DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/21/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 1-23 are pending and hereby under examination.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should have a period at the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis of independent claims 1 and 23:
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 1 is directed to a computer implemented method, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a method. Claim 23 is directed to a non-transitory computer-program software product, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine. Therefore, further consideration is necessary regarding the claims.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One: Claims 1 and 23 recite an abstract idea. In particular, the claims generally recite
the following:
determining, based on the received data and conductivity value of the bolus, a cross- sectional area of the esophagus (claim 1);
repeating the determining step to determine a cross-sectional area of tubes of known diameter to obtain a correction factor in vitro (claim 1);
revising a value of the cross-sectional area of the esophagus that is determined using the correction factor that is obtained (claim 1); and
determining, based on the received data and the first and second conductivity values of the bolus, a cross-sectional area of the portion of the gastrointestinal tract (claim 23).
These elements recited in claims 1 and 23 are drawn to an abstract idea since they are directed towards mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The steps listed above are drawn to an abstract idea since it is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper or a generic computer. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably review received data, calculate a cross-sectional area of the esophagus or gastrointestinal tract based on the received data, repeat the cross-sectional area determination on “tubes of known diameter” to obtain a correction factor, and apply the correction factor to revise the cross-sectional area value of the esophagus/gastrointestinal tract. There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in these steps.
Prong Two: Claims 1 and 23 do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are "directed to" the abstract idea. The additional elements merely:
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (the pre-solution activity of: using generic data gathering components (e.g., "receiving data measured by an impedance and high-resolution manometry catheter in an esophagus, the data representative of (i) an impedance or voltage associated with at least one swallowing event during which an amount of a bolus is consumed and (ii) a baseline impedance obtained in an absence of a bolus being consumed" (claim 1) and "receiving data measured by an impedance and high-resolution manometry catheter in a portion of a gastrointestinal tract, the data representative of (i) an impedance associated with at least one swallowing event during which an amount of a bolus is consumed and (ii) a baseline impedance obtained in an absence of a bolus being consumed, wherein receiving the data measured by the impedance and high-resolution manometry catheter includes receiving data representative of an impedance associated with a first swallowing event during which an amount of a first bolus is consumed and an impedance associated with a second swallowing event during which an amount of a second bolus is consumed, the first and second boluses having first and second conductivity values that are different from one another" (claim 23));
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather information to be used by the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on a computer. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The processing performed remains in the abstract realm, i.e., the result is not used for a treatment. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1 and 23 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above. E.g., all elements are directed to implementing the abstract ideas on generic processing components, the pre-solution activity of using generic data-gathering components, and generic post-solution activities, which merely facilitate the abstract idea.
Per the Berkheimer requirement, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example, “impedance and high-resolution manometry catheter” as disclosed in Applicant’s specification paragraph 0023, “A typical HRMZ catheter generally has 36 pressure sensors, located 1 cm apart, and 18 impedance electrodes (2cm apart). More generally, however, HRMZ catheters may be employed that have any number of pressure and impedance sensors”.
This limitation does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'/, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric PowerGroup, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'/, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. lnvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements include a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Analysis of dependent claims 2-22:
Claims 2 and 8-9 recite mental steps that may be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper or a generic computer, which add to the abstract idea. The mental steps are identified as:
“determining the cross-sectional area of the esophagus based on the received data and the first and second conductivity values” (claim 2);
“determining values of tension in walls of the esophagus based on the cross-sectional area of the esophagus and the pressure” (claim 8);
“determining values of distensibility in walls of the esophagus based on the cross-sectional area of the esophagus and the pressure” (claim 9);
Claims 2-7 and 10-22 recite limitations in addition to the abstract idea: they merely
Further describe the abstract idea (“wherein the determining accounts for conductance of perimeter tissues and organs surrounding the esophagus” (claim 3), “wherein the determining assumes a conductance of zero for perimeter tissues and organs surrounding the esophagus” (claim 4), “wherein the determining employs esophageal impedance tomography” (claim 20), and “wherein the bolus is a liquid or solid bolus” (claim 21)),
Further describe the pre-solution activity (“wherein receiving the data recorded by the impedance and high-resolution manometry catheter includes receiving data representative of an impedance associated with a first swallowing event during which a known amount of a first bolus is consumed, and an impedance associated with a second swallowing event during which a known amount of a second bolus is consumed, the first and second boluses having first and second conductivity values that are different from one another” (claim 2), “wherein the recording is performed while a subject whose esophagus is being analyzed is lying down in the Trendelenburg position” (claim 5), “wherein the recording is performed while a subject whose esophagus is being analyzed is lying down in the Trendelenburg position” (claim 6), “wherein recording the data measured by the impedance and high-resolution manometry catheter includes recording data representative of pressure associated with the swallowing event” (claim 7)), and
Further describe the post-solution activity (“generating a display of the cross-sectional area of the esophagus and the tension at a plurality of locations along a length of the esophagus” (claim 10), “generating a display that simultaneously includes a heatmap of the pressure and the impedance along a length of the esophagus” (claim 11), “generating a display that simultaneously includes impedance gradient streamlines overlayed on a heatmap of the pressure along a length of the esophagus” (claim 12), “generating a display that simultaneously includes esophageal distension and contraction during peristalsis at a plurality of points along a length of the esophagus and a plurality of different times” (claim 13), “wherein the distension and contraction are displayed as waveforms” (claim 14), “wherein distension is displayed as a waveform and pressure as heatmap” (claim 15), “wherein distension is displayed as a heatmap and pressure as a waveform” (claim 16), “generating a display that includes a cylindrical representation of distension and pressure at a plurality of points along a length of the esophagus at a plurality of different times during an entire swallow cycle” (claim 17), “generating a display that includes a cylindrical representation of distension and distensibility at a plurality of points along a length of the esophagus at a plurality of different times during an entire swallow cycle” (claim 18), “generating a display that includes a cylindrical representation of the distension and tension at a plurality of points along a length of the esophagus at a plurality of different times during an entire swallow cycle” (claim 19), and “importing, visualizing, and analyzing esophageal or Gastrointestinal extracted parameters on a handheld or wearable device” (claim 22)).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The additional elements do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. The collective functions of the additional elements merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. The result of the abstract idea does not cause the computing device and/or application to perform differently.
Therefore, claims 1-23 are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 5-11, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal (WO 2016138541) and Pandolfino (US 20220117542).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 22, Mittal discloses a method for determining one or more parameters associated with an esophagus, comprising:
receiving data measured by an impedance and high-resolution manometry catheter in an esophagus, the data representative of an impedance or voltage associated with at least one swallowing event during which an amount of a bolus is consumed (Paragraph 0050);
determining, based on the received data and conductivity value of the bolus, a cross-sectional area of the esophagus (Paragraph 0055);
repeating the determining step to determine a cross-sectional area of known diameter to obtain a correction factor in vitro (Paragraph 0045, “The same process may be carried out in vitro in glass tubes of known diameters, and the CSA estimations calculated for each tube”); and
revising a value of the cross-sectional area of the esophagus that is determined using the correction factor that is obtained (Paragraphs 0045-0046; Paragraph 0055, “The CSA value was updated using the correction factor estimated from the in-vitro study to calculate the final CSA estimate”).
Mittal fails to disclose receiving data associated with a baseline impedance obtained in an absence of a bolus being consumed. Regarding the limitations of claim 11 and 22, Mittal fails to disclose generating a display that simultaneously includes a heatmap of the pressure and the impedance along a length of the esophagus, and importing, visualizing, and analyzing esophageal or gastrointestinal extracted parameters on a handheld or wearable device.
However, Pandolfino teaches a system of four-dimensional manometry wherein impedance measurements are used to determine esophageal dimensions (Paragraph 0015, wherein impedance values are measured in the absence of a bolus being consumed; Paragraph 0024, wherein the data may include pre-swallow recordings; Paragraph 0041, wherein impedance analysis starts three seconds before swallowing). Pandolfino uses the mucosal impedance measured during the swallow, including the 3-seconds pre-swallow, to determine the cross-sectional area (Equation 7). The pre-swallow recordings are stored as baseline data and can help identify/characterize different tissue properties (Paragraph 0053). The data collected by Pandolfino is used to generate a display that includes a heatmap of the pressure and the impedance along the length of the esophagus (Fig. 2A). The esophageal or gastrointestinal extracted parameters are further imported, visualized, and analyzed on a handheld or wearable device (Paragraph 0059).
As Mittal discloses measuring the cross-sectional area and distension during multiple boluses, Pandolfino introduces a method of measuring the full swallow, including pre-swallow data, to measure CSA but also to identify other characterizations of the tissue like distensibility. Further, Pandolfino discusses the pre-swallow data can change according to different disease states, such as Type-II Achalasia (Paragraph 0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Mittal to incorporate the teachings of including pre-swallow recordings of impedance of Pandolfino in order to identify different characterizations of the tissue and disease states.
Regarding claim 2, Mittal as modified further discloses wherein receiving the data recorded by the impedance and high-resolution manometry catheter includes receiving data representative of an impedance associated with a first swallowing event during which a known amount of a first bolus is consumed, and an impedance associated with a second swallowing event during which a known amount of a second bolus is consumed (Paragraph 0052), the first and second boluses having first and second conductivity values that are different from one another (Paragraphs 0050-0051); and
determining the cross-sectional area of the esophagus based on the received data and the first and second conductivity values (Paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 3, Mittal as modified further discloses wherein the determining accounts for conductance of perimeter tissues and organs surrounding the esophagus (Paragraphs 0034 and 0035, denoted by Gperim).
Regarding claim 5, Mittal as modified further discloses wherein the recording is performed while a subject whose esophagus is being analyzed is lying down in the Trendelenburg position (Paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 6, Mittal as modified further discloses wherein the recording is performed while a subject whose esophagus is being analyzed is lying down in the Trendelenburg position (Paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 7, Mittal as modified further discloses wherein recording the data measured by the impedance and high-resolution manometry catheter includes recording data representative of pressure associated with the swallowing event (Paragraph 0015, “From the measured CSA and pressure, one can calculate various other parameters such as compliance of esophageal wall, pressure-CSA loops, as well as other parameters along the entire length of the esophagus”; Paragraph 0051, wherein the catheter includes pressure transducers).
Regarding claim 8, Mittal as modified further discloses determining values of tension in walls of the esophagus based on the cross-sectional area of the esophagus and the pressure (Paragraph 0012, “The method may further include measuring a pressure in the esophagus, and calculating a value of esophageal compliance based on the estimated CSA and the measured pressure”).
Regarding claim 9, Mittal as modified further discloses determining values of distensibility in walls of the esophagus based on the cross-sectional area of the esophagus and the pressure (“calculating a value of esophageal compliance based on the estimated CSA and the measured pressure”).
Regarding claim 10, Mittal as modified further discloses generating a display of the cross-sectional area of the esophagus and the tension at a plurality of locations along a length of the esophagus (Figs. 7A-B; Paragraph 0023)
Regarding claim 17, Mittal as modified further discloses generating a display that includes a cylindrical representation of distension and pressure at a plurality of points along a length of the esophagus at a plurality of different times during an entire swallow cycle (Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 18, Mittal as modified further discloses displaying distension and distensibility at a plurality of points along the esophagus (Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 19, Mittal as modified further discloses displaying distension and tension at a plurality of points along the esophagus (Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 20, Mittal as modified further discloses wherein the determining employs esophageal impedance tomography (Paragraphs 0010-0011).
Regarding claim 21, Mittal as modified further discloses wherein the bolus is a liquid bolus (Paragraph 0052, wherein the bolus is saline).
Regarding claim 23, Mittal discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising instructions for causing a computing environment to perform a method for determining one or more parameters associated with a portion of a gastrointestinal tract, comprising:
receiving data measured by an impedance and high-resolution manometry catheter in a portion of a gastrointestinal tract, the data representative of an impedance associated with at least one swallowing event during which an amount of a bolus is consumed (Paragraph 0050),
wherein receiving the data measured by the impedance and high-resolution manometry catheter includes receiving data representative of an impedance associated with a first swallowing event during which an amount of a first bolus is consumed and an impedance associated with a second swallowing event during which an amount of a second bolus is consumed (Paragraph 0052), the first and second boluses having first and second conductivity values that are different from one another (Paragraphs 0050-0051); and
determining, based on the received data and conductivity value of the bolus, a cross-sectional area of the portion of a gastrointestinal tract (Paragraph 0055).
Mittal fails to disclose receiving data associated with a baseline impedance obtained in an absence of a bolus being consumed.
Mittal fails to disclose receiving data associated with a baseline impedance obtained in an absence of a bolus being consumed.
However, Pandolfino teaches a system of four-dimensional manometry wherein impedance measurements are used to determine esophageal dimensions (Paragraph 0015, wherein impedance values are measured in the absence of a bolus being consumed; Paragraph 0024, wherein the data may include pre-swallow recordings; Paragraph 0041, wherein impedance analysis starts three seconds before swallowing). Pandolfino uses the mucosal impedance measured during the swallow, including the 3-seconds pre-swallow, to determine the cross-sectional area (Equation 7). The pre-swallow recordings are stored as baseline data and can help identify/characterize different tissue properties (Paragraph 0053).
As Mittal discloses measuring the cross-sectional area and distension during multiple boluses, Pandolfino introduces a method of measuring the full swallow, including pre-swallow data, to measure CSA but also to identify other characterizations of the tissue like distensibility. Further, Pandolfino discusses the pre-swallow data can change according to different disease states, such as Type-II Achalasia (Paragraph 0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Mittal to incorporate the teachings of including pre-swallow recordings of impedance of Pandolfino in order to identify different characterizations of the tissue and disease states.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal (WO 2016138541) and Pandolfino (US 20220117542) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kassab (US 20040230131).
Regarding claim 4, Mittal discloses wherein the determining assumes a constant conductance for perimeter tissues and organs surrounding the esophagus (Paragraph 0066), but Mittal fails to disclose wherein the conductance is zero.
However, Kassab teaches a catheter for measuring cross-sectional areas and pressure gradients in organs, including the esophagus (Paragraph ), wherein, when using the conductance method, the conductance through the vessel wall and surrounding tissue is neglected (Paragraph 0081-0082). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of neglecting surrounding tissue to the known device of Mitta and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittal and Pandolfino to incorporate the teachings of Kassab.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal (WO 2016138541) and Pandolfino (US 20220117542) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bhargava (US 10143416).
Regarding claim 12, while Mittal as modified discloses measuring impedance and pressure of the esophagus, Mittal as modified fails to explicitly disclose generating a display that simultaneously includes impedance gradient streamlines overlayed on a heatmap of the pressure along a length of the esophagus.
However, Bhargava teaches a method for characterizing a patient’s esophagus wherein a display of impedance and pressure along the length of the esophagus (Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied this known technique of generating a display of impedance and pressure along the length of the esophagus to the method of Mittal and Pandolfino that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittal and Pandolfino to incorporate the teachings of Bhargava.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal (WO 2016138541) and Pandolfino (US 20220117542) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Zifan (“Topographical plots of esophageal distension and contraction: effects of posture on esophageal peristalsis and bolus transport”).
Regarding claims 13-16, while Mittal as modified discloses measuring distension (Paragraph 0014), Mittal as modified does not explicitly disclose displaying graphs such as distension and contraction during peristalsis.
However, Zifan teaches a novel way of visualizing esophageal peristalsis, wherein a display is shown that simultaneously includes esophageal distension and contraction during peristalsis at a plurality of points along a length of the esophagus and a plurality of different times (Fig. 4; Results section “Distension HRM Plots: Relationship Between Esophageal Distension and Contraction”, “Distension HRM plots reveal the temporal relationship between distension and esophageal contraction along the length of the esophagus”). Zifan further teaches wherein the distension and contraction are displayed as waveforms, wherein distension is displayed as a waveform and pressure as heatmap, and wherein distension is displayed as a heatmap and pressure as a waveform (Fig. 4).
Displaying measurements taken from the device to visualize different measurements and results of esophageal measurements is a known technique recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply displaying the measurements to the known method of Mittal and Pandolfino, and the result of visualizing the measurements would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mittal and Pandolfino to incorporate the teachings of Zifan, the result of displaying the measurements taken being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 04/21/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claim per the suggestion of the Examiner. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn. However, a new objection has been applied.
Applicant’s arguments, see 6, filed 04/21/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to clarify that the determination step is repeated to obtain a correction factor and a revising step is performed. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-11, filed 04/21/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not have any reason to combine the references to obtain the claimed invention without improper use of hindsight.
Mittal discloses the limitations of claim 1 except for the limitation of obtaining a baseline impedance measurement in the absence of a bolus. Pandolfino teaches a method of generating and displaying data to depict esophageal morphology and variations in impedance and pressure during a bolus. Additionally, the method of Pandolfino tracks a bolus and esophageal movement, such as opening and velocity data, to determine CSA (Paragraphs 0005 and 0026-0033). As discussed above, the method of Pandolfino measures the full swallow, including 3-8 seconds of pre-swallow data, to measure CSA but also to identify other characterizations of the tissue like distensibility. The pre-swallow data can change according to different disease states, such as Type-II Achalasia, compared to a normal swallow data (Paragraph 0053). As such, incorporating pre-swallow measurements improves the method by being able to differentiate disease states and disease state characteristics.
Upon further consideration of the claims, a 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection has been applied, as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH MICHAEL HEALY whose telephone number is (703)756-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm ET.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/NOAH M HEALY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights