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 Status
Claims 1-8, 13-14, and 18-26 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
New Claim Objections
Claims 25 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities: The word “are” should be inserted between the words “segment” and “determined.” Appropriate correction is required.
Maintained 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 1-7, 13-14, and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method of providing a meal and a method of continually ingesting at least two meals. A method of providing a meal and ingesting a meal is a method of organizing human activity since it is a method of managing personal behavior. Managing personal behavior include following rules or instructions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). In the instant case, the claimed method requires a subject to follow the instruction of taking a meal. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because although the method is for improving health conditions, limitations that amount to merely indicating field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because although method requires the meal to contain certain percentages of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates, this limitation does not appear to be to be significant since recommended dietary allowance of these macronutrients are well known.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 must be performed by intentionally preparing or selecting the meal that satisfies the features discussed above and providing one or more subjects with the meal, and the method is not a mere recitation of organizing human behavior, such as taking a meal.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but is not found to be persuasive. The act of intentionally preparing and selecting meals are not additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since it is well known in the art that any given meal will not inherently possess the recommended dietary allowance of the macronutrients of the claims and thus one must intentionally prepare and select meals to be provided in order to achieve the recommended dietary allowance of the macronutrients.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
This is a new matter rejection.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 21 recite the limitation “where the one or more health conditions of the one or more subjects are determined based on at least one health index.” As noted in paragraph [0011] of the instant specification, the health conditions are assessed by any one or more health indicators. The instant specification does not disclose wherein the health conditions are determined based on at least one health index.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 21 recite the limitation “an ingestion upper limit of an amount of proteins per day is an upper limit of a nutrient intake goal of proteins in a smallest energy requirement segment for which an estimated energy requirement is the smallest.” As noted in paragraph [0027-0030] of the instant specification, the upper limit of proteins per day appears to be determined using the tentative dietary goal for preventing life-style related diseases for proteins in the “reference amount of energy” category with the lowest estimated energy requirement to which the user belongs. Accordingly, the instant specification does not disclose wherein the ingestion upper limit of an amount of proteins per day is the upper limit of the nutrient intake goal of proteins in the smallest energy requirement segment, but instead depends on the category of the user.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 21 recite the limitation “an ingestion lower limit of an amount of fats per day is the lowest value of a nutrient intake goal of fats in the smallest energy requirement segment; an ingestion upper limit of an amount of fats per day is an upper limit of the nutrient intake goal of fats in the smallest energy requirement segment.” As noted in paragraph [0031] of the instant specification, the upper limit and the lower limit of the tentative dietary goal for preventing life-style related diseases for fats vary depending on the category as shown in FIG. 3. Accordingly, it appears that the instant specification does not disclose wherein the upper and lower limits of daily fat intake are derived from the smallest energy requirement segment but instead are dependent upon user category.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 21 recite the limitation “an ingestion lower limit of an amount of carbohydrates per day is the lowest value of a nutrient intake goal of carbohydrates in the smallest energy requirement segment; an ingestion upper limit of an amount of carbohydrates per day is an upper limit of the nutrient intake goal of carbohydrates in the smallest energy requirement segment.” As noted in paragraph [0042] of the instant specification Since the estimated energy requirement varies for each category of sex, age, and physical activity level, the upper limit and the lower limit of the tentative dietary goal for preventing life-style related diseases for carbohydrates vary depending on the category as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B. Accordingly, it appears that the instant specification does not disclose wherein the upper and lower limits of daily carbohydrate intake are derived from the smallest energy requirement segment but instead are dependent upon user category.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “continually providing at least two meals in a day.” As noted in paragraph [0008] of the instant specification, the method of the instant invention is directed to taking a meal with adjusted nutritional components. However, the instant specification does not disclose wherein the meal is provided.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a meal with adjusted nutritional components.” Paragraphs [0146-0179] of the instant specification disclose the nutrient content of meals of the instant invention. However, the instant specification does not disclose the composition of the meal itself. It is known in the art that a meal consists of food sources comprising nutrients and comprises more than just the nutrients themselves.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “continually ingesting at least two meals in a day.” As noted in paragraph [0008] of the instant specification, the method of the instant invention is directed to taking a meal with adjusted nutritional components. However, the instant specification does not disclose wherein the meal is ingested.
Newly added claims 22-24 recite “the lower limit of the nutrient intake goal of proteins is calculated by dividing the total recommended calories for the smallest energy requirement segment by 4 calories obtained from 1 g of protein, and multiplying by 13.” The claims fail to comply with the written description requirement since such limitations are not described in the specification. As noted in paragraphs [0027-0028] of the instant specification, the lower limit of the tentative dietary goal for preventing life-style related diseases for proteins varies depending on the category of the Dietary Reference Intakes when the upper limit and the lower limit are calculated in g/day as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B. In the example shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B, the lower limit of protein intake is 60 g, the highest recommended dietary allowance among all categories. However, the instant specification does not disclose a calculation wherein the lower limit of the nutrient intake goal of proteins is calculated by dividing the total recommended calories for the smallest energy requirement segment by 4 calories obtained from 1 g of protein, and multiplying by 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 13-14, and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 22 recite the limitations “eat an additional meal or meals other than the provided meal in the day and snacks freely” and “ingesting an additional meal or meals other than the at least two meals in the day and snacks freely.” The claims are indefinite since it is unclear in what manner one would eat or ingest meals and snacks to be considered “freely.” It is unclear if the term freely describes the time of day the food is eaten, the quantity of food eaten, the type of food eaten, the frequency of the food eaten or something else.
Claims 1, 8, and 22 recite the limitation “an ingestion lower limit of an amount of proteins per day is the largest value of a recommended amount of proteins among all segments.” However, the segment is determined by a gender, an age, and a physical activity level of the one or more subjects. Because the least number of subjects required by the claims is one, it is unclear if all segments refers to just the segment of the one subject or more than one segment. If it is meant that all segments should include more than one segment, it is further unclear how many segments are included in all segments.
Claims 1, 8, and 22 recite the limitation “a smallest energy requirement segment for which an estimated energy requirement is the smallest.” It is unclear how to determine which energy requirement is the smallest since there is no element provided for which to compare the energy requirement to. The claims further recite the limitation “dividing calories ingested with the meal by total recommended calories for the smallest energy requirement segment per day.” Because it is unclear how to determine the smallest energy requirement segment, it is also unclear how to derive a total recommended calorie amount for the smallest energy requirement segment per day.
Claims 2-7, 13-14, 18-22 and 25-26 are rejected in view of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 23 is rejected in view of its dependency on claim 8.
Claim 24 is rejected in view of its dependency on claim 21.
Examiner’s Interpretation
The limitation “among all segments” is being interpreted as all segments represented by the number of subjects present. Thus, if only one of the one or more subjects is represented, then all segments comprises only one segment.
The limitation “a smallest energy requirement segment for which an estimated energy requirement is the smallest” is being interpreted as the smallest calorie requirement in the segment to which a user belongs as the instant application appears to use energy and calories interchangeably and the segment is dependent on the user’s attributes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 13-14, 18-21, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet et al. (US 2013/0216982 A1, Aug. 22, 2013) (hereinafter Bennet) in view of Health Service Bureau, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, JAPAN (Dietary Reference Intakes for Japanese (2020), Published December 2019) (hereinafter DRI for Japanese).
Bennet discloses systems and methods that provide personalized approaches for analyzing nutrient intake levels and for generating recommendations that are responsive to a user's (i.e., one or more subjects) current nutritional intake and the user's nutrition-related goals (abstract). The system is configured to modify the selected dietary program based on two or more of a weight goal and a medical condition for the person (i.e., one or more health conditions determined based on body weight ([0029]). A user provides one or more inputs, such a selected dietary program and information relating to specific foods the user has consumed. A dietary program can be personalized for a user based on various factors, including, without limitation, to achieve a desired physiological outcome, such as lose weight, maintain weight, gain weight (i.e., determined by body fat percentage) ([0154]). Another aspect relates to a computer system for aligning a person's diet with specific dietary goals. The system includes a processing system configured to determine a target nutritional profile associated with the person and generate a meal recommendation with a modified portion size based on a meal selected from one or more meals, such that the meal recommendation simultaneously improves an alignment between nutrient levels of nutrients in the selected meal and the target nutritional profile. The alignment can be done by comparing respective nutrient levels in a consumed meal to respective target nutrient levels in the target nutritional profile, to define a deviation for each of the nutrients, selecting one or more meals from the database that will lower those deviations and identifying that meal to the person or optionally identifying the impact on the person's index ([0021]). The processor identifies the meals for which recommendations are to be provided. The user may specify these meals, e.g., by selecting a “recommend meals for the rest of the week” option or by selecting one or more days for which meal recommendations are desired. Alternatively, the meals may be determined by the system (e.g., by counting the number and type of meals remaining in the week according to the time and day at which the user logs in to the system). The identified meals may include a meal type (e.g., breakfast, lunch, dinner and snack) and a meal day (e.g., Wednesday, Thursday, Friday) ([0209]). The method provides a recommended exercise to be performed by the person to change the alignment between the person's exercise routine with the person's nutritional goals. The recommended exercise may be selected by taking into account one or more factors specific to the user, such as age, gender, historic level of physical activity ([0042]). The method outputs a nutritional index indicative of an alignment between amounts of a plurality of nutrients consumed by the person during the first time period and a target nutritional profile, wherein the target nutritional profile includes a plurality of target amounts for the plurality of nutrients. In other aspects, the nutritional and exercise analyses can be used in combination, to provide a combined index (i.e., energy requirement segment) based on target nutrient intake and exercise goals ([0043]). Target levels may be set for three or more nutrients ([0047]). Examples of nutrients include calories; proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, fatty acids, and other fats; fiber; vitamins and dietary or nutritional supplements; or any other nutrient ([0154]). The target nutrient goal for a nutrient may be expressed as a range of acceptable levels and as a function of the amount or range of amount consumed of another nutrient (e.g., the daily target nutrient level for fiber is typically expressed in terms of the daily caloric intake of an individual) ([0184]). A nutrient may be associated with multiple target levels (where each target level may correspond to a specific number or a range of having an upper and lower bound) for different time periods. For example, target levels of calories may be 1500 calories per day and 200-300 calories per meal. Similar target levels may be specified for other nutrients such as carbohydrates, proteins, fats, fiber, etc. ([0197]). Meal recommendations include constraints on the amount and nutrient content of foods in each meal, the amount and nutrient content of foods in a particular day, and the amount and nutrient content of foods over the time window, for example. One way to establish a constraint is to require an approximate total number of calories in a meal recommendation. For example, to determine a target caloric intake for a lunch recommendation, the processor may compute equation 8:
PNG
media_image1.png
32
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(i.e., value obtained by dividing the calories ingested with the meal by the total recommended calories for the smallest energy requirement segment per day), where avg callunch, 30 days corresponds to the average number of calories consumed at lunch over the last 30 days, avg calday, 30 days corresponds to the average number of calories consumed in a day over the last 30 days, calday,target corresponds to the daily target number of calories for the user, and callunch,target corresponds to the target number of calories for the lunch to be recommended. Any suitable averaging time period may be used and Eq. 8 is also helpful for determining an approximate breakdown of nutrients that are often determined by the total number of calories in a meal. For example, some dietary guidelines suggest that 30% of a person's calories should come from fat, 15% from protein, and 55% from carbohydrates. By first identifying a target number of total calories, appropriate target levels of these or other nutrients may then be determined for comparison to candidate meals ([0212-0216]). The method provides a menu recommendation to a visitor of a restaurant (i.e., food service provider), which the visitor can use to decide what menu options to order in order to comply with the visitor's nutritional goals (i.e., eat freely) ([0052]). The meals may be configured for different users (i.e., two or more subjects) ([0229]).
Bennet does not disclose an ingestion lower limit of an amount of proteins per day is the largest value of a recommended amount of proteins among all segments: an ingestion upper limit of an amount of proteins per day is an upper limit of a nutrient intake goal of proteins in a smallest energy requirement segment for which an estimated energy requirement is the smallest, an ingestion lower limit of an amount of fats per day is the lowest value of a nutrient intake goal of fats in the smallest energy requirement segment; an ingestion upper limit of an amount of fats per day is an upper limit of the nutrient intake goal of fats in the smallest energy requirement segment and an ingestion lower limit of an amount of carbohydrates per day is the lowest value of a nutrient intake goal of carbohydrates in the smallest energy requirement segment; an ingestion upper limit of an amount of carbohydrates per day is an upper limit of the nutrient intake goal of carbohydrates in the smallest energy requirement segment.
However, the DRI for Japanese discloses reference values for the intake of energy and nutrients, in the Japanese population, comprising both healthy individuals and groups, for the promotion and maintenance of health, and to prevent the occurrence of lifestyle-related diseases (LRDs) (page 1, Purpose of Development). The Estimated Energy Requirement (kcal/day) for age, gender, and activity level table discloses total recommended calories per day (page 8, Table Appendix). The DRI for Japanese discloses recommended intake values for fats, carbohydrates, proteins, n-6 fatty acid, n-3 fatty acid, vitamin A, vitamin B1, vitamin B2, vitamin B6, folic acid vitamin C, K, Ca, Mg, and Fe (page 3, Table 1). The DRI for protein comprises a daily goal based on % energy (i.e., calories) and for a male between the ages of 30-49 years, the daily goal of protein is 13-20% (i.e., an ingestion lower limit of an amount of proteins per day is the largest value of a recommended amount of proteins among all segments: an ingestion upper limit of an amount of proteins per day is an upper limit of a nutrient intake goal of proteins in a smallest energy requirement segment for which an estimated energy requirement is the smallest) (page 9, Protein). The DRI for fat comprises a daily goal based on % energy (i.e., calories) and for a male between the ages of 30-49 years, the daily goal of fat is 20-30% (i.e., an ingestion lower limit of an amount of fats per day is the lowest value of a nutrient intake goal of fats in the smallest energy requirement segment; an ingestion upper limit of an amount of fats per day is an upper limit of the nutrient intake goal of fats in the smallest energy requirement segment) (page 10, Dietary fats). The DRI for carbohydrates comprises a daily goal based on % energy (i.e., calories) and for a male between the ages of 30-49 years, the daily goal of carbohydrates is 50-65% (i.e., an ingestion lower limit of an amount of carbohydrates per day is the lowest value of a nutrient intake goal of carbohydrates in the smallest energy requirement segment; an ingestion upper limit of an amount of carbohydrates per day is an upper limit of the nutrient intake goal of carbohydrates in the smallest energy requirement segment) (page 14, Carbohydrates).
As discussed above, Bennet discloses systems and methods that provide personalized approaches for analyzing nutrient intake levels and for generating meal recommendations for a user wherein a user provides a selected dietary program. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the DRI for Japanese as the dietary program used in the method of Bennet since it discloses reference values for the intake of energy and nutrients for the promotion and maintenance of health, and to prevent the occurrence of lifestyle-related diseases, as taught by the DRI for Japanese.
Regarding the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 21 reciting wherein a lower limit of an amount of protein/fats/carbohydrates in the meal is a value obtained by multiplying the ingestion lower limit value of protein/fats/carbohydrates per day by the value obtained by dividing the calories ingested with the meal by the total recommended calories for the smallest energy requirement segment per day; and an upper limit of an amount of the protein/fats/carbohydrates in the meal is a value obtained by multiplying the ingestion upper limit value of protein/fats/carbohydrates per day by the value obtained by dividing the calories ingested with the meal by the total recommended calories for the smallest energy requirement segment per day, as discussed above, Bennet discloses equation 8:
PNG
media_image1.png
32
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
( i.e., value obtained by dividing the calories ingested with the meal by the total recommended calories for the smallest energy requirement segment per day). Bennet also teaches that nutrient intake goals may be a range with an upper and lower limit, any suitable averaging time period may be used and Eq. 8 is also helpful for determining an approximate breakdown of nutrients that are often determined by the total number of calories in a meal. For example, some dietary guidelines suggest that 30% of a person's calories should come from fat, 15% from protein, and 55% from carbohydrates. Thus, it would have been obvious to obtain the lower and upper limits of an amount of protein/fats/carbohydrates in the meal by multiplying the ingestion lower and upper limit value of protein/fats/carbohydrates per day disclosed by the DRI for Japanese by the value obtained by dividing the calories ingested with the meal by the total recommended calories for the smallest energy requirement segment per day, as taught by Bennet.
Claim(s) 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet et al. (US 2013/0216982 A1, Aug. 22, 2013) (hereinafter Bennet) in view of Health Service Bureau, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, JAPAN (Dietary Reference Intakes for Japanese (2020), Published December 2019) (hereinafter DRI for Japanese) and further in view of Trustwell (How Calories are Calculated in Different Countries, March 13, 2018) (hereinafter Trustwell).
As discussed above, Bennet and DRI for Japanese teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 21 but do not teach dividing the total recommended calories for the smallest energy requirement segment by 4 calories obtained from 1 g of protein, dividing the total recommended calories for the smallest energy requirement segment by 9 calories obtained from 1 g of fats, and dividing the total recommended calories for the smallest energy requirement segment by 4 calories obtained from 1 g of carbohydrates.
However, Trustwell teaches that in the U.S., most manufacturers use the 4-4-9 method, which assumes that each gram of protein contributes 4 calories to the caloric total, each gram of carbohydrates contributes 4 calories, and each gram of fat contributes 9 calories (pae 1, Calorie Calculations in the United States).
As discussed above, The DRI for Japanese teaches the estimated energy requirement (kcal/day) for age, gender, and activity level and The DRI for protein comprises a daily goal based on % energy (i.e., calories) of 13-20%, a DRI for fat comprises a daily goal based on % energy of 20-30%, and a DRI for carbohydrates comprises a daily goal based on % energy (i.e., calories) of 50-65%. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to divide the total recommended calories for the smallest energy requirement segment by 4 calories obtained from 1 g of protein, divide the total recommended calories for the smallest energy requirement segment by 9 calories obtained from 1 g of fats, and divide the total recommended calories for the smallest energy requirement segment by 4 calories obtained from 1 g of carbohydrates since each gram of protein contributes 4 calories to the caloric total, each gram of carbohydrates contributes 4 calories, and each gram of fat contributes 9 calories as taught by Trustwell.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha J Knight whose telephone number is (571)270-3760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am to 5:00 pm ET.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at (571)272-9925. 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.
/S.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614