electromyographic signals that are processed to determine at least one of respiration rhythm and respiration effort of the subject (Abstract “we will elaborate on the options available to develop or improve an algorithm that can be used to guide the approach for analysis of tc-EMG signals of inspiratory muscles in future research.”) to improve and access muscle activity (Pg. 183 left col. lines 15-19). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Brumfield in view of Tran, Dentinger, and Sun, with the local electromyographic signals that are processed to determine at least one of respiration rhythm and respiration effort of the subject of VL, because such a modification would allow to improve and access muscle activity.
Conclusion
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 MOUSSA M HADDAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6341. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-6:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MOUSSA HADDAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights