DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/30/2026 and 8/13/2026 were filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 4/30/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 63, 65-67, 69-73, 75, 76, 78-80, 82-86 and 88-94 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 63, 65-67, 69-73, 75, 76, 78-80, 82-86 and 88-94; using the two part test for subject matter eligibility, independent claims 63 and 76 are exemplary independent claims. The claims are directed to a process (claim 63) and a machine (claim 76) (Step 1: Yes); and are directed to a judicial exception regarding an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes). The abstract idea is bolded and italicized in the recreated claims below:
Claim 63:
A method for scoring and reporting electroencephalogram (EEG) data for use in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) therapy comprising:
receiving EEG data collected from a subject;
removing artifacts from the EEG data;
determining a plurality of EEG metrics from the EEG data; and
determining a Brain Synchrony Score from the plurality of EEG metrics by applying a predetermined transfer function to the plurality of EEG metrics wherein the predetermined transfer function is derived from a statistical analysis of EEG training data collected from a plurality of prior subjects before and after TMS treatment, the statistical analysis identifying EEG variables that account for variance in neural change attributable to TMS treatment;
generating a TMS treatment protocol identifying a recommended TMS stimulation frequency based on the Brain Synchrony Score; and
reporting the TMS treatment protocol via a user interface.
Claim 76:
A system for scoring and reporting electroencephalogram (EEG) data for use in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) therapy, comprising:
at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions; and
at least one processor for executing the instructions stored on the memory, wherein execution of the instructions programs the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving EEG data collected from a subject;
removing artifacts from the EEG data;
determining a plurality of EEG metrics from the EEG data; and
determining a Brain Synchrony Score from the plurality of EEG metrics by applying a predetermined transfer function to the plurality of EEG metrics wherein the predetermined transfer function is derived from a statistical analysis of EEG training data collected from a plurality of prior subjects before and after TMS treatment, the statistical analysis identifying EEG variables that account for variance in neural change attributable to TMS treatment;
generating a TMS treatment protocol identifying a recommended TMS stimulation frequency based on the Brain Synchrony Score; and
reporting the TMS treatment protocol via a user interface.
The independent claims encompass an abstract idea drawn to a mental process and mathematical concepts that can be performed in the human mind and/or by hand using a pen and paper. In this case, the steps of receiving EEG data collected from a subject (viewing EEG data with one’s eyes), determining a plurality of EEG metrics from the EEG data (thinking about and/or calculating metrics/information from the received data), determining a Brain Synchrony Score (BSS) from the plurality of EEG metrics by applying a predetermined transfer function to the plurality of EEG metrics (performing a mathematical calculation using known mathematical concepts/relationships), and generating a TMS treatment protocol identifying a recommended TMS stimulation frequency based on the Brain Synchrony Score (evaluating the observed EEG data and calculations and making judgement/opinion on the TMS stimulation frequency based on the observation/evaluation) are drawn to mental processes and mathematical concepts. In other words, the mental process includes observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion and the mathematical concepts are performing a calculation using a predetermined/known transfer function.
Further, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2: No). The claims fail to recite additional element or combination of additional element to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposed meaningful limitations on the judicial exception. In the instant claims, the identified additional elements comprise:
removing artifacts from EEG data (63, 65-67, 69-73, 75, 76, 78-80, 82-86 and 88-94),
reporting the TMS treatment protocol via a user interface (63, 65-67, 69-73, 75, 76, 78-80, 82-86 and 88-94
at least one memory storing computer-executable instruction (76, 78-80, 82-86 and 88-94), and
at least one processor for executing the instruction stored on the memory (63, 65-67, 69-73, 75, 76, 78-80, 82-86 and 88-94),
These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In the instant claims, the additional elements amount to merely applying the judicial exception by including the instruction to implement on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e. implementing on a processor and memory with computer program are all recited at a high level of generality); generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. a processor and memory with computer program); and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (removing artifacts from EEG data and reporting the TMS treatment protocol via a user interface). Further, the additional element, considered individually and as a whole, with the abstract idea does not result in an improvement in the functioning of a computer or improvement in technology or technological field (the specification is silent to any improvement to the functioning of the processor and/or memory including computer program code); does not apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis (only determines a Brain Synchrony Score and generates a TMS treatment protocol, but does not implement it to provide a prophylaxis); does not implement the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture which is integral to the claims (the processor and memory including computer program code are conventional and recited at a high level of generality); does not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular articles to a different state (wherein analyzing data is not transforming to a particular article or state); utilize well-understood, routine and conventional activity (wherein simply removing artifacts from data is well known, routine, understood and recited at a high level of generally); and does not apply the judicial exception in a 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 (wherein the abstract idea and mathematical concepts of receiving data and analyzing the data and performing a calculation and determining a TMS treatment protocol are merely implemented on a processor and memory including computer program code).
Finally, the claims as a whole, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: No). The additional elements listed above do not amount to or contribute to the inventive concept recited in the abstract idea. The additional elements, considered individually and as a whole, amount to merely implementing the abstract idea on a computer by reciting implementation by at least one processor, at least one memory including computer program code which is recited at a high level of generality and do not attempt to meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Further, removing artifacts from the EEG data is routine, conventional and well-understood step that does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Finally, reporting the TMS treatment protocol via a user interface is mere insignificant extra-solution activity as it amount to merely outputting the result of the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). When considered as a whole, implementing the abstract idea on a general computer (processor and memory including computer program code to cause a server); performing routine, convention and well understood process (removing artifact from EEG data); and performing insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to more than the abstract idea as the additional element referring to use of general purpose CPU and components; utilizing signal processing techniques that are well known, conventional and pervasive through data analysis, and outputting the result, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 63 and 76 are rejected as non-statutory as being directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea – mental process and mathematical concepts) without significantly more.
Dependent claims 65-67, 69-73, 75, 78-80, 82-86 and 88-94 do not recite any further additional elements that implement the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims merely further specify details of the abstract idea or recite further steps to the abstract idea wherein eligibility cannot be furnished by the unpatentable abstract idea itself [MPEP 2106.04, II, A, 2 (65-67, 69-73, 75, 78-80, 82-86 and 88-94); recite additional elements that are conventional, well known and recited at a high level of generality to perform their intended function removing artifact via filtering out at least one of noise artifacts and eye-blink artifacts [claims 71 and 84] are conventional, routine, well understood practices); or recite additional elements which are mere extra solution activity (wherein reporting data via a user interface is extra-solution activity [claims 66, 67, 79, 80 and 82]).
Therefore, 65-67, 69-73, 75, 78-80, 82-86 and 88-94 are rejected as non-statutory as being directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea – mental process) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 66, 67, 69, 79, 80 and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 66 and 79 recites the limitation "reporting, via a user interface, at least one…". It is unclear/indefinite if the “a user interface” referred to in claims 66 and 79 is an additional different user interface than that which is recited in claims 65 and 76, or the same user interface. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner will interpret the “user interface” of claims 66 and 79 to be the same as the user interface from independent claims 65 and 76.
Claims 67, 69, 80 and 82 are rejected as dependent on indefinite base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 63, 65-67, and 69-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Phillips et al (US 2011/0112427).
Regarding claims 63, 65-67 and 69-72; Phillips discloses a method for scoring and reporting electroencephalogram (EEG) data for use in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) therapy (paragraphs [0269]-[0630]) comprising:
receiving EEG data collected from a subject (paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0269]-[0299]);
removing artifacts from the EEG data (removes DC component of EEG signal and also discloses having a technician editing raw EEG data to remove artifact; paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0269]-[0299], [0513] and [0544]);
determining a plurality of EEG metrics from the EEG data (Fourier transform and determining curve X(f) determine EEG metrics associated therewith; paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0269]-[0299]); and
determining a Brain Synchrony Score from the plurality of EEG metrics (goodness of fit measure) by applying a predetermined transfer function to the plurality of EEG metrics (Gain, standard deviation, mean frequency) wherein the predetermined transfer function is derived from a statistical analysis of EEG training data collected from a plurality of prior subjects before and after TMS treatment, the statistical analysis identifying EEG variables that account for variance in neural change attributable to TMS treatment (wherein the initial parameters and the Gaussian fit curve are based off of historical data for TMS treatment and the H(X,A) transfer function is used to determine goodness of fit; paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0269]-[0299]);
generating a TMS treatment protocol identifying a recommended TMS stimulation frequency based on the Brain Synchrony Score (paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0269]-[0299] and [0428]-[0429]); and
reporting the TMS treatment protocol via a user interface (determines subsequent treatment and can display the treatment to be performed on display/interface; paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0269]-[0299],[0428]-[0429] and [0529]-[0537]).
The examiner contends that Phillips disclosure teaches the displaying of data representing the therapy and generating TMS protocol and that it meets the BRI of the claims as currently recited. However, if the applicant disagrees and contends that it is not disclosed and anticipated within the four corners of the Phillips disclosure; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Phillips display and interface to show the various parameters of the diagnosis and therapy including the generated treatment protocol in the generated reports in order to provide more detailed reports on the diagnosis and therapy to the user.
Further regarding claim 65; Phillps discloses the Brain Synchrony Score represents a level of synchronous energy in the EEG data that is within an alpha EEG band, the alpha EEG band being approximately 8 Hz to approximately 13 Hz (wherein the goodness of fit value represents energy in the alpha band; paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0269]-[0299]).
Further regarding claim 66; Phillips discloses determining at least one of a current frequency, an optimal frequency range, and an interference score based on the EEG data; and reporting, via a user interface, at least one of the current frequency, the optimal frequency range, and the interference score. (paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0269]-[0299], [0428]-[0430], and [0529]-[0537])
Further regarding claim 67; Phillips discloses wherein the current frequency represents a dominant frequency of the subject, and wherein the optimal frequency range represents an optimal frequency range for the subject (wherein current frequency is the mean frequency which is most dominant and the optimal frequency is the frequency that they want to lower/raise the mean frequency to; paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0269]-[0299], [0428]-[0430]).
Further regarding claim 69; Phillips discloses the interference score represents an amount of energy in the EEG data that is within a theta EEG band, the theta EEG band being approximately 5 Hz to approximately 7 Hz (paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0585]-[0587]).
Further regarding claim 70; Phillips discloses the EEG data includes a plurality of EEG channels, wherein each EEG channel corresponds to a scalp electrode used to record the EEG data (wherein it discloses uses a plurality of electrodes on different regions of the brain; paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0428]-[0429] and [0466]).
Further regarding claim 71; Phillips discloses removing artifacts from the EEG data includes filtering out at least one of noise artifacts and eye-blink artifacts (paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0513] and [0544]).
Further regarding claim 72; Phillips discloses the EEG metrics include an intrinsic alpha frequency based on a dominant frequency in an alpha EEG band, the alpha EEG band being approximately 8 Hz to approximately 13 Hz (paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0269]-[0299]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 76, 78-80 and 82-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips.
Regarding claims 76, 78-80 and 82-85; the method of Phillips is described in the rejection of claims 63, 65-67, 69-72 above. Phillips further discloses the method can be implemented as a system for scoring and reporting EEG data for use in TMS therapy utilized as a memory storing CPU executable instruction and at least one processor for executing the instruction stored on the memory which causes the system to perform the functions as claimed (see rejection of claim 63 above and paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0624]).
However, while Phillips does disclose a technician removing artifacts from the EEG data (paragraphs [0513] and [0544]); it does not explicitly disclose that the artifact removal is effected in the system by a program executed by a processor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips system to utilize a computer implemented artifact removal in place of manual artifact removal for removing artifact from the EEG data as mere automating a manual activity (see MPEP 2144.04 III). In the alternative, the examiner takes official notice that it is well known and conventional to use known computer algorithms and filters for removing artifacts from EEG data, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips system to utilize well known conventional computer algorithms/filters to remove artifacts from raw EEG data simple substitution of one known element for another to yield a predictable result (substituting well known computer implemented automated EEG artifact removal for manual technician artifact removal).
Further regarding claim 78; Phillps discloses the Brain Synchrony Score represents a level of synchronous energy in the EEG data that is within an alpha EEG band, the alpha EEG band being approximately 8 Hz to approximately 13 Hz (wherein the goodness of fit value represents energy in the alpha band; paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0269]-[0299]).
Further regarding claim 79; Phillips discloses determining at least one of a current frequency, an optimal frequency range, and an interference score based on the EEG data; and reporting, via a user interface, at least one of the current frequency, the optimal frequency range, and the interference score. (paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0269]-[0299], [0428]-[0430], and [0529]-[0537])
Further regarding claim 80; Phillips discloses wherein the current frequency represents a dominant frequency of the subject, and wherein the optimal frequency range represents an optimal frequency range for the subject (wherein current frequency is the mean frequency which is most dominant and the optimal frequency is the frequency that they want to lower/raise the mean frequency to; paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0269]-[0299], [0428]-[0430]).
Further regarding claim 82; Phillips discloses the interference score represents an amount of energy in the EEG data that is within a theta EEG band, the theta EEG band being approximately 5 Hz to approximately 7 Hz (paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0585]-[0587]).
Further regarding claim 83; Phillips discloses the EEG data includes a plurality of EEG channels, wherein each EEG channel corresponds to a scalp electrode used to record the EEG data (wherein it discloses uses a plurality of electrodes on different regions of the brain; paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0428]-[0429] and [0466]).
Further regarding claim 84; Phillips discloses removing artifacts from the EEG data includes filtering out at least one of noise artifacts and eye-blink artifacts (paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0513] and [0544]).
Further regarding claim 85; Phillips discloses the EEG metrics include an intrinsic alpha frequency based on a dominant frequency in an alpha EEG band, the alpha EEG band being approximately 8 Hz to approximately 13 Hz (paragraphs [0269]-[0630], specifically [0269]-[0299]).
Claims 73, 75, 86 and 88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philips as applied to claims 63 and 76 above, and further in view of Poltroak (US 2019/0247662 A1).
Regarding claims 73, 75, 86 and 88; Phillips is described above. Phillips discloses the use of a transfer function determined from historical data which is used by the function to optimize the function.
However, it does not explicitly disclose that the predetermined transfer function is generated from at least one factor analysis performed on the EEG training data collected from the plurality of prior subjects.
Poltroak teaches a system and method for analyzing EEG data using machine learnings algorithms/techniques wherein it discloses that the features/metrics used in the machine learning algorithm for classification and calculation are determined using principle component analysis and exploratory factor analysis (paragraphs [0732]-[0733], [0775], [0826], [0856] and [0858]).
Philips discloses generating a transfer function for use in EEG analysis. Poltroak teaches identifying variables for use in a classification and calculation function when analyzing EEG data including using principle component analysis and factor analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to utilize at least one factor analysis including exploratory factor analysis and a confirmatory factor analysis as taught by Poltroak to generate the predetermined transfer function using at least one factor analysis performed on the EEG data collected from a plurality of different subjects as taught by Poltroak in order to identify the metrics that are best suited for analysis and classification.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 89-94 are rejected under 35 USC 101 but are not rejected on the basis of prior art. As such, the claims as currently recited are indicated as allowable over the prior art of record, but rejected under subject matter eligibility. The claims would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections. The examiner explicitly notes that any amendments to the independent claims to overcome the subject matter eligibility rejection may result in a change of scope of the claims and thus require further search and consideration.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The limitations of claims 89-94 are not anticipated or disclosed by the closest prior art of record. While the prior art of record outlined above and in the prior office actions does indicate the use of machine learning algorithms to generate transfer functions, they do not disclose the detail and methodology as recited in claims 89-94 for how the transfer function is generated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments/remarks with respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections from the non-final rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, the examiner has provided the Phillips reference as outlined above to anticipate/make obvious the instant claim limitations.
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 8/13/2026 with regards to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant has amended the claims to further define how the transfer function is generated, that the method and system generate a TMS treatment protocol identifying the recommended TMS stimulation frequency based on the Brain Synchrony Score, and reporting the TMS treatment protocol via a user interface. The amendments and the corresponding arguments are insufficient to overcome the previously held 35 USC 101 rejections.
Regarding the argument that the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner finds the arguments to be non-persuasive as the additional amendments to generate the TMS treatment protocol and reports said protocol via a user interface do not amount to a practical application but instead are drawn to the abstract idea itself (the generating of the protocol is a mental process absent specific steps for how the protocol is generated) and further mere recitation of extra-solution activity (reporting of the protocol via a user interface is mere extra-solution activity). If the applicant wishes to overcome the instant 101 rejection, the examiner suggests amending the claims to recite that the protocol is delivered to a TMS system and the TMS system implements the generated protocol based on the determined Brain Synchronicity Score, or similar, as they recite a specific prophylaxis of the abstract idea with provides a practical application. The examiner notes that merely reporting or displaying the suggestion does not amount to a prophylaxis or practical application as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) (“Examiners should keep in mind that in order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. For example, a step of "prescribing a topical steroid to a patient with eczema" is not a positive limitation because it does not require that the steroid actually be used by or on the patient, and a recitation that a claimed product is a "pharmaceutical composition" or that a "feed dispenser is operable to dispense a mineral supplement" are not affirmative limitations because they are merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used.”).
Regarding the applicant’s arguments that the moving artifacts is an adaptive process and the examiner’s position that the artifact removal is mere extra-solution activity, the examiner finds the arguments to be non-persuasive. As an initial note, the examiner notes that the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, as the claim does not require or recite that the artifact removal is a specific adaptive process, but merely recites “removing artifacts data from the EEG data”, which does not require a specific adaptive process. Further, while the examiner did identify the artifact removal as extra-solution activity, the examiner further identifies the artifact removal as conventional, routine and well-understood processes as well, which further shows that it does not implement it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Finally, the applicant’s amendment to further define how the transfer function was generated do not provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the amended claims merely further define and expound on the abstract idea, and it has been held that eligibility cannot be furnished by the unpatentable abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.04, II, A, 2). As noted above, the examiner encourages the applicant to amend the claims to integrate the generated protocol into the application of the TMS protocol into a TMS treatment via the protocol based on the received EEG signal and determined BSS in order to overcome the rejection of record.
Accordingly, the applicant’s amendments and arguments/remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
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 ADAM J EISEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:00 AM - 4:00 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/ADAM J EISEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
