DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s filing, received 18 May 2023, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
The preliminary amendment received 05 July 2023 has been entered.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Claims 21-40 are rejected.
Claim 34 is objected to.
Priority
This application is a CON of 16/958,112, filed 25 June 2020
which is a 371 of PCT/US2018/067127, filed 21 December 2018
which claims benefit of 62/611,764, filed 29 December 2017.
Therefore, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 29 December 2017.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) received 18 May 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received 18 May 2023 have been accepted.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the word ‘processor’ in line three (appearing twice) is spelled as “process or” and should be corrected to be spelled as “processor.”
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 Objections
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “a” should be inserted before the word “corresponding” in line five.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: (a) mathematical concepts, (e.g., mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and (b) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP 2106.
Eligibility Step 1: Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claims 21-27 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claims 28-34 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); and claims 35-40 are directed to a wearable device (i.e., a machine and/or a manufacture).
Therefore, these claims are encompassed by the categories of statutory subject matter, and thus, satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirements under step 1.
[Step 1: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in Prong Two whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Eligibility Step 2A Prong One: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, examination is performed that analyzes whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
Independent claim 21 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
detecting a plurality of peaks in the PPG output signal (i.e., mental processes, e.g., identifying peaks within waveform data);
determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, a respective probability that the peak is indicative of a corresponding peak in the measured blood flow (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., using a probability formula to quantify the likelihood of correspondence);
selecting, using the determined probabilities, a subset of peaks of the plurality of peaks (i.e., mental processes, e.g., identifying a subset of peaks with high likelihood of correspondence, and selecting those peaks); and
generating an output including the selected subset of peaks (i.e., mental processes, e.g., generating data including the selected peaks).
Independent claim 28 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
measuring a PPG output signal (i.e., data that was generated by measuring blood flow using a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor) (i.e., mathematical concepts, e.g., derivative analysis to highlight the steepest upward slope of a wave, making peak locations easier to isolate, and thresholding (e.g., 90th percentile of the derivative) to accurately identify true peaks from artifacts);
detecting a plurality of peaks in the PPG output signal (i.e., mental processes, e.g., identifying peaks within the waveform data);
determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, a respective probability that the peak is indicative of a corresponding peak in the measured blood flow (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., using a probability formula to quantify the likelihood of correspondence);
selecting, using the determined probabilities, a subset of peaks of the plurality of peaks (i.e., mental processes, e.g., identifying a subset of peaks with high likelihood of correspondence, and selecting those peaks); and
generating an output including the selected subset of peaks (i.e., mental processes, e.g., generating data including the selected peaks).
Independent claim 35 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
detect a plurality of peaks in the PPG output signal (i.e., mental processes, e.g., identify peaks within waveform data);
determine, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, a respective probability that the peak is indicative of a corresponding peak in the measured blood flow (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., use a probability formula to quantify the likelihood of correspondence);
select, using the determined probabilities, a subset of peaks of the plurality of peaks (i.e., mental processes, e.g., identify a subset of peaks with high likelihood of correspondence, and select those peaks); and
generate an output included the selected subset of peaks (i.e., mental processes, e.g., generate data including the selected peaks).
Dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 further recite the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas, as noted below.
Dependent claim 22 further recites:
determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, the respective probability comprises determining a first set of probabilities that includes, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, a first probability based on a corresponding magnitude of the peak (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 23 further recites:
determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, the respective probability comprises determining, using a probability density function, a second set of probabilities that includes, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, a second probability based on a weighted average of the first set of probabilities (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 24 further recites:
the probability density function is a Gaussian probability density function (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 25 further recites:
the weighted average is based on temporal spacing between the plurality of peaks (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 26 further recites:
determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, the respective probability comprises determining a first matrix of probabilities that includes, for each pair of peaks of the plurality of peaks, a corresponding probability that an interval between the peaks represents an expected interval in the measured blood flow (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 27 further recites:
determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, the respective probability comprises determining, using the first matrix of probabilities and the second set of probabilities, a second matrix of probabilities that includes, for each pair of peaks of the plurality of peaks, corresponding probability that the pair of peaks represent a corresponding pair of peaks in the measured blood flow (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 29 further recites:
determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, the respective probability comprises determining a first set of probabilities that includes, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, a first probability based on a corresponding magnitude of the peak (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 30 further recites:
determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, the respective probability comprises determining, using a probability density function, a second set of probabilities that includes, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, a second probability based on a weighted average of the first set of probabilities (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 31 further recites:
the probability density function is a Gaussian probability density function (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 32 further recites:
the weighted average is based on temporal spacing between the plurality of peaks (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 33 further recites:
determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, the respective probability comprises determining a first matrix of probabilities that includes, for each pair of peaks of the plurality of peaks, a corresponding probability that an interval between the peaks represents an expected interval in the measured blood flow (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 34 further recites:
determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, the respective probability comprises determining, using the first matrix of probabilities and the second set of probabilities, a second matrix of probabilities that includes, for each pair of peaks of the plurality of peaks, corresponding probability that the pair of peaks represent a corresponding pair of peaks in the measured blood flow (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 36 further recites:
determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, the respective probability comprises determining a first set of probabilities that includes, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, a first probability based on a corresponding magnitude of the peak (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 37 further recites:
determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, the respective probability comprises determining, using a probability density function, a second set of probabilities that includes, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, a second probability based on a weighted average of the first set of probabilities (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 38 further recites:
the probability density function is a Gaussian probability density function (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 39 further recites:
the weighted average is based on temporal spacing between the plurality of peaks (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
Dependent claim 40 further recites:
determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, the respective probability comprises determining a first matrix of probabilities that includes, for each pair of peaks of the plurality of peaks, a corresponding probability that an interval between the peaks represents an expected interval in the measured blood flow (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, i.e., further defines the calculation of probabilities).
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification. As noted in the foregoing section, the claims are determined to contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pen and paper (e.g., detecting a plurality of peaks in the PPG output signal), and therefore recite judicial exceptions from the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, a respective probability that the peak is indicative of a corresponding peak in the measured blood flow) are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind.
Therefore, claims 21-40 recite an abstract idea.
[Step 2A Prong One: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)).
The judicial exceptions identified in Eligibility Step 2A Prong One are not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons noted below.
Dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception, and thus are part of the judicial exception.
The additional elements in independent claim 21 include:
measuring blood flow using a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor to generate a PPG output signal (i.e., gathering data).
The additional elements in independent claim 28 include:
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory computer readable medium.
The additional elements in independent claim 35 include:
a wearable device comprising:
a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor configured to measure blood flow to generate a PPG output signal; and
a processor coupled to the PPG sensor configured to execute computer program instructions.
The additional elements of at least one processor (claim 28); and a non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 28); invoke a computer and/or computer-related components merely as tools for use in the claimed process, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and therefore are not an improvement to computer functionality itself, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field, and thus, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
The additional elements of a wearable device comprising a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor configured to measure blood flow to generate a PPG output signal and a processor coupled to the PPG sensor configured to execute computer program instructions (claim 35); merely confines the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment (i.e., a device for measuring blood flow), and therefore does not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element of measuring blood flow using a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor to generate a PPG output signal (claim 21); is merely a pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process – a nominal or tangential addition to the claims that does not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore does not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, the additionally recited elements merely invoke a computer and/or computer related components as tools; and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity; and/or a particular technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception; and as such, when all limitations in claims 21-40 have been considered as a whole (i.e., the analysis takes into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application), the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and therefore claims 21-40 are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
[Step 2A Prong Two: NO]
Eligibility Step 2B: Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are probed for a specific inventive concept. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05A i-vi).
The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because of the reasons noted below.
Dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception(s).
The additional elements recited in independent claims 21, 28, and 35 are identified above, and carried over from Step 2A Prong Two along with their conclusions for analysis at Step 2B. Any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two was re-evaluated at Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and all additional elements and combination of elements were evaluated to determine whether any additional elements or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional elements of at least one processor (claim 28); and a non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 28); are conventional computer components and/or functions (see MPEP at 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d)(II) regarding conventionality of computer components and computer processes).
The additional elements of a wearable device comprising a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor configured to measure blood flow to generate a PPG output signal and a processor coupled to the PPG sensor configured to execute computer program instructions (claim 35); and measuring blood flow using a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor to generate a PPG output signal (claim 21); are conventional. Evidence of conventionality is shown by:
Tamura et al. (“Wearable Photoplethysmographic Sensors – Past and Present.” Electronics, 2014, vol. 3, pp. 282-302, as cited in the Information Disclosure Statement received 18 May 2023).
Tamura et al. reviews wearable photoplethysmographic sensors (Title; and Abstract) and shows that the perfusion of blood flow and blood pressure can be determined easily using a pulse rate monitor (page 283, para. 1) and further shows that wearable pulse rate sensors based on photoplethysmography (PPG) have become increasingly popular, and that the principle behind the PPG sensors is optical detection of blood volume changes in the microvascular bed of the tissue (page 283, para. 2).
Therefore, when taken alone (i.e., individually), all additional elements in claims 21-40 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when evaluated as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception(s) into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claims 21-40 are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05(II)).
[Step 2B: NO]
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)(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.
Claims 21-25, 28-32, and 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McGonigle et al. (US 2009/0326349, as cited in the Information Disclosure Statement received 18 May 2023).
Independent claims 21, 28, and 35 encompass methods for analyzing photoplethysmography (PPG) signal data and a wearable device for obtaining the PPG signal data by measuring blood flow using a PPG sensor, measuring the output signal (i.e., data) to detect a plurality of peaks in the PPG output signal, determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, a respective probability that the peak is indicative of a corresponding peak in the measured blood flow, selecting, using the determined probabilities, a subset of peaks of the plurality of peaks; and generating an output including the selected subset of peaks.
Dependent claims 22-25, 29-33, and 36-39 further define characteristics of the step of determining a probability that each peak is indicative of a corresponding peak in the measured blood flow, e.g., by using a probability density function and a weighted average.
McGonigle et al. provides techniques for selecting a consistent part of a signal, including a photoplethysmography (PPG) signal.
Regarding independent claims 21, 28, and 35, McGonigle et al. shows a signal processing system and method for selecting a consistent portion of a signal for parameter identification (para. [0002]); a pulse oximeter that measures and displays various blood flow characteristics (para. [0021]) by passing light from a light source through blood perfused tissue and measuring the intensity of the light that is received back from the tissue at a light sensor, wherein the signal representing light intensity versus time or a mathematical manipulation of this signal may be referred to as the photoplethysmography (PPG) signal (para. [0022]). McGonigle et al. further shows computer-readable media for data storage and a microprocessor for executing instructions (paras. [0050] and [0051]); identifying signal peaks in the PPG signal (Abstract; para. 22, and FIG. 6); probabilistic criteria and/or metrics may be used, e.g., in which the numerically or analytically determined probability that a portion of a signal is suitable is determined (para. [0112]), wherein the criteria for being suitable is referred to as signal consistency (para. [0003]); an iterative process of separating signal peaks into portions based on probabilistic criteria and/or metrics to determine signal consistency (para. [0003]; and FIG. 6); and using a selected portion of the signal to determine an underlying parameter (para. [0003]; and FIG. 6).
Regarding dependent claims 22, 29, and 36, McGonigle et al. further shows processes for selecting a consistent part (or parts) of a signal, e.g., a PPG signal, by analyzing the amplitudes of signal peaks (para. [0017]; and FIGS. 7A-7C).
Regarding dependent claims 23, 30, and 37, McGonigle et al. further shows using a scaled Gaussian envelope (para. [0066]) (which acts as a scaling or weighting factor), and further shows that multiple metrics may be used, jointly or in combination (para. [0112]) and that a metric or metrics may be computed using the identified peak values to characterize the suitability of the selected portion of the signal, wherein exemplary metrics may include the median signal peak amplitude value, mean signal peak amplitude value, standard deviation of the signal peak amplitude values, and/or the average signal interpeak distance (para. [0084]).
Regarding dependent claims 24, 31, and 38, McGonigle et al. further shows using a scaled Gaussian envelope (para. [0066]).
Regarding dependent claims 25, 32, and 39, McGonigle et al. further shows using a scaled Gaussian envelope (para. [0066]) (which acts as a scaling or weighting factor), and determining a first interpeak distance by computing the time-distance between the first two signal peak (para. [0107]).
Thus, instant claims 21-25, 28-32, and 35-39 are anticipated by McGonigle et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 26, 27, 33, 34, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGonigle et al. (as cited above) as applied to claims 21-25, 28-32, and 35-39 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above, and further in view of Temko ("PPG-based heart rate estimation using Wiener filter, phase vocoder and Viterbi decoding," 2017 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), New Orleans, LA, USA, 2017, pp. 1013-1017).
Dependent claims 26, 27, 33, 34, and 40 further define the step of “determining, for each peak of the plurality of peaks, the respective probability” by reciting a first and second matrix of probabilities.
Temko teaches a system and method for the estimation of accurate heart rate from a photoplethysmographic (PPG) signal during intensive physical exercises.
Regarding dependent claims 26, 27, 33, 34, and 40, McGonigle et al. as applied to claims 21-25, 28-32, and 35-39 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above, does not show using a matrix of probabilities.
Regarding dependent claims 26, 33, and 40, McGonigle et al. further shows that a target number of interpeak periods my depend, e.g., on the expected duration of the signal needed for further analysis (para. [0110]) providing for a measurement of the peaks and between the peaks as a means to measure the blood flow required of claims 26, 33 and 40.
Regarding dependent claims 27 and 34, McGonigle et al. further shows that one or more signal peak values may be identified from the portion of the selected signal, e.g., the first two or first three signal peak values may be selected, and signal peak values may be found, e.g., using any suitable signal processing technique (para. [0083]).
Regarding dependent claims 26, 27, 33, 34, and 40, Temko shows that signal post-processing steps often include spectral peak detection, peak selection, temporal peak tracking, smoothing, etc., and is usually composed of several heuristic if-then rules and associated thresholds, however, when reporting the results, the effect of post-processing is often overlooked (page 1013, col. 2, para. 2); and further shows an enhanced heart rate estimation system with a threshold-free post-processing step, wherein a time-frequency spectrogram is seen as a state-space matrix of emission probabilities (page 1013, col. 2, para. 3); and further shows using emission and transition probability matrices (page 1015, col. 1, para. 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method shown by McGonigle et al. as applied to claims 21-25, 28-32, and 35-39 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above, by incorporating methods for using probability matrices, as shown by Temko and discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the methods of McGonigle et al. as applied to claims 21-25, 28-32, and 35-39 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above, with the methods of Temko, because Temko shows a method for estimating accurate heart rate from PPG signal data using matrices to track the probabilities of transitioning from one heart rate state to another over a given time step. This modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that both McGonigle et al. as applied to claims 21-25, 28-32, and 35-39 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above, and Temko disclose methods for processing photoplethysmography (PPG) signals.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
This Office action is a Non-Final action. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this application.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN W. BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. 1000 - 1800.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KARLHEINZ SKOWRONEK can be reached at (571) 272-9047. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN W. BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights