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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of (1a) EEG activity and (2j) Sound producing device in the reply filed on 01/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/03/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “for each user of the group of user” should recites “for each user of the group of users”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“sensory means” in claims 1 and 8. The structure of the phrase is defined in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the received biological signals” is unclear whether the phrase is directed to the signals are from the “at least one biological signal” of a user or each of the biological signal of multiple users. Examiner will interpret the phrase to be directed to a single user with multiple signals.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the time domain" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the Markush recitation “the at least one biological signal is a signal representative of at least one activity chosen from the following list:” is improper and should be recited as “the at least one biological signal is a signal representative of at least one activity is selected from the group consisting of”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the biological signal" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the Markush recitation “the sensory means are chosen from the following list:” is improper and should be recited as “the sensory means is selected from the group consisting of”.
Regarding claim 10, the Markush recitation “the biological sensors are chosen from the following list:” is improper and should be recited as “the biological sensors is selected from the group consisting of”.
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 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of independent claim 1recites a step computing, by the processor, a regularized interaction matrix of a dataset comprising at least part of the received biological signals, computing, by the processor, a Riemannian distance between the regularized interaction matrix and a pre-computed regularized interaction matrix under no interaction, which is a mathematical concept. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements (ie. a processor), determining regularized interaction matrix, and computing Riemann distance do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are to receiving data, processing data, and determine Riemann distance, which are all well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
MPEP 2106(III) outlines steps for determining whether a claim is directed to statutory subject
matter. The stepwise analysis for the instant claim is provided here.
Step 1 – Statutory categories
Claim 8 is directed to a system (i.e. machine) and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Claim 1 is directed to a method and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Claim 12 is directed to a tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. a product), and
thus, meets the step 1 requirements.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Judicial exception (j.e.)
Regarding claim 1, the following step is an abstract idea:
“computing, by the processor, a regularized interaction matrix of a dataset comprising at least part of the received biological signals, computing, by the processor, a Riemannian distance between the regularized interaction matrix and a pre-computed regularized interaction matrix under no interaction” , which is a mathematical concept when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. In this case, the computing of a regularized interaction matrix requires the use of eigenvalues and eigen vectors derived from computed calculations, which are all mathematical concepts. The computing of Riemann distance uses mathematical equations as provided:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – additional elements to integrate j.e. into a practical application
Regarding claim 1, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “a processor” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “biological sensor” is data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “biological signal”, regularized interaction matrix”, “dataset”, “pre-computed regularized interaction matrix”, “Riemannian distance”, and “biofeedback” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)];
- “sensory means” is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B – significantly more/inventive concept
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “a processor” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “biological sensor” is data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “biological signal”, regularized interaction matrix”, “dataset”, “pre-computed regularized interaction matrix”, “Riemannian distance”, and “biofeedback” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)];
- “sensory means” is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements of claim 1, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (ie. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the implantable medical device, processing circuitry, and storage devices, along with their associated functions, are recited at a high level of generality and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The EEG sensor is claimed very generically and are used only to gather the data they are designed for. This are well-understood, routine and conventional structure since the diagnostic art in Barachant et al (US 20120071780) teaches the use of EEG sensors to collect EEG signals ([0073]).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of claim 1. The dependent claim limitations are directed to extra-solution activity (claims 2-8), generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (claim 9) , to data gathering structures (claim 10), and generic computer components (claim 12), which are insignificant extra-solution activity and do not amount to more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In summary, claims 1-10 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and, therefore, are patent ineligible.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “interaction” in “regularized interaction matrix” will be interpreted as the interaction of the EEG data within the matrix calculations because there is nothing in the claim that distinguishes the definition of “interaction” found in the specification.
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) 1-2, 6-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barthelemy et al. (US 20170311832)(Hereinafter Barthelemy) in view of Simar et al. (“Hyperscanning EEG and Classification Based on Riemannian Geometry for Festive and Violent Mental State Discrimination” Front Neurosci. 2020 Dec 16;14:588357. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.588357)(Hereinafter Simar).
Regarding claim 1, Barthelemy teaches A method for providing biofeedback to a group of users (Abstract “system and method for self-paced modulation or external modulation of neural activity of a subject.”), the method being carried out a plurality of times (Abstract “computing a continuous score s in real time” Continuous and real-time requires the carrying out of the method multiple times.) and comprising:
computing, by the processor, a regularized interaction matrix of a dataset comprising at least part of the received biological signals ([0025] “i. obtaining neural signals from the subject; [0026] ii. computing a covariance matrix of said neural;” [0124] “According to one embodiment, the neural signals are acquired using electroencephalography (EEG).”),
computing, by the processor, a Riemannian distance between the regularized interaction matrix and a pre-computed regularized interaction matrix under no interaction ([0024] “computing the Riemannian distances d.sub.k between said covariance matrix and k=1 . . . K reference covariance matrices;”), and
providing biofeedback to the group of users using sensory means, the biofeedback being based on the computed Riemannian distance ([0028] “computing a continuous score s in real time based on at least one of the distances d.sub.k computed in step iii.” [0216] “wherein the score s is reported using auditory means, a sound, the amplitude of which is directly modulated by said score s, is reported to the subject. The sound can be a simple beep, water flowing, waves, rain, dongs, or any other sound which can be modulated in amplitude or frequency.”).
However, Barthelemy does not teach acquiring at least one biological signal using at least one biological sensor for each user of the group of users and receiving, by a processor, the at least one biological signal of each user of the group of users. Simar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the study of changes in a state of a user via acquiring EEG signals received by matrices for calculating Riemannian distances, used in classifiers (Abstract), and further teaches acquiring at least one biological signal using at least one biological sensor for each user of the group of users (Page 3 right col. lines 15-20 “EEG data of the actors were recorded with 128 channels (ANT neuro system) at a sampling frequency of 2,048 Hz and with a resolution of 71.5 nV per bit. An active-shield cap using 128 Ag/AgCl sintered ring electrodes and shielded co-axial cables (5–10 electrode system placements) was comfortably adjusted to the participant’s head.”),
receiving, by a processor, the at least one biological signal of each user of the group of users (Pg. left col. lines 52-55 “The final classification results were then illustrated using a boxplot summarizing the performances of the classification pipelines applied on the EEG data from each of the 10 couples (actors and observers separately).”) to discriminate between the metal states of the users (Pg. 2 right col. lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Barthelemy, with the acquiring at least one biological signal using at least one biological sensor for each user of the group of users and receiving, by a processor, the at least one biological signal of each user of the group of users of Simar, because such a modification would allow to discriminate between the metal states of the users.
Regarding claim 2, Barthelemy teaches wherein the computed interaction matrix is a positive-definite matrix ([0117] ““Symmetric positive definite (SPD) matrix” refers to a square matrix that is symmetrical about its diagonal (i.e. A.sub.ij=A.sub.ji,) and that has eigenvalues that are strictly positive. An SPD matrix of dimensions C*C has C(C+1)/2 independent elements; it may therefore be locally approximated by an Euclidian space of C(C+1)/2 dimensions. It is possible to show the SPD space has the structure of a Riemannian manifold. It is known that covariance matrices are symmetric positive definite matrices.”).
Regarding claim 6, Barthelemy teaches wherein the at least one biological signal is a signal representative of at least one activity chosen from the following list: electroencephalography, electrocardiography, electrodermal activity, respiratory activity, eye-tracking, electromyographic activity, electro-oculographic activity, body motion ([0124] “According to one embodiment, the neural signals are acquired using electroencephalography (EEG).”).
Regarding claim 7, Barthelemy teaches wherein issuing a report comprising at least the computed Riemannian distance at each run of the method ([0065] “output means for reporting the score s.” [0069] “continuously: [0070] acquiring at least one neural signal from the subject; and [0071] reporting in real time to the subject a score s obtained by the method according to the present invention.”).
Regarding claim 8, Barthelemy teaches A system for providing biofeedback to a group of users, the system (Abstract “system and method for self-paced modulation or external modulation of neural activity of a subject.”) comprising:
at least one biological sensor for each user of the group of users, each sensor being configured to acquire the at least one biological signal of the method according to claim 1 ([0025] “i. obtaining neural signals from the subject; [0026] ii. computing a covariance matrix of said neural;” [0124] “According to one embodiment, the neural signals are acquired using electroencephalography (EEG).”),
at least one processor configured to receive the biological signal and carry out the computing of the regularized interaction matrix and the Riemannian distance ([0024] “computing the Riemannian distances d.sub.k between said covariance matrix and k=1 . . . K reference covariance matrices;”),
sensory means configured to provide the biofeedback according to the computed Riemannian distance ([0028] “computing a continuous score s in real time based on at least one of the distances d.sub.k computed in step iii.” [0216] “wherein the score s is reported using auditory means, a sound, the amplitude of which is directly modulated by said score s, is reported to the subject. The sound can be a simple beep, water flowing, waves, rain, dongs, or any other sound which can be modulated in amplitude or frequency.”).
Regarding claim 9, Barthelemy teaches wherein the sensory means are chosen from the following list: a sound producing device, a display device, a vibrotactile device, an electrical stimulation device ([0028] “computing a continuous score s in real time based on at least one of the distances d.sub.k computed in step iii.” [0216] “wherein the score s is reported using auditory means, a sound, the amplitude of which is directly modulated by said score s, is reported to the subject. The sound can be a simple beep, water flowing, waves, rain, dongs, or any other sound which can be modulated in amplitude or frequency.”).
Regarding claim 10, Barthelemy teaches wherein the biological sensors are chosen from the following list: an electroencephalograph, an electrocardiograph, an electrodermal activity sensor, a respiratory activity sensor, an eye-tracker, an electromyograph, electro-oculograph, a body motion sensor ([0124] “According to one embodiment, the neural signals are acquired using electroencephalography (EEG).” [0212] “neural signals as defined in the present invention, preferably electrodes or headset as explained hereabove.”).
Regarding claim 12, Barthelemy teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising machine readable instructions to cause the system of claim 8 to execute the method for providing biofeedback to the group of users ([0213] “According to one embodiment, the computing device comprises memory.”).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barthelemy et al. (US 20170311832)(Hereinafter Barthelemy) in view of Simar et al. (“Hyperscanning EEG and Classification Based on Riemannian Geometry for Festive and Violent Mental State Discrimination” Front Neurosci. 2020 Dec 16;14:588357. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.588357)(Hereinafter Simar), and Parra et al. (US 20150248615)(Hereinafter Parra).
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 is obvious over Barthelemy and Simar. However, Barthelemy and Simar does not teach the computed interaction matrix is a cross-covariance matrix. Parra, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving EEG from a group of users and receiving a stimulus (Abstract and [0052]), and further teaches wherein the computed interaction matrix is a cross-covariance matrix, a Pearson's correlation matrix, a Spearman's correlation matrix or a Kendall's correlation matrix ([0078] “It can identify spatial projections of high dimensional EEG data which maximize the temporal correlation between pairs of recordings… where R.sub.ij=sum.sub.t x.sub.i(t)x.sub.j.sup.T(t) are the spatial (cross-)covariance matrices of the recordings. This solution to this optimization problem is given by the following eigenvalue equation:”) to extract strongest correlated components ([0079]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Barthelemy in view of Simar, with the computed interaction matrix is a cross-covariance matrix of Parra, because such a modification would allow to extract strongest correlated components.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barthelemy et al. (US 20170311832)(Hereinafter Barthelemy) in view of Simar et al. (“Hyperscanning EEG and Classification Based on Riemannian Geometry for Festive and Violent Mental State Discrimination” Front Neurosci. 2020 Dec 16;14:588357. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.588357)(Hereinafter Simar), and Kimmel et al. (US 20150074130)(Hereinafter Kimmel).
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 is obvious over Barthelemy and Simar. Barthelemy teaches computing, by the processor, a Riemannian distance between the regularized interaction matrix and a pre-computed regularized interaction matrix under no interaction ([0024] “computing the Riemannian distances d.sub.k between said covariance matrix and k=1 . . . K reference covariance matrices;”). However, Barthelemy and Simar does not teach computing of a smoothed regularized interaction matrix comprises applying a smoothing operation in the time domain using a Riemannian process. Kimmel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches acquiring EEG data and using a Riemannian manifold ([0070]-[0071]), and further teaches further comprising, after the computing of the regularized interaction matrix, computing, by the processor, a smoothed regularized interaction matrix from the regularized interaction matrix and wherein, at the computing of a Riemannian distance, the computed Riemannian distance between the regularized smoothed interaction matrix and a pre-computed regularized smoothed interaction matrix under no interaction ([0123] “A Riemannian manifold having a metric G, is considered. The manifold and its metric induce a LBO… considering smooth functions defined in a subspace spanned by just a couple of eigenfunctions of the associated LBO.” [0145] “The smooth energy can be discretized for a matrix D by: E.sub.smooth(D)=trace(D.sup.TWDA)+trace(DWD.sup.TA). EQ. A.8” [0158] “The interpolated matrix distance {tilde over (D)} between every two points of can be computed by {tilde over (D)}=.PHI..alpha..PHI..sup.T. It is noted that there is no need to compute this matrix explicitly.” [0174] “the diffusion distance between two points (x,y).di-elect cons”) to reduce the complexity of the flattening procedure to establish efficiency of the distances ([0121]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Barthelemy in view of Simar, with the computing of a smoothed regularized interaction matrix comprises applying a smoothing operation in the time domain using a Riemannian process of Kimmel, because such a modification would allow to reduce the complexity of the flattening procedure to establish efficiency of the distances.
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 is obvious over Barthelemy and Simar. However, Barthelemy and Simar does not teach computing of a smoothed regularized interaction matrix comprises applying a smoothing operation in the time domain using a Riemannian process. Kimmel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches acquiring EEG data and using a Riemannian manifold ([0070]-[0071]), and further teaches wherein computing of a smoothed regularized interaction matrix comprises applying a smoothing operation in the time domain using a Riemannian process ([0123] “A Riemannian manifold having a metric G, is considered. The manifold and its metric induce a LBO… considering smooth functions defined in a subspace spanned by just a couple of eigenfunctions of the associated LBO.”) to reduce the complexity of the flattening procedure to establish efficiency of the distances ([0121]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Barthelemy in view of Simar, with the computing of a smoothed regularized interaction matrix comprises applying a smoothing operation in the time domain using a Riemannian process of Kimmel, because such a modification would allow to reduce the complexity of the flattening procedure to establish efficiency of the distances.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dimitriadis (“SCZ: A Riemannian schizophrenia diagnosis framework based on the multiplexity of EEG-based dynamic functional connectivity patterns”, Computers in Biology and Medicine Volume 180, September 2024, 108862), Dikker et al. (“Brain-to-Brain Synchrony Tracks Real-World Dynamic Group Interactions in the Classroom”, Current Biolgoy Volume 27, Issue 9, 8 May 2017, Pages 1375-1380), and Sadatnejad et al. (“EEG representation using multi-instance framework on the manifold of symmetric positive definite matrices”, Journal of Neural Engineering, Volume 16, Number 3, Published 16 April 2019).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSSA M HADDAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6341. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MOUSSA HADDAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796