DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 6 and claim 15 line 8: “delta between the first and second measurements of the consecutive measurements” should be corrected to “delta between [[the]]a first measurement and a second measurement
Claim 6 line 2, claim 13 line 2, and claim 20 line 2: “include a first measurement and a second measurement” should be corrected to “include [[a]]the first measurement and [[a]]the second measurement”.
Claim 7 line 2 and claim 14 line 2: “wherein determining whether the average of deltas is within a specified range of acceptable average of delta values” should be corrected to “wherein determining whether the average of deltas is within [[a]]the specified range of acceptable average of delta values”.
Claim 8 line 17: “determines a measurement value deltas between each pair of consecutive measurement values that includes a time of day delta” should be corrected to “determines a measurement value deltas between each pair of consecutive measurement values that includes [[a]]the time of day delta”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-4, 6, 10-11, 13, 17-18, and 20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “modulo 29” in claims 3, 10, and 17 is used by the claim to mean “time period of 29 days,” while the accepted meaning is “a mathematical operation that returns the remainder of the division of two number.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Further, claims 3, 10, and 17 are indefinite because It is unclear from the language of the claim what terms are being operated on by modulo. Modulo is a mathematical operation that typically operates on two numbers, however the claims only recite “module 29”, therefor it is unclear what variable module is acting upon. For the purposes of examination the limitation “within modulo 29 days” shall be interpreted as requiring that the measurements used are within 29 days of each other. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify what variables module is acting upon.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the limitation "determining a running Dahlberg's analysis of the values for which the time delta is within the specified number of days" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the values” in the claim. It is unclear from the language of the claim if the recited “the value” is referring to the previously defined “a measurement value delta,” “consecutive measurements,” or “the first and second measurements”. The claims are indefinite, because it is unclear what is required by the claims. For the purposes of examination the recited “the value” shall be interpreted as referring to either of the previously defined measurements or deltas. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify what value is being referred to at any given point in the claims.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite the limitation “discarding the second measurement if the second sample is not within the range” in line 4. It is unclear from the language of the claim if the recited “the second sample” is intended to refer to “the second measurement” or is referring to a different measurement. For the purposes of examination the recited “the second sample” shall be interpreted as referring to the second measurement. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify what measurement is being referenced at any given point in the claims. For example, the claims could recite “discarding the second measurement if the second measurement is not within the range.”
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Second paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1 the limitation(s):
A method comprising:
determining a time delta between consecutive measurements of an analyte made on a patient using a laboratory analyzer;
determining whether the time delta is within a specified number of days window, a specified time of day window, and is within a same season;
determining a measurement value delta between the first and second measurements of the consecutive measurements if the time delta is within the specified number of days, time of day windows, and the same season;
calculating an average of deltas, the average of deltas including a measurement value delta between the consecutive measurements;
determining whether the average of deltas is within a specified range of acceptable average of delta values; and
issuing an alert if the average of deltas is not within the specified range of acceptable average of delta values.
These limitation(s) highlighted in (bold) is/are directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. The above portion(s) of the claim(s) constitute(s) an abstract idea because:
The limitation(s) regarding “determining a time delta between consecutive measurements of an analyte made on a patient using a laboratory analyzer”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining a time delta between two measurements.
The limitation(s) regarding “determining whether the time delta is within a specified number of days window, a specified time of day window, and is within a same season”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining if a time delta is within a time window.
The limitation(s) regarding “determining a measurement value delta between the first and second measurements of the consecutive measurements if the time delta is within the specified number of days, time of day windows, and the same season”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining a delta between two measurements.
The limitation(s) regarding “calculating an average of deltas, the average of deltas including a measurement value delta between the consecutive measurements”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating an average.
Further, the limitation regarding “calculating an average of deltas, the average of deltas including a measurement value delta between the consecutive measurements”, as drafted, falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. This interpretation is supported in the specification as shown by paragraph [0035] equation 1 of the specification as filed which is an explicit recitation of an equation corresponding to the claimed limitation. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The limitation(s) regarding “determining whether the average of deltas is within a specified range of acceptable average of delta values”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining if an average of deltas is within a range.
Further, referring to the MPEP 2106.04, the claim limitations are analogous to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations, then it fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the non- abstract additional elements of the claims do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s) recited in the preceding claim(s). In particular, the claims recited the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “a laboratory analyzer” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because it is recited at such a high-level of generality that it is viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to laboratory analyzers. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to.
The limitation(s) regarding “consecutive measurements of an analyte” and “the first and second measurements of the consecutive measurements” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea.
The limitation(s) regarding “issuing an alert if the average of deltas is not within the specified range of acceptable average of delta values” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. insignificant application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as not imposing meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. Further, referring to the MPEP 2106.05(g), the claim limitations are analogous to a claim to Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims:
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field;
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b);
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c); or
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) data gathering functions.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a laboratory analyzer” is/are seen as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Linking a judicial exception to a technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “consecutive measurements” and “issuing an alert” is/are viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering in a conventional way and, therefore, does not provide an inventive concept.
Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well- understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) as evidenced by: Cembrowski et al. (US 20160370394 A1); Parvin et al. (US 20070198213 A1); Cembrowski et al. (US 20190035490 A1); and Miller et al. (US 20130226605 A1).
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claims fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitation regarding “a laboratory analyzer,” “consecutive measurements,” and “issuing an alert” can be viewed as a field of use, necessary data gathering, and any device and do not impose a meaningful limitation describing what problem is being remedied or solved.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an Abstract idea. Claims 8 and 15recites the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “a processor,” “a memory,” and “a machine readable storage device” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there are no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite limitations regarding data gathering steps and insignificant application necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea and thus are not significantly more than the abstract idea and viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by the prior art shown above.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea, such as an “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts”, and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cembrowski et al. (US 20160370394 A1) in view of Parvin et al. (US 20070198213 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15. Cembrowski teaches:
A method comprising:
determining a time delta between consecutive measurements of an analyte made on a patient using a laboratory analyzer (See Fig. 2, Fig. 4, Abstract, and para[0043] – para[0044]: The measurement values can include a time tag and/or a patient tag associated therewith. A time delta can be calculated for consecutive measurements of the same patient at operation 205.);
determining whether the time delta is within a specified number of days window (See Fig. 2, Fig. 4, and para[0039]: The specified time delta range can indicate a time range between deltas that is acceptable. For example, the time delta range can be between about sixteen and about thirty-two hours, about twenty and about twenty-eight hours, about twenty-two and about twenty-six hours, about twenty-three and a half hours and about twenty-four and a half hours, or the like.), and
is within a same season (See para[0039]: the time delta range can be between about sixteen and about thirty-two hours.) (Examiner note: based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of season, measurements that are within 32 hours of each other are interpreted as being within the same season.);
determining a measurement value delta between the first and second measurements of the consecutive measurements if the time delta is within the specified number of days, time of day windows, and the same season (See Fig. 2 and para[0038] – para[0040]: The AoD module 104 can receive value deltas from the filter 110 that are less than the value delta threshold and whose time tags indicate that the time delta is within the time delta range.);
calculating an average of deltas, the average of deltas including a measurement value delta between the consecutive measurements (See Fig. 2 and para[0038] – para[0040]: The AoD module 104 can determine an average (e.g., a moving average) of the value deltas from the filter 110.);
determining whether the average of deltas is within a specified range of acceptable average of delta values (See Fig. 2 and para[0040] – para[0041]: The compare module 114 compares the AoD 112 to one or more AoD thresholds 116. The AoD threshold 116 defines acceptable AoD values. If the compare module 114 determines that the AoD 112 is not within the range of acceptable values, an indicator signal can be provided to an alert module 118.); and
issuing an alert if the average of deltas is not within the specified range of acceptable average of delta values (See Fig. 2 and para[0040] – para[0041]: The compare module 114 compares the AoD 112 to one or more AoD thresholds 116. The AoD threshold 116 defines acceptable AoD values. If the compare module 114 determines that the AoD 112 is not within the range of acceptable values, an indicator signal can be provided to an alert module 118.).
Cembrowski does not explicitly recite:
determining whether the time delta is within a specified time of day window.
Nevertheless Parvin teaches:
determining whether the time delta is within a specified time of day window (See Fig. 4, para[0024], para[0083], and para[0131]: Time of day and day of the week are used to further characterize patient population data to calculate a z-score for use by the EWMA (or CUSUM) model. Use a moving window of one hour.+-.one hour (e.g., to create a three-hour window) whenever the window has at least the minimum number of results.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cembrowski by determining whether the time delta is within a specified time of day window such as that of Parvin. Parvin teaches, “Recognizing and allowing for hourly, daily and seasonal variations enables the system to use both normal and abnormal patient test results” (See para[0047]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Cembrowski, because using measurements within a time of day window would have helped to compensate for daily variation in patient data, as recognized by Parvin.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16. Cembrowski teaches:
The method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, or the machine readable storage device of claim 15,
wherein the same season is within 29 days of the first measurement (See para[0039]: the time delta range can be between about sixteen and about thirty-two hours.).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17. Cembrowski teaches:
The method of claim 2, the system of claim 9, or the machine readable storage device of claim 16,
wherein the same season is further defined as within modulo 29 days of the first measurement, wherein modulo retains days and removes years (See para[0039]: the time delta range can be between about sixteen and about thirty-two hours.) (Examiner note: as noted above under the 25 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, the limitation “modulo” is interpreted as requiring that measurements be within 29 days of each other.).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19. Cembrowski is silent as to the language of:
The method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, or the machine readable storage device of claim 15,
wherein the specified number of days window is an integer multiple of seven days.
Nevertheless Parvin teaches:
wherein the specified number of days window is an integer multiple of seven days (See para[0441], para[0569], and para[0581]: The application calculates a … weekly … mean, median and standard deviation of the patient data population generated by the main laboratory. The application maintains a rolling 7-day (7D), 30-day (30D), six months and lot to date (LTD) mean, median, standard deviation. Equilibration includes a twelve week period in which both QC data and patient data are collected and analyzed by the Biometric model.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cembrowski wherein the specified number of days window is an integer multiple of seven days such as that of Parvin. Parvin teaches, “Recognizing and allowing for hourly, daily and seasonal variations enables the system to use both normal and abnormal patient test results” (See para[0047]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Cembrowski, because using measurements within 7 day time window would have helped to compensate for daily variation in patient data, as recognized by Parvin.
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20. Cembrowski teaches:
The method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, or the machine readable storage device of claim 15,
wherein the consecutive measurements include a first measurement and a second measurement and the method further comprises comparing the second measurement to a range of acceptable measurement values and discarding the second measurement if the second sample is not within the range of acceptable measurement values (See para[0038] and para[0064]: wherein the consecutive measurements include a first measurement and a second measurement and the method further comprises comparing the second measurement to a range of acceptable measurement values and discarding the second measurement if the second sample is not within the range of acceptable measurement values.).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14. Cembrowski teaches:
The method of claim 1 or the system of claim 8,
wherein determining whether the average of deltas is within a specified range of acceptable average of delta values includes comparing a standard deviation of a plurality of consecutive average of delta values to a threshold standard deviation value (See para[0065]: comparing a standard deviation of a plurality of consecutive average of delta values to a threshold standard deviation value and the method further comprises determining the laboratory analyzer is to be calibrated in response to determining the standard deviation is greater than the threshold standard deviation.) and
the method further comprises determining the laboratory analyzer is to be calibrated in response to determining the standard deviation is greater than the threshold standard deviation (See para[0065]: comparing a standard deviation of a plurality of consecutive average of delta values to a threshold standard deviation value and the method further comprises determining the laboratory analyzer is to be calibrated in response to determining the standard deviation is greater than the threshold standard deviation.).
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cembrowski et al. (US 20160370394 A1) in view of Parvin et al. (US 20070198213 A1) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Cembrowski et al. (US 20190035490 A1), herein Cembrowski’490.
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18. Cembrowski teaches:
The method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, or the machine readable storage device of claim 15,
further comprising:
calibrating the laboratory analyzer if the average of deltas is not within the specified range of acceptable average of delta values (See para[0066]: to compare the determined AoD to a range of acceptable AoDs and whether a laboratory analyzer that performed the duplicate measurements needs to be re-calibrated based on the comparison.).
Cembrowski is silent as to the language of:
determining a running Dahlberg's analysis of the values for which the time delta is within the specified number of days, time of day windows, and the same season resulting in a Dahlberg variation;
determining the Dahlberg variation is greater than a specified threshold; and
calibrating the laboratory analyzer if the Dahlberg variation is greater than the specified threshold.
Nevertheless Cembrowski’490 teaches:
determining a running Dahlberg's analysis of the values for which the time delta is within the specified number of days, time of day windows, and the same season resulting in a Dahlberg variation (See para[0075] – para[0076]: For each time interval, the standard deviation of duplicates (SDD) can be calculated for all of the QC pairs or intra-patient test pairs within that interval.
PNG
media_image1.png
60
166
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.);
determining the Dahlberg variation is greater than a specified threshold (See para[0048], para[0058], and para[0171]: If the AoD calculation is out of range, such as can be indicated by the SDD exceeding a specified SDD limit, then an error flag can be turned on.); and
calibrating the laboratory analyzer if the Dahlberg variation is greater than the specified threshold (See para[0030], para[0046], and para[0058]: an AoD or a standard deviation of AoDs exceeding a threshold. indicating a significant analytical shift. A significant analytical shift can mean that the laboratory analyzer requires servicing, such as usually includes re-calibration.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cembrowski by determining a running Dahlberg's analysis of the values for which the time delta is within the specified number of days, time of day windows, and the same season resulting in a Dahlberg variation; determining the Dahlberg variation is greater than a specified threshold; and calibrating the laboratory analyzer if the Dahlberg variation is greater than the specified threshold such as that of Cembrowski’490. Cembrowski’490 teaches, “The Standard Deviation of Deltas (SDD) and/or average of deltas (AoD) can be calculated to determine systematic error in a laboratory analyzer and/or increased random error in the laboratory analyzer” (See para[0043]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Cembrowski, because using a Dahlberg variation would have helped to determine systematic error in a laboratory analyzer, as recognized by Cembrowski’490.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miller et al. (US 20130226605 A1) discloses using multiple patient samples for delta checking a laboratory (See Abstract and Fig. 1).
Glauser et al. (US 20200393476 A1) discloses scheduling analyzer to be used in validating a diagnostic test (See Abstract and para[0044]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 pm.
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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571)270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863