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 amendment filed on 10/29/2025. As directed by the amendment: Claims 1, 7, 9, 15, and 17 have been amended, claims 3-4, 11-12, and 19 have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-2, 5-10, 13-18, and 20-21 are presently under consideration in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 10/29/2025, regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that “Applicant submits that the function of displaying the variations of the local-activation- times that are both greater than and less than a predetermined threshold to a 3D display to then update the display and remove the local-activations times for which the variation falls below the threshold from the display is a limitation that adds significantly more to the invention. In as much as a human mind is capable of determining a variation of data for multiple electrodes during a mapping procedure, displaying this data on a map and updating the map as the procedure continues is outside the capability of the human mind.
Additionally, claims 1, 9, and 17 are not directed to an abstract idea because they are integrated into a practical application that addresses a specific technical problem in cardiac electrophysiology mapping. The specification explains that when small numbers of electrodes are used in electrophysiological mapping, the process generates accurate maps because "the physician can observe the acquired signals, and only accept 'good' signals (as judged by the physician) into the map," but this approach "has the drawback that the mapping takes a long time." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0015]. Conversely, "for catheters with large numbers of electrodes, the mapping time is reduced, but the accuracy is decreased, since the physician is incapable of properly inspecting all the simultaneously generated signals within the available time." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0016].”
Examiner notes that Applicant acknowledges that a physician is capable of making a judgement (mental process) of good and bad signal. Applicant is further correct to point from the specification that a physician is incapable of properly inspecting simultaneously collected signals from a large number of electrodes. Examiner notes that the claim only requires one electrode, and would therefore, a physician would be capable of making a judgement. Furthermore, Examiner is not asserting that the updating a map of the data on the display can be done by the mind.
Applicant then argues on page 9 that “The "extract respective local-activation-times from the electrophysiological signals; determine a variation of the respective local-activation-times" recited by claims 1, 9, and 17 is not merely a mental process, but rather an automated technical solution to this specific problem. The claims provide "a medical apparatus comprising a probe, a display screen, a position-tracking system, and a processor" that "computes a measure of consistency of the values at each electrode location" and "automatically discards from the map the EP parameters for which the respective measure of consistency did not satisfy the predefined criterion." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0017]. This approach "facilitates rapid automated decisions as to the points on the tissue where the acquired EP parameters are valid, without having to rely on a subjective and time-consuming assessment by the physician." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0018].
The claimed combination of elements addresses the technical challenge that physicians cannot manually assess signal quality from large numbers of electrodes in real-time. The specification acknowledges that "requiring the physician to judge the quality of these results will further tax his/her time and attention during the mapping procedure, especially if a large number of electrodes is used." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0016]. The "determine a variation of the respective local-activation-times" and "superimpose on the map a visual indication of the extracted local-activation-times at the respective locations for which the variation is less than a predetermined threshold" as recited by claims 1, 9, and 17 provides an objective, automated solution that enables accurate mapping with multi-electrode systems.”
Applicant is asserting the abstract idea itself as the improvement. However, the abstract idea cannot be an “additional element” that shows integration into a practical application. The order of calculations and the particular calculations claimed do not make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claims are currently structured as simply using a generic computer to implement the abstract idea (mental process), which is not enough to show a practical application.
Applicant then argues on pages 9-10 that “The claims are not merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer components, but rather improve the functioning of the electrophysiological mapping system itself. The processor "extracts the EP parameters over several (for example 3-7) heartbeats, and keeps updating the 3D map for each heartbeat" and "computes a measure of consistency for the EP parameter over these several heartbeats, reflecting the variation of the extracted values over the heartbeats." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0020]. When "the variation exceeds this threshold at a given measurement point on the tissue, the measured EP parameter at this point is rejected, and the corresponding area on the 3D map is displayed in its neutral background color." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0021].
This automated consistency evaluation and selective display functionality transforms the mapping system from one that requires constant physician oversight to one that can automatically distinguish valid from invalid measurements, thereby enabling practical use of multi-electrode catheters for cardiac mapping.”
Examiner disagrees since the processing of data on a microcontroller unit is merely performing this process on a generic computer structure. The transmitting of signals is simply a generic computer function performed by a generic computer structure, wherein implementing the abstract idea with a generic computer is not enough to show integration into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The transmission of data to and from the sensor systems is merely data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant then asserts on page 10 that “Contrary to the Examiner's assertion, the "position-tracking system configured to acquire respective locations of one or more electrodes" as recited by claim 1 is not merely linking the judicial exception to a technological environment. The position-tracking system works in combination with the consistency evaluation to create the electro-anatomical map. As described in the specification, "Processor 41 uses these inputs to calculate the position and orientation of basket catheter 40 and thus to find the respective location of each of electrodes 48" and "uses the information contained in these signals together with the coordinates provided by magnetic sensors 50A and 50B to construct an electro-anatomical map 31." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0028]; As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0031]. The spatial correlation of electrode positions with consistency-validated electrophysiological parameters is essential to the technical solution.”
Examiner disagrees because determining the location of the catheter is simply implemented into the processor for displaying the location, which is an additional element of data gathering and displaying that does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
Applicant lastly asserts on page 10 that “The claims are directed to a specific application in medical diagnosis and treatment of cardiac conditions, not to a generalized abstract concept. The specification describes that "LAT is the time interval between a reference time determined, for example, from the body surface ECG or intracardiac electrogram, and the time of the local depolarization event" and that "an abnormally low range is diagnostic of scar tissue." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0019]. The automated consistency evaluation enables physicians to obtain reliable diagnostic information from cardiac mapping procedures.” Applicant is asserting the abstract idea itself as the improvement. However, the abstract idea cannot be an “additional element” that shows integration into a practical application. Therefore, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 10/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendments to the claims obviate the rejection of record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Botzer et al (US2018/0042505) (Hereinafter Botzer) in view of Honicker et al (US 20190365262)(Hereinafter Honicker) and Richer et al. (US 20210128006)(Hereinafter Richer).
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 13-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 1-2, 5-10, 13-18, and 20-21 has been amended to include the limitation, " superimpose on the map a visual indication of the extracted local-activation-times at the respective locations for which the variation is less than a predetermined threshold and greater than the predetermined threshold;
discard from the map the local-activation-times for which the variation is greater than the predetermined threshold; and
display the map showing the respective locations for which the variation is less than the predetermined threshold ". The limitation does not have support in the instant specification nor in the parent application.
The specification provides support for displaying of consistent and inconsistent EP parameter values ([0043]), and mapping EP parameter that are consistent, while discarding EP parameters that are not consistent ([0045]). However, the specification does not provide support for the variation of LAT being greater than or less than a threshold for mapping. Although these EP parameters may be directed to LATs and their variation, the specification further fails to disclose that LAT variations above a threshold may be considered “inconsistent”, while LAT variations below a threshold may be considered “consistent”. The instant specification, specifically, [0037]-[0038], refers to consistent EP parameters, specifically LAT, as satisfying a criterion of a range while inconsistent EP parameters do not satisfy a criterion. Satisfying or not satisfying a criterion and being greater than or less that a threshold is not the same. It is further unknown if the variations of LATs can even be less than or greater than a threshold. Applicant has not indicated where the disclosure provides adequate written description support for the instant claim limitation, " superimpose on the map a visual indication of the extracted local-activation-times at the respective locations for which the variation is less than a predetermined threshold and greater than the predetermined threshold;
discard from the map the local-activation-times for which the variation is greater than the predetermined threshold; and
display the map showing the respective locations for which the variation is less than the predetermined threshold”. Therefore, the new claim limitations introduce new matter.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13-18, and 20-21 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.
Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.
Merely recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it, leaving the industry to “complete an unfinished invention.” See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353
Disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish possession. See MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a).
The written description requirement is not satisfied by merely outlining the goals or results one hopes to achieve with the invention. See MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a).
Claims 1, 9, and 17 fail to sufficiently describe the way in which variation of LATs are determined to be above or below a threshold to determine whether to map or discard the LAT variations to have sufficient written description. The instant specification, specifically, [0037]-[0038], refers to consistent EP parameters, specifically LAT, as satisfying a criterion of a range while inconsistent EP parameters do not satisfy a criterion. The specification provides support for displaying of consistent and inconsistent EP parameter values ([0043]), and mapping EP parameter that are consistent, while discarding EP parameters that are not consistent ([0045]). However, the instant specification provides insufficient detail as to how the LAT variance can be greater or less than a threshold as neither the LAT variance was defined, nor is the threshold for making the determination to discard or map the LAT variance. It is further known how the consistent and inconsistent values, which are based on satisfying a criterion, can equate to the LAT variance being greater than or less than a threshold. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13-18, and 20-21 do not provide sufficient detail to have sufficient written description.
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, 2, 5-10, 13-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recites a step extract respective local-activation-times from the electrophysiological signals; determine compute a variation of the respective local-activation-times, which is a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements (ie. a storage device, a processing circuitry, implantable medical device), determining values, and determining variation do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are to receiving data, processing data, and determining variation, which are all well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
MPEP 2106(III) outlines steps for determining whether a claim is directed to statutory subject
matter. The stepwise analysis for the instant claim is provided here.
Step 1 – Statutory categories
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine) and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Claim 9 is directed to a method and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Claim 17 is directed to a tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. a product), and
thus, meets the step 1 requirements.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Judicial exception (j.e.)
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, the following step is an abstract idea:
“extract respective local-activation-times from the electrophysiological signals; determine a variation of the respective local-activation-times”, which is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could analyze EP parameters/LATs extracted from acceptable signals, which can be determined by a physician, as admitted in [0015] of the instant specification. Further, determining variation for LATs is an observation and judgment made as a human can see the variation for the LAT.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – additional elements to integrate j.e. into a practical application
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “a display screen”, “a memory”, and “a processor” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “electrodes” are data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “EP signals/heartbeats”, “LATs”, “3D map”, “variation”, “discard from the map” “visual indication” and “predetermined threshold” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)];
- “position-tracking system” is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B – significantly more/inventive concept
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “a display screen”, “a memory”, and “a processor” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “electrodes” are data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “EP signals/heartbeats”, “LATs”, “3D map”, “variation”, “discard from the map” “visual indication” and “predetermined threshold” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)];
- “position-tracking system” is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 17, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (ie. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the processor, and memory, along with their associated functions, are recited at a high level of generality and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The “multi-electrode catheter/probe” is claimed very generically and are used only to gather the data they are designed for. These are well-understood, routine and conventional structure in the diagnostic art since Koyrakh et al. (US 20150057507) teaches multi-electrode catheters [generic data gathering structure] for obtaining EP signals ([0030]-[0033]). Applicant further admits in [0029] of the instant specification that the position/orientation system is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) by citing patents in which the positioning system is described.
Dependent claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-16, 18, and 20-21 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of claim 1 and 10. The dependent claim limitations are directed to extra-solution activity (claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-16, 18, and 20-21) which are insignificant extra-solution activity and do not amount to more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In summary, claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13-18, and 20-21 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and, therefore, are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-10, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botzer et al (US2018/0042505) (Hereinafter Botzer) in view of Honicker et al (US 20190365262)(Hereinafter Honicker) and Richer et al. (US 20210128006)(Hereinafter Richer).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Botzer discloses a medical apparatus /related method, comprising: a control 432 [0186-0187]; a display screen (450) [0189, 0192 and fig.23]; a memory to storing instructions [0190]; a position-tracking system (magnetic tracking system) configured to acquire respective locations of one or more electrodes (411) on a probe (408) inserted into a heart of a patient [0184, 0191]; and one or more processors (20) [0187-0189] configured to: acquire respective electrophysiological signals received from the one or more electrodes (411) over a preset number of consecutive heartbeats [0181,0187,0050, fig.5,7]; and extract respective local activation time from the electrophysiological signals [0060,0129,0160].
However, Botzer does not teach the determining a variation of LATs in which a visual indication of extracted LATs at their respective locations are mapped for variations less than a predetermined threshold. Honicker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches cardiac activation time in which EP signals are measured for obtaining LATs at cardiac locations (Abstract), and further teaches determine a variation of the respective local-activation-times ([0051] “the initial activation rate renders the reference signal unsuitable. Rather, it is contemplated that as long as the difference between the instantaneous activation rate and the initial activation rate does not exceed a preset threshold (decision block 308), the deviation can be compensated for (block 310) when measuring LATs in block 304. Similar to the discussion of stability and synchronization above, the threshold can be expressed in either relative terms (e.g., a variation of about±5%) or absolute terms (e.g., a variation of about±20 ms), and may be user-defined.”);
output to the display screen a three-dimensional (3D) map of the heart ([0054] “a graphical representation of the LAT map can be output, for example, on a three dimensional cardiac model displayed on display 23.”); and
superimpose on the map a visual indication of the extracted local-activation-times at the respective locations for which the variation is less than a predetermined threshold and greater than the predetermined threshold ([0054] “a graphical representation of the LAT map can be output, for example, on a three dimensional cardiac model displayed on display 23.” Examiner notes that LAT values are mapped for when the variation is above and below the predetermined threshold. That is, there is no visual indication different that is claimed in which the visual indication of LAT differs between when the variation is below and above the threshold.)
discard from the map the local-activation-times for which the variation is greater than the predetermined threshold ([0052] “if the difference does exceed the preset threshold, then the reference signal can be redefined (block 312), creating a new t.sub.0 on a going forward basis. For instance, if the instantaneous electrophysiological signal is stable and synchronized, it can be used as a new reference signal, replacing [discarded] the reference signal original defined in block 302.”) to analyze the stability and synchronization of the LATs ([0051]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method and apparatus of Botzer, with the determining a variation of LATs in which a visual indication of extracted LATs at their respective locations are mapped for variations less than a predetermined threshold of Honicker, because such a modification would allow to analyze the stability and synchronization of the LATs.
However, Botzer in view of Honicker fail to teach display the map showing the respective locations for which the variation is less than the predetermined threshold. Richer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the mapping of 3D anatomical structure of the heart (Abstract), and further teaches display the map showing the respective locations for which the variation is less than the predetermined threshold (Examiner notes that Fig. 8A is the map of LAT variation less than threshold because Fig. 8B provides the map of LAT and other data variation to where variation is high, thereby being above a threshold. [0047] “Thus, in the second cumulative map, each vertex has an associated integer value calculated by summing the binary map results for that vertex. High values of standard deviation and/or highly skewed data will generally occur at border zones. Thus, the second cumulative map will generally identify areas of high variability along the border zones.” [0037] “a first dataset 602 includes electrical data parameter values of voltage, local activation time, and fractionation for each vertex in the isolated arrhythmogenic substrate. To generate 204 the first cumulative map, a first thresholding operation is applied to each value in first dataset 602.”) to compare the different maps ([0018]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method and apparatus of Botzer and Honicker, with the display the map showing the respective locations for which the variation is less than the predetermined threshold of Richer, because such a modification would allow to compare the different maps.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18, claims 1, 9, and 17 are obvious over Botzer, Honicker, and Richer. Although Botzer teaches the discarding of annotation parameters from excluded criteria ([0105]), Botzer does not teach the variations above a predetermined threshold. Honicker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches cardiac activation time in which EP signals are measured for obtaining LATs at cardiac locations (Abstract), and further teaches wherein at least one of the one or more processors are further configured to: automatically discard the local activation times in the preset number of consecutive heartbeats for which the variation is greater than a predetermined threshold ([0052]) to analyze the stability and synchronization of the LATs ([0051]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method and apparatus of Botzer, with the determining a variation of LATs in which a visual indication of extracted LATs at their respective locations are mapped for variations less than a predetermined threshold of Honicker, because such a modification would allow to analyze the stability and synchronization of the LATs.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Botzer discloses the one or more processors further configured to determine a second variation comprising peak-to-peak variation of the local-activation-time at any given location [0105,0129].
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 20, Botzer discloses wherein the processor is further configured to extract an electrophysiological voltage [0106,0189].
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Botzer discloses wherein the variation comprises a peak-
to-peak variation of the electrophysiological voltage at any given location [0105].
Regarding claims 8, 16, Botzer et al disclose ECG module 436 enables processor 20 to
acquire and analyze EP (electrophysiological) signals received by electrode 411, including the
ECG signals referred to herein. The signals are typically presented to professional 402 as
voltage-time graphs, which are updated in real time, on a display screen 450 [see 0189], extract local activation time [0160-0161].
Conclusion
Claim 21 overcome the prior art but are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of the claims overcoming the prior art:
The mapping of LAT during variation being less than predetermined threshold, wherein the variation of LATs being in a range of +/- 10 ms measured over 3-7 heartbeats taken within 20 ms of each other are not conventionally relied upon in 3D mapping of LAT and are therefore allowable over the prior art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSSA M HADDAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6341. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOUSSA HADDAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796