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 25 November 2025. . As directed by the amendment: claims 22 and 44 have been amended, claims 1-21, 24-25, 28, and 38 remain cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 22-23, 26-27, 29-37, and 39-44 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 25 November 2025.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9-10 of the After Final Amendment, with respect to rejection(s) of claim 22 under 35 USC 103 as obvious under Seese et al. (WO 2023/150749 A1) in view of Medema et al. (EP 3357534 B1) in view of Eldridge et al. (US 2006/0149140 A1) and further in view of Stadler et al. (US 2022/0280047 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bornn et al. (US Patent 5,348, 008 A) further in view of Giacometti et al. (US 2025/0357012 A1).
Applicant has amended independent claim 22 to read “responsive to determining by the patient communication device that the patient data meets the one or more notification criteria, transmitting, by the patient communication device, a notification selected from a notifications library stored in the patient communication device to a designated caregiver communication device, wherein the designated caregiver communication device determines a type of situation associated with the patient and a location of the patient communication device from the notification, and wherein the designated caregiver communication device determines one or more instructions using a database that stores default instruction options, based on the type of situation determined from the notification, the one or more instructions comprising at least one of instructions to check one or more of vital signs and to administer CPR for the patient” (emphasis added) and further argues that Seese, Medema, Eldridge, and Stadler do that teach this amended limitation (see pg. 7-8 of Remarks).
Examiner respectfully agrees and has instead used Bornn (as shown in detail below) to teach the limitation of selecting notification from a notification library stored in a patient’s device and transmitting the selected notifications to a designated caregiver device. Bornn teaches a cardiorespiratory alert system wherein “Upon receipt of an alert from patient unit 100, personal computer 4008 automatically telephones the dispatcher unit 5000 and transmits real-time data for review. Personal computer 4008 stores and transmits patient name, event status, "x" seconds of buffered data, real-time data, time of event, doctor, and other important information.” (Column 13, lines 39-46) and “default messages are stored in personal computer 4008 so that a voice message can be passed on to the dispatcher or local "911" service when the patient is unable to speak” (Column 13, lines 62-65). Examiner would like to note that “default messages are stored in person computer”, implies a plurality (i.e. library) of messages (i.e. notification) are stored in the personal computer (i.e. patient communication device) which are transmitted to a dispatcher, or the dispatcher unit 5000 (i.e. designated caregiver device).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seese to incorporate the teachings of Bornn to transmit, by the patient communication device, a notification selected from a notifications library stored in the patient communication device to a designated caregiver communication device, as these prior art references are directed to wearable cardiac monitoring and rehabilitative systems. One would be motivated to do this as this allows a transmission of notifications without specific user input.
Examiner additionally agrees that Eldridge does not teach a database that stores default instruction options, and thus has instead used Giacometti to teach the limitation of wherein the designated caregiver communication device determines one or more instruction using a database that stores default instruction options, based on the type of situation determined from the notification.
Giacometti teaches wherein the designated caregiver communication device (mobile computing device 110, [0064] “Computing resources 999 associated with and/or available to the caregivers and/or the transport vehicle 126 may include a mobile computing device 110”) determine one or more instructions using a database that stores default instructions options (Figure 9B: protocol loading engine 515), based on the type of situation determined from the notification ([0064] “The mobile computing device 110 may include CSG engine 150. The CSG engine 150 may include a CSG engine 150 and non-trauma CSG engines (e.g., respiratory distress CSG engine, cardiac arrest CSG engine, etc.).”, [0065] “the CSG engine 150 can initiate context sensitive guidance (CSG) to prepare for the provision of medical care to the victim(s) prior to arrival at the emergency environment 120. The CSG engine 150 may determine this initial CSG based on data about the victim(s) available prior to arrival at the emergency scene 120. This data may include the emergency event notification information 135 and/or transport environment data 160.”, [0063] “The emergency notification 105 may include emergency event notification information 135. For example, the information 135 may indicate one or more of: who is injured (e.g., victim demographic information), where the injury took place (e.g., emergency environment location information), how the injury took place and/or what the injury is (e.g., a mechanism of injury (MOI)), the type of emergency event, the time of the emergency event, etc.” (view Figure 2A), [0070] “The mobile device 110 enables the caregiver to receive output from the CSG engine 150 such as prompts, instructions, reminders, etc. as visible, audible, and/or tactile output.”, [0129], [0132]-[0133] “Often, the emergency incident notification information 135 includes a mechanism of injury (MOI)…an MOI of cardiac arrest or asthma induced respiratory distress may carry a low probability of traumatic injury…If there is no indication of possible trauma, the CSG engine 150 may load 415 non-trauma protocols based on the MOI. For example, the non-trauma protocols may include a cardiac arrest protocol or a respiratory distress protocol”, view Figure 7, [0138]), the one or more instructions comprising at least one of instructions to administer CPR for the patient ([0143], [0165] “If there is no indication of possible trauma, the CSG engine 150 may load 415 non-trauma protocols based on the MOI. For example, the non-trauma protocols may include a cardiac arrest protocol or a respiratory distress protocol”, [0068] discusses recommending based on the MOI to train in CPR and assigning skilled caregivers with the task of CPR compression. [0098] CPR administration)
In other words, based on the received emergency event notification information which includes mechanism of injury the CSG engine can load the corresponding protocols that are present in the protocol loading engine to provide the best guidance to the caregiver.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seese and BORNN to incorporate the teachings of Giacometti to have the designated caregiver communication device determine one or more instructions using a database that stores default instruction options, based on the type of situation determine from the notification, the one or more instructions comprising at least one of instructions to check one or more of vital signs and to administer CPR for the patient, as these prior art references are directed to systems for providing treatment/care to a patient. One would be motivated to do this to improve the care provided to the victim and allow for immediate deployment of response upon arrival, as recognized by Giacometti ([0066]).
Therefore claims 22-23, 33-36, and 44 are rejected as described in detail below under 35 USC 103.
No additional specific arguments were presented with previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of dependent claims 26-27, 29, 30-32, 37, 39-40, and 41-43 nor specifically with respect to the previously cited Lee, Stadler, Freeman, Djajadiningrat, Vaddepally, Clark, and Ricordi.
Therefore claims 26-27, 29, 30-32, 37, 39-40, and 41-43 are rejected as described in detail below under 35 USC 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 22-23, 33-36, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seese et al. (WO 2023/150749 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Seese (shows as MCPEAK on Notice of References) in view of Bornn et al. (US Patent 5,348, 008 A), hereinafter Bornn further in view of Giacometti et al. (US 2025/0357012 A1), hereinafter Giacometti.
Regarding claim 22, Seese discloses a method of providing care to a patient wearing a wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) ([0002] “the present disclosure relates to a wearable cardiac monitoring and rehabilitative system configured to manage patient engagement”, [0016] “a method for managing patient engagement incentives”), the method comprising:
receiving, by a patient communication device, patient date from a communication module of the WCD, (Figure 5A: network interface 506) the patient data corresponding to one or more signals sensed by the WCD (Figure 1: patient user device 108, [00219] “the network interface 504 can facilitate the communication of information between the medical device controller 406 and one or more devices or entities over a communications network. For example, the network interface 504 can be configured to communicate with the remote server 102 or other similar computing device. The network interface 504 can include communications circuitry for transmitting data in accordance with a Bluetooth? wireless standard for exchanging such data over short distances to an intermediary device(s) (e.g., abase station, “hotspot” device, smartphone, tablet, portable computing device, and/or other device in proximity with the wearable cardiac monitoring device 100).” )
Transmitting the patient data from the patient communication device to a remote monitoring system (clinician-authorized user terminal 106, [0097] “a clinician-authorized user terminal 106 may display to the user (e.g., a clinician or other caregiver associated with the ambulatory cardiac patient 104) one or more reports summarizing arrhythmia information for the patient 104, health information for the patient 104 (e.g., activity information for the patient 104, the average heart rate of the patient 104, how many hours per night the patient 104 has been sleeping, etc.), wear status information for the patient 104 (e.g., how many hours per day the patient 104 has been wearing the wearable cardiac monitoring device 100), and/or the like.”);
Determining, by the patient communication device, that the patient data meets one or more notification criteria ([0007], [0016] “determining whether the ambulatory cardiac patient has satisfied or partially satisfied the incentive criteria based on at least one of the received motion data or wear state data and, if the ambulatory cardiac patient has satisfied or partially satisfied the incentive criteria, updating the patient incentive data structure to indicate that the ambulatory cardiac patient has earned a complete or partial incentive reward.” [0097] “a patient user device 108 may be a computing device specifically associated with the wearable cardiac monitoring and rehabilitative system…the one or more patient user devices 108 are configured to electronically communicate with the remote server 102 for the purpose of sending and receiving information relating to the predetermined patient engagement incentive program.”);
Responsive to determining by the patient communication device that the patient data meets the one or more notification criteria, transmitting, by the patient communication device, a notification to a designated caregiver communication device ([0097] “the user terminals 106 may be configured to allow clinicians to view information on patients wearing wearable cardiac monitoring devices, such as the ambulatory cardiac patient 104 wearing the wearable cardiac monitoring device 100. In some implementations, a clinician-authorized user terminal 106 may display to the user (e.g., a clinician or other caregiver associated with the ambulatory cardiac patient 104) one or more reports summarizing arrhythmia information for the patient 104, health information for the patient 104 (e.g., activity information for the patient 104, the average heart rate of the patient 104, how many hours per night the patient 104 has been sleeping, etc.), wear status information for the patient 104 (e.g., how many hours per day the patient 104 has been wearing the wearable cardiac monitoring device 100), and/or the like” [0098] “a patient user device 108 may be a computing device specifically associated with the wearable cardiac monitoring and rehabilitative system…the one or more patient user devices 108 are configured to electronically communicate with the remote server 102 for the purpose of sending and receiving information relating to the predetermined patient engagement incentive program. For example, the patient user device 108 may receive data from the remote server 102 indicating complete or partial incentive rewards, offered as part of the patient engagement incentive program, that the patient 104 has earned. The patient user device 108 may then display these rewards to the patient 104. As another example, the patient user device 108 may receive data from the remote server 102 indicating the progress of the patient 104 towards earning incentive rewards”, [00231] “the cardiac event detector 514 determining that the patient 104 is experiencing a treatable arrhythmia, the processor 516 is configured to deliver a cardioversion/defibrillation shock to the patient 104 via the therapy electrodes 404. In some implementations, the alarm manager 524 can be configured to manage alarm profiles and notify one or more intended recipients of events, where an alarm profile includes a given event and the intended recipients who may have in interest in the given event. These intended recipients can include external entities, such as users (e.g., patients, physicians and other caregivers, a patient’s loved one, monitoring personnel), as well as computer systems (e.g., monitoring systems or emergency response systems, which may be included in the remote server 102 or may be implemented as one or more separate systems).”).
Seese further discloses a “cardiac event detector 514 can be configured to monitor the patient’s ECG signal for an occurrence of a cardiac event such as an arrhythmia or other similar cardiac event” ([00230]) and “If a critical event is detected, such as a cardiac arrhythmia that could develop into a more serious condition, the remote server 102 notifies the patient 104 via the mobile application executed by the portable gateway 604 and prevents the patient 104 from continuing more rehab exercises using the mobile application at step 1116.” ([00268]), but fails to explicitly disclose a notification selected from a notification library stored in the patient communication device to a designated caregiver communication device, wherein the designated caregiver communication device determines a type of situation associated with the patient and a location of the patient communication device from the notification, wherein the designated caregiver communication device determine one or more instructions using a database that stores default instruction options, based on the type of situation determined from the notification, the one or more instructions comprising at least one of instructions to check one or more vital signs and to administer CPR for the patient.
However, Bornn teaches a cardiorespiratory alert system wherein responsive to determining by the patient communication device (personal computer 4008, Column 7, line 63 – Column 8, line 1: “Patient unit 1000 communicates with a base station 4000 by way of a radiotelemetry link 1002. Again a radio modem 4002 is employed to communicate with a radio modem in patient unit 1000. As in the Hospital Configuration, radio modem 4004 is linked to a computer system 4008, such as a personal computer by way of an appropriate interface 4006.”) that the patient data meets the one or more notification criteria, transmitting, by the patient communication device a notification selected from a notifications library stored in the patient communication device to a designated caregiver communication device (Column 13, lines 39-46: “Personal computer 4008 provides a telephone autodialer, modem and the archiving of data. Upon receipt of an alert from patient unit 100, personal computer 4008 automatically telephones the dispatcher unit 5000 and transmits real-time data for review. Personal computer 4008 stores and transmits patient name, event status, "x" seconds of buffered data, real-time data, time of event, doctor, and other important information.”, Column 13, lines 62-65: “default messages are stored in personal computer 4008 so that a voice message can be passed on to the dispatcher or local "911" service when the patient is unable to speak”. Examiner would like to note that “default messages are stored in person computer”, implies a plurality (i.e. library) of messages (i.e. notification) are stored in the personal computer (i.e. patient communication device). ) wherein the designated caregiver communication device (dispatcher station 5000) determines a type of situation associated with the patient and a location of the patient communication device from the notification (Column 8, lines 7-15: “When an alert is issued by patient unit 1000, base station 4000 uses a commercial telephone link 4002 via the local telephone central office 4004 to contact a dispatcher station 5000. Where available, automatic number identification ("ANI") is used by the dispatcher station 5000 to identify the patient. The alert notification from the base station 4000 includes information further identifying the patient and the nature of the alert.”, Column 13, lines 40-52, Column 15, lines 31-54: “the dispatcher station 5000 provides alerts to the dispatcher and a two-way voice link to the patient and, if necessary, to a third party, when activated by the dispatcher. A microphone 5008 and speaker 5006, or headset, are provided for this purpose. Among the information displayed are the location of patient (including floor map or street map of area or directions to patient's house), and patient data.”, Column 15, lines 62-68: “Automatic number identification (ANI) and automatic location identification (ALI) capabilities are utilized to permit the patient's identity and location along with relevant medical records and event-triggered, real-time, digital, physiological data to be automatically displayed simultaneously.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seese to incorporate the teachings of Bornn to transmit, by the patient communication device, a notification selected from a notifications library stored in the patient communication device to a designated caregiver communication device, as these prior art references are directed to wearable cardiac monitoring and rehabilitative systems. One would be motivated to do this as this allows a transmission of notifications without specific user input.
Bornn further teaches where “Dispatchers who staff the dispatcher station should be highly-trained critical-care nurses and paramedics versed in telephone-delivered CPR instruction. The dispatcher is intended to serve as an intermediary between the patient/subscriber and community EMT/EMS (911).” (Column 15, lines 57-62, Column 15, line 60-Column 16, line 45: other methods of the dispatcher providing guidance/assistance), however, Bornn and Seese, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the designative caregiver communication device determines one or more instructions using a database that stores default instruction options, based on the type of situation determined from the notification, the one or more instructions comprising at least one of instructions to check one or more vital signs and to administer CPR for the patient.
However, Giacometti teaches a context sensitive guidance (CSG) system for guiding caregivers providing medical care for a trauma victim wherein the designated caregiver communication device (mobile computing device 110, [0064] “Computing resources 999 associated with and/or available to the caregivers and/or the transport vehicle 126 may include a mobile computing device 110”) determine one or more instructions using a database that stores default instructions options (Figure 9B: protocol loading engine 515), based on the type of situation determined from the notification ([0064] “The mobile computing device 110 may include CSG engine 150. The CSG engine 150 may include a CSG engine 150 and non-trauma CSG engines (e.g., respiratory distress CSG engine, cardiac arrest CSG engine, etc.).”, [0065] “the CSG engine 150 can initiate context sensitive guidance (CSG) to prepare for the provision of medical care to the victim(s) prior to arrival at the emergency environment 120. The CSG engine 150 may determine this initial CSG based on data about the victim(s) available prior to arrival at the emergency scene 120. This data may include the emergency event notification information 135 and/or transport environment data 160.”, [0063] “The emergency notification 105 may include emergency event notification information 135. For example, the information 135 may indicate one or more of: who is injured (e.g., victim demographic information), where the injury took place (e.g., emergency environment location information), how the injury took place and/or what the injury is (e.g., a mechanism of injury (MOI)), the type of emergency event, the time of the emergency event, etc.” (view Figure 2A), [0070] “The mobile device 110 enables the caregiver to receive output from the CSG engine 150 such as prompts, instructions, reminders, etc. as visible, audible, and/or tactile output.”, [0129], [0132]-[0133] “Often, the emergency incident notification information 135 includes a mechanism of injury (MOI)…an MOI of cardiac arrest or asthma induced respiratory distress may carry a low probability of traumatic injury…If there is no indication of possible trauma, the CSG engine 150 may load 415 non-trauma protocols based on the MOI. For example, the non-trauma protocols may include a cardiac arrest protocol or a respiratory distress protocol”, view Figure 7, [0138]), the one or more instructions comprising at least one of instructions to administer CPR for the patient ([0143], [0165] “If there is no indication of possible trauma, the CSG engine 150 may load 415 non-trauma protocols based on the MOI. For example, the non-trauma protocols may include a cardiac arrest protocol or a respiratory distress protocol”, [0068] discusses recommending based on the MOI to train in CPR and assigning skilled caregivers with the task of CPR compression. [0098] CPR administration).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seese and BORNN to incorporate the teachings of Giacometti to have the designated caregiver communication device determine one or more instructions using a database that stores default instruction options, based on the type of situation determine from the notification, the one or more instructions comprising at least one of instructions to check one or more of vital signs and to administer CPR for the patient, as these prior art references are directed to systems for providing treatment/care to a patient. One would be motivated to do this to improve the care provided to the victim and allow for immediate deployment of response upon arrival, as recognized by Giacometti ([0066]).
Regarding claim 23, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese further discloses wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to send one or more messages to the designated caregiver communication device, the one or more messages being different from the notification ([00187] “the output generated and transmitted to the clinician-authorized user terminal 106 may be different from the output generated and transmitted to the patient user device 108. For instance, the output generated for the clinician-authorized user terminal 106 may include a dashboard showing information for all of the patients wearing wearable cardiac monitoring devices 100, including the patient 104, and how their incentive rewards progress information compares to each other. By contrast, the output generated for the patient user device 108 may include an initial dashboard showing the patient’s progress towards earning incentive rewards and then illustrating how the patient’s progress compares to the incentive rewards progress information of the predetermined cohort further down on the dashboard”).
Regarding claim 33, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese further discloses wherein the one or more notification criteria comprise detection of an arrhythmia in electrocardiogram (ECG) data included in the patient data ([00230] “the cardiac event detector 514 can be configured to monitor the patient’s ECG signal for an occurrence of a cardiac event such as an arrhythmia or other similar cardiac event.”, [00268] “If a critical event is detected, such as a cardiac arrhythmia that could develop into a more serious condition, the remote server 102 notifies the patient 104”,[0005] “receive from the wearable cardiac monitoring device over a period of time the at least one ECG signal, the motion data indicative of physical activity performed by the ambulatory cardiac patient, and the wear state data”)
Regarding claim 34, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese further discloses wherein the one or more notification criteria comprise the patient not taking a minimum number of steps per day ([00164] “the remote server 102 may determine whether the patient 104 has met a physical activity goal (e.g., a number of steps over a predetermined time period and/or a number of minutes of physical activity over a predetermined time period) based on the processed motion detector data and/or processed ECG signal.”, [00180] “The daily step goal may be set as part of the incentive criteria for each patient (e.g., as described above with reference to FIGS. 2A, 12, and 13)… the remote server 102 may determine whether it is “TRUE” or “FALSE” that the total steps the patient walked the previous day is greater than or equal to the daily step goal for the patient.”, Figure 14-15).
Regarding claim 35, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese further discloses wherein the one or more notification criteria comprise the patient not wearing the WCD a certain amount of hours a day ([00170] “For instance, if the incentive criterion is to wear the wearable cardiac monitoring device 100 for a predetermined number of hours per day, the remote server 102 may determine the proportion of the predetermined number of hours that the patient 104 wore the wearable cardiac monitoring device 100 for a given day.” [00155] “determine wear compliance information for the period of time between the onset event and the offset event at step 262. The remote server 102 can then output the wear compliance information to, for example, a wear compliance data structure for the patient 104 at step 264. Additionally, the remote server 102 can be configured to output at least a portion of the wear compliance information in a notification to the patient 104, a caregiver of the patient 104, and/or the prescribing physician”, Figure 2C, 14-15, [00117] “As shown in FIG. 12, the clinician has selected “wear compliance” from a drop-down menu in section 1202. From the selection of wear compliance from the drop-down menu, the user interface 1200 has populated options for the clinician to fill in within section 1202, specifically, for the clinician to select a frequency of the goal (e.g., a daily goal, weekly goal, or monthly goal) and an amount for the goal (e.g., in hours/day, hours/week, or hours/month). In the example user interface 1200, the clinician has selected a daily goal of 23 hours/day. In embodiments, by selecting wear compliance, the clinician may be presented with a default wear compliance goal that the clinician can modify, such as a default wear compliance goal of 22 hours/day that the clinician can modify to 23 hours/day as shown” )
Seese fails to explicitly state the patient not wearing the WCD at least 18 hours a day. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the wear time limit, as wearing the WCD is critical for patients with high risk of arrhythmias because if the patient experiences a treatable cardiac arrhythmia while not wearing the device, the patient could potentially die, as recognized by Seese ([00129]). Additionally, 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 involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and/or since it has been held that a prima facia case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Regarding claim 36, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese further discloses wherein the designated caregiver communication device (a clinician-authorized user terminal 106) comprises a designated caregiver notification application ([00100] “the clinician-authorized user terminal 106 may be a computing device (e.g., a laptop, a portable personal digital assistant such as a smartphone or tablet, etc.) executing a clinician application that configures the computing device to communicate with the remote server 102. For example, the clinician application may be downloaded from an application store or otherwise installed on the computing device”).
Regarding claim 44, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese further discloses responsive to determining by the patient communication device that the patient data meet one or more goal criteria, displaying a message on the patient communication device about meeting one or more goals ([0098] “the one or more patient user devices 108 are configured to electronically communicate with the remote server 102 for the purpose of sending and receiving information relating to the predetermined patient engagement incentive program. For example, the patient user device 108 may receive data from the remote server 102 indicating complete or partial incentive rewards, offered as part of the patient engagement incentive program, that the patient 104 has earned. The patient user device 108 may then display these rewards to the patient 104. As another example, the patient user device 108 may receive data from the remote server 102 indicating the progress of the patient 104 towards earning incentive rewards relative to the progress of other patients wearing other wearable cardiac monitoring devices 100 and/or other patients in cardiac rehabilitation programs towards earning incentive rewards.”).
Claim(s) 26-27 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seese in view of BORNN further in view of Giacometti as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0083003 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 26, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese further discloses where “the clinician has selected “wear compliance” from a drop-down menu in section 1202. From the selection of wear compliance from the drop-down menu, the user interface 1200 has populated options for the clinician to fill in within section 1202, specifically, for the clinician to select a frequency of the goal (e.g., a daily goal, weekly goal, or monthly goal) and an amount for the goal (e.g., in hours/day, hours/week, or hours/month)” ([00117]). However, Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the one or more instructions further comprises instructions for troubleshooting a lack of WCD wear compliance.
Lee teaches a health care system with a method to guide caregiver behavior wherein one or more instructions further comprises instructions for troubleshooting a lack of WCD wear compliance (“Caregivers begin by setting goals for infant sleep quality. A problem detection engine 206 correlates the goals with known problems based on an analysis of the input variables 202. Caregivers prioritize the goals based, for example, on their intuition, beliefs and individual preferences. For high priority goals and high impact problems, a customization intervention engine 208 selects certain interventions (for example, reminders, notifications, and encouraging messages) for action by the caregiver” ([0044]).
Although Lee does not explicitly state the instructions comprising instructions for troubleshooting a lack of WCD wear compliance, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti to incorporate the teachings of Lee to provide instructions for troubleshooting a lack of WCD wear compliance as WCD wear compliance is a goal set by the caregiver and Lee teaches “provid[ing] caregivers with specific advice that is directed to meeting their caregiver goals” ([0013]). It would be within the general skill level of a worker in the art to modify the advice to meet the caregiver goal of WCD wear compliance. One would be motivated to do this as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to a health care system that is used in conjunction with a caregiver and the instructions will help the caregiver provide interventions and treatments that may be effective, as recognized by Lee ([0013]).
Regarding claim 27, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese further discloses where “The caregiver also sets a rehabilitative program for the patient that includes the patient getting 30 minutes of exercise and completing at least 5,000 steps per day. The caregiver sends these rehabilitative goals to the remote server (e.g., via an authorized user interface or terminal), and the remote server generates a patient incentive data structure that includes the goals of 30 minutes of exercise and at least 5,000 steps per day.” ([0085]). However, Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti , alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein one or more instructions further comprises instructions for troubleshooting a lack of step goal compliance.
Lee further teaches wherein one or more instructions further comprises instructions for troubleshooting a lack of step goal compliance (“Caregivers begin by setting goals for infant sleep quality. A problem detection engine 206 correlates the goals with known problems based on an analysis of the input variables 202. Caregivers prioritize the goals based, for example, on their intuition, beliefs and individual preferences. For high priority goals and high impact problems, a customization intervention engine 208 selects certain interventions (for example, reminders, notifications, and encouraging messages) for action by the caregiver” ([0044]).
Although Lee does not explicitly state the instructions comprising instructions for troubleshooting a lack of step goal compliance, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti to incorporate the teachings of Lee to provide instructions for troubleshooting a lack of step goal compliance as step goal compliance is a goal set by the caregiver and Lee teaches “provid[ing] caregivers with specific advice that is directed to meeting their caregiver goals” ([0013]). It would be within the general skill level of a worker in the art to modify the advice to meet the caregiver goal of step goal compliance. One would be motivated to do this as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to a health care system that is used in conjunction with a caregiver and the instructions will help the caregiver provide interventions and treatments that may be effective, as recognized by Lee ([0013]).
Regarding claim 31, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese further discloses where “The caregiver also sets a rehabilitative program for the patient that includes the patient getting 30 minutes of exercise and completing at least 5,000 steps per day. The caregiver sends these rehabilitative goals to the remote server (e.g., via an authorized user interface or terminal), and the remote server generates a patient incentive data structure that includes the goals of 30 minutes of exercise and at least 5,000 steps per day.” ([0085]). However, Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein providing one or more instructions further comprises one or more suggestions to encourage the patient to reach a step count goal.
Lee further teaches providing one or more instructions further comprises one or more suggestions to encourage the patient to reach a step count goal (“Caregivers begin by setting goals for infant sleep quality. A problem detection engine 206 correlates the goals with known problems based on an analysis of the input variables 202. Caregivers prioritize the goals based, for example, on their intuition, beliefs and individual preferences. For high priority goals and high impact problems, a customization intervention engine 208 selects certain interventions (for example, reminders, notifications, and encouraging messages) for action by the caregiver” ([0044]).
Although Lee does not explicitly state the instructions comprising instructions for troubleshooting a lack of step goal compliance, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti to incorporate the teachings of Lee to provide one or more suggestions to encourage the patient to reach a step count goal as step goal compliance is a goal set by the caregiver and Lee teaches “provid[ing] caregivers with specific advice that is directed to meeting their caregiver goals” ([0013]). It would be within the general skill level of a worker in the art to modify the advice to meet the caregiver goal of step goal compliance. One would be motivated to do this as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to a health care system that is used in conjunction with a caregiver and the instructions will help the caregiver provide interventions and treatments that may be effective, as recognized by Lee ([0013]).
Claim(s) 29 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seese in view of BORNN further in view of Giacometti as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Freeman (US 7,706,878 B2, previously cited), hereinafter Freeman.
Regarding claim 29, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti, alone or in combination, fail to explicitly teach wherein the one or more instructions further comprises a checklist.
However, Freeman teaches a device for assisting a caregiver in delivering therapy to a patient wherein the one or more instructions further comprises a checklist (Column 1-2 lines 65-66 and 1: “These protocols define a sequence of steps to be followed in accessing the victim's condition and determining the appropriate treatments to be delivered during resuscitation.”, Column 5, lines 3-6: “The device may further comprise on a portion of a housing for the device, a series of graphics configured to prompt a caregiver to perform a sequence of steps appropriate for treating a victim of suspected cardiac arrest”, Column 5, lines 58-65: “The light sources may comprise LEDs. The audio prompts may be associated with the series of graphics and are given sequentially to guide the caregiver through the sequence of steps. The device may further comprise electronics configured to sequentially illuminate the light sources, wherein the audio prompts are associated with the series of graphics and with the sequential illumination of the light sources, to guide the caregiver through the sequence of steps.”).
Although Freeman does not explicitly state a checklist, Freeman provides a series of steps that a caregiver must follow in order to provide treatment before moving on to the next step which the examiner interprets to act similar to a checklist in providing treatment. It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti to incorporate the teachings of Freeman to have the one or more instructions further comprises a checklist , as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to health monitor/care systems that work with and guide a caregiver/bystander. One would be motivated to do this as a caregiver may worry that he or she may not be able to remember all of the recommended resuscitation protocol steps and/or their correct sequence therefore by providing a checklist a caregiver can be at ease to follow the steps and deliver treatment, as recognized by Freeman (Column 2, lines 38-65).
Regarding claim 42, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the designated caregiver communication device is configured to send the location of the patient communication device to emergency response personnel for assistance to the patient in the medical emergency situation.
However, Freeman teaches wherein the designated caregiver communication device is configured to send the location of the patient communication device to emergency response personnel for assistance to the patient in the medical emergency situation (Column 12, lines 46-48): “the defibrillator will give an audio prompt indicating that the caregiver should call for help (audio prompt 110)”.
Although Freeman does not explicitly state sending the location information of the patient communication device to emergency response personnel for assistance it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that a caregiver would have provided the location information to the emergency response personnel so that they would be able to arrive at the location of the patient to provide assistance.
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti to incorporate the teachings of Freeman to have wherein the designated caregiver communication device is configured to send the location information of the patient communication device to emergency response personnel for assistance to the patient in the medical emergency situation, as these prior art references are directed to caregivers providing assistance. One would be motivated to do this to provide efficient and effective care.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Djajadiningrat et al. (US 2017/0323062 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Djajadiningrat.
Regarding claim 32, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the one or more instructions further includes an augmented reality instruction.
However, Djajadiningrat teaches an augmented reality based user guidance system for multi-step medical procedures wherein the one or more instructions further includes an augmented reality instruction ([0031] “The AR device may be arranged as a wearable computing device, e.g. a portable device, hand held device, head mounted device, etc. Generally, the AR device may comprise a display that is arranged to overlay information on a real-life representation. The real-life representation may be directly or indirectly perceivable for the user… the user may be the patient himself/herself or another person that helps and/or treats the patient in the course of the medical procedure. Hence, in some embodiments, the AR device is worn by the patient. In some embodiments, the AR device is held or worn by another person.” [0041] “illustrates steps of the medical procedure in a visually perceivable manner, i.e. directly visible to the user's eye”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti to incorporate the teaching of Djajadiningrat to have the one or more instructions on how to provide care to the patient includes an augmented reality instruction. One would be motivated to do this as augmented reality can enhance and influence a user’s current perception of reality ([0004]) and can guide a user in the course of a medical procedure and that is particularly suited for amateur users or laypersons that are not necessarily professionally qualified to perform and accomplish relatively complex medical procedures and/or medical protocols ([0008]) facilitating home user treatment and/or outpatient treatment ([0009]) , as recognized by Djajadiningrat.
Claim(s) 37 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti as applied to claim 22 above, further in view of Vaddepally et al. (US 2017/0186301 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Vaddepally.
Regarding claim 37, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the remote monitoring system is further configured to: receive the notification transmitted by the communication device, and display a location of the designated caregiver communication device and the location of the patient communication device.
However, Vaddepally teaches a patient care system to provide patient monitoring wherein the remote monitoring system (server 40) is further configured to: receive the notification transmitted by the communication device, and display a location of the designated caregiver communication device and the location of the patient communication device (Abstract: “a server, at least one patient communication device, and at least one caregiver communication device. The communication devices send receiving signals and notifications wirelessly to/from the server, and may be adapted to be worn on a user's wrist”, [0044] “The patient communication device 10 may indicate that a caregiver has accepted a request or notification, or that a caregiver is en route to the patient's location”, [0019] “Both the patient and caregiver communication devices may also provide on-demand location to an administrator. This may again involve the use of included proximity detectors. Their wireless communication means may be configured to send a patient or caregiver location to the server. This location may include a both a macro-location and a micro-location. The micro-location may be based on the communication device's proximity to other communication devices, call light devices, and other beacons. The server may be configured to receive this information, and send a patient or caregiver location notification to any combination of caregiver communication devices.”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti to incorporate the teachings of Vaddepally to have the remote monitoring system is further configured to receive the notification and display the designated caregiver communication device location and the patient communication device location, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to remote patient care systems. One would be motivated to do this in order for the patient to be aware that a caregiver is en route to the patient’s location to provide care ([0044]) and to determine that a caregiver has reached a patient [0047], as recognized by Vaddepally.
Regarding claim 39, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti in view of Vaddepally teaches the method of claim 37 (as shown above). Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to receive location information from the designated caregiver communication device.
However, Vaddepally further teaches wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to receive location information from the designated caregiver communication device ([0019] “caregiver communication devices may also provide on-demand location to an administrator. This may again involve the use of included proximity detectors. Their wireless communication means may be configured to send a patient or caregiver location to the server… The server may be configured to receive this information”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti to incorporate the teachings of Vaddepally wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to receive location information from the designated caregiver communication device, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to remote patient care systems. One would be to do this in order determine the caregiver’s location and if they are en route to a patient or if they have arrived and delivered care ([0044]), as recognized by Vaddepally.
Regarding claim 40, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti in view of Vaddepally teaches the method of claim 39 (as shown above). Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to send a request for the location information to the designated caregiver communication device in response to receiving the notification.
However, Vaddepally further teaches wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to send a request for the location information to the designated caregiver communication device in response to receiving the notification ([0088] “This process may be applied in sharing the caregiver or patient location in response to a notification, or from independent queries initiated by an administrator. The present embodiment begins at block 800, where a query is initiated seeking the location of a caregiver or patient communication device. This query may be initiated automatically by the server 40, by an administrator using the server 40, by a caregiver seeking the location of another caregiver or patient, or by a patient seeking the location of a caregiver. The server 40 will then send a location notification 810 to the caregiver or patient communication device.”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti to incorporate the teachings of Vaddepally to have the remote monitoring system configured to send a request for location information to the designated caregiver communication device in response to receiving the notification, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to remote patient care systems. One would be to do this in order to determine the location of a caregiver and if they are in proximity to other patient devices or if another caregiver is needed for assistance ([0088-0089]), as recognized by Vaddepally.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti as applied to claim 22 above, in view of Christ et al. (US Patent 5,228,449 A, previously cited), hereinafter Christ, alternatively, further in view of Ricordi et al. (US 2009/0243878 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Ricordi.
Regarding claim 42, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the designated caregiver communication device is configured to send the location information of the patient communication device to emergency response personnel for assistance to the patient in the medical emergency situation.
Christ teaches a system that continuously monitors cardiac function and allows a user to signal manually for aid in other cardiac and non-cardiac emergencies (Column 2, lines 62-66) in which a device for instructing a caregiver in the provision of emergency aid (Column 6, lines 20-21) wherein the designated caregiver communication device is configured to send the location information of the patient communication device to emergency response personnel for assistance to the patient in the medical emergency situation (Column 20, lines 60-64:“preliminary instructions designed to help the caregiver determine whether or not CPR administration is necessary, and an instruction to call paramedics, would be appropriate and desirable.”).
Although Christ does not explicitly state sending the location information of the patient communication device to emergency response personnel for assistance it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that a caregiver would have provided the location information to the emergency response personnel so that they would be able to arrive at the location of the patient to provide assistance.
Alternatively, Ricordi teaches a system used for facilitating communication, care, and intervention during critical events (Abstract) which includes sending location information of the patient communication device to emergency response personnel ([0025] “sending location information, such as GPS coordinates, from the ALTMI 16 and/or from the RFTR 18 to a representative of the service provider 28, the subject's emergency contacts 30 and/or the telecare provider 32”, Figure 2).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti to incorporate the teachings of Christ and Ricordi to have wherein the designated caregiver communication device is configured to send the location information of the patient communication device to emergency response personnel for assistance to the patient in the medical emergency situation, as these prior art references are directed to caregivers providing assistance. One would be motivated to do this to provide efficient and effective care.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Stadler et al. (US 2022/0280047 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Stadler.
Regarding claim 30, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein providing the one or more instructions comprises an instruction for the designated caregiver communication device to send a message to the remote monitoring system.
However, Stadler further teaches wherein one or more instructions comprises an instruction for the designated caregiver communication device to send a message to the remote monitoring system ([0068] “The event assistant may provide a conversational interface for patient 4 and/or bystander 26 to exchange information with the computing device or IoT device. The event assistant may query the user regarding the condition of patient 4 in response to receiving the alert message from IMD 10. Responses from the user may be used to confirm or override detection of the acute health event by IMD 10, or to provide additional information about the acute health event or the condition of patient 4 more generally that may improve the efficacy of the treatment of patient 4.”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti to incorporate the teaching Stadler wherein providing one or more instructions comprises an instruction for the designated caregiver device to send a message to the remote monitoring system. One would be motivated to do this so that the care can be provided based on real-time feedback, as recognized by Stadler ([0068]).
Claim(s) 41 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Medema et al. (EP 3357534 B1, previously cited), hereinafter Medema.
Regarding claim 41, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese further teaches “the patient 104 sharing information related to a health status of the patient 104 and/or a status of the wearable cardiac monitoring device 100 with a caregiver.” ([00110]), however, Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti, alone or in combination, fail to explicitly teach further comprising transmitting additional information notification to the designated caregiver communication device, the additional information notification including at least one of alerts received by the patient, shock events, and patient triggered episodes.
However, Medema teaches the method further comprising transmitting additional information notification to the designated caregiver communication device, the additional information notification including at least one of alerts received by the patient, shock events, and patient triggered episodes ([0045] “Defibrillator 200 can optionally include a communication module 290, for establishing one or more wired or wireless communication links with other devices of other entities, such as a remote assistance center, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and so on. Module 290 may also include such sub-components as may be deemed necessary by a person skilled in the art, for example an antenna, portions of a processor, supporting electronics, outlet for a telephone or a network cable, etc. This way, data, commands, etc. can be communicated. The data can include patient data, event information, therapy attempted, CPR performance, system data, environmental data, and so on.”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti to incorporate the teachings of Medema to transmit additional information notification to the designated caregiver communication device, the additional information including at least one of alerts received by the patient, shock events, and patient triggered episodes, as these prior art references are directed to wearable cardiac monitoring and rehabilitative systems. One would be motivated to do this as to provide the most necessary information to be able to quickly locate and assist the patient, as recognized Medema ([0072]).
Regarding claim 43, Seese in view of BORNN in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above). Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the patient communication device is configured with contact information of one or more caregiver communication devices, and wherein transmitting the notification comprises transmitting the notification to a caregiver communication device, among the one or more caregiver communication devices, designated to receive the notification.
However, Medema teaches wherein the patient communication device is configured with contact information of one or more caregiver communication devices, and wherein transmitting the notification comprises transmitting the notification to a caregiver communication device, among the one or more caregiver communication devices, designated to receive the notification ([0060]-[0061] “the responder contact information can be entered by the user or clinician when the patient is fitted with the WCD system and updated as desired. The responders can be people who might be expected to be near patient 182 for significant periods of time such as, for example, spouse, relatives, neighbors, co-workers, assistants, etc. so that assistance can be quickly provided to patient 182…Communication module 390, in some embodiments, is configured to transmit at least some of the information obtained by the notification module to one or more respondents using the responder contact information”)
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seese, BORNN, and Giacometti to incorporate the teachings of Medema to have the patient communication device is configured with contact information of one or more caregiver communication devices, and wherein transmitting the notification comprises transmitting the notification to a caregiver communication device, among the one or more caregiver communication devices, designated to receive the notification, as these prior art references are directed to wearable cardiac monitoring and rehabilitative systems. One would be motivated to do this to communicate with responders that are present near the patient for significant periods of time and therefore are able to quickly provide assistance to the patient, as recognized Medema ([0060]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Finch et al. (US 2018/0001083 A9, previously cited) teaches controlling functions of a wearable cardiac defibrillation system wherein encouragement is provided for one not wanting to wear the WCD ([0037]).
Matos (US 2007/0299473 A1, previously cited) teaches a system for monitoring and controlling a defibrillator by providing instructions from a remote location to a caregiver/bystander.
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 ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Niketa Patel can be reached at 5712724156. 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.
/ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792