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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 26-50 in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Accordingly, claims 26-50 are currently under consideration.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 49 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 49, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation of “the cardiogenic oscillations.”
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 26-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 26-50 are directed to a “method,” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One: Claim 26 recites (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of a mental process and a mathematical concept, substantially as follows:
determining a likelihood of contracting pneumonia, a presence of pneumonia, or a status of pneumonia within the use based on deviations from a threshold value which are present in at least two of the physiologic parameters.
The determining step can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper, but for performance on a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the steps. If a person were to see a printout of e.g. the received physiologic parameters, they would be able to compare them to thresholds to make a determination. There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in the determination. Therefore, a person would be able to perform the step mentally or with pen and paper.
The determining step also involves the mathematical concept of evaluation based on a threshold. This step corresponds to “[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem [that] can serve the same purpose as a formula.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Prong Two: Claim 26 does not include additional elements that integrate the mental process or mathematical concept into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is “directed to” the mental process and mathematical concept. The additional elements merely:
recite the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. a controller), and
add insignificant extra-solution activity (the pre-solution activity of: sensing temperature, heart rate or blood oxygen level, and respiration, using generic data-gathering components (e.g. a temperature sensor, a pulse oximeter sensor, and a microphone)).
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on a computer. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the determination is not outputted in any way such that a diagnostic benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claim 26 does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely
further describe the abstract idea (e.g. determinations based on particular thresholds and parameters (claims 29-36), determinations based on other characteristics (claims 45-47), determining a waveform and a deviation (claim 49), modifying the blood pressure signal based on behavior pattern information (claim 10), etc.),
further describe the pre-solution activity (or the structure used for such activity) (e.g. inserting a mouthpiece (claim 27), receiving spirometry data and other data (claims 37-44), sensing cardiogenic oscillations (claim 48), using a handpiece (claim 50), etc.), and
introduce post-solution activity (e.g. alerting the user (claim 28), a display circuit configured to display at least one of the pieces of information or signals (claim 13), etc.).
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way (e.g. nothing is done with the determinations, and the alert of claim 28 need not be seen, heard, or acted on). They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves another technology or technical field, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 26-29, 32, 33, 37-45, 47, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2004/0039295 (“Olbrich”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0066797 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 26, Olbrich teaches [a] method of determining health of a user, comprising:
sensing a temperature of a user via a temperature sensor positioned within or along a housing (Fig. 1, digital thermometers 42 and 44, ¶¶s 0020, 0049, etc.); sensing a heart rate or blood oxygen level of the user via a pulse oximeter sensor positioned along the housing (¶ 0020, an oximeter for measuring blood oxygen concentration); sensing sounds associated with respiration of the user via a microphone positioned within or along the housing (Fig. 1, microphone 60, ¶¶s 0020, 0053, etc.); receiving into a controller physiologic parameters including the temperature, heart rate, blood oxygen level, and sounds associated with respiration (¶ 0043, microcontroller – also see Fig. 7 and ¶¶s 0050, 0055, 0067, 0071, etc., describing data input into the controller, including pulse/heart rate data, oximetry (oxygen saturation) data, etc.); and determining via the controller a likelihood of contracting pneumonia, a presence of pneumonia, or a status of pneumonia within the user based on deviations from a threshold value which are present in at least [one] of the physiologic parameters (¶¶s 0023 and 0069, based on deviations in e.g. temperature and abnormal spirometric data).
Olbrich does not appear to explicitly tie the respiratory sound data to pneumonia (although it does teach using the microphone to detect e.g. crackles and wheezes - ¶ 0053).
Lee explains that respiratory auscultation sounds like crackles are indicative of pneumonia (¶ 0016).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a status of pneumonia in Olbrich based on temperature and respiratory sound data, as in Lee, for the purpose of more comprehensively evaluating pneumonia (Lee: ¶ 0016).
Regarding claim 27, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein sensing sounds comprises inserting a mouthpiece in communication with the housing within a mouth of the user when in use (Olbrich: Fig. 1, mouthpiece 12).
Regarding claim 28, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches displaying or alerting the user or a second user of the likelihood, presence, or status of pneumonia within the user (Olbrich: ¶ 0085, warning the person or their physician).
Regarding claim 29, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein determining via the controller comprises determining whether a deviation in the temperature is present when the temperature is over 100.4 degrees F (Olbrich: ¶ 0069, detection of a fever. The exact temperature that defines a fever is a known results-effective variable because it can be changed as desired to accommodate variations between people. However, a fever is also commonly known to be a temperature over 100.4 degrees F. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the fever threshold at 100.4 degrees F, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation is not inventive. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 32, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein determining via the controller comprises determining whether a deviation in the sounds associated with respiration are present when the sounds are abnormal (e.g. crackles as above).
Regarding claim 33, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein determining via the controller comprises determining the likelihood of contracting pneumonia, the presence of pneumonia, or the status of pneumonia within the user when two of the following physiologic parameters are present: (i) the temperature over 100.4 degrees F (Olbrich: ¶ 0069, detection of a fever. The exact temperature that defines a fever is a known results-effective variable because it can be changed as desired to accommodate variations between people. However, a fever is also commonly known to be a temperature over 100.4 degrees F. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the fever threshold at 100.4 degrees F, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation is not inventive. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)); (ii) the heart rate over 110 beats per minute; (iii) the blood oxygen level less than 96%; (iv) the sounds are abnormal (e.g. crackles as above).
Regarding claim 37, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein receiving into the controller physiologic parameters further comprises receiving data relating to an inhalation volume of the user (Olbrich: ¶¶s 0004 and 0018, spirometric data including volume of air inspired).
Regarding claim 38, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein receiving into the controller physiologic parameters further comprises receiving data relating to an inhalation volume of the user (Olbrich: ¶¶s 0004 and 0018, spirometric data including volume of air expired).
Regarding claim 39, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein receiving into the controller physiologic parameters further comprises receiving data relating to an inhalation flow of the user (Olbrich: ¶¶s 0004 and 0018, spirometric data including flow during breathing).
Regarding claim 40, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein receiving into the controller physiologic parameters further comprises receiving data relating to an exhalation flow of the user (Olbrich: ¶¶s 0004 and 0018, spirometric data including flow during breathing).
Regarding claim 41, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein receiving into the controller physiologic parameters further comprises receiving data relating to a forced expiratory volume of the user (Olbrich: ¶¶s 0004 and 0018, FEV).
Regarding claim 42, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein receiving into the controller physiologic parameters further comprises receiving data relating to a forced vital capacity of the user (Olbrich: ¶¶s 0004 and 0018, FVC).
Regarding claim 43, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein receiving into the controller physiologic parameters further comprises receiving data relating to a lung capacity of the user (Olbrich: ¶¶s 0004 and 0018, TLC).
Regarding claim 44, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein receiving into the controller physiologic parameters further comprises receiving data relating to a respiratory rate of the user (Olbrich: ¶ 0019).
Regarding claim 45, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein determining via the controller further comprises accounting for an age of the user in determining the likelihood, presence, or status of pneumonia in the user (Olbrich: ¶ 0073; Lee: ¶¶s 0072 and 0073, describing the relation of age to pneumonia. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider age for the purpose of tailoring the detection to more sensitive groups (Lee: ¶¶s 0072 and 0073)).
Regarding claim 47, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein determining via the controller further comprises accounting for a history of pneumonia of the user in determining the likelihood, presence, or status of pneumonia in the user (Olbrich: ¶ 0073, past medical conditions; Lee: ¶ 0002, suggesting the relevance of history of disease. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider history of disease, including history of pneumonia, in the combination, for the purpose of tailoring the detection to the patient (Olbrich: ¶ 0073; Lee: ¶ 0002)).
Regarding claim 50, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein the housing is configured as a handpiece (Olbrich: Fig. 1).
Claims 30, 31, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olbrich-Lee in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0218198 (“Devani”).
Regarding claim 30, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee does not appear to explicitly teach wherein determining via the controller comprises determining whether a deviation in the heart rate is present when the heart rate is over 110 beats per minute.
Devani teaches that a heart rate of over 100 bpm is indicative of pneumonia (¶ 0198).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate heart rate as a pneumonia indicator, as in Devani, for the purpose of more comprehensively evaluating pneumonia (Devani: ¶ 0198). Further, the exact heart rate is a known results-effective variable because it can be changed according to a desired sensitivity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the heart rate threshold at 110 beats per minute, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation is not inventive. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 31, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee does not appear to explicitly teach wherein determining via the controller comprises determining whether a deviation in the blood oxygen level is present when the blood oxygen level is less than 96%.
Devani teaches that an oxygen saturation of less than 94% is indicative of pneumonia (¶ 0197).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate blood oxygen level as a pneumonia indicator, as in Devani, for the purpose of more comprehensively evaluating pneumonia (Devani: ¶ 0197). Further, the exact oxygen level is a known results-effective variable because it can be changed according to a desired sensitivity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the oxygen level at less than 96%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation is not inventive. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 34, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein determining via the controller comprises determining the likelihood of contracting pneumonia, the presence of pneumonia, or the status of pneumonia within the user when [two] of the following physiologic parameters are present: (i) the temperature over 100.4 degrees F (Olbrich: ¶ 0069, detection of a fever. The exact temperature that defines a fever is a known results-effective variable because it can be changed as desired to accommodate variations between people. However, a fever is also commonly known to be a temperature over 100.4 degrees F. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the fever threshold at 100.4 degrees F, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation is not inventive. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)); (ii) the heart rate over 110 beats per minute; (iii) the blood oxygen level less than 96%; (iv) the sounds are abnormal (e.g. crackles as above).
Olbrich-Lee does not appear to explicitly teach wherein determining via the controller comprises determining when the heart rate is over 110 beats per minute or when the blood oxygen level is less than 96%.
Devani teaches that a heart rate of over 100 bpm is indicative of pneumonia (¶ 0198).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate heart rate as a pneumonia indicator, as in Devani, for the purpose of more comprehensively evaluating pneumonia (Devani: ¶ 0198). Further, the exact heart rate is a known results-effective variable because it can be changed according to a desired sensitivity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the heart rate threshold at 110 beats per minute, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation is not inventive. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 35, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee further teaches wherein determining via the controller comprises determining the likelihood of contracting pneumonia, the presence of pneumonia, or the status of pneumonia within the user when [two] of the following physiologic parameters are present: (i) the temperature over 100.4 degrees F (Olbrich: ¶ 0069, detection of a fever. The exact temperature that defines a fever is a known results-effective variable because it can be changed as desired to accommodate variations between people. However, a fever is also commonly known to be a temperature over 100.4 degrees F. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the fever threshold at 100.4 degrees F, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation is not inventive. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)); (ii) the heart rate over 110 beats per minute; (iii) the blood oxygen level less than 96%; (iv) the sounds are abnormal (e.g. crackles as above).
Olbrich-Lee does not appear to explicitly teach wherein determining via the controller comprises determining when the heart rate is over 110 beats per minute and when the blood oxygen level is less than 96%.
Devani teaches that a heart rate of over 100 bpm is indicative of pneumonia (¶ 0198). Devani teaches that an oxygen saturation of less than 94% is indicative of pneumonia (¶ 0197).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate heart rate and blood oxygen level as pneumonia indicators, as in Devani, for the purpose of more comprehensively evaluating pneumonia (Devani: ¶¶ 0197 and 0198). Further, the exact heart rate is a known results-effective variable because it can be changed according to a desired sensitivity, and the exact oxygen level is a known results-effective variable because it can be changed according to a desired sensitivity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the heart rate threshold at 110 beats per minute, and to set the oxygen level at less than 96%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation is not inventive. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 36, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the deviation in the temperature includes a presence of a fever for a period of time over the threshold value in the user (although both discuss fever in relation to pneumonia).
Devani teaches that a fever of a particular duration indicates pneumonia (¶ 0129).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a duration criteria in the combination as in Devani, for the purpose of confirming a fever via sufficient association (Devani: ¶ 0129).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olbrich-Lee in view of US Patent Application Publication 2014/0316220 (“Sheldon”).
Regarding claim 46, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee does not appear to explicitly teach wherein receiving into the controller physiologic parameters further comprises receiving data relating to a presence or absence of a sore throat in the user.
Sheldon teaches that a sore throat is a symptom of pneumonia (¶ 0041).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive sore throat data in the combination as in Sheldon, for the purpose of more comprehensively evaluating pneumonia, including distinguishing between viral and bacterial pneumonia (Sheldon: ¶ 0041).
Claims 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olbrich-Lee in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0140252 (“Luxon”).
Regarding claim 48, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee does not appear to explicitly teach sensing a pressure of cardiogenic oscillations from the user via a pressure sensor positioned within or along the housing (although in e.g. Olbrich: ¶ 0050, blood pressure can be considered a cardiogenic oscillation).
Luxon teaches detecting cardiogenic oscillations using a pressure sensor of a respiratory monitor, and analyzing the shape of the oscillation curve (Fig. 5, ¶¶s 0007, 0008, 0092, 0162, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sense cardiogenic oscillations via a pressure sensor in the combination as in Luxon, for the purpose of more comprehensively evaluating pneumonia (Luxon: ¶¶s 0162, 0174, 0175, etc.).
Regarding claim 49, Olbrich-Lee teaches all the features with respect to claim 26, as outlined above. Olbrich-Lee does not appear to explicitly teach determining a cardiogenic oscillation waveform from the cardiogenic oscillations measured from the user and further determining for presence of a deviation in the cardiogenic oscillation waveform (although in e.g. Olbrich: ¶ 0050, blood pressure can be considered a cardiogenic oscillation).
Luxon teaches detecting cardiogenic oscillations using a pressure sensor of a respiratory monitor, and analyzing the shape of the oscillation curve (Fig. 5, ¶¶s 0007, 0008, 0092, 0162, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sense cardiogenic oscillations and deviations thereof via a pressure sensor in the combination as in Luxon, for the purpose of more comprehensively evaluating pneumonia (Luxon: ¶¶s 0162, 0174, 0175, etc.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm PT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights