DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment, filed 04/20/2026, has been entered. The examiner notes claims 1-2 and 5-9 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 5, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 3 has been canceled and the elements of claim 3 that were incorporated into the independent claims have been amended to provide clarity and resolving the 35 USC 112 issue. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 3 has been rendered moot as claim 3 is canceled.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pages 5-7, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the claimed invention sets forth an improved technique for estimating body temperature, the examiner notes that MPEP 2106.05(a) states “…the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018))”. As stated in the previous office action, the additional elements of the present application are recited with a high level of generality that their functions may be performed by a general computer/computing components. The examiner maintains the contention that there currently does not appear the present application comprises an improvement to existing technology/technical field.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the present application requires a particular model that enables estimation of core body temperature, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that performing the step of estimating, as performed by the body temperature estimation model, can be reasonably interpreted as a mental process or a mathematical calculation (see details in the 35 USC 101 rejection below). The model of a blood vessel that connects the eye and a brain is also being used as a sub-model to provide for a more precise calculation, but is still a calculation nonetheless.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 7-9, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 under 35 USC 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner agrees with the applicant that the amended element of a “…model of a blood vessel that connects the eye and a brain, and an organ that covers the blood vessel, the organ including at least one of a hypothalamus, a brain, a cerebrospinal fluid, a skull, and a skin and the body temperature estimation unit simulates heat transport by blood passing through the blood vessel” is not taught by the prior art references from the previous office action. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Stein (US 20160030001 A1) and Laufer (US 20040073155 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A body temperature estimation device comprising:
a measurement unit that measures a temperature of an eye of an animal; and
a body temperature estimation unit that estimates a core body temperature of the animal by setting the temperature measured by the measurement unit in a body temperature estimation model and simulating heat conduction,
wherein the body temperature estimation model comprises another model of a blood vessel that connects the eve and a brain, and an organ that covers the blood vessel, the organ including at least one of a hypothalamus, a brain, a cerebrospinal fluid, a skull, and a skin and the body temperature estimation unit simulates heat transport by blood passing through the blood vessel.
Independent claim 5 recites:
A body temperature estimation method comprising:
a measurement step of measuring a temperature of an eye of an animal; and
a body temperature estimation step of estimating a core body temperature of the animal by setting the temperature measured in the measurement step in a body temperature estimation model and simulating heat conduction,
wherein the body temperature estimation model comprises another model of a blood vessel that connects the eve and a brain, and an organ that covers the blood vessel, the organ including at least one of a hypothalamus, a brain, a cerebrospinal fluid, a skull, and a skin and the body temperature estimation unit simulates heat transport by blood passing through the blood vessel.
Independent claim 6 recites:
A body temperature estimation system comprising:
a temperature measurement device that measures a temperature of an eye of an animal; and
a body temperature estimation device that estimates a core body temperature of the animal by setting the temperature measured by the temperature measurement device in a body temperature estimation model and simulating heat conduction,
wherein the body temperature estimation model comprises another model of a blood vessel that connects the eye and a brain, and an organ that covers the blood vessel, the organ including at least one of a hypothalamus, a brain, a cerebrospinal fluid, a skull, and a skin and the body temperature estimation unit simulates heat transport by blood passing through the blood vessel.
Step 1:
The examiner finds claims 1 and 6 drawn to a machine and claim 5 drawn to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The above claim limitations constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019.
“A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ….” October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, II. A. i. “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at II. A. ii. “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at II. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claimed steps of measuring, estimating, modeling, and simulating recite a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations).
The step of “measuring” a temperature in independent Claims 1 and 5-6 is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. For example, the human mind is capable of determining an abnormally high body temperature by placing their hand on the forehead of a patient and “measuring” the degree of abnormality. The step of “estimating” a core body temperature in independent Claims 1 and 54-6 can be reasonably interpreted as either a mental process or a mathematical concept. As a mental process, the human mind is capable of estimating a temperature a patient by processing stimuli of touch when placing your hand on a patient’s skin. As a mathematical concept, techniques such as rounding and using compatible numbers may be used to simplify calculation and provide an estimated value. The step of “modeling” body temperature in claims 1 and 5-6 is a mathematical process of representing real-world systems or phenomena using mathematical concepts, equations, and algorithms to analyze, predict, and/or optimize their behavior. The step of “simulating” heat conduction in independent Claims 1 and 5-6 can also be reasonably interpreted as either a mental process or a mathematical concept. As a mental process, the human mind is capable of mentally reconstructing/simulating a scenario (such as mentally creating the scene of a car accident when hearing the details on the evening news).
The claimed steps measuring, estimating, modeling, and simulating can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
“[T]he ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. The pending claims merely recite steps for estimation that include observations, evaluations, and judgments.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind,
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind,
University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information, which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Regarding the dependent claims 2 and 7-9, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception (abstract idea) in Claims 1-2 and 5-9 is not integrated into a practical application because:
• The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computing device. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for measuring, estimating, and simulating merely invoke a computer as a tool.
• The data-gathering step (measuring) and the data-output step do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
• There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computing device that is used as a tool for measuring, estimating, and simulating.
• The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to estimate bio-information.
• The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computing device for measuring, estimating, and simulating. The claims do not apply the obtained prediction to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
Step 2B:
The additional elements are identified as follows: a measurement unit and an estimation unit.
The examiner notes that a body temperature estimation device, which comprises the measurement unit and estimation unit, is recited with a high level of generality that the function may be performed by a general computer/computing components. The measurement unit and estimation unit are merely “applying” the functions of measuring and estimating (functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional to a general computer) within the body temperature measurement device.
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(lI) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional generic computer components as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the units associated with the steps do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. A computer, processor, memory, or equivalent hardware is merely used as a tool for executing the abstract idea(s). The process claimed does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay (US 20230043342 A1 using the priority date of provisional application 63/006,063) in view of Kamiyama (US 7441950 B2), Stein (US 20160030001 A1), and Laufer (US 20040073155 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tremblay teaches a body temperature estimation device comprising:
a measurement unit that measures a temperature of an eye of an animal [0036 “…obtain a temperature measurement on the person's forehead, corner of their eye, or other desired location”]; and
a body temperature estimation unit that estimates a core body temperature of the animal by setting the temperature measured by the measurement unit in a body temperature estimation model [0118 “…the system may model a rate of change in the face temperature as it adjusts to the new environment which may then be used with minimal samples (e.g., only two samples) with some known time between them to estimate the “true” core body temperature or the “true” face temperature”].
Tremblay teaches measuring core body temperature, but fails to explicitly teach simulating heat conduction.
Kamiyama teaches simulating heat conduction [col. 2 lns. 34-48].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Tremblay and incorporate the teachings of Kamiyama to include simulating heat conduction. Doing so configures the system to model how heat moves within a patient, allowing for an accurate prediction of internal temperatures as well as the ability to personalize a model to a patient.
Tremblay teaches a body temperature estimation model, but fails to teach wherein the body temperature estimation model comprises another model of a blood vessel that connects the eve and a brain, and an organ that covers the blood vessel, the organ including at least one of a hypothalamus, a brain, a cerebrospinal fluid, a skull, and a skin.
Stein teaches a model of a blood vessel that connects the eve and a brain [0038 “…multiple 2D carotid images can be rapidly obtained through the current carotid ultrasound device and processed and reconstructed into a 3D or 3 dimensional image of the carotid artery”], and an organ that covers the blood vessel, the organ including at least one of a brain [see Fig. 1], a skull [see Fig. 1], and a skin [see Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Tremblay and incorporate the teachings of Stein to include the body temperature estimation model comprises another model of a blood vessel that connects the eve and a brain, and an organ that covers the blood vessel, the organ including at least one of a hypothalamus, a brain, a cerebrospinal fluid, a skull, and a skin. Doing so configures the system to present the acquired data in an accessible way to a user/patient/viewer so that an accurate and efficient diagnosis of the patient’s condition may be performed..
The combination of Tremblay and Kamiyama teach the body temperature estimation unit simulates heat conduction [Kamiyama col. 2 lns. 34-48], but fails to explicitly teach the body temperature estimation unit simulates heat transport by blood passing through the blood vessel.
Laufer teaches measuring body temperature is indicative of measuring heat transport through a blood vessel [0019 “The temperature found in a blood vessel is at body temperature since the blood transports/transfers heat to the blood vessel wall”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Tremblay and Kamiyama and incorporate the teachings of Laufer to include the body temperature estimation unit simulates heat transport by blood passing through the blood vessel. Doing so configures the system to provide information that can be indicative of blood flow velocity, blood pressure and vessel geometry, and cardiac output which provides for a more robust analysis of the patient’s condition.
Regarding claim 2, Tremblay, Kamiyama, Stein, and Laufer teach the body temperature estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the measurement unit measures a temperature of a lacrimal caruncle portion of the eye of the animal [Tremblay 0036 “…obtain a temperature measurement on the person's forehead, corner of their eye, or other desired location”, the examiner is interpreting Tremblay’s disclosure of a “corner of the eye” as the lacrimal caruncle].
Regarding claim 5, Tremblay teaches a body temperature estimation method comprising:
a measurement step of measuring a temperature of an eye of an animal [0036 “…obtain a temperature measurement on the person's forehead, corner of their eye, or other desired location”]; and
a body temperature estimation step of estimating a core body temperature of the animal by setting the temperature measured in the measurement step in a body temperature estimation model [0118 “…the system may model a rate of change in the face temperature as it adjusts to the new environment which may then be used with minimal samples (e.g., only two samples) with some known time between them to estimate the “true” core body temperature or the “true” face temperature”].
Tremblay teaches measuring core body temperature, but fails to explicitly teach simulating heat conduction.
Kamiyama teaches simulating heat conduction [col. 2 lns. 34-48].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Tremblay and incorporate the teachings of Kamiyama to include simulating heat conduction. Doing so configures the system to model how heat moves within a patient, allowing for an accurate prediction of internal temperatures as well as the ability to personalize a model to a patient.
Tremblay teaches a body temperature estimation model, but fails to teach wherein the body temperature estimation model comprises another model of a blood vessel that connects the eve and a brain, and an organ that covers the blood vessel, the organ including at least one of a hypothalamus, a brain, a cerebrospinal fluid, a skull, and a skin.
Stein teaches a model of a blood vessel that connects the eve and a brain [0038 “…multiple 2D carotid images can be rapidly obtained through the current carotid ultrasound device and processed and reconstructed into a 3D or 3 dimensional image of the carotid artery”], and an organ that covers the blood vessel, the organ including at least one of a brain [see Fig. 1], a skull [see Fig. 1], and a skin [see Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Tremblay and incorporate the teachings of Stein to include the body temperature estimation model comprises another model of a blood vessel that connects the eve and a brain, and an organ that covers the blood vessel, the organ including at least one of a hypothalamus, a brain, a cerebrospinal fluid, a skull, and a skin. Doing so configures the system to present the acquired data in an accessible way to a user/patient/viewer so that an accurate and efficient diagnosis of the patient’s condition may be performed.
The combination of Tremblay and Kamiyama teach the body temperature estimation unit simulates heat conduction [Kamiyama col. 2 lns. 34-48], but fails to explicitly teach the body temperature estimation unit simulates heat transport by blood passing through the blood vessel.
Laufer teaches measuring body temperature is indicative of measuring heat transport through a blood vessel [0019 “The temperature found in a blood vessel is at body temperature since the blood transports/transfers heat to the blood vessel wall”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Tremblay and Kamiyama and incorporate the teachings of Laufer to include the body temperature estimation unit simulates heat transport by blood passing through the blood vessel. Doing so configures the system to provide information that can be indicative of blood flow velocity, blood pressure and vessel geometry, and cardiac output which provides for a more robust analysis of the patient’s condition.
Regarding claim 6, Tremblay teaches a body temperature estimation system comprising:
a temperature measurement device that measures a temperature of an eye of an animal [0036 “…obtain a temperature measurement on the person's forehead, corner of their eye, or other desired location”]; and
a body temperature estimation device that estimates a core body temperature of the animal by setting the temperature measured by the temperature measurement device in a body temperature estimation model [0118 “…the system may model a rate of change in the face temperature as it adjusts to the new environment which may then be used with minimal samples (e.g., only two samples) with some known time between them to estimate the “true” core body temperature or the “true” face temperature”].
Tremblay teaches measuring core body temperature, but fails to explicitly teach simulating heat conduction.
Kamiyama teaches simulating heat conduction [col. 2 lns. 34-48].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Tremblay and incorporate the teachings of Kamiyama to include simulating heat conduction. Doing so configures the system to model how heat moves within a patient, allowing for an accurate prediction of internal temperatures as well as the ability to personalize a model to a patient.
Tremblay teaches a body temperature estimation model, but fails to teach wherein the body temperature estimation model comprises another model of a blood vessel that connects the eve and a brain, and an organ that covers the blood vessel, the organ including at least one of a hypothalamus, a brain, a cerebrospinal fluid, a skull, and a skin.
Stein teaches a model of a blood vessel that connects the eve and a brain [0038 “…multiple 2D carotid images can be rapidly obtained through the current carotid ultrasound device and processed and reconstructed into a 3D or 3 dimensional image of the carotid artery”], and an organ that covers the blood vessel, the organ including at least one of a brain [see Fig. 1], a skull [see Fig. 1], and a skin [see Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Tremblay and incorporate the teachings of Stein to include the body temperature estimation model comprises another model of a blood vessel that connects the eve and a brain, and an organ that covers the blood vessel, the organ including at least one of a hypothalamus, a brain, a cerebrospinal fluid, a skull, and a skin. Doing so configures the system to present the acquired data in an accessible way to a user/patient/viewer so that an accurate and efficient diagnosis of the patient’s condition may be performed.
The combination of Tremblay and Kamiyama teach the body temperature estimation unit simulates heat conduction [Kamiyama col. 2 lns. 34-48], but fails to explicitly teach the body temperature estimation unit simulates heat transport by blood passing through the blood vessel.
Laufer teaches measuring body temperature is indicative of measuring heat transport through a blood vessel [0019 “The temperature found in a blood vessel is at body temperature since the blood transports/transfers heat to the blood vessel wall”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Tremblay and Kamiyama and incorporate the teachings of Laufer to include the body temperature estimation unit simulates heat transport by blood passing through the blood vessel. Doing so configures the system to provide information that can be indicative of blood flow velocity, blood pressure and vessel geometry, and cardiac output which provides for a more robust analysis of the patient’s condition.
Regarding claim 7, Tremblay, Kamiyama, Stein, and Laufer teach the body temperature estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the blood vessel that connects the eye and a brain includes at least one of an ophthalmic artery, an angular artery, an internal carotid artery [Stein 0037 “Other arteries can be assessed in the neck as part of the internal carotid artery examination”], and an external carotid artery.
Regarding claim 8, Tremblay, Kamiyama, Stein, and Laufer teach the body temperature estimation method according to claim 5, wherein the blood vessel that connects the eye and a brain includes at least one of an ophthalmic artery, an angular artery, an internal carotid artery [Stein 0037 “Other arteries can be assessed in the neck as part of the internal carotid artery examination”], and an external carotid artery.
Regarding claim 9, Tremblay, Kamiyama, Stein, and Laufer teach the body temperature estimation system according to claim 6, wherein the blood vessel that connects the eye and a brain includes at least one of an ophthalmic artery, an angular artery, an internal carotid artery [Stein 0037 “Other arteries can be assessed in the neck as part of the internal carotid artery examination”], and an external carotid artery.
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 JONATHAN M HANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 0730-1630 ET.
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 at (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.
/JONATHAN M HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights