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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-22 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 6, 10, and 16 have been amended. Claims 5 and 11 have been cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 1/7/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 recites, “and all components of the patient support apparatus”. Examiner is interpreting this limitation, similar to claim 1, as the patient support apparatus as a whole is not in compliance. Examiner suggests amending this claim limitation to recite, “and . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) in view of Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) discloses a patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 12) comprising: a plurality of apparatus components (frame 12, mattress 14, siderails 38, headrails 40) a plurality of apparatus component sensors (lift system sensors 45, position sensors 47, obstruction sensors 49, deck sensors 56) located on the plurality of apparatus components (See Fig. 1, sensors located on apparatus components), a baseline operation protocol (scale button 210) comprising a baseline siderail protocol (See Fig. 6, scale screen 200 is displaying use of the scale system wherein there are only two of the siderails in the raised position) programmed on the patient support apparatus (“being operation of the scale system a user presses a scale button 210”; [0084]), a user interface (user interface 25) operable to be programmed with a (“effectively provide continuous lateral rotation therapy (CLRT)”; [0048]), and a control system (control system 16) including a controller (controller 60) in communication with the plurality of apparatus component sensors (“controller 60 is illustratively coupled to the scale system 18, the air system 20, the lift system 22, the user interface 25, the lift system sensors 45, the deck actuators 54, the deck sensors 56, and the user inputs 66, 68, 70”; [0056]) operable to determine if programmed with a therapy operation protocol, and then further operable to determine if the therapy operation protocol is in compliance with the baseline operation protocol (“once all indicators are cleared, a user can press a close button 349 to return to the rotation therapy screen to start the therapy”; [0097, inferring that the protocol must be in compliance to start the therapy, scale protocol requires 2 siderails 38 up, therefore CLRT therapy would be in compliance having 4 siderails 38 up), wherein the controller is operable to project a warning {is on the floor} if the user interface has been programmed with the therapy operation protocol and the patient support apparatus is not in compliance with the therapy operation protocol (See Fig. 16, could not start CLRT screen 340), wherein the therapy operation protocol is a continuous lateral rotation (CLR) protocol (“effectively provide continuous lateral rotation therapy (CLRT)”; [0048]), that (See Fig. 16, arrow 348 indicating siderail 38 needs to be raised in order to be compliant with the CLR protocol, all four siderails and headrails need to be in the up position), the baseline siderail protocol comprises having less than four siderails in an up position (See Fig. 6, scale screen 200 is displaying use of the scale system wherein there are only two of the siderails in the raised position).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
402
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
326
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) fails to explicitly teach a warning sign on the floor.
However, Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2) teaches a warning sign on the floor (See Fig. 20, “the images 418 on the floor entrance enhance the ability of caregivers to determine the alert status of the associated bed”; [Col. 27, Lines 30-32]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusern (US 20190336367 A1) by adding the warning sign projected on the floor taught by Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enhance the ability of caregivers to determine the alert status of the associated bed”; (Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2), [Col. 27, Lines 31-32]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) discloses the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 12) of claim 1, wherein if the control system (control system 16) determines that the therapy operation protocol (pulmonary therapy button 310) is not in compliance with the baseline operation protocol (scale button 210), the therapy operation protocol supersedes the baseline operation protocol (See Fig. 13, pulmonary therapy button 310 can be chosen to start the CLRT protocol prior to using the scale button 210 to start the weighing protocol) and the control system is further operable to communicate with the plurality of apparatus component sensors to ensure compliance with the therapy operation protocol (See Fig. 16, CLRT screen 340, “fault indicators 343, 344, 345 showing components that are out of position, and directional indicators 346, 347, 348 showing how to move the components out of position into position to allow an accurate weight to be detected”; [0095]).
PNG
media_image4.png
384
530
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) discloses the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 12) of claim 1.
Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) fails to explicitly disclose a compliance status of the patient support apparatus with the therapy operation protocol is projected on the floor.
However, Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2) teaches a compliance status of the patient support apparatus with the therapy operation protocol is projected on the floor (See Fig. 20, “the images 418 on the floor entrance enhance the ability of caregivers to determine the alert status of the associated bed”; [Col. 27, Lines 30-32]).
PNG
media_image5.png
380
446
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusern (US 20190336367 A1) by adding the light projected on the floor taught by Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enhance the ability of caregivers to determine the alert status of the associated bed”; (Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2), [Col. 27, Lines 31-32]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) discloses the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 12) of claim 1, wherein the plurality of apparatus components is a plurality of siderails (siderails 38, headrails 40).
Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) fails to explicitly disclose the controller is operable to receive a separate signal from each of the plurality of apparatus component sensors to determine if each of the plurality of siderails are up or down, and the controller is further operable to process the signals to determine if there is compliance with the therapy protocol.
However, Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2) teaches the controller (control circuitry 72) is operable to receive a separate signal from each of the plurality of apparatus component sensors (siderail position sensors 93) to determine if each of the plurality of siderails are up or down (“bed 10 has sensors 93 which monitor the position of each of siderails 48, 50”; [Col 16, Lines 12-13]), and the controller is further operable to process the signals to determine if there is compliance with the therapy protocol (“if any one or more of the monitored siderails 48, 50 is lowered while the siderail monitoring system is armed, that is considered to be an unsatisfactory status”; [Col 16, Lines 27-30]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusern (US 20190336367 A1) by adding the separate signals from the plurality of componenets taught by Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “an unsatisfactory status is detected”; (Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2), [Col. 16, Lines 33-34]), concerning the individual component related to said sensor. All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 6, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1), as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 12) of claim [[5]] 1, wherein the warning sign is a non-compliance indication of the patient support apparatus with the CLR protocol (See Fig. 16, arrow 348 indicating siderail 38 needs to be raised in order to be compliant with the CLR protocol, all four siderails and headrails need to be in the up position).
Regarding Claim 7, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) discloses the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 12) of claim 1, the CLR protocol supersedes the baseline siderail protocol (See Fig. 13, pulmonary therapy button 310 can be chosen to start the CLRT protocol prior to using the scale button 210 to start the weighing protocol), and wherein if the controller determines that the patient support apparatus does not have four siderails in an up position, the user interface displays a warning sign (See Fig. 16, arrow 348 indication siderail 38 needs to be raised in order to be compliant with the CLR protocol, all four siderails and headrails need to be in the up position).
Regarding Claim 8, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) discloses the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 12) of claim 1, wherein the CLR protocol comprises determining the status of other components of the patient support apparatus (See Fig. 16, CLRT screen 340, “fault indicators 343, 344, 345 showing components that are out of position, and directional indicators 346, 347, 348 showing how to move the components out of position into position to allow an accurate weight to be detected”; [0095]).
Regarding Claim 10, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) discloses a system (patient support system 10) comprising: a patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 12) including a head end (head end 71), a plurality siderails (siderails 38), and a foot end (foot end 73), a plurality of patient support components (frame 12, mattress 14, siderails 38, headrails 40), and a controller (controller 60) operable to communicate with a plurality of patient support components (“controller 60 is illustratively coupled to the scale system 18, the air system 20, the lift system 22, the user interface 25, the lift system sensors 45, the deck actuators 54, the deck sensors 56, and the user inputs 66, 68, 70”; [0056]), to process the signals to determine a position of each of the patient support components (See Fig. 16, CLRT screen 340, “fault indicators 343, 344, 345 showing components that are out of position, and directional indicators 346, 347, 348 showing how to move the components out of position into position to allow an accurate weight to be detected”; [0095]), and a user interface operable to be programmed with a baseline operation protocol (“being operation of the scale system a user presses a scale button 210”; [0084]) comprising a baseline siderail protocol, and operable to be programmed with a therapy operation protocol (“effectively provide continuous lateral rotation therapy (CLRT)”; [0048]) wherein the controller is operable to project a warning {is on the floor} if the user interface has been programmed with the therapy operation protocol and all components of the patient support apparatus is not in compliance with the therapy operation protocol (See Fig. 16, could not start CLRT screen 340).
Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) fails to explicitly disclose a warning sign on the floor and an indicator light at the foot end, and a controller operable to communicate with the indicator light, the controller operable to receive a separate signal from each of the plurality of patient support components.
However, Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2) teaches a warning sign on the floor (See Fig. 20, “the images 418 on the floor entrance enhance the ability of caregivers to determine the alert status of the associated bed”; [Col. 27, Lines 30-32]) and an indicator light at the foot end (See Fig. 20, “the images 418 on the floor entrance enhance the ability of caregivers to determine the alert status of the associated bed”; [Col. 27, Lines 30-32]), and a controller (control circuitry 72) operable to communicate with the indicator light, the controller operable to receive a separate signal from each of the plurality of patient support components (See Fig. 27, control circuitry 72 receives signals from a multiple of component sensors and communicated with indicator lights).
PNG
media_image6.png
656
508
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusern (US 20190336367 A1) by adding the indicator light at the foot end and the controller/system taught by Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enhance the ability of caregivers to determine the alert status of the associated bed”; (Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2), [Col. 27, Lines 31-32]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1), as modified, teaches the system (patient support system 10) of claim 10, wherein if the control system determines that the patient support apparatus is not in compliance with the therapy operation protocol, the control system is further operable to communicate with the plurality of apparatus component sensors to ensure compliance with the therapy operation protocol (See Fig. 16, CLRT screen 340, “fault indicators 343, 344, 345 showing components that are out of position, and directional indicators 346, 347, 348 showing how to move the components out of position into position to allow an accurate weight to be detected”; [0095]).
Regarding Claim 13, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1), as modified, teaches the system (patient support system 10) of claim 10, wherein the indicator light projects a compliance status of the patient support apparatus, and wherein the compliance status is based on the therapy operation protocol (See Fig. 16, CLRT screen 340, “fault indicators 343, 344, 345 showing components that are out of position, and directional indicators 346, 347, 348 showing how to move the components out of position into position to allow an accurate weight to be detected”; [0095]).
Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) fails to explicitly teach the indicator light projects a compliance status on the floor.
However, Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2) teaches the indicator light projects a compliance status on the floor (See Fig. 20, “the images 418 on the floor entrance enhance the ability of caregivers to determine the alert status of the associated bed”; [Col. 27, Lines 30-32]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusern (US 20190336367 A1) by adding the light projected on the floor taught by Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enhance the ability of caregivers to determine the alert status of the associated bed”; (Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2), [Col. 27, Lines 31-32]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 14, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1), as modified, teaches the system (patient support system 10) of claim 10, wherein the therapy operation protocol is a continuous lateral rotation (CLR) protocol (“effectively provide continuous lateral rotation therapy (CLRT)”; [0048]), and wherein the user interface is operable to be programmed with the CLR protocol (pulmonary therapy button 310).
Regarding Claim 15, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1), as modified, teaches the system (patient support system 10) of claim 14, wherein the CLR protocol supersedes a baseline operation protocol (See Fig. 13, pulmonary therapy button 310 can be chosen to start the CLRT protocol prior to using the scale button 210 to start the weighing protocol), and wherein the CLR protocol comprises having four siderails in an up position (See Fig. 16, CLRT screen 340, “fault indicators 343, 344, 345 showing components that are out of position, and directional indicators 346, 347, 348 showing how to move the components out of position into position to allow an accurate weight to be detected”; [0095]).
Regarding Claim 16, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1), as modified, teaches the system (patient support system 10) of claim 15, wherein the baseline-siderail protocol comprises having less than four siderails in an up position (See Fig. 6, scale screen 200 is displaying use of the scale system wherein there are only two of the siderails in the raised position).
Regarding Claim 17, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1), as modified, the system (patient support system 10) of claim 16, wherein if the controller determines that the patient support apparatus does not have four siderails in an up position, the user interface is operable to display a warning sign (See Fig. 16, CLRT screen 340, “fault indicators 343, 344, 345 showing components that are out of position, and directional indicators 346, 347, 348 showing how to move the components out of position into position to allow an accurate weight to be detected”; [0095]).
Regarding Claim 18, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1), as modified, teaches the system (patient support system 10) of claim 16, wherein if the controller determines that the patient support apparatus does not have four siderails in an up position, a non-compliance indication of the patient support apparatus with the programmed siderail protocol is projected (See Fig. 16, arrow 348 indicating siderail 38 needs to be raised in order to be compliant with the CLR protocol, all four siderails and headrails need to be in the up position).
Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) fails to explicitly teach a non-compliance indication projected on the floor.
However, Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2) teaches a non-compliance indication projected on the floor (See Fig. 20, “the images 418 on the floor entrance enhance the ability of caregivers to determine the alert status of the associated bed”; [Col. 27, Lines 30-32]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusern (US 20190336367 A1) by adding the light projected on the floor taught by Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enhance the ability of caregivers to determine the alert status of the associated bed”; (Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2), [Col. 27, Lines 31-32]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 19, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1), as modified, discloses the system (patient support apparatus 12) of claim 15, wherein the CLR protocol further comprises determining the status of other components of the patient support apparatus (See Fig. 16, CLRT screen 340, “fault indicators 343, 344, 345 showing components that are out of position, and directional indicators 346, 347, 348 showing how to move the components out of position into position to allow an accurate weight to be detected”; [0095]).
Regarding Claim 21, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1), as modified, teaches the system (patient support system 10) of claim 10, wherein compliance with the therapy operation protocol requires compliance of the plurality of siderails and the head end of the patient support apparatus (See Fig. 16, “components 46, 52, 38 are in a predetermined position that allows effective therapy to be applied”; [0096]).
Regarding Claim 22, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1), as modified, teaches the system (patient support system 10) of claim 21, wherein compliance with the therapy operation protocol requires the plurality of siderails be positioned in an up position and the head end of the patient support apparatus be positioned at a given angle (See Fig. 16, “Each arrow 346, 347, 348 indicates which direction to move the corresponding component 46, 52, 38 in order to get the component 46, 52, 38 into one of the predetermined set of positions that will allow therapy to be applied to a patient”; [0097]).
Claim 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) in view of Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2), further in view of Newkirk (US 20200188204 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Zehusen (US 20190336367 A1), as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 12) of claim 1.
Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) in view of Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2) fails to explicitly teach the user interface is operable to be programmed manually or remotely.
However, Newkirk teaches the user interface is operable to be programmed manually (“user module includes an input mechanism, a display, a memory, programming information stored in the memory”; [0023]) or remotely (“programming stored in the memory of the remote device”; [0023]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusern (US 20190336367 A1) in view of Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2) by adding the programming taught by Newkirk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “a plurality of automated functions”; (Newkirk, [0023]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 20, Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1), as modified, teaches the system (patient support system 10) of claim 10.
Zerhusen (US 20190336367 A1) in view of Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2) fails to explicitly teach the user interface is operable to be programmed manually or remotely.
However, Newkirk teaches the user interface is operable to be programmed manually (“user module includes an input mechanism, a display, a memory, programming information stored in the memory”; [0023]) or remotely (“programming stored in the memory of the remote device”; [0023]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusern (US 20190336367 A1) in view of Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2) by adding the programming taught by Newkirk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “a plurality of automated functions”; (Newkirk, [0023]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant’s Arguments:
“Such a structure is not described by Zerhusen. Specifically, Zerhusen does not describe any baseline protocol. Zerhusen evaluates the current position of the bed and discloses a system that can "rearrange components of the patient support apparatus 12 to allow the rotation therapy bladders 24 included in the patient support surface 14 to effectively provide continuous lateral rotation therapy (CLRT)." (see paragraph [0048]). Zerhusen does not describe any baseline siderail protocol that is programmed into the patient support apparatus”… See Pages 6-8 of Remarks for further explanation.
“Neither Zerhusen nor Zerhusen2 teach or suggest teach or suggest the conditional projection tied to both (i) the system being programmed with the therapy operation protocol and (ii) a detected non-compliance with that therapy operation protocol. The cited combination therefore fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed conditional logic and the specific trigger for the warning projection.”
Examiner’s Response:
In response to the applicant’s argument regarding the teachings of Zerhusen, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion and the rejections of independent claims 1 and 10, along with their dependents are respectfully maintained. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as well as the applicant’s written disclosure, the examiner interprets a baseline siderail protocol as the ability to select and change the position of the siderails in a standard setting (no therapy performed, patient in or out of the bed). This could be any use of the bed (such as using the scale system), as long as two siderails are in the up position. This is evident in looking at Figure 7 of the disclosure, wherein the siderail protocol can be adjusted to incorporate multiple different siderail configurations. The prior art of Zerhusen teaches this in para. [0017], “siderail moveable between a lowered position and a raised position.” Further, the examiner asserts there is a hierarchical assessment of the protocols within Zerhusen, see para. [0095-0097]. The siderails must be in the correct position to run the therapy protocols, superseding the previous siderail position regardless if they were in the incorrect position.
In response to the applicant’s argument regarding the teachings of Zerhusen and Zerhusen2, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion and the rejections of independent claims 1 and 10, along with their dependents are respectfully maintained. The examiner concedes that the prior art of Zerhusen fails to teach the warning being projected on the floor. However, Zerhusen does teach a warning (screen 340) that is displayed due to non-compliance of the programmed CLRT therapy, see para. [0095-0097]). The examiner points to the teachings of Zerhusen2 to teach the shortcomings of a warning sign projected on the floor (image 418), to “enhance the ability of caregivers to determine the alert status of the associated bed”; (Zerhusen (US 9655798 B2), [Col. 27, Lines 31-32]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2020264140 A1: Durlach discloses a caregiver assistance system for patients and their respective support apparatuses that can determine compliance for associated healthcare patient protocols.
US 20200306127 A1: Benz discloses a user interface for a patient support apparatus including a memory device that has the ability to determine if the apparatus is in compliance with a pneumatic therapy protocol, and if in compliance, automatically starts the protocol.
US 20210393460 A1: Sidhu discloses a system for managing patient therapy protocols that have certain requirements such as location, characteristics, observation data, patient condition, risk level, preferences, and medical history.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673