DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 15 July 2026.
Claim(s) 22 is/are canceled. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11, 13-17, 20, 25, and 26 is/are amended. Claim(s) 27 is/are new.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, 20, and 25-27 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, 20, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims not listed below are rejected for dependency.
Amended claim 1 recites the non-original limitation “an automated interview”. The scope of the amended claim is not supported by the originally filed disclosure.
Applicants remarks do not identify support for the amendments. The claim previously recited “an automated interview of a patient.” The amendments filed 15 July 2026 removed all claim limitations which require that the interview be of a patient. The claims thus now omit the requirement that the interview be of a patient.
Per MPEP 2163, “omission of a limitation can raise an issue regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention”. Examiner notes a few examples of the disclosure’s discussion of the interview below.
[0002]: “… an automated patient interview.”
[0012]: “…based on patient interview data…”
[0020]: “…question and answer data from an automated interview of a patient is received…”
[0023]: “…initiate the automated patient interview.”
[0028]: “…a more seamless healthcare experience that shares data from the patient interview with the healthcare provider.”
[0034]: “…report symptoms via an automated patient interview…”
[0037]: “…via the automated patient interview performed and recorded…”
[0042]: “…performing a patient interview that prompts the patient to provide answers…”
[0048]: “…symptoms recognizable by the patient interview system 110 when input and/or selected by the patient as part of the patient interview process…”
[0052]: “…trigger condition for the patient interview process includes an API call…”
[0058]: “…symptoms are symptoms directly reported by the patient during the interview process (e.g., I have a fever).”
[0060]: “…results of the patient interview…”
[0061]: “The patient’s selection is recorded as part of the patient interview…”
[0070]: “…questions asked during the automated patient interview…”.
The disclosure does not appear to consider once the interview being with anyone other than a patient. Because of the consistency with which the interview is described as of a patient and the lack of any indication of interviews with anyone else, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the disclosure as contemplating, considering, suggesting or supporting an interview of anyone other than a patient.
The current claim scope currently encompasses interviews with persons other than the patient. For example, an interview regarding a second party regarding a patient would fall within the scope of the current claims. Thus the claims are too broad to be supported by the originally filed disclosure.
Because the claimed invention includes non-original scope not supported by the originally filed disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize applicant as possessing the claimed invention at the time of filing. Therefore the claim is rejected under the written description requirement. Claims 11 and 20 are similarly rejected.
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 1-8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, 20, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, which is representative of claims 11 and 20, recites in part: a
receiving,
converting,
extracting,
referencing,
determining,
categorizing,
generating, child symptoms categorized in the positive category and (b) a negative list including any of the one or more child symptoms categorized in the negative category; and
processing,
and wherein data included in each cell of the tabular format includes the portion of the text, from the question and answer data, representing the plurality of answers to the plurality of questions invoking the one or more child symptoms comprising the positive list and the negative list for each of the plurality of complaints;
.
The preceding recitations of the claims have had strikethrough marks applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea.
The remaining limitations describe a concept of a process for summarizing data in order to generate a history of present illness. This concept describes a process that a medical assistant should follow to generate a HPI similar to the “process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. As such, these limitation set forth a method of organizing human activity. Alternatively, the identified concept is analogous to the examples of “observation”, “evaluation”, “judgement”, and “opinion” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. As such, these limitations set forth a mental process. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 describes the method as computer-implemented and recites the additional element of one or more processors of a healthcare services system. Claim 11 recites the additional element of a system comprising one or more processors; and at least one memory. Claim 20 recites the additional element of a non-transitory computer readable medium. These additional elements are all recited at an extremely high level of generality, and are interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. er MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of receiving from a patient application associated with the healthcare services system and executing on a patient computing device, an API call upon a launch of a symptom checker feature via the patient application and determining by the one or more processors, that the API call is a trigger condition to initiate an automated interview of a patient and based on the determining that the API call is the trigger condition, initiating, by the one or more processors, the automated interview by invoking an application bot that performs the automated interview via the patient application. This additional element does not appear to reflect any improvement to technology, any particular machine, or any transformation of an article. Instead, this additional element amounts to instructions to implement and apply the abstract idea with a generic computing device. Alternatively, this additional element only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a networked computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of receiving data from a patient application executing on a patient computing device. It is noted that the patient computing device is also interpreted as a generic computing device. The reception of data from an application running on a computing device does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim and instead amounts to necessary data gathering for the abstract idea. Thus this additional element is understood as insignificant extra-solution activity. Per MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of identifying an electronic record using the patient identifier and storing the notation as an update to the electronic health record. Storing data in a file previously associated with a user identifier does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim and instead amounts to necessary data output. Thus this additional element is understood as insignificant extra-solution activity. Per MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite in response to storing the notation as the update to the electronic health record, automatically causing, by the one or more processors, a notification of the update to the electronic health record to be displayed via a healthcare provider application associated with the healthcare services system and executing on a healthcare provider computing device, where the notification includes one or more indications of an occurrence of the automated interview and availability of the notation in the electronic health record for access. Notifying a user of a change in a file via an application is not a meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, and instead should be interpreted as an insignificant application of a change to a record. Thus this additional element is understood as insignificant extra-solution activity. Per MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of in response to receiving, from the healthcare provider application, an access request based on the notification: identifying, by the one or more processors, the electronic health record using the patient identifier; causing, by the one or more processors, the electronic health record to be displayed via the healthcare provider application. The incorporation of accessing of an electronic record via a request and displaying the record amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea with a computing device. Per MPEP 2106.05(f) mere instructions to apply a judicial exception with a computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When the additional elements are considered as a combination, the combination does not provide anything that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to a technical field. Further, the combination does not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment of prophylaxis for a disease or condition. Further, the combination does not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Further, the combination does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article. Further, the combination does not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. Instead, the combination of additional elements only generally links the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of computer automated interviews. Per MPEP 2106.04(d) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element receiving from a patient application associated with the healthcare services system and executing on a patient computing device, an API call upon a launch of a symptom checker feature via the patient application and determining by the one or more processors, that the API call is a trigger condition to initiate an automated interview of a patient and based on the determining that the API call is the trigger condition, initiating, by the one or more processors, the automated interview by invoking an application bot that performs the automated interview via the patient application. This additional element continues to amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea with a computing device. Alternatively, this additional element only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a networked computing device. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of receiving data from a patient application executing on a patient computing device. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), receiving data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of identifying an electronic record using the patient identifier and storing the notation as an update to the electronic health record. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), storing information in a memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Additionally, Hussam (US 2015/0269316 A1) (“an identifier for the consumer; and causing, based on the identifier, an electronic medical record of the consumer to be updated with the received text information” [0005]), Minchon et al. (US 2017/0024520 A1) (“implement a method requesting an update of the electronic medical record associated with the patient affected by the vital data thus collected by the platform” [0025]), Yuzefovich (US 2014/0050307 A1) (“The patient identifier may then be identified from the parsing operation and used to locate the patient EMR so an association function can be performed to add the content of the call to the patient's EMR based on the identified patient identifier” [0024]”), Morris et al. (US 2016/0357912 A1) (“a patient record has a unique patient identifier (perhaps the patient's social security number, or other unique identifier) such that when the patients EMR is updated in one location by a care provider, all other care providers on the same network would have their EMR records for the same patient updated automatically” [0030]), and Rahme et al. (US 2017/0300620 A1) (“Writing the translated report to the care system 153 may include accessing the identifier so that the correct patient's EMR can be updated with the report from the radiologist” [0039]) collectively demonstrate that storing data in an existing electronic record based on a patient identifier was conventional before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of in response to storing the notation as the update to the electronic health record, automatically causing, by the one or more processors, a notification of the update to the electronic health record to be displayed via a healthcare provider application associated with the healthcare services system and executing on a healthcare provider computing device, where the notification includes one or more indications of an occurrence of the automated interview and availability of the notation in the electronic health record for access. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Additionally, Barton et al. (US 2002/0016959 A1) (“The notification via e-mail of the existence of the updated computer files may be provided as a subscription service by the computer file provider” Abstract), Dickinson (US 2003/0200207 A1) (“a server computer monitors network files and folders stored on the network for changes and then sends the user email notifications and updates when monitored items change” [0020]), Gong (US 2004/0064733 A1) (“All users having rights to access the attachments will receive e-mail notifications for any version or content update of a file” [0009]), Borden et al. (US 2007/0260643 A1) (“file owners can be notified via an email, phone call or instant messaging that a file update has occurred” [0200]), and Wong et al. (US 6654746 B1) (“The server then keeps track of the files subscribed to in a database, monitors the files for changes, and sends users notifications or file updates via email” Column 6, Lines 47-50) collectively demonstrate that transmitting notifications responsive to a file modification was conventional before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of in response to receiving, from the healthcare provider application, an access request based on the notification: identifying, by the one or more processors, the electronic health record using the patient identifier; causing, by the one or more processors, the electronic health record to be displayed via the healthcare provider application. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Additionally, Raduchel (US 2009/0037224 A1) (“The user electronic device 130 receives user input requesting electronic medical records (310)” [0083], “The user electronic device 130 may, optionally, transfer the records to the recipient electronic device 180 (370)” [0089], “the electronic device 740 … generates a second request that includes a patient identifier “ [0139]), Buisman et al. (US 2012/0232931 A1) (“receiving a request of a user for a determination of an updated value of a health coaching parameter, wherein the request includes an identifier associated with an electronic health record corresponding to the patient; retrieving the electronic health record associated with the patient … providing the patient with the selected subset of the information from the knowledge base” Claim 1), Moeller (US 2013/0339050 A1) (“ In case of remotely residing EHR database, at least one of the messages transmitted by mobile communication terminal 100 to external computer 171 can include an EHR request comprising a patient identifier. Responsive to receiving the requested EHR, mobile communication terminal 100 can present at least a part of the received EHR to the operator of the terminal” [0044]), Ehrhart et al. (US 2016/0034642 A1) (“the user computing device 103 generates a search request 450. In this example the search request 450 includes the universal health identifier 366 of the patient P” [0177], “The search results 452 response is generated and send from the record search engine 202 to the user computing device 103, including the health records 122A,B that satisfied the query” [0180]), Kumar (US 2017/0344948 A1) (“communicating a patient record request corresponding to the selected appointment record, the patient record request communicated to the associated EMR server via the communications network according to the associated network location, and the patient record request comprising the associated patient identifier and the plurality of EMR field requests; receiving, from the EMR server via the communications network, a plurality of EMR field responses in response to the plurality of EMR field requests” [0047]) collectively demonstrate that remotely accessing a record based on an identifier was conventional before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
There are no further additional elements. When the additional elements are considered as a combination, the combination does not provide anything that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to a technical field. Further, the combination does not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment of prophylaxis for a disease or condition. Further, the combination does not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Further, the combination does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article. Further, the combination does not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. Instead, the combination of additional elements only generally links the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of computer automated interviews. Per MPEP 2106.05, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment has been found by the courts to be insufficient to qualify as significantly more than a judicial exception. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8, 10, 13-17, 19, and 25-27 further narrow the abstract idea, but the claims continue to set forth an abstract idea, albeit a narrower one.
Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 25-27 do not recite any further additional elements. The previously discussed additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as given above.
Claim 2 recite the additional element of natural language generation processing techniques. This additional element only generally links the narrowed abstract idea to a computing environment using natural language generation. As such, this additional element does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application. At Step 2B, Pan et al. (US 2006/0015324 A1) demonstrates (“conventional data-driven natural language generation systems” [0024]) that natural language generation techniques were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea. The previously discussed additional elements, when considered in combination with the new additional element, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea because they only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a particular technological environment.
Claim 5 and 15 recites the additional element of a trained machine learning system. This additional element, individually and in combination with the previously identified additional elements, amounts to instructions to implement or apply the narrowed abstract idea with a computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously discussed additional elements, when considered in combination with the new additional element, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea because they only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a particular technological environment.
Claim 10 and 19 recite the additional element of the processors being configured to perform multi-threading and the operations are performed in parallel via the multi-threading. These additional elements, individually and in combination with the previously identified additional elements, only generally link the narrowed abstract idea to a computing environment using multi-threading. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application. At Step 2B, Shibayama et al. (US 2004/019407 A1) demonstrates that multi-threading (“Conventional multithreading methods” [0004]) were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, these additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea. The previously discussed additional elements, when considered in combination with the new additional element, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea because they only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a particular technological environment.
Thus as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 112(b) Rejections of claim 26: Applicant requests that this rejection be withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 26.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments filed 15 July 2026 have been fully considered and they resolve the identified issue. The rejection under 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, 20, 22, 25, and 26:
The characterization of “receiving…an API call” and “determining…the API call is a trigger condition” as “instructions to apply the abstract idea with a computing device” or as “only generally link[ing] the abstract idea to a technological environment” is misplaced. These additional elements describe for than just a technological environment in which the claimed operations can be performed. These additional elements establish an initial set of operations in a specific causal chain that constraints how the claimed healthcare recordation process is performed. Specifically, the API call is received from a specific source upon a specific event (“upon a launch of a symptom checker feature via the patient application”), and the API call trigger condition determination is performed prior to initiation of the automated interview (i.e., “the API call is a trigger condition to initiate the automated interview”). When considered together with the newly added “initiating… the automated interview” step that is explicitly “based on the determining that the API call is the trigger condition,” these additional elements impose meaningful limits on the claim by establishing when and how the automated interview is initiated, not merely an environment where the alleged abstract idea is performed.
The characterization of “receiving… data record from the automated interview” as “insignificant extra-solution activity” that “does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim and instead amounts to necessary data gathering for the abstract idea” is also misplaced. … This is not generic data gathering. Rather, this additional element recites the receipt of data via a specific process (e.g., the above-described causal chai).
The claims as a whole integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by fully autonomizing the collection and sharing of patient interview data with the healthcare provider.
This ordered combination reflects an improvement to healthcare data recordation technology, namely how healthcare data is received, processed, and shared across distributed computing systems, such as a user computing device, server-side system(s), and a healthcare provider computing device.
As described in the specification, the recited technical architecture “facilitate[s] a more seamless healthcare experience that shares data from the patient interview with the healthcare provider.” (Specification at para. [0028].) Thus, the independent claims recite an improvement to healthcare data recordation technology that integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Processing resources are conserved, and thus computer functionality is improved, by initiating the automated interview only “based on the determining that the API call is the trigger condition.”
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 15 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The referenced features are described at such a high level of generality that they amount to a generic initiation of an automated version of a manual interview. Thus they do not appear to be a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
The referenced process does not appear to be meaningfully specific. The referenced symptom feature checker, API call, or application bot are all claimed at extraordinarily high levels of generality, and amount to an initiation of an automated version of a manual interview. Thus it appears to be relatively generic data gathering.
Examiner notes that per MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), the courts have indicated mere automation of a manual process may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. “Collection and sharing of patient interview data with the healthcare provider” is a process which was previously done manually.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” The disclosure does not appear to provide technical details of how to implement “how healthcare data is received, processed, and shared across distributed computing systems.” Instead, the disclosure appears to rely on existing technology in a way which would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that there is no technological improvement.
The specification at [0028] states: “the techniques performed by the systems described herein for generating the HPI portion of the notation in the graphical format facilitate a more seamless healthcare experience.” The present claims no longer recite any limitations regarding the “graphical format” and thus do not reflect this purported improvement.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not consider a system which starts processing techniques when those processing techniques are requested rather than running then continuously to be a technical improvement.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-09-18
Prosecution Insights