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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 09/28/2023. As directed by the amendment, claim 1, the specification, and the drawings have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s lack of an Information Disclosure Statement submission.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because formal drawings require that every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. (37 CFR 1.84(l)). The drawings are of inadequate reproduction quality because figure 3 is illegible.
The drawings are objected to because there is no representation in the figures of the target chart or visual graph as claimed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract is greater than 150 words in length and states “and reduce the patient’s dementia” which is not disclosed in the specification. There are also several grammatical errors in the abstract.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 limitation “determining the target value of the partial pressure of carbon dioxide of the patient” has been interpreted based on page 22 of the specification to mean that the specific number of the partial pressure of carbon dioxide of the patient at different time points is determined from the monitored patient data. Typically a “target value” is a desired value rather than a measured value; however, the specification clearly redefines the term to mean the measured patient value.
Claim 1 limitation “respiratory muscle function data” is interpreted to mean the patient’s ability to breathe spontaneously, and uses the breathing rate, etc. based on substitute specification (09/28/2023) page 12.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of multiple informalities. Please see the proposed amendment to claim 1 below to correct these informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is 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 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. The limitation “matching the target chart from the preset chart template library based on the numerical sequence” (of the patient’s partial pressure of carbon dioxide) is not described in sufficient detail. It is not clearly described in the specification whether both data sets of the arterial partial pressure CO₂ and the end tidal CO₂ are used to form the target value of the partial pressure of carbon dioxide and then obtain a numerical sequence of that data, nor how the target chart is “matched with a preset chart template library based on the numerical sequence”. It is not clearly described what a preset chart template library is, or how this template library is related to the numerical sequence generated by the patient’s partial pressure CO₂. It has been interpreted that “a preset chart template library” is a library of data formatting, such as layout, axis scaling, etc. used in the visual graph.
It is also not described in the specification what the limitation “format conversion on the numerical sequence of the partial pressure of carbon dioxide of that patient” entails. There is no additional detail on what this limitation means. It has been interpreted that this limitation means that data is formatted, or arranged.
It is not clearly described in the specification what the limitation “ventilator device feedback judgment result” includes in line 7 on page 6 of claim 1. It has been interpreted that the “ventilator device feedback judgment result” is a result based on whether the patient’s inhalation is abnormal and/or the patient has adapted and/or the evaluation result from the respiratory muscle function evaluation.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “off-line” in claim 1 is used by the claim to apparently mean removing the patient from ventilation (as best interpreted by replacement specification page 1, second para.) while the accepted meaning is “an activity or service not available or performed.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. “Off-line” has been interpreted to mean weaning, or removing a patient from ventilation assistance. It appears that “off-line” may be due to a translation error.
Claim 1 is additionally rejected because a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph since it is not clear when infringement occurs, whether it is when one creates a system that allows the user to do the process, or when the user actually uses the system. In contrast, when a claim recites a product and additional limitations which focus on the capabilities of the system, not the specific actions of the user, the claim may be definite. (See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)). Claim 1 includes both apparatus and method limitations. Please refer to the proposed amendment below for suggested amendments to direct the claim toward an apparatus, rather than both an apparatus and a method. Alternatively, the claim may be amended to be directed toward a method rather than “a device” comprising modules.
Claim 1 is further rejected for several instances of insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claim.
Line 4: “the initial mixing concentration”. It is not clear if each of the carbon dioxide and oxygen has a concentration which is then mixed, or if there is a selected initial concentration of the mixture of carbon dioxide and oxygen.
Line 4: “a mixture” appears to refer to the mixed gases recited in line 2
Line 10: “the delivery result” is not clear what this refers to; in addition, no previous delivery result has been recited. It has been interpreted that “the delivery result” is the resulting patient’s partial pressure of carbon dioxide based on the delivery of the initial mixture of carbon dioxide and oxygen.
Line 10: “changing a gradient” is not clear, since a gradient typically is a change in the value of a quantity. It appears this limitation may intend to mean changing the initial mixture concentrations of oxygen and carbon dioxide.
Lines 11-12 “the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide” is not clear whether this refers to the patient’s partial pressure of carbon dioxide, or the partial pressure of the delivered carbon dioxide. This limitation has been interpreted to mean the patient’s partial pressure of carbon dioxide.
It is not clear what the limitation “ventilator device feedback judgment result” includes in line 7 on page 6 of claim 1. The specification does not clarify this term. In order to advance prosecution, it has been interpreted that the “ventilator device feedback judgment result” is a result based on whether the patient’s inhalation is abnormal and/or the patient has adapted to the oxygen and carbon dioxide mixture.
Claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: some type of control means or computing device comprising the claimed gas mixing module, concentration changing module and evaluation module.
The following amendments are suggested to overcome the above issues.
Claim 1: A device for solving ventilator weaning problems of a patient[[s]] based on mixed gases, comprising:
a controller comprising:
a gas mixing module configured to mix carbon dioxide and oxygen to an initial mixture concentration and deliver[[ing]] [[a]] the initial mixture concentration to [[a]] the patient via a ventilator device;
a concentration changing module, configured to monitor the patient's partial pressure of carbon dioxide in real time after delivery of the initial mixture concentration, and change the initial mixture concentration of carbon dioxide and oxygen based on the patient’s partial pressure of [[the]] carbon dioxide; and
an evaluation module configured to obtain the patient's respiratory muscle function data and evaluate the respiratory muscle function data based on the mixture concentration, and configured to wean the patient from ventilation based on [[the]] an evaluation result[[,,]];
wherein the concentration chang[[e]]ing module is configured to:
based on the ventilator device, continuously input[[ting]] the mixture concentration to the patient for a preset time period, and monitor[[ing]] the patient’s partial pressure of carbon dioxide patient’s partial pressure of carbon dioxide comprises an arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide and end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide;
a target value of the patient’s partial pressure of carbon dioxide a monitoring results, and obtain a numerical sequence of the target value of the patient’s partial pressure of carbon dioxide the preset time period, and form a target chart; and
match[[ing]] the target chart from [[the]] a preset chart template library based on the numerical sequence, and a horizontal and a vertical coordinate legend[[s]] of [[the]] two-dimensional coordinates of the target chart based on [[the]] attribute information of the preset time period and the target value of the numerical sequence, wherein the horizontal coordinate legend is time, and the vertical coordinate legend is the target value of the numerical sequence;
perform format conversion on the numerical sequence a visual graph of the patient’s partial pressure of carbon dioxide
determine [[the]] a maximum value and [[the]] a minimum value of the patient’s partial pressure of carbon dioxide visual graph, and determine the patient’s carbon dioxide concentration the patient’s carbon dioxide [[P]]pressure within a fluctuation range;
compare the stated fluctuation range with [[the]] a standard allowable range;
wherein if the fluctuation range is not within the standard allowable range an inhalation of the initial mixture concentration by the patient is abnormal;
and otherwise, simultaneously, obtain a [[the]] pH value in the patient's body
determine [[the]] a difference between the pH value and [[the]] a standard pH value, and when the difference is within [[the]] a preset allowable fluctuation range, mixture concentration, and determine a [[the]] ventilator device feedback judgment result based on whether the patient’s inhalation is abnormal and/or the patient has adapted; and
based on the the gas mixing module is configured to control[[ling]] the ventilator device to change the initial mixture concentration of carbon dioxide and oxygen [[by]] within a gradient, and the concentration changing module is configured to continuously monitor the patient’s partial pressure of carbon dioxide changed mixture concentration reaches a maximum allowed value, wherein [[the]] an allowed range of the gradient .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raemer (US 5320093), hereafter Raemer, in view of Philips et al. (US 2025/0128004 A1), hereafter Philips, further in view of Asher et al. (US 2014/0288440 A1), hereafter Asher, and Orr et al. (US 2002/0174866 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Raemer discloses a device for solving ventilator off-line problems on patients based on mixed gases (abstract), comprising: a gas mixing module (fig. 1, maxing zone 32, col. 5 line 16) configured to mix carbon dioxide and oxygen based on the initial mixing concentration (oxygen is supplied from the anesthesia machine 28, col. 4 lines 64-66 and carbon dioxide is supplied col. 5 lines 15-16) and delivering a mixture to a patient based on the ventilator device (fig. 1, ventilator 22 is used with the invention to deliver gas to a patient, col. 4 lines 17-18); a concentration changing module (fig. 1, CO₂ add controller 52, col. 5 line 28) configured to monitor the patient's partial pressure of carbon dioxide in real time based on the delivery result (capnometer 44, col. 6 lines 9-11) and changing a gradient of an initial mixed concentration of carbon dioxide and oxygen based on the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide (col. 5 lines 9-13); an evaluation module configured to obtain the patient's respiratory muscle function data and evaluating the respiratory muscle function data based on the gradient change result (col. 6 lines 55-61, feedback controller 48 may also use respiratory rate to compare to reference data in addition to the partial pressure of carbon dioxide, PETCO₂), complete the off-line of the patient's ventilator based on the evaluation result (examiner’s note: this limitation is interpreted to mean a wean a patient from ventilation based on the measured spontaneous breath rate based on specification page 12; feedback controller may also use the respiratory rate as feedback to adjust the delivered carbon dioxide, col. 7 lines 5-6; the goal is to wean the patient from ventilation by restoring ventilation drive, col. 2 lines 57-61), wherein the concentration change module comprises: based on the ventilator device, continuously inputting the mixed gas of the initial concentration to the patient for a preset period of time (col. 5 lines 4-6, CO₂ is delivered after emergence from anesthesia until the patient recovers respiratory drive, col. 3 lines 39-41; also col. 5 lines 20-23), and monitoring the partial pressure of carbon dioxide of the patient in real time (col. 5 line 60-62), wherein the partial pressure of carbon dioxide comprises an arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide and end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide (col. 5 lines 61-65, end tidal CO₂ is measured and arterial partial pressure CO₂ is estimated from the end tidal measurement; col. 5 lines 30-35, direct partial pressure CO₂ may be measured in addition to end tidal CO₂); determining the target value of the partial pressure of carbon dioxide of the patient at different time points based on the monitoring results (examiner’s note, as interpreted above, “target value” has been interpreted to mean the measured value of the partial pressure CO₂; col. 6 lines 44-54, the measured CO₂ is reported as a signal), and obtaining a numerical sequence of the partial pressure of carbon dioxide of the patient within a preset time period (“obtaining a numerical sequence” is interpreted to mean that a numerical sequence is obtained of the measured data; col. 7 lines 1-3 and col. 8 lines 5-8, the PETCO₂ is a waveform displayed as a function of time; i.e., a numerical sequence); and determining the horizontal and vertical coordinate legends of the two-dimensional coordinates of the target chart based on the attribute information of the preset time period and the target value of the numerical sequence, Among them, the legend on the abscissa is time, and the legend on the ordinate is the target value of the numerical sequence (col. 6 lines 53-54, measured PETCO₂ is displayed, which is understood to be a waveform over time, and the ordinate value is the measured value of the time-dependent partial pressure carbon dioxide of the patient); to obtain the partial pressure of carbon dioxide visual graph (col. 6 lines 53-54, the PETCO₂ waveform is the carbon dioxide level in a visual display, understood to be a graph); determine the maximum value and the minimum value of the partial pressure of carbon dioxide of the patient in the preset time period based on the partial pressure of carbon dioxide visual map (col. 6 lines 51-54, the measured PETCO2 is displayed to the user and sent to the feedback controller to compare to a reference value; it is understood that PETCO₂ varies over the respiratory cycle and has a minimum and maximum value), and determine the carbon dioxide concentration of the patient (it is understood from col. 6 lines 46-47 that the algorithm processing the raw signal of PETCO2 waveform determines the partial pressure of CO2 of the patient); comparing the stated fluctuation range with the standard allowable range (col. 6 lines 51-52); wherein if the fluctuation range is not within the allowable range of the standard, it is determined that the inhalation of the mixed gas by the patient is abnormal; and otherwise, it is determined that there is no abnormality in the patient's inhalation of the mixed gas (col. 5 line 65- col. 6 line 5, the measured PETCO₂ is used to estimate arterial CO₂, which is then compared to a reference value; if the estimated arterial CO₂ is too low, then carbon dioxide is added to the breathing circuit, since it is abnormal), and the ventilator device feedback judgment result (the desired and a measured CO₂ are compared by a feedback controller 48, col. 8 lines 9-13, and col. 8 lines 28-31 can also use the minute ventilation, tidal volume, respiratory rate) and based on the received feedback determination result, controlling the ventilator device to change the initial mixed concentration of carbon dioxide and oxygen by gradient (col. 2 line 65-col. 3 line 2), and continuously monitor the partial pressure of carbon dioxide of the patient until the initial mixed concentration reaches the gradient change the maximum allowed value (col. 9 lines 59- col. 10 line 2).
Raemer is silent on determining the carbon dioxide based on the maximum value and the minimum value of carbon dioxide Pressure fluctuation range, matching the target chart (of the measured value of the patient’s partial pressure carbon dioxide) from the preset chart template library based on the numerical sequence, determining the configuration parameters of the target chart, and performing format conversion on the numerical sequence of the partial pressure of carbon dioxide based on the configuration parameters, and at the same time, the pH value in the patient's body is obtained; determining the difference between the pH value and the standard pH value, and when the difference is within the preset allowable fluctuation range, it is determined that the patient has adapted to the mixed gas of the initial mixed concentration; and wherein the allowed range of the gradient change is 1%-6% (col. 9 lines 59-64, the maximum allowed CO₂ concentration is 7%).
Though Raemer not explicitly disclose the claimed gradient range of 1%-6%, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raemer from 0-7% for the safety of the patient (col. 9 lines 59-64) to 1-6%, as the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see page 22) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Orr teaches that the partial pressure of carbon dioxide is equal to the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in the lungs (i.e., the maximum), after correcting for dead space (i.e., the minimum measurement) ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the patient’s partial pressure of carbon dioxide using the maximum and the minimum value of the carbon dioxide in the pressure fluctuation range, since this would have been the method known to one of ordinary skill in the art for calculating the partial pressure of carbon dioxide value.
Philips teaches the use of delivering carbon dioxide to a user and monitoring the pH level of the patient ([0021-0022]) which is completed via the pH value in the patient's body is obtained ([0120], [0135]); determining the difference between the pH value and the standard pH value, and when the difference is within the preset allowable fluctuation range, it is determined that the patient has adapted to the mixed gas of the initial mixed concentration ([0026] a sensor is used to check the pH level, and if the pH level is too high, i.e. above a standard level, then the controller delivers a pH-modifying agent to the patient; as understood based on the disclosure, a measured pH that is equal to the standard level would result in no additional delivery of the pH-modifying agent; [0027] and [0100] the pH-modifying agent is delivered CO₂ gas).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in Raemer’s monitoring parameters obtaining a pH level and determining if the difference between the patient’s pH level and a standard pH level to determine whether the patient has adapted to Raemer’s CO₂ and oxygen mixture, since monitoring pH in response to the delivery of a carbon dioxide and breathable gas mixture is a known monitoring means in the art and also provides a means for stabilizing blood flow in a patient (Philips [0026]).
The modified Raemer remains silent on the details of establishing the graphical display of the partial pressure carbon dioxide level.
Asher teaches quantifying a patient’s capnogram data (abstract) by matching the target chart (of the measured value of the patient’s partial pressure carbon dioxide; “target chart is interpreted based on specification page 21, a chart suitable for displaying patient’s partial pressure of CO₂; [0072-0073] the capnogram signal from the patient is overlaid onto a chosen template with a suitable time period) from the preset chart template library based on the numerical sequence ([0073] in the example of fig. 10, the representative respiratory cycle capnogram was chosen to be 15mmHg, but can be chosen from another value, i.e. a library of values), determining the configuration parameters of the target chart (examiner’s note: interpreted to be the composition of the target image and the format requirements of the data to be displayed, page 22 of substitute specification; fig. 10 [0073]), and performing format conversion on the numerical sequence of the partial pressure of carbon dioxide based on the configuration parameters (interpreted to mean applying the formatting chosen in the previous steps to display a graphical representation of the measured partial pressure carbon dioxide; figs. 10-12 [0073], [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to establish Raemer’s display in the manner taught by Asher in order to facilitate the viewing of the capnogram so that a general view of the exhalations can be viewed (Asher [0075]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA K. TOICH whose telephone number is (703)756-1450. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30 am - 4:30 pm, every other F 7:30-3:30 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, Brandy S. Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/SARA K TOICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785