DETAILED ACTION
The applicant’s response, from 03 June 2026, has been fully considered. Amendments to the claims, from 03 June 2026, were received and entered. An amended abstract and specification, filed 03 June 2026, were received and entered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claim 4 is cancelled.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are currently pending and under examination herein.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected.
Claim 10 is objected to.
Priority
The instant application claims priority as CON of PCT/JP2020/048946 filed 25 December 2020 and foreign priority to JP2020-188528 filed 12 November 2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. In this action, claims 1-3 and 5-11 are examined as though they had an effective filing date of 12 November 2020. In future actions, the effective filing date of one or more claims may change, due to amendments to the claims, or further analysis of the disclosure(s) of the priority application(s).
Information Disclosure Statement
The new information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 15 July 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner in addition to the prior IDS(s) indicated by the prior office action(s).
Drawings
The drawings filed on 20 September 2022 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following objection is new as has been necessitated by the amendments.
Claim 10 is objected to because it does not end in a period. Each claim must end with a period (MPEP 608.01(m)). This objection can be overcome by adding a period to the end of claim 10.
Claim Interpretation
The previously indicated 112(f) interpretation is moot due to the amended claims removing the previously recited generic units from claim 10. The claims are interpreted given the structure currently recited by the amended claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The previously issued 35 USC 101 rejection is withdrawn in response to considerations from the interview conducted 27 May 2026 and attorney arguments (Page 8, Paragraph 1-3 of the remarks) in conjunction with the amended claims. The improvement to technology indicated by the specification (hydrogen gas based detection, Paragraphs 0059-0060) is considered a practical application that integrates the judicial exception into significantly more. Additionally, the amended claims recite a particular type of sensor, which in conjunction with the processor and toilet bowl, could be interpreted as a particular machine in regard to the system claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The previously issued 35 USC 102 rejection is withdrawn in response to the amended claims, which combine limitations that previously required separate pieces of art. An updated search did not result in new 102 art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Arguments associated with the previously issued 35 USC 103 rejection are
considered non-persuasive (see response to arguments below the rejection). The
following rejection is reiterated and modified as has been necessitated by amendment.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kizuka et al. (US 20160223549 A1, cited in previous office action), in view of Short and Briggs (US 20160239624 A1, cited in previous office action). Italicized text from reference art. Underlined text correspond to amendments.
Applicable Claims include:
Claim 1. An excreta determination method performed by a computer, the method comprising: (Claim 1.i) acquiring first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by a first hydrogen concentration sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl; (Claim 1.ii) acquiring second time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space outside the toilet bowl measured by a second hydrogen concentration sensor arranged outside the toilet bowl, the second time series data being measured in a period in which the first time series data is measured; (Claim 1.iii) determining whether or not one who excreted has flatulated based on the first time series data and the second time series data; and (Claim 1.iv) outputting a determination result.
Claim 2. The excreta determination method according to claim 1, wherein in the determination, when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value, it is determined that the one who excreted has flatulated.
Claim 3. The excreta determination method according to claim 1,wherein in the determination, it is determined that the one who excreted has flatulated when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value, a rising slope of the first time series data until reaching a peak is larger than a threshold value, and a falling slope of the first time series data after reaching the peak is smaller than a threshold value.
Claim 5. The excreta determination method according to claim 1, wherein in the determination, it is determined that the one who excreted has flatulated when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value and a value of the hydrogen concentration in the second time series data exceeds a threshold value.
Claim 6. The excreta determination method according to claim 1, further comprising: acquiring first time at which the first time series data reaches a peak; and acquiring second time at which the first time series data converges after the first time series data reached the peak, and wherein in the determination, it is determined which of feces or flatulence the one who excreted has excreted based on the first time and the second time.
Claim 7. The excreta determination method according to claim 6, wherein in the determination, it is determined that the one who excreted has flatulated when a difference between the second time and the first time is equal to or less than a predetermined time, and it is determined that the one who excreted has defecated when the difference is longer than the predetermined time.
Claim 8. The excreta determination method according to claim 6, further comprising: acquiring second time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space outside the toilet bowl measured by an external sensor arranged outside the toilet bowl; acquiring third time at which the second time series data reaches a peak; and acquiring fourth time at which the second time series data converges after the second time series data reached the peak, and wherein in the determination, it is determined which of feces or flatulence the one who excreted has excreted based on the first time, the second time, the third time, and the fourth time.
Claim 9. The excreta determination method according to claim 8, wherein in the determination, it is determined that the one who excreted has flatulated when a first difference between the second time and the first time is equal to or less than a predetermined time and a second difference between the fourth time and the third time is equal to or less than a predetermined time, and it is determined that the one who excreted has defecated when the first difference is longer than the predetermined time and the second difference is longer than the predetermined time.
Claim 10. An excreta determination device comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a program that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to (Claim 10.i) acquire first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by a first hydrogen concentration sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl; (Claim 10.ii) acquire second time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space outside the toilet bowl measured by a second hydrogen concentration sensor arranged outside the toilet bowl, the second time series data being measured in a period in which the first time series data is measured; (Claim 10.iii) determine whether or not one who excreted has flatulated based on the first time series data and the second time series data; and (Claim 10.iv) output a determination result
Claim 11. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an excreta determination program causing a computer to function to: (Claim 11.i) acquire first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by a first hydrogen concentration sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl; (Claim 11.ii) acquire second time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space outside the toilet bowl measured by a second hydrogen concentration sensor arranged outside the toilet bowl, the second time series data being measured in a period in which the first time series data is measured; (Claim 11.iii) determine whether or not one who excreted has flatulated based on the first time series data and the second time series data; and (Claim 11.iv) output a determination result.
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 11, Kizuka et al. teach (Claim 1.i) acquiring first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by a first hydrogen concentration sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl (Paragraph 0143: The control device is connected to a hydrogen gas sensor; Paragraph 0167: a semiconductor gas sensor is used in the gas detector as a gas sensor to detect odiferous gas and hydrogen gas; Paragraph 0221: The data analyzer also estimates the amount of odiferous gas and hydrogen gas). Figure 1 shows the location of the gas detector in the bowl. Kizuka et al. suggest (Claim 1.ii) acquiring second time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space outside the toilet bowl measured by a second hydrogen concentration sensor arranged outside the toilet bowl, the second time series data being measured in a period in which the first time series data is measured. Kizuka et al. teach measuring multiple gasses at multiple time points from multiple sensors that include multiple measurements at the same time (See Figures 9 and 12: Hydrogen gas sensor, carbon dioxide sensor, odiferous gas sensor, humidity gas sensor; Paragraph 0137: the measurement data shows that if relation between odiferous gas and healthy-state gas is continuously measured multiple times for a predetermined period, it is possible to reliably measure physical condition of a test subject; Paragraph 0210: The measurement value of non-defecation gas is recognized as odiferous noise, which is not acquired with the present defecation act by a test Subject, to be stored as an environment reference value that is a noise level to be a base of measurement of defecation gas; Paragraph 0223: there is displayed the amount of healthy-state gas, such as hydrogen gas, or carbon dioxide gas, as well as the amount of wrong physical condition state gas, such as odiferous gas, in the measurement in this time; Paragraph 0261: Subsequently, when the second excretory act of the test subject is performed at the time t6, a detection value of each of the odiferous gas sensor, the carbon dioxide sensor, and the hydrogen gas sensor, steeply rises again). Relatedly, Kizuka et al. teach measure gas concentration values in the environment and using it to calibrate the concertation during excretion/flatulence (Paragraph 0086: FIG. 18 shows a correction table for environmental noise; Paragraph 0261: When the excretory act is performed, the data analyzer estimates the amount of odiferous gas discharged from the test subject on the basis of a fluctuation range of an increment from the reference value (odiferous noise) detected by the odiferous gas sensor; Paragraph 0303: if there is stink noise (environmental noise) other than defecation gas in the toilet installation room, the odiferous gas sensor may detect the stink noise to cause accuracy of measurement to be reduced). Kizuka et al. teach (Claim 1.iii) determining whether or not one who excreted has flatulated based on the first time series data and the second time series data (Paragraph 0210: The measurement value of non-defecation gas is recognized as odiferous noise, which is not acquired with the present defecation act by a test Subject, to be stored as an environment reference value that is a noise level to be a base of measurement of defecation gas; Paragraph 0222: the data analyzer performs calculation of results of a medical examination to analyze physical condition of a test Subject on the basis of time-dependent change in a plurality of detection data items that is detected in defecation performed multiple times in a predetermined period and that is stored in a storage device, as well as performs time-dependent diagnosis based on stored values). Also see Figure 12 which shows first gas detected at t5 based on multiple gas sensor estimates (including hydrogen) measured at the same time. Kizuka et al. teach (Claim 1.iv) outputting a determination result (Paragraph 0191: FIG. 5 shows an example of the screens to be displayed in the display device of the remote control; Figure 5: Amount of health-state gas). Additionally, Kizuka et al. teach the methods are executed by a computer (Paragraph 0256: Estimation of the amount of gas based on a detection signal of each of the sensors is performed by the data analyzer, that is, by a CPU built in the remote control and a storage device), which inherently contain program code, memory, including non-transitory, and at least one processor. Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitations of claim 1 directed to a device and a CRM.
Regarding Claim 2, Kizuka et al. teach when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value, it is determined that the one who excreted has flatulated (Paragraph 0307: With respect to a fart act, it is possible to determined that a fart act is performed when it is detected that a difference between a detection value of the odiferous gas sensor and a reference value steeply rises at a rate of change of a predetermined value or more).
Regarding Claim 3, Kizuka et al. teach it is determined that the one who excreted has flatulated when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value, a rising slope of the first time series data until reaching a peak is larger than a threshold value, and a falling slope of the first time series data after reaching the peak is smaller than a threshold value (Paragraph 0307: With respect to a fart act, it is possible to determined that a fart act is performed when it is detected that a difference between a detection value of the odiferous gas sensor and a reference value steeply rises at a rate of change of a predetermined value or more).
Regarding Claim 5, Kizuka et al. teach it is determined that the one who excreted has flatulated when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value and a value of the hydrogen concentration in the second time series data exceeds a threshold value (Paragraph 0307: With respect to a fart act, it is possible to determined that a fart act is performed when it is detected that a difference between a detection value of the odiferous gas sensor and a reference value steeply rises at a rate of change of a predetermined value or more; a period from a time point, from which the difference described above steeply rises, until a detection value of the gas sensor returns to the reference value again, may be set as a fart period (i.e., multiple time points are compared to threshold values)).
Regarding Claim 6, Kizuka et al. teach acquiring first time at which the first time series data reaches a peak; and acquiring second time at which the first time series data converges after the first time series data reached the peak, and wherein in the determination, it is determined which of feces or flatulence the one who excreted has excreted based on the first time and the second time (Paragraph 307: With respect to a fart act, it is possible to determined that a fart act is performed when it is detected that a difference between a detection value of the odiferous gas sensor and a reference value steeply rises at a rate of change of a predetermined value or more; a period from a time point, from which the difference described above steeply rises, until a detection value of the gas sensor returns to the reference value again, may be set as a fart period (i.e., the rise and fall describe a peak and multiple time points are compared to threshold values)).
Regarding Claim 7, Kizuka et al. teach it is determined that the one who excreted has flatulated when a difference between the second time and the first time is equal to or less than a predetermined time, and it is determined that the one who excreted has defecated when the difference is longer than the predetermined time (Paragraph 0307: With respect to a fart act, it is possible to determined that a fart act is performed when it is detected that a difference between a detection value of the odiferous gas sensor and a reference value steeply rises at a rate of change of a predetermined value or more; a period from a time point, from which the difference described above steeply rises, until a detection value of the gas sensor returns to the reference value again, may be set as a fart period (i.e., if the value remains high beyond the predetermined period, it was not a fart but defecation); Paragraph 0228: If concentration of gas measured by the odiferous gas sensor is larger than a predetermined value even if a predetermined time has elapsed after a defecation period has been finished, the control device determines that there is a stool attached to the bowl).
Regarding Claim 8, Kizuka et al. teach acquiring second time series data indicating hydrogen concentration; acquiring third time at which the second time series data reaches a peak; and acquiring fourth time at which the second time series data converges after the second time series data reached the peak, and it is determined which of feces or flatulence the one who excreted has excreted based on the first time, the second time, the third time, and the fourth time. Gasses are measured at multiple time points to a make the fart determination (see Kizuka et al. teachings above). Figure 9 demonstrates the hydrogen sensors recoding two peaks and two convergences (Paragraph 0076: FIG. 9 is a graph schematically showing a detection signal of each of sensors provided in a biological information measurement system 1 in one defecation act of a test Subject).
Regarding Claim 9, Kizuka et al. teach it is determined that the one who excreted has flatulated when a first difference between the second time and the first time is equal to or less than a predetermined time and a second difference between the fourth time and the third time is equal to or less than a predetermined time, and it is determined that the one who excreted has defecated when the first difference is longer than the predetermined time and the second difference is longer than the predetermined time (Paragraph 0261: After an excretory act of the test subject has been performed, a detection value of each of the hydrogen gas sensor returns to the reference value of residual gas. Subsequently, when the second excretory act of the test subject is performed, a detection value of the hydrogen gas sensor steeply rises again. For the second excretory act, as with the first excretory act, the amount of hydrogen gas, discharged from the test subject, is also estimated on the basis of an increment from the reference value of residual gas (i.e., a comparison of two values to two threshold values); Paragraph 0228: If concentration of gas measured by the odiferous gas sensor is larger than a predetermined value even if a predetermined time has elapsed after a defecation period has been finished, the control device determines that there is a stool attached to the bowl).
Kizuka et al. does explicitly not teach locating a sensor outside the bowl (Claims 1, 8, 10, and 11).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 11, Short and Briggs suggest (Claim 1.ii) acquiring second time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space outside the toilet bowl measured by a second hydrogen concentration sensor arranged outside the toilet bowl, the second time series data being measured in a period in which the first time series data is measured. Short and Briggs teach recoding hydrogen concentration from a sensor outside the bowl (Paragraph 0255: an apparatus attached to a human body; The measuring device is located in the apparatus and is configured for contact with a bodily fluid such as sweat on the skin of the individual for measuring one or more biomarkers. The apparatus may also use location data, time and/or environmental data collected by the device to assist the predictor in making a suitable prediction; Paragraph 0141: Electrochemical electrodes for gaseous biomarkers (such as these in breath or fart gas) operate by reacting with the gaseous biomarker and producing an electrical signal proportional to the gaseous biomarker concentration; Paragraph 0160: this mobile device may also have a function of monitoring environmental factors at the location where the biological phenotype data is measured). Short and Briggs teach taking multiple measurements at the same time (Paragraph 0159: Passive measurements are measurements which do not require an operator or initiation but rather can be programmed to occur automatically on a time schedule or responsive to a particular activity or event; Paragraph 0227: a supplemental measuring or data collection device may collect data from the location such as time at the location and any orthogonal data from the location such as, but not limited to, temperature, humidity, pollution, oxygen, pollen, physiological conditions. Thus other data is collected and saved in addition to measurement of one or more biomarkers and/or physiological data so that such other data can be correlated with or used on conjunction with the biomarker data to predict one or more wellness needs). Short and Briggs teach (Claim 1.iii) determining whether or not one who excreted has flatulated based on the first time series data and the second time series data. (Paragraph 0227: Thus other data is collected and saved in addition to measurement of one or more biomarkers and/or physiological data so that such other data can be correlated with or used on conjunction with the biomarker data to predict one or more wellness needs; Paragraph 0253: The handheld device may also use location data, time and/or environmental data collected by the device to assist the predictor in making a suitable prediction).
Regarding Claim 8, Short and Briggs teach acquiring second time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space outside the toilet bowl measured by an external sensor arranged outside the toilet bowl (See Short and Briggs teachings of claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing date to combine Short and Briggs with Kizuka et al. Kizuka et al. suggests measuring the environmental concentration of hydrogen (Page 16, Paragraph 0210: The measurement value of non-defecation gas is recognized as odiferous noise, which is not acquired with the present defecation act by a test Subject, to be stored as an environment reference value that is a noise level to be a base of measurement of defecation gas). Shorty and Briggs utilize sensors external to a toilet bowl to monitor concentrations of gaseous biomarkers and teach paring environmental data with primary biomarker health data collected at the same time (see Regarding Claims 1 and 8 above) that would serve as the environmental reference value. Additionally, Shorty and Briggs teach their methods represent a novel approach to utilizing biomarker data to individualize wellness (Paragraph 0014: The references discussed above fail to appreciate that biomarkers in a sample from an individual may be used directly to assist the individual, optionally in real-time to maintain or improve the individual's wellness), which is related Kizuka et al. goal of determining the condition of a subject. Additionally, both refences are utilizing functionally similar methodologies, sensors to measure the concentration of gasses in the air and relating this input data to biological functions. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would predict that the methods could be readily combined with a reasonable expectation of success because they utilize the same data acquisition tool (sensors) to collect data related to the same subject (human bowel function).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are directed toward the amended independent claims. In particular, applicant asserts, for Kizuka et al. (Page 11, Paragraphs 4-5 of remarks) and for Shorty and Briggs (Page 11, Paragraph 6 and Page 12, Paragraph 1 of remarks), that the art fails to teach the new limitation of collecting two different time series data collected at the same time (Amended Claims 1, 10, and 11). However, this is a mischaracterization of Kizuka et al. and Shorty and Briggs.
As indicated in the updated 35 USC 103 rejection above, Kizuka et al. teach measuring multiple gasses at multiple time points from multiple sensors that include multiple measurements at the same time/within the same time period (See Figures 9 and 12: Hydrogen gas sensor, carbon dioxide sensor, odiferous gas sensor, humidity gas sensor; Paragraph 0137: the measurement data shows that if relation between odiferous gas and healthy-state gas is continuously measured multiple times for a predetermined period, it is possible to reliably measure physical condition of a test subject; Paragraph 0210: The measurement value of non-defecation gas is recognized as odiferous noise, which is not acquired with the present defecation act by a test Subject, to be stored as an environment reference value that is a noise level to be a base of measurement of defecation gas; Paragraph 0223: there is displayed the amount of healthy-state gas, such as hydrogen gas, or carbon dioxide gas, as well as the amount of wrong physical condition state gas, such as odiferous gas, in the measurement in this time; Paragraph 0261: Subsequently, when the second excretory act of the test subject is performed at the time t6, a detection value of each of the odiferous gas sensor, the carbon dioxide sensor, and the hydrogen gas sensor, steeply rises again). Therefore, Kizuka et al. clearly establishes collecting data from multiple gas sensors, including hydrogen, at the same time and during the same periods of time, in addition to established the need to collect environmental/reference/noise and the other limitations of the independent claims (see rejection above).
Also as indicated in the updated 35 USC 103 rejection above, Short and Briggs teach taking multiple measurements at the same time (Paragraph 0159: Passive measurements are measurements which do not require an operator or initiation but rather can be programmed to occur automatically on a time schedule or responsive to a particular activity or event; Paragraph 0227: a supplemental measuring or data collection device may collect data from the location such as time at the location and any orthogonal data from the location such as, but not limited to, temperature, humidity, pollution, oxygen, pollen, physiological conditions. Thus other data is collected and saved in addition to measurement of one or more biomarkers and/or physiological data so that such other data can be correlated with or used on conjunction with the biomarker data to predict one or more wellness needs). Therefore, Short and Briggs clearly establish collecting data from multiple sensors, including gas, at the same time and during the same periods of time, in addition to establishing the collection of the environmental/reference/noise data at the same time as other data is collected and the other limitations of the independent claims (see rejection above).
As indicated in the 103 rejection, it is conceded that Kizuka et al. does not explicitly teach a sensor located outside of the bowl. However, as applicant indicates (Page 11, last paragraph of remarks), this limitation is taught by Short and Briggs. Therefore, the combination of Kizuka et al. and Short and Briggs teach the limitations of Claims 1, 10, and 11, including the use of multiple gas sensors, including hydrogen, to collect data from within and outside the bowl at the same time to establish flatulence. The applicant gives no indication or evidence that the combination of Kizuka et al. and Short and Briggs is improper under the guidelines of establishing prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. Therefore, the claims stand rejected.
Additionally, amendments to the instant application include changing instances of fart/farted to flatulence/flatulated. This is not considered to alter the interpretation or scope of the claims, as fart and flatulence are synonyms.
Double Patenting
The double patenting over U.S. Patent No. 12332237 and copending Application No. 18525223 are withdrawn in response to the amended claims. Neither U.S. Patent No. 12332237 nor copending Application No. 18525223 claim collecting hydrogen sensor data or any type of data from outside the toilet bowl.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE H ELKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/B.H.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights