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 .
Claims 1-9 are hereby the present claims under consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 4, it appears that “processing the EEG signal comprising alpha-bands for” should read “processing the EEG signal comprising alpha-bands by:” to more clearly indicate that the following steps denoted with a “- -“ are steps of the processing
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites “determining for each instant a maximum power frequency as a frequency of maximum power in the distribution, the maximum power frequency being related to the instant” but it is unclear if the frequency of maximum power corresponds to the frequency of maximum power of the part of the signal in the sliding time window centered on the instant, or if the frequency of maximum power corresponds to the maximum power frequency at the particular instance. Lines 8-9 recite “determining for each instant, a distribution of a power of the part of the signal as a function of the frequency” which appears to indicate that a power spectrum for each instance is calculated for the entire sliding time window centered on the instant. The following limitation of “determining for each instant a maximum power frequency as a frequency of maximum power in the distribution, the maximum power frequency being related to the instant” does not reference the frequency of maximum power of the instant being the frequency of maximum power of the part of the signal. Furthermore, if the sliding window comprises a plurality of instants including the instant on which it is centered, it is unclear if each of the instances within the time window get assigned the frequency of maximum power corresponding to their particular instance. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the frequency of maximum power for a particular instance being the frequency of maximum power over the full sliding window rather than at the particular instance such that each instance of the plurality of instances is assigned a frequency of maximum power that corresponds to the frequency of maximum power over the entire sliding window centered on each instance.
Claim 1 recites “the maximum power frequency as a function of time” but it is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the maximum power frequency over time corresponding to a particular window or if it is meant to refer to a maximum power frequency over time signal generated from the plurality of instances having been assigned their maximum power frequency over their entire respective window. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
Claim 1 recites “the maximum power frequency as a function of time takes higher values before the reference instant than after” but it is unclear what is meant to be conveyed by “takes higher values” it is unclear what the function “takes” as the “function” is merely a representation of maximum power frequency over time. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as referring to any point along the “function” where the previous frequency of maximum power is higher than the current frequency of maximum power, (i.e. any point on the line that is in a negative slope).
Claim 1 recites “said first parameter being further used to assist the general anesthesia or the sedation of the subject” but it is unclear what assistance the first parameter is meant to provide and how the assistance is provided. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the first parameter being a metric used in any relation to sedation
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “detecting time spans in the signal, a suppression of an alpha-band extending on each time span” but it is unclear if this limitation is meant to convey that the time spans correspond to the duration of the alpha band suppression or if the alpha band suppressions occur within the time span but do not define the start and end points of the time span, or some other relation between time spans and periods of alpha band suppression. For the purposes of this examination, the time spans will be interpreted as being defined by the start and end points of periods of alpha band suppression.
Claims 4 recites “determining an induction instant following a predetermined induction duration after the reference instant” but it is unclear what the determination of the induction instant entails. It is unclear if the claim is meant to convey that the induction instant is determined to be an instant occurring a predetermined duration after the reference instant or if this predetermined duration serves as a delay before a separate process may be carried out to determine the induction instant. This rejection is similarly applied to the recitation “determining a final instant following a predetermined final duration after the induction instant” for the purposes of this examination, these limitations will be interpreted as the induction and final instant being defined as being a predetermined time distance from the reference and induction instances respectively.
Claim 5 recites “fitting a curve of the frequency of maximal power as a function of time using a sigmoid function” but it is unclear what is being fit using the sigmoid function. The limitation appears to refer to “a curve of the frequency of maximal power as a function of time” but it is unclear is this limitation is the same as related to, or different from “the frequency of maximal power as a function of time” of claim 1. It is unclear how this function is being fit using a sigmoid function and what such a fitting entails. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “fitting a curve to the frequency of maximal power as a function of time using a sigmoid function”
Claim 5 recites “the sigmoid function” in line 6 but it is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the curve fit to the frequency of maximal power as a function of time, or the sigmoid function used to fit this curve itself. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the curve fit to the frequency of maximal power as a function of time by the sigmoid function.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the total number of coefficients of the artifact projection" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the absolute value of a n-th coefficient of the artifact projection at level m" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “detecting a reference instant, so that the maximum power frequency as a function of time takes higher values before the reference instant than after” however this method of determining a reference instant does not appear to be commensurate in scope with the reference instant described in the specification. Paragraphs 0144-0152 describe how the reference instant is determined using a sigmoid function and difference between the intermediate value and a final value to detect the disappearance of the beta band and emergence of the alpha band which coincides with a loss of consciousness (LOC). Paragraphs 0107 further indicates that the reference instance coincides with the loss of consciousness. The present claim language is not limited to the disappearance of the beta band and emergence of the alpha band which coincide with loss of consciousness but is rather applicable to any transition of a higher band, such as gamma, to a lower band, such as beta. Additionally, the present claim language does not reflect the process described in paragraphs 0144-0152 with the use of the sigmoid function to determine a specific point, the present claim language may establish the “reference instant” at any decrease in the frequency of maximal power as illustrated in annotated Fig. 4 below, as such, the present claim language is not commensurate in scope with what is described in the specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
352
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4: a plurality of instances which satisfy the language of “the maximum power frequency as a function of time takes higher values before the reference instant than after.
Claim 1 recites “said first parameter being further used to assist the general anesthesia or the sedation of the subject”. This recitation is not commensurate in scope with the process described in the specification. In particular, the specification paragraphs 0155, 0162, 0168-0170, and 0201 each describe how the purpose of the parameters is to determine the probability of the subject belonging in an IES or no IES group. The specification indicates that this yes/no determination relates to the subject’s sensitivity to sedation but does not elaborate on how the parameters or the classification into either group can be used to “assist the general anesthesia or the sedation of the subject”. In particular, the specification does not describe the particular actions that make be takes using the first parameter value such as altering a sedative dosage. The classification of the subject into an IES or no IES group is considered to relate to their sensitivity to general anesthesia but not considered a use to “assist” the general anesthesia or sedation.
Claim 7 recites “a determination of a minimum quantity of anesthetic to inject so that the subject remains in general anesthesia or sedation, the determination being based on the first parameter” but paragraphs 0051, 0115, and 0130 only recite this step in functional language. The specification does not appear to describe what determination is carried out, based on the first parameter, to determine the minimum quantity of anesthetic to inject so that the patient remains in general anesthesia.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-9 are directed to a method of processing EEG signals using a computational algorithm, which is an abstract idea. Claims 1-9 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019) and the 2024 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol 89, No. 137, page 58128, July 17, 2024).
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to a process
Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A1] processing the EEG signal comprising alpha-bands
[B1] defining for each instant of a plurality of instants, a part of the signal comprised in a sliding time window comprising the instant, the sliding time window being centered on the instant, the part of the signal being related to the instant
[C1] determining for each instant, a distribution of a power of the part of the signal as a function of the frequency
[D1] determining for each instant a maximum power frequency as a frequency of maximum power in the distribution, the maximum power frequency being related to the instant
[E1] detecting a reference instant, so that the maximum power frequency as a function of time takes higher values before the reference instant than after
[F1] detecting in a time frame following the reference instant, an alpha instant corresponding to a first occurrence of a suppression of an alpha-band
[G1] estimating a first parameter as the duration between the reference instant and the alpha instant, said first parameter being further used to assist the general anesthesia or the sedation of the subject, the first parameter relating to a sensitivity of the subject to a general anesthesia or sedation
These elements [A1]-[G1] of claim 1 are drawn to an abstract idea since (1) they involve mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations; and (2) they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Claim 1 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception:
[A2] receiving an electroencephalogram EEG signal of a subject
This element [A2] of claim 1 does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the element [A2] is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitation “receiving an electroencephalogram EEG signal of a subject” does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation merely describes the receipt of data and does not incorporate the EEG sensor as part of the claimed invention.
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1, and recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the algorithm), with the following exceptions:
Claim 8: a processor;
Claim 9: a computer readable medium; and
Each of these claim limitations does not integrate the exception into a practical application. In particular, the elements of claims 8 and 9 are merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Also, this limitation from claims 8 and 9 are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions (that is, one of display) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartailler “Alpha rhythm collapse predicts iso-electric suppressions during anesthesia” published by Communications Biology, 09/02/2019, pages 1-11 hereinafter Cartailler in view of Purdon US Patent Application Publication Number US 2016/0331307 A1 hereinafter Purdon
Regarding claim 1, Cartailler discloses a computer-implemented method for assisting a general anesthesia or a sedation of a subject (Abstract), comprising:
- receiving an electroencephalogram EEG signal of a subject (Page 2: Results first paragraph “the EEG signal),
- processing the EEG signal comprising alpha-bands (Page 2 Results first paragraph: detecting alpha suppressions, thus the signal contains alpha bands) for
-- defining for each instant of a plurality of instants, a part of the signal comprised in a sliding time window comprising the instant, the sliding time window being centered on the instant, the part of the signal being related to the instant (Page 2 Results paragraph 3, the sliding window; Fig. 1d: the representation of the sliding window translated every second),
-- determining for each instant, a distribution of a power of the part of the signal as a function of the frequency (Fig. 1b: the power spectrum; Page 6: Discussion paragraph 6: the computation of the power spectrum),
-- detecting a reference instant (Page 2: Results paragraphs 2-3: the time of first alpha suppression is determined and thus there must be a “reference instant” from which this time is determined from. The reference instant would appear to be loss of consciousness as the paragraphs reference the “first 10 minutes” as induction which occurs after loss of consciousness. )
-- detecting in a time frame following the reference instant, an alpha instant corresponding to a first occurrence of a suppression of an alpha-band (Page 2: Results paragraph 3: the time of the first alpha suppression),
- estimating a first parameter as the duration between the reference instant and the alpha instant, said first parameter being further used to assist the general anesthesia or the sedation of the subject, the first parameter relating to a sensitivity of the subject to a general anesthesia or sedation (Page 2 results paragraphs 3-4; Page 3 Fig. 1f: the distribution of first occurrence times of alpha suppression. It is noted that these teachings are considered to sufficient to render obvious the limitation of “said first parameter being further used to assist the general anesthesia or the sedation of the subject” given the above presented 35 USC 112 rejection regarding the scope of what this assistance entails. Cartailler determines this parameter in relation to predicting if a patient will have IES and this relationship is considered sufficient to be considered “used to assist”).
Cartailler fails to further disclose the method comprising: determining for each instant a maximum power frequency as a frequency of maximum power in the distribution, the maximum power frequency being related to the instant,; detecting a reference instant, so that the maximum power frequency as a function of time takes higher values before the reference instant than after.
Purdon teaches a system and method for monitoring and/or controlling a state of consciousness of a subject experiencing anesthesia are provided. In some aspects, the system includes a plurality of sensors placed about the subject and configured to acquire electroencephalogram (“EEG”} data therefrom while the subject is receiving anesthesia, and at least one processor configured to receive the EEG data from the plurality of sensors, and perform a phase-amplitude coupling analysis using the received EEG data to determine a phase-amplitude frequency distribution. The at least one processor is also configured to identify a state of consciousness of the subject using the determined phase-amplitude frequency distribution, and generate a report indicative of the state of consciousness of the subject (Abstract). Thus, Purdon falls within the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s invention.
Purdon teaches that beta power increases before loss of consciousness (LOC) and that LOC is followed by a sustained increase in low frequency activity (LFA) and a frontally organized alpha rhythm throughout unconsciousness. At LOC the alpha amplitude was largest. LOC coincides with a major increase in low-frequency EEG power (Paragraphs 0065-0066; Fig. 5c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to configure the method of Cartailler to determine a reference instant, or LOC, as a time when the power spectral density shows a drop in the maximum power frequency as taught by Purdon because Cartailler already implicitly uses a reference instance which appears to be the moment of LOC as described above and Purdon provides a suitable method of detecting such an instant and thus it is a simple substitution of one known method (the method of Cartailler for detecting a LOC) for another (the method of Purdon for detecting LOC) with no surprising technical effect.
Regarding claim 2, modified Cartailler teaches the method according to claim 1. Modified Cartailler further teaches the method further comprising:
- detecting time spans in the signal, a suppression of an alpha-band extending on each time span (Pages 2-3: Results paragraphs 5-6: the duration of the alpha suppressions; Fig. 1c),
- estimating a second parameter as a rate of increase of a proportion of the time spans in the signal, said second parameter relating to a sensitivity of the subject to a general anesthesia or sedation (Page 2 : Results paragraphs 3-4; Fig. 1g-h: the fraction of alpha suppression time within a time window as a percentage of the window duration, the slope calculated therefrom).
Regarding claim 3, modified Cartailler teaches the method according to claim 2. Modified Cartailler further teaches the method further comprising:
- detecting in a time frame following the reference instant, an iso-electric instant of a first occurrence of an iso-electric suppression (Page 2 : Results paragraph 3: the time of first occurrence of IES ),
- estimating a third parameter as the duration between the reference instant and the iso-electric instant, said third parameter relating to a sensitivity of the subject to a general anesthesia or sedation (Page 2 results paragraphs 3-4; Page 3 Fig. 1f: the distribution of first occurrence times of IES.).
Regarding claim 4, modified Cartailler teaches the method according to claim 3. Modified Cartailler further teaches the method, comprising:
- determining an induction instant following a predetermined induction duration after the reference instant (Page 2 Results: paragraphs 2-4: the induction is considered as the first 10 minutes of general anesthesia (GA) and thus the “induction instant” may be the end of induction after 10 minutes has elapsed),
- if the alpha instant is before the induction instant and the iso-electric instant, determining at the alpha instant the first parameter (Page 2 results paragraphs 3-4; Page 3 Fig. 1f; It would seem that the time to the first alpha suppression is always determined and thus includes determining such a time when it occurs before the end of induction),
- if the iso-electric instant is before the induction instant and the alpha instant, determining at the iso-electric instant the third parameter (Page 2 results paragraphs 3-4; Page 3 Fig. 1f; It would seem that the time to the first IES is always determined and thus includes determining such a time when it occurs before the end of induction and before the alpha suppression),
- determining a first estimate of the second parameter at the induction instant (Page 2 : Results paragraphs 3-4; Fig. 1g-h: it would seem the slope, or second parameter, is calculated continuously as illustrated by Fig. 1g. Thus the slope is estimated at the 10 minute mark, or end of induction),
Modified Cartailler further at least suggests: determining a final instant following a predetermined final duration after the induction instant; and determining at the final instant, a second estimate of the second parameter, the first parameter if the alpha instant is before the final instant and the third parameter if the iso- electric instant is before the final instant. These limitations are at least suggested by Page 2 : Results paragraphs 3-4; Fig. 1g-h because Cartailler determines the slope on a continuous basis for the duration of recording and no particular limitation on the timing has been recited nor has any technical effect of calculating the slope at this arbitrary second time been disclosed. Thus it would seem that the slope calculated at any point after the 10 minute mark would satisfy the slope being calculated at a “final instant” since it would seem that the timing of the instant is arbitrary and the slope being calculated at this instant does not appear to produce a surprising technical effect over calculating the slope continuously as illustrated in Fig. 1g of Cartailler.
Regarding claim 7, modified Cartailler teaches the method according to claim 1. Modified Cartailler further suggests the method comprising a determination of a minimum quantity of anesthetic to inject so that the subject remains in general anesthesia or sedation, the determination being based on the first parameter. This limitation is at least suggested by Page 6: Discussion paragraph 4 which indicates that parameters related to alpha suppression can be used to identify patient sensitivity to general anesthesia and may be used by practitioners to finely tune the anesthetic dose
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Cartailler teaches the method according to claim 1. Modified Cartailler fails to further disclose the method being implemented using: a general anesthesia or sedation assisting device comprising a processor configured for implementing the computer implemented method as claimed in claim 1, or a computer-readable medium comprising computer- executable instructions embodied which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1.
Purdon teaches that EEG processing methods may be implemented on a computer having at least one processor configured to receive data from sensors (Paragraph 0006), and that the processor may have an accessible memory or other data storage locations (Paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the method of modified Cartailler onto a computer with associated processor and memory as taught by Purdon because using a computer to carry out the computations of modified Cartailler may improve the speed at which the method may be implemented and allows for the rapid generation of representative figures such as those illustrated in Fig. 1 of Cartailler for review by a physician.
Claims 5 and 6 are not presently rejected over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ERIC OGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-7313. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Jason Sims can be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00AM – 4:00PM at (571) 272 – 7540. 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.
/MATTHEW ERIC OGLES/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791