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 11/03/23 has been considered by the examiner.
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 -18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a process for non-invasively analyzing a target with an analysis apparatus. Thus, claim 1 is directed towards a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
“emitting an intensity-modulated light at a controllable modulation frequency, sensing directly or indirectly a thermal wave propagating out of the target in response to an irradiation of said target by the light emitted, a) carrying out at least one irradiation of the target with the light emitter in a first mode, the modulation frequency of the intensity of the light emitted being swept during each of the at least one irradiation in the first mode over a frequency sweep range, and the processor module receiving sensor data from a detection cell for each of the at least one irradiation in the first mode; b) carrying out at least one additional irradiation of said target with said light emitter in said first mode, the processor module receiving sensor data from a detection cell for each of the at least one additional irradiation in the first mode; c) processing with the processor module the sensor data received for at least two irradiations in said first mode and forming with the processor module a time series comprising sensor data for each of a plurality of discrete frequencies in the frequency sweep range ;d) calculating, using the processor module, a discrete mode modulation frequency based on an analysis of the time series comprising sensor data for each of a plurality of discrete frequencies in the frequency sweep range; e) carrying out at least one irradiation of the target with a light emitter emitting an intensity-modulated light in a second mode, the modulation frequency of the intensity of the light emitted in the second mode being said discrete mode modulation frequency calculated at step d, the processor module receiving sensor data from a detection cell for each of the at least one irradiation in the second mode ;f) calculating, using the processor module, an analyte value based on the sensor data received for at least one of the irradiation in the second mode”
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“an intensity-modulation device, a light emitter; detection cell comprising a sensor; a processor module configured to receive and process sensor data from at least one detection cell,”
These are generic detection device components, and are conventional means for detecting analytes. These appear to be nothing more than generic detection device components and, as such, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, executing an action based on the wireless signal pertains to mere extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and/or recite significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Rather, Examiner takes official notice that they are widely known structural components that have been set forth in prior analysis apparatuses. See Shah [par. 22, 169], which teaches these sensor components.
Further, dependent claims 2, 3, 14, 15, 17 and 18 recite the additional limitations, second sensor, second light emitter, a medicament delivery device, an electroacoustic sensor and a thermal sensor, wearable apparatus, and a medicament delivery system. However, these are well understood, routine and conventional and therefore do add significantly more.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 16 is also not patent eligible for substantially similar reasons.
Dependent claims 4-13 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
Thus, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shnaiderman (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0052164 A1)
Shnaiderman was applied in Applicant’s IDS
Regarding claim 1, Shnaiderman teaches a process for non-invasively analyzing a target with an analysis apparatus comprising:- an intensity-modulation device [fig. 1a; par. 22, 63], a light emitter [fig. 1a, element 2] emitting an intensity-modulated light at a controllable modulation frequency [par. 22, 112, 169], - at least one detection cell comprising a sensor [fig. 1a, element 5a; par. 169; Examiner interprets the acoustic chamber to be the detection cell, and the ultrasound detector to be the sensor] sensing directly or indirectly a thermal wave propagating out of the target in response to an irradiation of said target by the light emitted [par. 169, 176], - a processor module [fig. 1a, element 9; par. 169] configured to receive and process sensor data from at least one detection cell [par. 38], wherein the process comprises:
a) carrying out at least one irradiation of the target with the light emitter in a first mode, the modulation frequency of the intensity of the light emitted being swept during each of the at least one irradiation in the first mode over a frequency sweep range [par. 22, 74, 174], and the processor module receiving sensor data from a detection cell for each of the at least one irradiation in the first mode [par. 169];
b) carrying out at least one additional irradiation of said target with said light emitter in said first mode [par. 74], the processor module receiving sensor data from a detection cell for each of the at least one additional irradiation in the first mode [par. 38];
c) processing with the processor module the sensor data received for at least two irradiations in said first mode and forming with the processor module a time series comprising sensor data for each of a plurality of discrete frequencies in the frequency sweep range [par. 173, 174, 177];
A second embodiment of Shnaiderman teaches d) calculating, using the processor module, a discrete mode modulation frequency based on an analysis of the time series comprising sensor data for each of a plurality of discrete frequencies in the frequency sweep range [par. 194];
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by a first embodiment of Shnaiderman, to incorporate calculating, using the processor module, a discrete mode modulation frequency based on an analysis of the time series comprising sensor data for each of a plurality of discrete frequencies in the frequency sweep range, to provide better signal to noise ratio characteristics, as evidence by Shnaiderman [par. 194].
Although Shnaiderman does not explicitly teach e) carrying out at least one irradiation of the target with a light emitter emitting an intensity-modulated light in a second mode, the modulation frequency of the intensity of the light emitted in the second mode being said discrete mode modulation frequency calculated at step d, the processor module receiving sensor data from a detection cell for each of the at least one irradiation in the second mode, this would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed since Shnaiderman also suggests carrying out at least one irradiation of the target with a light emitter emitting an intensity-modulated light in a first mode [par. Par. 169]. Shnaiderman also teaches determining a discrete mode modulation frequency, and further the data recorded can be taken in the time domain or processed directly in the frequency to define layers along the geometrical dimension; and the analysis being then equivalent to the one described above for the time-domain data collection [par. 194]. Additionally, Shnaiderman teaches the processing unit receives all sensor data [par. 38]. Therefore, incorporating carrying out at least one irradiation of the target with a light emitter emitting an intensity-modulated light in a second mode, the modulation frequency of the intensity of the light emitted in the second mode being said discrete mode modulation frequency calculated at step d, the processor module receiving sensor data from a detection cell for each of the at least one irradiation in the second mode would involve only routine skill in the art.
Although Shnaiderman does not explicitly teach f) calculating, using the processor module, an analyte value based on the sensor data received for at least one of the irradiation in the second mode, this would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed since Shnaiderman also suggests classification can utilize any of the information collected in the above implementations to classify a measurement based on features (properties) contained in the measurement to a parameter or index representative of a desired function [par. 195]. Shnaiderman also teaches using select wavelengths to detect parameters, including glucose [par. 76]. Therefore, incorporating calculating, using the processor module, an analyte value based on the sensor data received for at least one of the irradiation in the second mode would involve only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, the second embodiment of Shnaiderman further teaches at d), said analysis of the time series comprising sensor data for each of a plurality of discrete frequencies in the frequency sweep range comprises forming a time series for each of a plurality of discrete frequencies and calculating at least one value indicative of the similarity or the dissimilarity between two time series at two of the plurality of discrete frequencies [par. 194]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by a first embodiment of Shnaiderman, to incorporate calculating, using the processor module, a discrete mode modulation frequency based on an analysis of the time series comprising sensor data for each of a plurality of discrete frequencies in the frequency sweep range, to provide better signal to noise ratio characteristics, as evidence by Shnaiderman [par. 194].
Regarding claim 11, the second embodiment of Shnaiderman further teaches at d), the analysis of the time series comprising sensor data for each of a plurality of discrete frequencies in the frequency sweep range further comprises performing a dynamic time warping algorithm and/or a correlation analysis on this time series [par. 194, 195]
Regarding claim 16, Shnaiderman teaches an apparatus for non-invasively analyzing a target comprising:- at least one intensity-modulation device [fig. 1a; par. 22, 63], a light emitter [fig. 1a, element 2] emitting an intensity-modulated light at a controllable modulation frequency [par. 22, 112, 169], - at least one detection cell comprising a sensor [fig. 1a, element 5a; par. 169; Examiner interprets the acoustic chamber to be the detection cell, and the ultrasound detector to be the sensor] sensing directly or indirectly a thermal wave propagating out of the target in response to an irradiation of said target by the light emitted [par. 169, 176], - at least one processor module [fig. 1a, element 9; par. 169] configured to receive and process sensor data from at least one detection cell [par. 38], wherein at least one light emitter is configured to:
a) carry out at least one irradiation of the target with the light emitter in a first mode, the modulation frequency of the intensity of the light emitted being swept during each of the at least one irradiation in the first mode over a frequency sweep range [par. 22, 74, 174];
b) carry out at least one additional irradiation of said target with said light emitter in said first mode [par. 74];
wherein at least one processor module is configured to:
c) receive sensor data from at least one detection cell for each of the at least one irradiation in a first mode [par. 169];
d) process the sensor data received for at least of the at least two irradiations in said first mode and form a time series comprising sensor data for each of a plurality of discrete frequencies in the frequency sweep range [par. 173, 174, 177];
A second embodiment of Shnaiderman teaches e) calculate a discrete mode modulation frequency based on an analysis of the time series comprising data for each of a plurality of discrete frequencies in the frequency sweep range [par. 194]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by a first embodiment of Shnaiderman, to incorporate calculate a discrete mode modulation frequency based on an analysis of the time series comprising data for each of a plurality of discrete frequencies in the frequency sweep range, to provide better signal to noise ratio characteristics, as evidence by Shnaiderman [par. 194].
Although Shnaiderman does not explicitly teach wherein:- the at least one light emitter is configured to carry out at least one irradiation of the target with the light emitter in a second mode, the light emitted in the second mode being intensity-modulated at said discrete mode modulation frequency calculated by the at least one processor module, and the at least one processor module is configured to receive sensor data from at least one detection cell for each of the at least one irradiation in the second mode this would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed since Shnaiderman also suggests carrying out at least one irradiation of the target with a light emitter emitting an intensity-modulated light in a first mode [par. Par. 169]. Shnaiderman also teaches determining a discrete mode modulation frequency, and further the data recorded can be taken in the time domain or processed directly in the frequency to define layers along the geometrical dimension; and the analysis being then equivalent to the one described above for the time-domain data collection [par. 194]. Additionally, Shnaiderman teaches the processing unit receives all sensor data [par. 38]. Therefore, incorporating carrying out at least one irradiation of the target with a light emitter emitting an intensity-modulated light in a second mode, the modulation frequency of the intensity of the light emitted in the second mode being said discrete mode modulation frequency calculated at step d, the processor module receiving sensor data from a detection cell for each of the at least one irradiation in the second mode would involve only routine skill in the art.
Although Shnaiderman does not explicitly teach to calculate an analyte value based on the sensor data received for at least one irradiation in the second mode, this would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed since Shnaiderman also suggests classification can utilize any of the information collected in the above implementations to classify a measurement based on features (properties) contained in the measurement to a parameter or index representative of a desired function [par. 195]. Shnaiderman also teaches using select wavelengths to detect parameters, including glucose [par. 76]. Therefore, incorporating calculating, using the processor module, an analyte value based on the sensor data received for at least one of the irradiation in the second mode would involve only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Shnaiderman further teaches the apparatus is wearable [par. 92].
Claims 2, 3, 5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shnaiderman and in further view of Bauer (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0109019 A1)
Bauer was applied in the previous office action
Regarding claim 2, Shnaiderman teaches a process for non-invasively analyzing a target with an analysis apparatus, as disclosed above
However, Shnaiderman does not teach a first sensor is provided for carrying out a) and b) and a second sensor is provided for carrying out e)
Bauer teaches a first sensor is provided for carrying out a) and b) and a second sensor is provided for carrying out e) [par. 138, 139]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by a first embodiment of Shnaiderman, to incorporate a first sensor is provided for carrying out a) and b) and a second sensor is provided for carrying out e), for detecting an acoustic response signal and infrared radiation signal, as evidence by Bauer [par. 138, 139].
Regarding claim 3, Bauer further teaches a second light emitter emitting an intensity-modulated light at a controllable modulation frequency is provided for carrying the at least one irradiation at e) [par. 37]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by a first embodiment of Shnaiderman, to incorporate a second light emitter emitting an intensity-modulated light at a controllable modulation frequency is provided for carrying the at least one irradiation at e), for each to generate their own electromagnetic excitation beam, as evidence by Bauer [par. 35].
Regarding claim 5, Bauer further teaches at f), the analyte value is calculated based on the sensor data received for a plurality of the at least two irradiations in the second mode at the preceding e [par. 102. 213, step 10 “From the thermal signal measured according to (6-9), which is dependent on the excitation wavelength, if glucose is to be identified, in one embodiment the background is determined first with non-glucose-relevant wavelengths (or excluding them) of the excitation beam (curve 145), and then with (or including) the glucose-relevant wavelengths the difference from the background signal is determined”]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by a first embodiment of Shnaiderman, to incorporate at f), the analyte value is calculated based on the sensor data received for a plurality of the at least two irradiations in the second mode at the preceding e, as the laser must be tuned over a specific infrared range in order for the analyte to be absorbed, as evidence by Bauer [par. 213].
Regarding claim 12, Bauer further teaches an intensity-modulated light comprises at least one wavelength that is absorbed by an analyte to be measured in the target [par. 213, step 1]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by a first embodiment of Shnaiderman, to incorporate an intensity-modulated light comprises at least one wavelength that is absorbed by an analyte to be measured in the target, as the laser must be tuned over a specific infrared range in order for the analyte to be absorbed, as evidence by Bauer [par. 213]
Regarding claim 13, Bauer further teaches the at least one wavelength of the intensity-modulated light is within the mid infrared range [par. 91, 92]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by a first embodiment of Shnaiderman, to incorporate the at least one wavelength of the intensity-modulated light is within the mid infrared range, as the laser must be tuned over a specific infrared range in order for the analyte to be absorbed, as evidence by Bauer [par. 213]
Regarding claim 14, the second embodiment of Shnaiderman further teaches at d), the results of the analysis of the time series comprising sensor data for each of a plurality of discrete frequencies in the frequency sweep range are compared to a predetermined threshold [par. 194]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by a first embodiment of Shnaiderman, to incorporate at d), the results of the analysis of the time series comprising sensor data for each of a plurality of discrete frequencies in the frequency sweep range are compared to a predetermined threshold, to provide better signal to noise ratio characteristics, as evidence by Shnaiderman [par. 194].
Bauer further teaches the analysis apparatus further comprises a user interface or is further configured to transmit data to a medicament delivery device, and in that, based on the result of this comparison, an alarm signal is displayed on the user interface or transmitted to the medicament delivery device [par. 56, 57]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shnaiderman, to incorporate a user interface or is further configured to transmit data to a medicament delivery device, and in that, based on the result of this comparison, an alarm signal is displayed on the user interface or transmitted to the medicament delivery device, for insulin or glucagon delivery, as evidence by Bauer [par. 56]
Regarding claim 15, Bauer further teaches at least one detection cell comprises a sensor chosen among an electroacoustic sensor and a thermal sensor [par. 168]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shnaiderman, to incorporate at least one detection cell comprises a sensor chosen among an electroacoustic sensor and a thermal sensor, in order to detect a time-dependent response signal, as evidence by Bauer [par. 168]
Regarding claim 18, Bauer teaches a medicament delivery system, the system being further configured to determine a medicament therapy to be delivered by the medicament delivery device based on at least one analyte value calculated using a processor module of the apparatus [par. 56, 57]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shnaiderman, to incorporate a medicament delivery system, the system being further configured to determine a medicament therapy to be delivered by the medicament delivery device based on at least one analyte value calculated using a processor module of the apparatus, for insulin or glucagon delivery, as evidence by Bauer [par. 56]
Claims 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shnaiderman and Bauer and in further view of Bauer (U.S. Patent Number 10261011 B2), hereby referred to as Bauer 2019
Bauer 2019 was applied in the Applicant’s IDS
Regarding claim 4, Shnaiderman and Bauer teach a process for non-invasively analyzing a target with an analysis apparatus, as disclosed above
Bauer further teaches at e), at least two irradiations in the second mode are performed, two successive irradiations in the second mode [par. 102. 213, step 10].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shnaiderman, to incorporate at e), at least two irradiations in the second mode are performed, two successive irradiations in the second mode, as the laser must be tuned over a specific infrared range in order for the analyte to be absorbed, as evidence by Bauer [par. 213]
However, Shnaiderman and Bauer do not teach two successive irradiations in the second mode being separated by a first period of time TDM
Bauer 2019 teaches two successive irradiations in the second mode being separated by a first period of time TDM [col 11: lines 12-20]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shnaiderman and Bauer, to incorporate two successive irradiations in the second mode being separated by a first period of time TDM, as there is always at least one period which corresponds to the diffusion time required by a thermal wave to traverse the distance between the depth range to be investigated in the sample and the sample surface, as evidence by Bauer 2019 [col 11: lines 12-20]
Regarding claim 5, Bauer further teaches at f), the analyte value is calculated based on the sensor data received for a plurality of the at least two irradiations in the second mode at the preceding e [par. 102. 213, step 10 “From the thermal signal measured according to (6-9), which is dependent on the excitation wavelength, if glucose is to be identified, in one embodiment the background is determined first with non-glucose-relevant wavelengths (or excluding them) of the excitation beam (curve 145), and then with (or including) the glucose-relevant wavelengths the difference from the background signal is determined”]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shnaiderman, to incorporate at f), the analyte value is calculated based on the sensor data received for a plurality of the at least two irradiations in the second mode at the preceding e, as the laser must be tuned over a specific infrared range in order for the analyte to be absorbed, as evidence by Bauer [par. 213]
Regarding claim 7, Bauer 2019 further teaches b). c). d). and e) are periodically repeated in this order, two successive iterations of b) being separated by a second period of time TSM [col. 11: lines 28-33]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shnaiderman and Bauer, to incorporate b). c). d). and e) are periodically repeated in this order, two successive iterations of b) being separated by a second period of time TSM, to temporal intensity response of the absorption, as evidence by Bauer 2019 [col. 11: lines 28-33]
Although Bauer 2019 does not explicitly teach the first period of time TDM is shorter than said second period of time TSM, this would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed since Bauer 2019 also suggests a time period between irradiations [col 11: lines 12-20] and a time period between measurements [col. 11: lines 28-33]. Examiner notes having the time between laser emissions be shorter than the time between measuring multiple laser emissions would involve only routine skill in the art.
Claims 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shnaiderman and in further view of Bauer 2019
Regarding claim 6, Shnaiderman teaches a process for non-invasively analyzing a target with an analysis apparatus, as disclosed above
However, Shnaiderman does not teach b), c), d), and e) are periodically repeated in this order, two successive iterations of b) being separated by a second period of time TSM
Bauer 2019 teaches b), c), d), and e) are periodically repeated in this order, two successive iterations of b) being separated by a second period of time TSM [col. 11: lines 28-33]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shnaiderman, to incorporate b), c), d), and e) are periodically repeated in this order, two successive iterations of b) being separated by a second period of time TSM, to temporal intensity response of the absorption, as evidence by Bauer 2019 [col. 11: lines 28-33]
Regarding claim 8, Shnaiderman further teaches a first integer N is predetermined and that at c), the time series is formed with the data acquired during the N latest irradiations in the first mode [par. 173, 174, 177]
Regarding claim 9, Bauer 2019 further teaches at a), N-1 irradiations are performed in the first mode, two successive irradiations of i) being separated by a third period of time TDM [col 11: lines 12-20]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shnaiderman, to incorporate at a), N-1 irradiations are performed in the first mode, two successive irradiations of i) being separated by a third period of time TDM, to temporal intensity response of the absorption, as evidence by Bauer 2019 [col. 11: lines 28-33]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE L ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm, alt F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571)272-4233. 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.
/GRACE L ROZANSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791