DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 31, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-16, and 19 have been amended. Claim 20 has been cancelled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-19 and 21 have been examined and are currently pending.
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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1-19 and 21 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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1 is directed to an electronic device and independent claim 11 is directed to a method.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Mental Processes
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations, “determine whether the user is in a rehabilitation condition based on the received medical data; when the user is determined to be in the rehabilitation condition, provide first exercise program corresponding to a recovery target part of the user using the received medical data; when the abnormality of the biometric information is detected during the first exercise program, decrease at least one of a speed or an operation of an exercise machine; when the abnormality of the biometric information is not detected during the first exercise program, increase at least one of the speed or the operation time of the exercise machine; after end of the first exercise program, determine recovery level of the user based on comparison of biometric information of the user obtained during the first exercise program based on increasing the types and numbers of sensors used and biometric information of the user during the condition in which recovery is not needed; determine second exercise program following the first exercise program based on the recovery level of the user; and provide the second program.” are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations are directed to determining a second exercise program based on the recovery level of a user when a comparison of a biometric information during a first exercise program to a biometric information when recovery is not needed (e.g., user is healthy) is made. These limitations can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, and judgment of the medical data of the user. Additionally, an opinion such as exercise program is generated by a user through observation, evaluation and judgment of the medical data/biometric data.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations, “determine whether the user is in a rehabilitation condition based on the received medical data; when the user is determined to be in the rehabilitation condition, provide first exercise program corresponding to a recovery target part of the user using the received medical data; during the rehabilitation, increase monitoring of biometric information of the user by increasing at least one of types or numbers of sensors activated for measurement of the biometric information compared to a condition in which recovery is not needed, the sensors comprising a green light emitting diode (LED), a red LED, an IR (infrared) LED, and a pressure sensor; based on the biometric information of the user using activated sensor of the sensors, detect an abnormality of the biometric information; when the abnormality of the biometric information is detected during the first exercise program, decrease at least one of a speed or an operation time an exercise machine; when the abnormality of the biometric information is not detected during the first exercise program, increase at least one of the speed or the operation time of the exercise machine; after end of the first exercise program, determine recovery level of the user based on comparison of biometric information of the user obtained during the first exercise program based on increasing the types and numbers of sensors used and biometric information of the user during the condition in which recovery is not needed; determine second exercise program following the first exercise program based on the recovery level of the user; and provide the second program.” are directed to the abstract idea of managing personal behavior (including teaching and following rules or instructions) under certain methods of organizing human activity. The limitations are directed to determining a second exercise program based on the recovery level of a user when a comparison of a biometric information during a first exercise program using an increased number or types of sensors to a biometric information when recovery is not needed (e.g., user is healthy) is made. These limitations are directed to managing a user’s recovery or rehabilitation process through an exercise regimen in response to a surgery or treatment. A person (a physician, nurse, or therapist) provides an exercise regimen or program (rules, guide, or instructions) for an individual to follow to improve their health and recovery from surgery or a particular medical treatment. Additionally, the person (a physician, nurse, or therapist) can modify or update the exercise regime or program (rules, guide, or instructions) to assist the individual in recovering from surgery or a medical treatment based on the increased usage of sensors or types of sensors.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The applicant has not shown or demonstrated any of the requirements described above under "integration into a practical application" under step 2A. Specifically, the applicant's limitations are not "integrated into a practical application" because they are adding words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field has not been shown or disclosed (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the applicant’s limitations are not “significantly more” because they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The applicant’s claimed limitations do not demonstrate an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, effecting a transformation or reduction of particular article to a different state or thing. The current application does not amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea as described above. The claim does not include additional elements or limitations individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the individual elements of at least one processor, server, communication interface, communication module, memory, sensors, green LED, red LED, infrared LED, pressure sensor, and exercise machine amount to no more than implementing an idea with a computerized system and they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements taken in combination add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 and 21 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. Dependent claims 2-10 and 21 recite “at least one processor”, dependent claim 9 recites a “communication interface” and “exercise machine”, dependent claim 10 recites a “communication interface” and “exercise machine”, dependent claim 19 recites an “exercise machine”, and dependent claim 21 recites “green LED”, “red LED”, “IR LED”, “pressure sensor”. Dependent claims 2-10, 19, and 21 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
during the rehabilitation condition, increase monitoring of biometric information of the user by increasing at least one of types or numbers of sensors activated for measurement of the biometric information compared to a condition in which recovery is not needed, the sensors comprising a green light emitting diode (LED), a red LED, an IR(infrared) LED, and a pressure sensor;
based on the biometric information of the user using activated sensor of the sensors, detect an abnormality of the biometric information;
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. According to applicant’s argument on page 15 of the remarks discloses, “Under Prong One of Step 2A, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1 and 11 do not recite any of the three groupings of subject matter that may be considered as an abstract idea. For example, “during the rehabilitation condition, increase monitoring of biometric information of the user by increasing at least one of types or numbers of sensors activated for the measurement of the biometric information compared to a condition in which recovery is not needed, the sensors comprising a green LED(light emitting diode), a red LED, an IR(infrared) LED, and a pressure sensor; based on the biometric information of the user using activated sensor of the sensors, detect an abnormality of the biometric information; when the abnormality of the biometric information is detected during the first exercise program, decrease at least one of speed or operation time of an exercise machine; when the abnormality of the biometric information is not detected during the first exercise program, increase at least one of speed or operation time of the exercise machine,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 11 is not merely implementing an abstract idea to a generic computer, and cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Further, claims 1 and 11 do not recite any mathematical formula or any method of organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1 and 11 do not recite any abstract idea and is patent eligible under Prong One of Step 2A.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Mental Processes
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations, “determine whether the user is in a rehabilitation condition based on the received medical data; when the user is determined to be in the rehabilitation condition, provide first exercise program corresponding to a recovery target part of the user using the received medical data; when the abnormality of the biometric information is detected during the first exercise program, decrease at least one of a speed or an operation of an exercise machine; when the abnormality of the biometric information is not detected during the first exercise program, increase at least one of the speed or the operation time of the exercise machine; after end of the first exercise program, determine recovery level of the user based on comparison of biometric information of the user obtained during the first exercise program based on increasing the types and numbers of sensors used and biometric information of the user during the condition in which recovery is not needed; determine second exercise program following the first exercise program based on the recovery level of the user; and provide the second program.” are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations are directed to determining a second exercise program based on the recovery level of a user when a comparison of a biometric information during a first exercise program to a biometric information when recovery is not needed (e.g., user is healthy) is made. These limitations can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, and judgment of the medical data of the user. Additionally, an opinion such as exercise program is generated by a user through observation, evaluation and judgment of the medical data/biometric data.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations, “determine whether the user is in a rehabilitation condition based on the received medical data; when the user is determined to be in the rehabilitation condition, provide first exercise program corresponding to a recovery target part of the user using the received medical data; during the rehabilitation, increase monitoring of biometric information of the user by increasing at least one of types or numbers of sensors activated for measurement of the biometric information compared to a condition in which recovery is not needed, the sensors comprising a green light emitting diode (LED), a red LED, an IR (infrared) LED, and a pressure sensor; based on the biometric information of the user using activated sensor of the sensors, detect an abnormality of the biometric information; when the abnormality of the biometric information is detected during the first exercise program, decrease at least one of a speed or an operation time an exercise machine; when the abnormality of the biometric information is not detected during the first exercise program, increase at least one of the speed or the operation time of the exercise machine; after end of the first exercise program, determine recovery level of the user based on comparison of biometric information of the user obtained during the first exercise program based on increasing the types and numbers of sensors used and biometric information of the user during the condition in which recovery is not needed; determine second exercise program following the first exercise program based on the recovery level of the user; and provide the second program.” are directed to the abstract idea of managing personal behavior (including teaching and following rules or instructions) under certain methods of organizing human activity. The limitations are directed to determining a second exercise program based on the recovery level of a user when a comparison of a biometric information during a first exercise program using an increased number or types of sensors to a biometric information when recovery is not needed (e.g., user is healthy) is made. These limitations are directed to managing a user’s recovery or rehabilitation process through an exercise regimen in response to a surgery or treatment. A person (a physician, nurse, or therapist) provides an exercise regimen or program (rules, guide, or instructions) for an individual to follow to improve their health and recovery from surgery or a particular medical treatment. Additionally, the person (a physician, nurse, or therapist) can modify or update the exercise regime or program (rules, guide, or instructions) to assist the individual in recovering from surgery or a medical treatment based on the increased usage of sensors or types of sensors.
B. According to applicant’s argument on pages 15-16 of the remarks disclose, “Further, under Prong Two of Step 2A, even assuming arguendo that claims 1 and 11 recite any alleged judicial exception, which Applicant in no way concedes, the alleged judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of improving accuracy of providing an exercise program to a user based on biometric information of the user.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, examiners should consider whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. Additionally, making this determination, examiners should determine whether there is a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention in the specification and the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. The recited claims do not recite and reflect an improvement in the technology or technical field as required in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. Specifically, the applicant cites improvements such as improving accuracy of providing an exercise program to a user based on biometric information of the user. These features are not recited within the body of independent claims 1 and 11. The examiner notes the specification and claims do not provide a technical explanation as to how the invention/computer, technical field, or other technology is improved with regards to improving accuracy of providing an exercise program to a user based on biometric information of the user.
C. According to applicant’s argument on page 16 of the remarks discloses, “As noted above, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims satisfy the patent eligibility requirements according to the streamlined analysis outlined in Step 2A, and no further inquiry is necessary. However, should the Examiner continue to assert that the claims are still patent ineligible in view of the streamlined analysis, the Applicant submits the claims satisfy Step 2B of the Examination Guidelines. As previously submitted, the April 2018 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance cites to the Berkheimer v. HP Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) decision stating that "[w]hether something is well- understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination." In the instant application, one skilled in the art would readily appreciate the inventive concept by adding unconventional features, which are not well-understood, routine, conventional to improve accuracy of providing an exercise program to a user based on biometric information of the user, which add meaningful limitations and qualifies as significantly more.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
For purposes of efficiency in examination, examiners may use a streamlined eligibility analysis (Pathway A) when the eligibility of the claim is self-evident, e.g., because the claim clearly improves a technology or computer functionality. However, if there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself, the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III) should be conducted to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or recites significantly more than the judicial exception.
The results of the streamlined analysis will always be the same as the full analysis, thus the streamlined analysis is not a means of avoiding a finding of ineligibility that would occur if a claim were to undergo the full eligibility analysis. Similarly, a claim that qualifies as eligible after Step 2A (Pathway B) or Step 2B (Pathway C) of the full analysis would also be eligible if the streamlined analysis (Pathway A) were applied to that claim. It may not be apparent that an examiner employed the streamlined analysis because the result is a conclusion that the claim is eligible, and there will be no rejection of the claim on eligibility grounds. In practice, the record may reflect the conclusion of eligibility simply by the absence of an eligibility rejection or may include clarifying remarks, when appropriate.
See also, MPEP § 2106.06 Streamlined Analysis
For the convenience of examiners, the 2014 IEG presented a streamlined analysis that is available for claims that “clearly do not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it.” The use of “tie up” refers to the results of Steps 2A and 2B, and is not meant to imply that the streamlined analysis is either a preemption test or a means of avoiding the results that would occur if a claim were to undergo the full eligibility analysis. In fact, the results of the streamlined analysis will always be the same as the full analysis, in that a claim that qualifies as eligible after Step 2A or Step 2B of the full analysis would also be eligible if the streamlined analysis were applied to that claim. See pgs. 8-9 of July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
In the instant case, it has been determined that the claimed invention is not eligible for streamlined analysis and even if applied, streamlined analysis would not change the outcome.
With respect to the Berkheimer memo, the examiner did not apply the standard simply appending of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) within the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection write-up. For the record, the examiner did not recite the terms “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality”, as result, the requirements of Berkheimer do not apply. The examiner notes the applicant did not explain in the remarks how the invention adds unconventional features which are not well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. US Patent 11,712,603 B1 Physical Rehabilitation Method and Related Products
Wang discloses “In another example, after receiving the physiological parameter such as SpO2 of the patient, the controller may determine whether the value of the SpO2 is lower than a first preset threshold (e.g. 93%) included in the target physical rehabilitation strategy. In a case that the value of the SpO2 is lower than the first preset threshold, the controller may modify the device setting of the respiratory device to increase supplemental oxygen output by the respiratory device, or modify the device setting of the exercise device to reduce an exercise intensity of the patient. For example, the controller may increase the flow rate or the FiO2 of the HFNC, and the controller may also reduce the speed or the slope of the treadmill. In an implementation, the controller may send a notification of the changes on HFNC or the treadmill to a terminal remotely located with the professional therapist.” (column 12, lines 13-28).
Chen et al. US Publication 20130209978 A1 Rehabilitation Coaching Method and Rehabilitation Coaching System
Chen discloses rehabilitation coaching method and a rehabilitation coaching system are provided. The method includes setting an exercise rhythm according to personalized exercise rhythm data for the user, and outputting the exercise rhythm to coach the user to do a rehabilitation exercise. The method also includes obtaining a total oxygen consumption rate according to the profile of the user, the time of doing the rehabilitation exercise and the exercise rhythm, and obtaining an exercise intensity according to the resting heart rate of the user and an average heart rate of the user during the rehabilitation exercise. The method further includes obtaining a recommended exercise rhythm according to the exercise intensity and the total oxygen consumption rate, and updating the personalized exercise rhythm data for the user according to the recommended exercise rhythm.
Burnfield et al. US Publication 20110294624 A1 Rehabilitation and Exercise Machine
Burnfield discloses “The disclosed improved rehabilitation and exercise machine 100 is suitable for use by users with and without physical disabilities and balance deficits. In one embodiment, the improved machine 100 may include a stoppage mechanism 111 that is capable of stopping the motor of the motor and pulley assembly 110. The stoppage mechanism 111 can be actuated in case of an emergency such as the user of the machine 100 meeting with an accident while operating upon the machine 100. The stoppage mechanism 111 can be actuated by the user by making contact with the stoppage switch 111a or 111b. In another embodiment, the stoppage mechanism 111 includes a push stoppage switch 111a. The push stoppage switch 111a can be actuated by punching the push stoppage switch 111a. In one embodiment, the stoppage mechanism 111 includes a pull stoppage switch 111b. The pull stoppage switch 111b includes a connector 111c having a first and a second portion. The first portion of the connector is attached to the pull stoppage switch 111b and the second portion of the connector is attached to the user. The motor of the motor and pulley assembly 110 is stopped if a required force is experienced by the connector 111c of the pull stoppage switch 111b. The stoppage mechanism 111 can be located in a region within the machine 100 in order to provide for the user of the machine 100 to easily reach the stoppage mechanism 111 in case of an emergency such as sudden increase in or abnormal heart rate and/or pulse rate, and in case of any injury to the user of the machine 100. A safety mechanism may be added so that if the stoppage mechanism 111 has been triggered, the motor of the motor and pulley assembly 110 cannot be re-started until the speed has been set to zero. This prevents a user from accidentally starting the machine at full-speed.” (paragraph 0037).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30-5:30 pm EST.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571)272-4530. 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 L HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights