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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the present application filed on 07/11/2025.
Claims 1-6 have been amended.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim on foreign priority based on application No. KR10-2023-0102206 filed in Korea on August 4, 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
Independent Claims 1 and 4 recite a method and a device respectively and therefore fall into one of the four statutory categories. Dependent Claims 2-3 recite methods, and 5-6 recite a device; therefore, the dependent claims also fall into one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A analysis- prong one:
The substantially similar independent claims, taking Claim 1 as exemplary, recite the following:
A method of monitoring multi-source data of a user and generating a customized digital therapeutic on the basis of the multi-source data analysis, the method comprising:
(a) causing the user to wear a wearable device that automatically transmits a user-specific data to a digital therapeutic generation device,
(b) for the user, obtaining, by the digital therapeutic generation device, the user-specific data from the wearable device, the user-specific data comprising a sex data, an age data, an activity data, a sleeping hour, a diet data, a temperature data and a biomarker data;
(c) analyzing, by the digital therapeutic generation device, the obtained user-specific data from step (b) to determine a digital therapeutic personalized for the user on the basis of the user-specific data,
the digital therapeutic comprising a sleeping hour recommendation, a diet recommendation, a recommendation of a medicine to be taken, a recommendation of a dose of the medicine and a recommendation of a timing of taking the medicine;
(d) automatically sending the digital therapeutic, by the digital therapeutic generation device, to the wearable device to guide the user in accordance with at least one recommendation in the digital therapeutic;
and (e) repeating steps (b) through (d) for the user,
wherein the digital therapeutic generation device is generated on the basis of a combination of one or more digital therapeutic modules,
and each of the one or more digital therapeutic modules is designed for a predetermined disease, as steps (b) through (d) being repeated, a feedback data is automatically generated and sent, by the wearable device, to the digital therapeutic generation device, and on the basis of the feedback data, the digital therapeutic is adaptively changed by changing the combination of the one or more digital therapeutic modules.
The series of limitations as shown in the underlined portions above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions- in this case obtaining user specific data, analyzing data to determine a therapeutic, and providing a recommendation) e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed further below. The abstract ideas of Claim 4 are identical to Claim 1 above and therefore further recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-6 include other limitations directed towards the abstract idea. For instance, Claims 2 and 5 recite the use of diagnosis and treatment modules. Claims 3 and 6 recite what information is taken into consideration for the generation of the therapeutic. These limitations only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, see MPEP 2106.04. Hence, the dependent claims are directed toward the same abstract idea of the independent claims that are grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2a analysis- prong two:
Claims 1 and 4 are not integrated into practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above- in this case, a digital therapeutic generation device, digital therapeutic, and a wearable device in Claims 1 and 4) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that data generated through the digital therapeutic-based treatment procedure may be transmitted back to the digital therapeutic generation device 120 as feedback data so that operations of the digital therapeutic may be controlled according to a change in the user. The digital therapeutic generation device 120 may generate a digital therapeutic. The digital therapeutic generation device 120 may generate a customized digital therapeutic on the basis of multi-source data analysis and provide the customized digital therapeutic to the user [0031-0032]. Further, the additional element of the wearable device is found to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of field of use. For Example, Applicant’s specification explains that a wearable device is a user device that is carried by or attached to a user. Due to the development of Internet of things (IoT) and the like, wearable devices are frequently used for collecting health-related data. A wearable device may collect a user's physical change information and surrounding data of the user through equipment and provide advice required for the user's healthcare on the basis of the collected data [0003]. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 4 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application.
Additionally, dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-6 recite other additional elements, but these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Claims 2-3 and 5-6 recite the previously recited additional element of the digital therapeutic generation device and digital therapeutic and specify the device is generated in consideration of a probability of a collision between digital therapeutics or characteristics of user specific data. This additional element amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply an exception, and hence does not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the digital therapeutic generation device, digital therapeutic, and wearable device of Claims 1 and 4 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely stating “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the wearable device was considered to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the ‘significantly more’ analysis and has been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP2106.05 (A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept (‘significantly more"). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the independent Claims 1 and 4 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-6 narrow a previously recited additional element. Claims 2 and 5 narrow the previously recited element of the digital therapeutic generation device by specifying the device is generated by modules. Claims 3 and 6 narrow the previously recited element of the digital therapeutic generation device by specifying the device is generated in consideration of a probability of collusion and user data. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 1-6 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything that is already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-6 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook et al. (KR 20220167941 A) in view of Rajput et al. (US 20230395235 A1) and Stanford et al. (GB 2554136 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Wook discloses the following:
A method of monitoring multi-source data of a user and generating a customized digital therapeutic on the basis of the multi- source data analysis, the method comprising:…a digital therapeutic generation device, (Wook discloses in the treatment method of the present invention, when a prescription for a patient is obtained from a medical staff, a digital therapeutic agent including a virtual image of a specific person included in the prescription may be prepared. In the treatment method of the present invention, a digital therapeutic agent including a virtual image of a specific person may be displayed on a therapeutic agent reproducing device used by a patient (p. 7, ¶ 0009). The treatment device 100 shown in FIG. 1 may include a diagnosis unit 110, a prescription unit 130, a dispensing unit 150, a medication unit 170, and an evaluation unit 190 (p. 3, ¶ 00060). The Examiner interprets the treatment device as being the digital therapeutic generation device.)
c) analyzing, by the digital therapeutic generation device, the obtained user-specific data to determine a digital therapeutic personalized for the user on the basis of the user-specific data, (Wook discloses the treatment device 100 shown in FIG. 1 may include a diagnosis unit 110,… (p. 3, ¶ 0006). The dispensing unit 150 may dispense a digital therapeutic agent using the prescription and patient's unique information (p. 4, ¶ 0002).)
the digital therapeutic comprising …a recommendation of a medicine to be taken,…recommendation of a timing of taking the medicine; (Wook discloses the prescribing unit 130 may obtain an automatic prescription (information) from the diagnosis unit 110 (p. 3, ¶ 0012). The prescription includes performing a specific action at a specific place at a specific time with a specific person designated by the patient…(p. 5, ¶ 0009). The Examiner interprets this as the system providing a recommended time for taking the medicine.).
Wook does not disclose the following limitations met by Rajput:
(a) causing the user to wear a wearable device that automatically transmits a user-specific data to a…device, (Rajput teaches wherein the input data sources for a patient comprise one or more wearable devices [0006]. Wearables 88 or medical devices are also configured to send data to the remote, web, or cloud based computing apparatus, either directly or via the local computing apparatus [0173].)
(b) for the user, obtaining… the user-specific data from the wearable device, the user-specific data comprising a sex data, an age data, an activity data, a sleeping hour, a diet data, a temperature data and a biomarker data; (Rajput teaches the general patient input data includes personal particular … data and include data points…This includes, but is not limited to age, sex,…[0081]. A range of digital cognitive biomarkers will be derived from the wearable device data including digital cognitive biomarkers characterising motion and physical activity, sleep duration and sleep quality, circadian rest-activity and metabolic rhythms,… [0128]. The plurality of behavioural and physiological biomarkers comprise one or more of an movement biomarker obtained from an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope, an electrodermal activity or skin conductance biomarker, a photoplethysmography or blood volume pulse biomarker, a heart rate biomarker, a heart rate variability biomarker, a skin temperature biomarker, a facial expression biomarker,…[0019].)
the digital therapeutic comprising a sleeping hour recommendation, a diet recommendation, …a recommendation of a dose of the medicine … (Rajput teaches a diet tracking module configured to collect consumption data and provide dietary recommendations [0035]. The personalised cognitive platform comprises a MOA management module,…wherein the MOA management module uses at least the mechanism of action pointers and the average mechanism of action pointer to adjust one or more of the plurality of parameters for one or more of the plurality of therapies and to adjust the dosage of each of the plurality of therapies to maximise the estimated effect level of a therapy,…the medication/dose management module is configured to record clinical data including medication and dosages and to generate suggested changes to medication and dosages using at least the side effects pointer and the cognitive baseline pointer [0056].)
(d) sending the digital therapeutic, by the digital therapeutic generation device, to the … to guide the user in accordance with at least one recommendation in the digital therapeutic; (Rajput teaches the system may be implemented on a computing system including a cloud computing platform 70,…These may network and communicate with wearable devices, medical devices and other computing systems such as laboratory management systems and electronic health records [0077]. A wearable device 88 can provide data such as heart rate, heart rate variability…which can be used to determine how well the mental exercises are at reducing stress… For example, if the heart rate of the user and galvanic skin response is decreasing this may indicate the user is becoming more relaxed, and thus less instruction needs to be given to the user, but if the user is becoming more stressed and heart rate is not decreasing, the user may need additional guidance [0124].)
And (e) repeating steps (b) through (d) for the user, wherein the digital therapeutic generation device is generated on the basis of a combination of one or more digital therapeutic modules, (Rajput teaches as treatment progresses the dosage (or balance) of different treatments will change and be refined to best suit the patient's progress and needs. The feedback process is ongoing, with repeated cycles of digital treatment using the digital cognitive therapy delivery module (according to the current personalised cognitive digital therapy model), evaluation by the cognitive analytics engine, and adjustment of the personalized cognitive digital therapy model…[0150]. As these therapies are applied, additional digital biomarker and behavioural and physiological data are collected and fed back into the cognitive analytics engine to assess treatment performance with respect to expected performance, thus allowing further evaluation and adjustment of the personalised cognitive digital therapy model. Digital cognitive biomarkers captured by the digital cognitive therapy delivery module are used for automated or semi-automated personalization of the digital therapy modules (MOAs) to personalise the treatment of the patient [0192].)
and each of the one or more digital therapeutic modules is designed for a predetermined disease, (Rajput teaches embodiments of the system are designed to either maintain or improve cognitive functioning in patients with… Alzheimer's Disease (AD) [0076]. The monitoring of the patient also helps to estimate the potential therapeutic benefit of certain therapeutic agents to track the side effects of the drugs on the patient. Table 1 presents the starting dose, the optimal dose, and side effects of several classes of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) drugs [0162]. The data aggregation and pre-processing module 20 is configured to aggregate and pre-process the input data in the patient clinical database and generate a patient profile for each patient (which may then be stored in the patient clinical database 10). The patient profile is used to generate the personalized cognitive digital model 60 [0082]. The Examiner interprets the invention being for specific application of Alzheimer’s Disease meaning that the modules are configured to analyze and treat for this predetermined disease.)
as steps (b) through (d) being repeated, a feedback data is automatically generated and sent, by the wearable device, to the digital therapeutic generation device, (Rajput teaches the system is iterative and uses a continuous feedback loop to personalise the personalised cognitive digital therapy model for the patient including adjustment of the digital cognitive therapies provided by the digital cognitive therapy module. As these therapies are applied, additional digital biomarker and behavioural and physiological data are collected and fed back into the cognitive analytics engine to assess treatment performance with respect to expected performance, thus allowing further evaluation and adjustment of the personalised cognitive digital therapy model. Digital cognitive biomarkers by the digital cognitive therapy delivery module are used for automated or semi-automated personalization of the digital therapy modules (MOAs) to personalize the treatment of the patient [0192].)
and on the basis of the feedback data, the digital therapeutic is adaptively changed by changing the combination of the one or more digital therapeutic modules. (Rajput teaches alternatively or additionally direct feedback may also be obtained from the patient, or a video may be taken of the patient whilst they are doing the exercise… which is then analysed or reviewed. Based on the analysis the type of activity they are prescribed can then be adjusted [0124]. The feedback process is ongoing, with repeated cycles of digital treatment using the digital cognitive therapy delivery module (according to the current personalized cognitive digital therapy model), evaluation by the cognitive analytics engine, and adjustment of the personalised cognitive digital therapy model by personalized cognitive platform to refine and improve treatment [10150].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for determining a digital therapeutic using patient-specific data, a plurality of modules, and a device as disclosed by Wook to incorporate the use of a wearable device, a plurality of user-specific data points, and a continuous feedback/updating to the recommendations as taught by Rajput. This modification would create a system and method capable of providing a personalize therapeutic management system which assists clinicians in providing improved therapeutic treatments (see Rajput, ¶ 0005).
Wook and Rajput do not teach the automatic sending of the data which is met by Stanford:
…wearable device that automatically transmits…data (Stanford teaches the present invention provides a device comprising: data capturing means; and wireless communication means, the wearable device being operable to automatically activate the wireless communication means to connect to/establish a wireless network in response to the wearable device being positioned in a hub station (p. 9, ¶ 0013).)
(d) automatically sending…, by the…device, to the wearable device… (Stanford teaches the wearable device being operable to automatically transmit/receive data to/from the computer system over the wireless network (p. 5, ¶ 0005).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for determining a digital therapeutic using patient-specific data, a plurality of modules, and a device as disclosed by Wook to incorporate the data being transmitted automatically between the wearable device and the computing device which is taught by Stanford. This modification would create a system which reduces the operator’s burden and streamlines processes (see Stanford, p. 4, ¶ 0008).
Regarding Claim 4, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and taught by Wook above; therefore, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons and basis as shown above. Wook further discloses:
a digital therapeutic generation device (Wook discloses treatment device 100 of the present invention (p. 3, ¶ 0005).)
Regarding Claim 2, Wook, Rajput, and Stanford teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Wook further discloses:
wherein the digital therapeutic modules include a digital therapeutic module (diagnosis/monitoring) and a digital therapeutic module (treatment). (Wook discloses the treatment device…may include a diagnosis unit 110, a prescription unit 130, a dispensing unit 150, a medication unit 170, and an evaluation unit 190 (p. 3, ¶ 0006). The diagnosis unit is being interpreted as the therapeutic module (diagnosis/monitoring), and the prescription unit is being interpreted as the therapeutic module (treatment).)
Regarding Claim 5, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 2 and taught by Wook, Rajput, and Stanford above; therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons and basis as shown above.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook et al. (KR 20220167941 A), Rajput et al. (US 20230395235 A1), and Stanford et al. (GB 2554136 A) in view of Jeongia et al. (KR 20220134964 A).
Regarding Claim 3, Wook, Rajput, and Stanford teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 2 above. Wook further discloses:
wherein the digital therapeutic generation device….(Wook discloses the treatment device 100 shown in FIG. 1 may include a diagnosis unit 110, a prescription unit 130, a dispensing unit 150, a medication unit 170, and an evaluation unit 190 (p. 3, ¶ 0006).)
Wook, Rajput, and Stanford do not teach the determination of a probability of a collision between therapeutics which is met by Jeongia:
…generated in consideration of a probability of a collision between digital therapeutics or characteristics of user-specific data providable by the user. (Jeongia discloses when the processor 214 detects a collision between the first mission and the second mission, the first mission-related external device (eg, the first external device 220) or the second mission-related external device ( For example, an update may be requested from the second external device 230 (p. 10, ¶ 0001). The electronic device 210 may request the update of the digital therapeutic agent including at least one mission among the missions in which the collision has occurred (p. 13, ¶ 0005).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and method for generating a personalized digital therapeutic that utilizes multiple modules and patient-specific data as disclosed by Wook to incorporate the system taking into account any potential collisions in therapies as taught by Jeongia. This modification would create a system and methods which can adjust treatment in consideration of potential issues (see Jeongia, p. 9, ¶ 0007).
Regarding Claim 6, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 3 and taught by Wook, Rajput, Stanford, and Jeongia above; therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons and basis as shown above.
Relevant Prior Art of Record Not Currently Being Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
Pratsevall et al. (US 20160314251 A1) teaches a method and system for providing personalized pharmacogenetic recommendations and their risks.
Paull et al. (US 20220028529 A1) teaches a method and system for providing a personalized prescription digital therapeutic to a user’s mobile device.
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 101 to Claims 1-6, Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of the amendments.
Applicant argues the independent Claims are analogous to the USPTO guidance, Example 46. This example indicates that when taken alone, each claim limitation recites observations that can be performed in the human mind, but viewing the claim as a whole, the combination of all the limitations amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they add meaningful limits with automatically routing the animals (see Applicant’s Remarks, p. 1-3).
Regarding (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step (d) of the patent-eligible claim in Example 46 is the limitation that provides the integration into a practical application. The Example claim does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it can employ the information provided by the judicia exception (the mental analysis of whether the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany) to operate the feed dispenser (see USPTO guidance on Example 46). Conversely, the instant claim is not analogous to the example because the instant claim does not control anything. There is no administration step of a treatment, but only recommending of a treatment, which does not elicit any sort of integration.
Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims add meaningful limits with automatically sending the digital therapeutic,…to guide the user in accordance with at least one recommendation in the digital therapeutic (p. 4).
Regarding (b), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the use of the term “simultaneously” does not disqualify the limitation from being categorized as an abstract idea. Language such as concurrently, automatically, instantly, or simultaneously to describe the automation of a manual process is not enough to overcome a subject matter eligibility rejection (MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality no. (iii) mere automation of manual processes). Examiner also notes that language such as this is not restricted to computer processes, humans can automatically/instantly/simultaneously complete different tasks (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) stating that the mental processes may be completely by humans plural – not just a singular human mind).
Applicant argues that claim 4 has been amended to be similar to patent-eligible claim 4 in example 46 (p. 4-5).
Regarding (c), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 4 in Example 46 is not directed to an abstract idea, because the claim only recites tangible computer systems. Conversely, Claim 4 of the instant claims is directed to an abstract idea because the claim, when taken as a whole, is directed toward the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because the claims (disregarding the additional elements) are directed to a method a healthcare worker could follow to use a patient’s personal data and determine a recommendation for them to follow.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 103 to Claims 1-6, Applicant’s arguments have been considered, and are persuasive in light of the amendments; therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made, rejecting the claims over Wook in view of Rajput and Stanford, as per the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 OLIVIA R GEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Peter H Choi can be reached on (469)295-9171. 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.
/OLIVIA R. GEDRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681