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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 16, and 17 recite “determining that the exercise data set is a valid exercise data set”. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of a “valid exercise data set” are. In order to proceed, the Office will interpret the claim such that any exercise data set is considered valid.
Claim 4 recites “estimating the exercise power corresponding to the tth time point based on frictional force, a gravitational component, and air resistance corresponding to the bicycle, and kinetic energy and a movement speed of the bicycle.”. It is unclear if Applicant intends for the power estimation to be on one of the indicated or all together in combination. In order to proceed, the Office will interpret the claim such as -- estimating the exercise power corresponding to the tth time point based on one of a frictional force, a gravitational component, and air resistance corresponding to the bicycle, and kinetic energy or a movement speed of the bicycle.--.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
STEP 1 = The claimed invention is to a process and product, and thus fall under one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
STEP 2A, Prong 1 = The claim(s) recite(s) a series of steps which can be practically performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion)(see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Moreover, the claims recite steps akin to “obtaining, determining, and estimating,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which the court in Electric Power Group held to recite a mental process. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This includes an exercise data estimation device comprising:
obtaining an exercise data set corresponding to a tth time point, wherein the exercise data set corresponding to the tth time point comprises an exercise heart rate and an exercise power corresponding to the tth time point, and t is an index value (mental process: observation; certain methods of organizing human activity);
determining a heart rate ratio corresponding to the tth time point based on the exercise heart rate corresponding to the tth time point (mental process: observation; certain methods of organizing human activity);
determining that the exercise data set is a valid exercise data set (mental process: observation; certain methods of organizing human activity); and
updating a power estimation model based on the exercise data set and the heart rate ratio corresponding to the tth time point (mental process: evaluation, judgement, opinion; certain methods of organizing human activity);
estimating a maximum aerobic power corresponding to the tth time point based on the power estimation model (mental process: evaluation, judgement, opinion; certain methods of organizing human activity).
The steps identified above are to organizing human activity and/or mental processes, and thus fall within an enumerated category of abstract ideas. Although using a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, or a calculator) might be used to calculate the recited steps above, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2A, Prong 2 = This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
To the extent the claims recite additional elements related to defining a computer environment to implement the abstract idea above (i.e., defining the claimed invention as “a computer-readable storage medium records an executable computer program, the executable computer program being loaded by an exercise data estimation device” the abstract idea identified under Prong 1), they are recited at a high level of generality such that they do not amount to a particular machine or technical improvement thereof, nor do they represent an improvement in any other technology. Rather, the generic manner which these additional elements are claimed amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use, and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
To the extent the claims recite additional elements related to a physical component for providing data collection (i.e., receiving information “the exercise heart rate corresponding to the tth time point is measured from a user riding on a bicycle, and the exercise power corresponding to the tth time point is a pedaling power applied to the bicycle by the user”, “the exercise power corresponding to the tth time point is measured from a power meter disposed on the bicycle”, and “estimating the exercise power corresponding to the tth time point based on frictional force, a gravitational component, and air resistance corresponding to the bicycle, and kinetic energy and a movement speed of the bicycle.” , “measured from a user riding on a bicycle”), these limitations amount to insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity. The claims lack particular technical detail defining how the exercise data is obtained. Rather, the claim recites at a high level of generality that the data is obtained from a user on a bicycle or from a power meter. Thus, these limitations merely define a field of use for performing the abstract idea, which is otherwise practically capable of being performed by human analog, e.g., by mental observation. Therefore, these limitations related to gathering data does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the physical components identified above does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B = The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as provided under Prong 2, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and for the purpose of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity. Moreover, the specification of the instant application further demonstrates that the additional elements are recited for their well-understood, routine and conventional functionality, which refers to elements of the computer system in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)(Refer to Paragraph [0005]:” an exercise data estimation device including a storage circuit and a processor. The storage circuit stores a program code. The processor is coupled to the storage circuit and accesses the program code to obtain an exercise data”). Thus, the additional elements defining the field of use as a computer-implemented environment to collect data amount to merely automating a manual process, which the courts have held to be insufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Therefore, the claims are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-17 are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sivaraj (US 9737761 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sivaraj teaches an exercise data estimation method adapted to an exercise data estimation device, comprising: obtaining an exercise data set corresponding to a tth time point, wherein the exercise data set corresponding to the tth time point comprises an exercise heart rate and an exercise power corresponding to the tth time point, and t is an index value (Refer to Fig. 10 to depict the measurements over corresponding to a time..Col 14 Lines 35-38:” The user's heart rate and energy expenditure (e.g., power in watts)—as well as potentially other metrics such as VO.sub.2/VCO.sub.2 ratio, galvanic skin response etc. are measured throughout the fitness test.”); determining a heart rate ratio corresponding to the tth time point based on the exercise heart rate corresponding to the tth time point (Refer to Col 15 Lines 31-35:” This ratio (of heart rate response) tells us the contribution of aerobic metabolism to the peak power output and helps us separate the aerobic component of that power output so we can estimate peak oxygen uptake based on equations described above.”); in response to determining that the exercise data set and the heart rate ratio corresponding to the tth time point match a plurality of predetermined conditions, determining that the exercise data set is a valid exercise data set, and updating a power estimation model based on the exercise data set and the heart rate ratio corresponding to the tth time point (Refer to Col 15 Lines 15-35:” We then compute the aerobic component of power output above the anaerobic (lactate) threshold by using heart rate response below the threshold as the baseline value—this is the denominator (this could be for example an average of values below the anaerobic threshold or the max value). And using a similar measure of heart rate response for the interval with highest achieved power as the numerator. This ratio (of heart rate response) tells us the contribution of aerobic metabolism to the peak power output and helps us separate the aerobic component of that power output so we can estimate peak oxygen uptake based on equations described above.”…The Office takes the position that the conditions are determined by the user based on the goal of the user to reach a certain heart rate and/or power and that any data set is a valid data set..Such updating of the power estimation model is based on active heart rate and power data that is being used to determine peak aerobic power); and estimating a maximum aerobic power corresponding to the tth time point based on the power estimation model (Refer to Col 15 Lines 16-35:” To determine the aerobic-anaerobic contribution to energy expenditure, we first determine the anaerobic (lactate) threshold (using methods described below).. We then compute the aerobic component of power output above the anaerobic (lactate) threshold by using heart rate response below the threshold as the baseline value—this is the denominator (this could be for example an average of values below the anaerobic threshold or the max value). And using a similar measure of heart rate response for the interval with highest achieved power as the numerator. This ratio (of heart rate response) tells us the contribution of aerobic metabolism to the peak power output and helps us separate the aerobic component of that power output…”…The Office takes the position that computing of the aerobic component would include when the aerobic power is at maximum based on the power data and heart rate data).
Regarding Claim 13, Sivaraj continues to teach wherein the exercise heart rate corresponding to the tth time point is measured from a user riding on a bicycle (Col 6 Lines 23-34:” Illustratively, the environment 100 includes a fitness apparatus 105 that may, in accordance with an illustrative embodiment of the present invention, be implemented as a stationary exercise bicycle modified in accordance with the teachings of the present disclosure. It should be noted that while the illustrative embodiments are written in terms of using a stationary bicycle as the fitness apparatus 105, alternative embodiments may utilize any cardiovascular training machine, e.g., a treadmill, rowing machine, etc. As such, the description of a stationary bicycle as the fitness apparatus 105 should be taken as exemplary only.”), and after estimating the maximum aerobic power corresponding to the tth time point further comprises: estimating a functional threshold power of the user based on a plurality of physiological characteristics of the user and the maximum aerobic power corresponding to the tth time point (Refer to Col 15 Lines 15-48:” To estimate this, we treat heart rate response as a surrogate for VO2 response. As expected above the anaerobic (lactate) threshold heart rate response/energy expenditure ratio is lower than below the anaerobic threshold. We then compute the aerobic component of power output above the anaerobic (lactate) threshold by using heart rate response below the threshold as the baseline value—this is the denominator (this could be for example an average of values below the anaerobic threshold or the max value). And using a similar measure of heart rate response for the interval with highest achieved power as the numerator. This ratio (of heart rate response) tells us the contribution of aerobic metabolism to the peak power output and helps us separate the aerobic component of that power output so we can estimate peak oxygen uptake based on equations described above. VO2Max is then estimated from the Aerobic Component of Peak Exercise Capacity basis previously published ACSM equations (e.g., (6.12*EPP+7)*1.8/(Weight(lbs)*0.453592)). This can also then be converted to METs from the following ratio 1 MET=3.5 VO.sub.2.”).
Regarding Claim 16, Sivaraj teaches n exercise data estimation device comprising: a storage circuit 230 storing a program code; a processor 205 coupled to the storage circuit and accesses the program code (Refer to Col 7 Lines 56-66:” The memory 230 comprises a plurality of locations that are addressable by the processors 205 and adapters 215, 220 for storing software programs and data structures associated with the embodiments described herein. The processor 205 may comprise necessary elements or logic adapted to execute the software programs and manipulate the data structures. An operating system 235, portions of which are typically resident in memory 230 and executed by the processor 205, functionally organizes the fitness testing computer 200 by, inter alia, invoking software processes and/or services or other applications executing thereon. A fitness testing application 300, described further below in reference to FIG. 3, implements, in conjunction with the fitness testing apparatus 105, the various embodiments of the present invention.”) to: obtaining an exercise data set corresponding to a tth time point, wherein the exercise data set corresponding to the tth time point comprises an exercise heart rate and an exercise power corresponding to the tth time point, and t is an index value (Refer to Fig. 10 to depict the measurements over corresponding to a time..Col 14 Lines 35-38:” The user's heart rate and energy expenditure (e.g., power in watts)—as well as potentially other metrics such as VO.sub.2/VCO.sub.2 ratio, galvanic skin response etc. are measured throughout the fitness test.”); determining a heart rate ratio corresponding to the tth time point based on the exercise heart rate corresponding to the tth time point (Refer to Col 15 Lines 31-35:” This ratio (of heart rate response) tells us the contribution of aerobic metabolism to the peak power output and helps us separate the aerobic component of that power output so we can estimate peak oxygen uptake based on equations described above.”); in response to determining that the exercise data set and the heart rate ratio corresponding to the tth time point match a plurality of predetermined conditions, determining that the exercise data set is a valid exercise data set, and updating a power estimation model based on the exercise data set and the heart rate ratio corresponding to the tth time point (Refer to Col 15 Lines 15-35:” We then compute the aerobic component of power output above the anaerobic (lactate) threshold by using heart rate response below the threshold as the baseline value—this is the denominator (this could be for example an average of values below the anaerobic threshold or the max value). And using a similar measure of heart rate response for the interval with highest achieved power as the numerator. This ratio (of heart rate response) tells us the contribution of aerobic metabolism to the peak power output and helps us separate the aerobic component of that power output so we can estimate peak oxygen uptake based on equations described above.”…The Office takes the position that the conditions are determined by the user based on the goal of the user to reach a certain heart rate and/or power and that any data set is a valid data set..Such updating of the power estimation model is based on active heart rate and power data that is being used to determine peak aerobic power); and estimating a maximum aerobic power corresponding to the tth time point based on the power estimation model (Refer to Col 15 Lines 16-35:” To determine the aerobic-anaerobic contribution to energy expenditure, we first determine the anaerobic (lactate) threshold (using methods described below).. We then compute the aerobic component of power output above the anaerobic (lactate) threshold by using heart rate response below the threshold as the baseline value—this is the denominator (this could be for example an average of values below the anaerobic threshold or the max value). And using a similar measure of heart rate response for the interval with highest achieved power as the numerator. This ratio (of heart rate response) tells us the contribution of aerobic metabolism to the peak power output and helps us separate the aerobic component of that power output…”…The Office takes the position that computing of the aerobic component would include when the aerobic power is at maximum based on the power data and heart rate data).
Regarding Claim 17, Sivaraj teaches a computer-readable storage medium records an executable computer program, the executable computer program being loaded (Refer to Col 7 Lines 56-66:” The memory 230 comprises a plurality of locations that are addressable by the processors 205 and adapters 215, 220 for storing software programs and data structures associated with the embodiments described herein. The processor 205 may comprise necessary elements or logic adapted to execute the software programs and manipulate the data structures. An operating system 235, portions of which are typically resident in memory 230 and executed by the processor 205, functionally organizes the fitness testing computer 200 by, inter alia, invoking software processes and/or services or other applications executing thereon. A fitness testing application 300, described further below in reference to FIG. 3, implements, in conjunction with the fitness testing apparatus 105, the various embodiments of the present invention.”) by an exercise data estimation device to: obtaining an exercise data set corresponding to a tth time point, wherein the exercise data set corresponding to the tth time point comprises an exercise heart rate and an exercise power corresponding to the tth time point, and t is an index value (Refer to Fig. 10 to depict the measurements over corresponding to a time..Col 14 Lines 35-38:” The user's heart rate and energy expenditure (e.g., power in watts)—as well as potentially other metrics such as VO.sub.2/VCO.sub.2 ratio, galvanic skin response etc. are measured throughout the fitness test.”); determining a heart rate ratio corresponding to the tth time point based on the exercise heart rate corresponding to the tth time point (Refer to Col 15 Lines 31-35:” This ratio (of heart rate response) tells us the contribution of aerobic metabolism to the peak power output and helps us separate the aerobic component of that power output so we can estimate peak oxygen uptake based on equations described above.”); in response to determining that the exercise data set and the heart rate ratio corresponding to the tth time point match a plurality of predetermined conditions, determining that the exercise data set is a valid exercise data set, and updating a power estimation model based on the exercise data set and the heart rate ratio corresponding to the tth time point (Refer to Col 15 Lines 15-35:” We then compute the aerobic component of power output above the anaerobic (lactate) threshold by using heart rate response below the threshold as the baseline value—this is the denominator (this could be for example an average of values below the anaerobic threshold or the max value). And using a similar measure of heart rate response for the interval with highest achieved power as the numerator. This ratio (of heart rate response) tells us the contribution of aerobic metabolism to the peak power output and helps us separate the aerobic component of that power output so we can estimate peak oxygen uptake based on equations described above.”…The Office takes the position that the conditions are determined by the user based on the goal of the user to reach a certain heart rate and/or power and that any data set is a valid data set..Such updating of the power estimation model is based on active heart rate and power data that is being used to determine peak aerobic power); and estimating a maximum aerobic power corresponding to the tth time point based on the power estimation model (Refer to Col 15 Lines 16-35:” To determine the aerobic-anaerobic contribution to energy expenditure, we first determine the anaerobic (lactate) threshold (using methods described below).. We then compute the aerobic component of power output above the anaerobic (lactate) threshold by using heart rate response below the threshold as the baseline value—this is the denominator (this could be for example an average of values below the anaerobic threshold or the max value). And using a similar measure of heart rate response for the interval with highest achieved power as the numerator. This ratio (of heart rate response) tells us the contribution of aerobic metabolism to the peak power output and helps us separate the aerobic component of that power output…”…The Office takes the position that computing of the aerobic component would include when the aerobic power is at maximum based on the power data and heart rate data).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivaraj (US 9737761 B1) in view of Kurunmaki et al (US 20210161466 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Sivaraj continues to teach wherein the exercise heart rate corresponding to the tth time point is measured from a user riding on a bicycle (Refer to Fig. 1 Col 6 Lines 27-33:” It should be noted that while the illustrative embodiments are written in terms of using a stationary bicycle as the fitness apparatus 105, alternative embodiments may utilize any cardiovascular training machine, e.g., a treadmill, rowing machine, etc. As such, the description of a stationary bicycle as the fitness apparatus 105 should be taken as exemplary only.”), but fails to expressly disclose the exercise power corresponding to the tth time point is a pedaling power applied to the bicycle by the user. Kurunmaki et al teaches system for analyzing exercise data wherein Kurunmaki et al teaches that power data is determined from a pedaling power applied to the bicycle by the user (Refer to Paragraph [0100]:” For example in cycling or rowing power output can be easily measured and retrieved. As would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, power output can be measured in cycling, for example, using a power meter embedded in pedals or chains, and this power data can be shown to the user in a wristop device, or the like. In one exemplary embodiment related to cycling—speed and altitude data may be replaced with power output data measured from a bicycle. The user can do the bicycling exercise indoors or outdoors, and on any desired terrain.”). Kurunmaki et al is analogous with Applicants invention in that they both teach systems for analyzing and calculating exercise parameters and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the system of Sivaraj to be in view of Kurunmaki et al such that the exercise power is a pedaling power applied to the bicycle by the user since such calculation of power of a bicycle is known in the art and therefore does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts.
Regarding Claim 3, Sivanaj in view of Kurunmaki et al continues to teach wherein the exercise power corresponding to the tth time point is measured from a power meter disposed on the bicycle (Refer to Kurunmaki et al Paragraph [0100]:” For example in cycling or rowing power output can be easily measured and retrieved. As would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, power output can be measured in cycling, for example, using a power meter embedded in pedals or chains, and this power data can be shown to the user in a wristop device, or the like. In one exemplary embodiment related to cycling—speed and altitude data may be replaced with power output data measured from a bicycle. The user can do the bicycling exercise indoors or outdoors, and on any desired terrain”).
Regarding Claim 4, Sivanaj in view of Kurunmaki et al continues to teach comprising: estimating the exercise power corresponding to the tth time point based on frictional force, a gravitational component, and air resistance corresponding to the bicycle, and kinetic energy and a movement speed of the bicycle (Refer to Kurunmaki et al Paragraph [0100]:” For example in cycling or rowing power output can be easily measured and retrieved. As would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, power output can be measured in cycling, for example, using a power meter embedded in pedals or chains, and this power data can be shown to the user in a wristop device, or the like. In one exemplary embodiment related to cycling—speed and altitude data may be replaced with power output data measured from a bicycle. The user can do the bicycling exercise indoors or outdoors, and on any desired terrain”..The Office takes the position that the pedals or chain produces kinetic energy/movement speed picked up by the meter).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to attach list of references cited for prior arts pertinent to claim and unclaimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NYCA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Loan Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4966. 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.
/NYCA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784