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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/23 has been considered by the examiner.
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on April 6, 2026, amended claims 1-7, 9 and 10 have been entered. New claims 11-20 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered. While Examiner agrees that the claimed invention does not explicitly recite mathematical calculations, after considering the amendments, Examiner argues that nothing from the claims, accompanying specification, and/or drawings suggest that the method steps cannot be practically performed mentally, or using pen/paper. Applicant argues the invention is not an abstract idea. Examiner notes that although the claims include generic sensors disposed on footwear, no physical aspect of the sensors mentioned in the claims is novel. The claims merely recite data gathering/outputting steps. Applicant further argues the claims integrate into a practical application. Examiner notes that according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), the practical application consists of administering a specific medication in response to the collected data. Alternately, a practical application would consist of incorporating additional structure to the detection system. Lastly, Applicant argues the claims provide an inventive concept. Examiner notes the previously cited references teach all the components (i.e. sensors, display, general computer components) of the present application. Therefore, as currently claimed, the invention is not an improvement in technology. Accordingly, Examiner maintains that the identified judicial exception recites a mental process that is not integrated into a practical application. As such, the 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained. Examiner suggests incorporating more structure to the claim or a medication administration step. Please see corresponding rejection heading below for more detailed analysis
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections raised in the previous office action were fully considered, but are moot in view of the current combination of references that were necessitated by amendment. Please see prior art section below for more detail, updated citations (Lazou, Czaja and Tsur references), and updated obviousness rationale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a biometric information processing device, for detecting hypertension. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
storing instructions and facility measurement values of common measurement items measured in a controlled facility environment
convert coordinate systems of the received sensor data from a local coordinate system of the measurement device to a world coordinate system;
generate time-series data of spatial acceleration and spatial angular speed in the world coordinate system;
detect gait events including toe off and heel strike from the generated time-series data;
calculate a stride length by measuring a movement distance in a traveling direction at timing of continuous heel strikes based on the detected gait events;
calculate a gait speed by integrating acceleration in the traveling direction
extract a daily measurement value of a common measurement item common to the facility measurement data measured in the controlled facility environment from daily measurement data including the calculated stride length and gait speed measured using the sensor data regarding movement of a foot ofthe user in a daily living environment different from the controlled facility environment
These limitations set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites correct the facility measurement value of the common measurement item stored in advance in the memory based on the extracted daily measurement value of the common measurement item to compensate for environmental differences between the controlled facility environment and the daily living environment, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The correcting of a measurement does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the system does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the model, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of:
an interface
measurement device disposed on footwear of a user
acceleration sensor and angular speed sensor
memory
processor
Claims 6, 7, 14, 15, 19 and 20 recite:
a screen of a terminal device
Claim 8 recites:
a measurement device that is disposed on footwear of a user
Claims 9 and 10 recite:
a computer
The providing and recording steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the providing and recording steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 9 and 10 are also not patent eligible for substantially similar reasons.
Dependent claims 2-5, 11-13 and 16-18 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 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.
Claims 1, 6-10, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Lazou (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0202365 A1) and in further view of Czaja (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0225033 A1) and Tsur (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0111257 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Lazou teaches biometric information processing device comprising:
an interface that receives real-time sensor data from a measurement device disposed on footwear of a user [fig. 1, element 100, par. 51, 126], wherein the measurement device includes an acceleration sensor that measures spatial acceleration [par. 89] and an angular speed sensor that measures spatial angular speed during walking of the user [par. 89];
a memory storing instructions and facility measurement values of common measurement items measured in a controlled facility environment [par. 50, 66, 67, 132];
and a processor connected to the memory [par. 66, 67] and configured to execute the instructions to:
generate time-series data of spatial acceleration and spatial angular speed [par. 89]
detect gait events including toe off and heel strike from the generated time-series data [par. 119-123];
calculate a stride length by measuring a movement distance in a traveling direction at timing of continuous heel strikes based on the detected gait events [par. 119-123];
calculate a gait speed by integrating acceleration in the traveling direction [par. 135, 136];
However, Lazou does not teach convert coordinate systems of the received sensor data from a local coordinate system of the measurement device to a world coordinate system; generate time-series data of spatial acceleration and spatial angular speed in the world coordinate system;
Czaja teaches convert coordinate systems of the received sensor data from a local coordinate system of the measurement device to a world coordinate system [par. 87, 88, 97]; generate time-series data of spatial acceleration and spatial angular speed in the world coordinate system [par. 87, 88, 97, 98]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify Lazou to incorporate convert coordinate systems of the received sensor data from a local coordinate system of the measurement device to a world coordinate system; generate time-series data of spatial acceleration and spatial angular speed in the world coordinate system, for determining a coordinate system of the insole in relation to the global coordinate system, as evidence by Czaja [par. 97]
However, Lazou does not teach extract a daily measurement value of a common measurement item common to the facility measurement data measured in the controlled facility environment a facility from daily measurement data including the calculated stride length and gait speed measured using the sensor data regarding movement of a foot of the user in a daily living environment different from the controlled facility environment;
and correct the facility measurement value of the common measurement item stored in advance in the memory based on the extracted daily measurement value of the common measurement item to compensate for environmental differences between the controlled facility environment and the daily living environment
Tsur teaches extract a daily measurement value of a common measurement item common to the facility measurement data measured in the controlled facility environment a facility from daily measurement data including the calculated stride length and gait speed measured using the sensor data regarding movement of a foot of the user in a daily living environment different from the controlled facility environment [par. 58, 142, 148, 272, 277];
and correct the facility measurement value of the common measurement item stored in advance in the memory based on the extracted daily measurement value of the common measurement item to compensate for environmental differences between the controlled facility environment and the daily living environment [par. 58, 60, 92]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify Lazou to incorporate extract a daily measurement value of a common measurement item common to the facility measurement data measured in the controlled facility environment a facility from daily measurement data including the calculated stride length and gait speed measured using the sensor data regarding movement of a foot of the user in a daily living environment different from the controlled facility environment, and correct the facility measurement value of the common measurement item stored in advance in the memory based on the extracted daily measurement value of the common measurement item to compensate for environmental differences between the controlled facility environment and the daily living environment, for allowing the PT to build a better recovery plan, and to give insight on what the patient does outside of therapy, as evidence by Tsur [par. 59,148]
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 19, Tsur further teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to output a correction value of the facility measurement value to a terminal device browsable by a trainer who manages exercise of the user [par. 54, 365], acquire a training menu created by the trainer according to a correction value of the facility measurement value, and display the acquired training menu on a screen of a terminal device browsable by the user [par. 50,54].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify Lazou to incorporate the processor is configured to execute the instructions to output a correction value of the facility measurement value to a terminal device browsable by a trainer who manages exercise of the user, acquire a training menu created by the trainer according to a correction value of the facility measurement value, and display the acquired training menu on a screen of a terminal device browsable by the user, for allowing the PT to build a better recovery plan, and to give insight on what the patient does outside of therapy, as evidence by Tsur [par. 59,148]
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 20, Tsur further teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to display recommendation information according to a correction value of the facility measurement value on a screen of a terminal device browsable by the user [par. 50, 54, 365].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify Lazou to incorporate the processor is configured to execute the instructions to display recommendation information according to a correction value of the facility measurement value on a screen of a terminal device browsable by the user, for better matching an exercise plan to the patient, as evidence by Tsur [par. 54]
Regarding claim 8, Lazou further teaches a biometric information processing device according to claim 1; and a measurement device that is disposed on footwear of a user [fig. 1, element 100; par. 50], measures a spatial acceleration and a spatial angular speed according to walking of the user [par. 89], generates sensor data based on the measured spatial acceleration and spatial angular speed, and outputs the generated sensor data to the biometric information processing device [par. 135, 136]
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Lazou teaches biometric information processing method comprising: and non-transitory recording medium having stored therein a program causing a computer to execute:
receiving real-time sensor data from a measurement device disposed on footwear of a user [fig. 1, element 100, par. 51, 126], wherein the measurement device includes an acceleration sensor that measures spatial acceleration [par. 89] and an angular speed sensor that measures spatial angular speed during walking of the user [par. 89];
detecting gait events including toe off and heel strike from the generated time-series data; [par. 119-123]
calculating a stride length by measuring a movement distance in a traveling direction at timing of continuous heel strikes based on the detected gait events [par. 119-123];
calculating a gait speed by integrating acceleration in the traveling direction [par. 135, 136];
However, Lazou does not teach converting coordinate systems of the received sensor data from a local coordinate system of the measurement device to a world coordinate system; generating time-series data of spatial acceleration and spatial angular speed in the world coordinate system;
Czaja teaches convert coordinate systems of the received sensor data from a local coordinate system of the measurement device to a world coordinate system [par. 87, 88, 97]; generate time-series data of spatial acceleration and spatial angular speed in the world coordinate system [par. 87, 88, 97, 98]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify Lazou to incorporate convert coordinate systems of the received sensor data from a local coordinate system of the measurement device to a world coordinate system; generate time-series data of spatial acceleration and spatial angular speed in the world coordinate system, for determining a coordinate system of the insole in relation to the global coordinate system, as evidence by Czaja [par. 97]
However, Lazou does not teach extracting a daily measurement value of a common measurement item common to facility measurement data measured in a controlled facility environment from daily measurement data including the calculated stride length and gait speed measured using the sensor data regarding movement of a foot of the user in a daily living environment different from the controlled facility environment; and correcting a facility measurement value of the common measurement item stored in advance in a memory based on the extracted daily measurement value of the common measurement item to compensate for environmental differences between the controlled facility environment and the daily living environment.
Tsur teaches extracting a daily measurement value of a common measurement item common to facility measurement data measured in a controlled facility environment from daily measurement data including the calculated stride length and gait speed measured using the sensor data regarding movement of a foot of the user in a daily living environment different from the controlled facility environment [par. 58, 142, 148, 272, 277]; and correcting a facility measurement value of the common measurement item stored in advance in a memory based on the extracted daily measurement value of the common measurement item to compensate for environmental differences between the controlled facility environment and the daily living environment [par. 58, 60, 92].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify Lazou to incorporate extracting a daily measurement value of a common measurement item common to facility measurement data measured in a controlled facility environment from daily measurement data including the calculated stride length and gait speed measured using the sensor data regarding movement of a foot of the user in a daily living environment different from the controlled facility environment; and correcting a facility measurement value of the common measurement item stored in advance in a memory based on the extracted daily measurement value of the common measurement item to compensate for environmental differences between the controlled facility environment and the daily living environment, for allowing the PT to build a better recovery plan, and to give insight on what the patient does outside of therapy, as evidence by Tsur [par. 59,148]
Claims 2, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Lazou, Czaja and Tsur and in further view of Kuwayama (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0370962 A1)
Kuwayama was applied in the previous office action
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 16, Lazou, Czaja and Tsur teach a biometric information processing device, as disclosed above
However, Lazou, Czaja and Tsur do not teach the processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate a deviation between a representative value of a distribution of daily measurement values of the common measurement item and a facility measurement value of the common measurement item, and correct a facility measurement value of the common measurement item using the calculated deviation
Kuwayama teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate a deviation between a representative value of a distribution of daily measurement values of the common measurement item and a facility measurement value of the common measurement item, and correct a facility measurement value of the common measurement item using the calculated deviation [par. 136]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify Lazou, Czaja and Tsur, to incorporate the processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate a deviation between a representative value of a distribution of daily measurement values of the common measurement item and a facility measurement value of the common measurement item, and correct a facility measurement value of the common measurement item using the calculated deviation, to reduce variation in the evaluation, as evidence by Kuwayama [par. 136]
Claims 3, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Lazou, Czaja and Tsur and in further view of Mettler May (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0009133 A1)
Mettler May was applied in the previous office action
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 17, Lazou, Czaja and Tsur teach a biometric information processing device, as disclosed above
However, Lazou, Czaja and Tsur do not teach the processor is configured to execute the instructions to correct a facility measurement value of the common measurement item based on a daily measurement value of the common measurement item and correct a facility measurement value of a facility measurement item related to the common measurement item based on the corrected facility measurement value of the common measurement item
Mettler May teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to correct a facility measurement value of the common measurement item based on a daily measurement value of the common measurement item [par. 133, 140, 468, 572, 618; Examiner interprets the updating of the population analysis based on each individual user’s progress, and further notes ranking players requires analyzing all individuals and updating averages], and correct a facility measurement value of a facility measurement item related to the common measurement item based on the corrected facility measurement value of the common measurement item [par. 730 “Modeling the relationship between movement components and the musculoskeletal system provides information that can be used to estimate the biomechanical load and in turn help prevent excessive wear and injury”, Examiner notes measurement values of movement components can be used to determine a biomechanical load. Additionally, Examiner notes the population analysis, which includes all measured elements, is updated based on each individual user’s progress]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify Lazou, Czaja and Tsur to incorporate the processor is configured to execute the instructions to correct a facility measurement value of the common measurement item based on a daily measurement value of the common measurement item and correct a facility measurement value of a facility measurement item related to the common measurement item based on the corrected facility measurement value of the common measurement item, to help prevent wear and injury, as evidence by Mettler May [par. 730]
Claims 4, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Lazou, Czaja and Tsur and in further view of Mettler May and Oka (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0192845 A1)
Oka was applied in the previous office action
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 18, Lazou, Czaja and Tsur teach a biometric information processing device, as disclosed above,
Tsur further teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: extract a daily measurement value of a stride length as the common measurement item [par. 272]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify Lazou and Czaja to incorporate the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: extract a daily measurement value of a stride length as the common measurement item, for establishing a gait pattern, as evidence by Tsur [par. 351]
However, Lazou, Czaja and Tsur do not teach and correct a facility measurement value of a knee joint load that is a facility measurement item related to the stride length based on the extracted daily measurement value of the stride length
Mettler May teaches correct a facility measurement value of a knee joint load that is a facility measurement item related to the movement component based on the extracted measurement value of the movement component [par. 730 “Modeling the relationship between movement components and the musculoskeletal system provides information that can be used to estimate the biomechanical load and in turn help prevent excessive wear and injury”, Examiner notes measurement values of movement components can be used to determine a biomechanical load. Additionally, Examiner notes the population analysis, which includes all measured elements, is updated based on each individual user’s progress]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify Lazou, Czaja and Tsur to incorporate correct a facility measurement value of a knee joint load that is a facility measurement item related to the movement component based on the extracted measurement value of the movement component, to help prevent wear and injury, as evidence by Mettler May [par. 730]
Oka teaches a measurement value of a stride length as the common measurement item, a measurement value of a knee joint load that is a measurement item related to the stride length based on the extracted measurement value of the stride length [par. 37, Examiner notes Oka shows knee joint load can be calculated based on stride length]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify Lazou, Czaja, Tsur and Mettler May to incorporate a measurement value of a stride length as the common measurement item, a measurement value of a knee joint load that is a measurement item related to the stride length based on the extracted measurement value of the stride length, as there is a correlation between the transition of the load during walking and the stride, as evidence by Oka [par. 37]
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Lazou, Czaja and Tsur and in further view of Mettler May and Shim (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0184985 A1)
Shim was applied in the previous office action
Regarding claim 5, Lazou, Czaja and Tsur teach a biometric information processing device, as disclosed above.
Tsur further teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: extract a daily measurement value of a stride length as the common measurement item [par. 272]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify Lazou and Czaja to incorporate the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: extract a daily measurement value of a stride length as the common measurement item, for establishing a gait pattern, as evidence by Tsur [par. 351]
However, Lazou, Czaja and Tsur do not teach correct a facility measurement value of gait stability, which is a facility measurement item related to the stride length and the gait speed, based on the extracted daily measurement values of the stride length and the gait speed.
Mettler May teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to extract measurement values of a movement data (speed, distance, etc.) as the common measurement items, and correct a facility measurement value of a skill element, which is a facility measurement item related to the movement data (speed, distance, etc.), based on the extracted measurement values of the movement data (speed, distance, etc.) [par. 853, 854; Examiner notes multiple related measurements are obtained to determine a user characteristic, which is in turn updated in the population analysis].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify Lazou, Czaja and Tsur to incorporate the processor is configured to execute the instructions to extract measurement values of a movement data (speed, distance, etc.) as the common measurement items, and correct a facility measurement value of a skill element, which is a facility measurement item related to the movement data (speed, distance, etc.), based on the extracted measurement values of the movement data (speed, distance, etc.), to help prevent wear and injury, as evidence by Mettler May [par. 730]
Shim teaches measurement values of a stride length and a gait speed as the common measurement items, and correct a facility measurement value of gait stability, which is a facility measurement item related to the stride length and the gait speed, based on the extracted daily measurement values of the stride length and the gait speed [par. 101; Examiner notes Shim teaches the relationship between stride length, speed and gait stability]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify Lazou, Czaja, Tsur and Mettler May to incorporate measurement values of a stride length and a gait speed as the common measurement items, and correct a facility measurement value of gait stability, which is a facility measurement item related to the stride length and the gait speed, based on the extracted daily measurement values of the stride length and the gait speed, as stride length and gait speed can be used to calculate gait stability, as evidence by Shim [par. 101]
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 5712724233. 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
GRACE L ROZANSKI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights