DETAILED ACTION
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn based on the amendments filed 10/23/2025.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn based on the amendments filed 10/23/2025.
The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn based on the amendments filed 10/23/2025.
Claims 1-30 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities: the terms “the condition associated with the user” lack antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to claims 2 and 17, applicant argues that claim 1 recites "identifying... a plurality of user interfaces of a digital therapeutic to present digital therapeutic content to a user to address a condition using one or more of the plurality of user interfaces.” Thus, "the condition associated with the user" in claim 2 has antecedent basis. Examiner respectfully disagrees because “a condition” does not provide antecedent basis for “the condition associated with the user”. Claim 1 recites “a condition” which is broader than “the condition associated with the user”. Therefore, it is unclear if “a condition” of claim 1 is the same as “the condition associated with the user” of claim 2. Examiner suggest that “a condition” should read “a condition associated with the user.”
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection, applicant argues that the amendments to the independent claims render the rejection moot. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claims overcome the current rejection. Therefore, the current rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, applicant argues that the amendments to the independent claims render the rejection moot. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claims overcome the current rejection. Therefore, the current rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, 14, 16, 18-21, 23-27, and 29, the claims recite “initial implementation of the digital therapeutic” and “full implementation of the digital therapeutic.” There is no support within the specification for “initial implementation” and “full implementation”. Therefore, claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, 14, 16, 18-21, 23-27, and 29 are rejected under 112(a) written description. The closest suggestion to “initial implementation” and “full implementation” is “sample digital therapeutic” and “full digital therapeutic”, respectively, in paragraphs [0008], [0033], [0044-0045], [0049-0056], and [0061-0074]. Claims 2, 7, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28, and 30, and 24-30 inherit this rejection.
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.
Claims 1-30 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.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 16, and 23, the claims recite “full implementation”. It is not clear what the scope of “full” is, therefore, claims, 1, 8, 16, and 23 are rendered indefinite. For the purpose of examination, “full implementation” will be interpreted as the overall or entirety of the digital therapeutic content. Claims 2-7, 9-15, 17-22, and 24-30 inherit this rejection.
Regarding claims 3-6, 12, 14, 18-21, 27, 29, the claims recite “the full implementation.” It is unclear if “the full implementation” is the same as “the full implementation of digital therapeutic” in independent claims 1, 8, 16, and 23. For the purpose of examination, “the full implementation” will be interpreted as “the full implementation of digital therapeutic.”
Regarding claims 5-6, 9-11, 14, 20-21, 24-26, 29, the claims recite “the initial implementation.” It is unclear if “the initial implementation” is the same as “the initial implementation of digital therapeutic” in independent claims 1, 8, 16, and 23. For the purpose of examination, “the initial implementation” will be interpreted as “the initial implementation of digital therapeutic.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 11, 13-15, 16-18, 20-23, 26, 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20240047041 A1 to Forbes et al. (Forbes).
Regarding claim 1, Forbes teaches a method of controlling access to user interfaces, comprising: identifying, by one or more processors (Forbes [0093], e.g., Computing device 800 includes a processor 602, memory 604), a plurality of user interfaces of a digital therapeutic to present digital therapeutic content to a user to address a condition using one or more of the plurality of user interfaces (Forbes [0019], e.g., In some embodiments, the DTx is configured to render and process therapeutic content that is specifically tailored to treat mood disorder……… Depending on the patient’s progress, different therapeutic content may be selected and provided to the patient); providing, by the one or more processors, to a user device associated with the user (Forbes [0018], e.g., In particular, the functionality of the DTx described herein may operate at the user device. The user device may generally be operated by the patient and/or user such as a clinician) over a time window (Forbes [0020], e.g., The therapeutic content may be configured to be delivered to (or consumed by) the patient according to a predefined treatment schedule), access to a subset of the plurality of user interfaces to present a corresponding portion of the digital therapeutic content to the user); access to an initial implementation of the digital therapeutic comprising a subset of the plurality of user interfaces to present a corresponding portion of the digital therapeutic content to the user (Forbes Fig. 2, e.g., elements 204, 208, [0024], e.g., therapeutic content 102 of DTx 100 may include one or more components, such as memory task exercises 104, psychotherapy lessons 106, and messaging 108, [0041], e.g., In some embodiments, memory task exercises 104 of DTx 100 may include emotional face memory task (EFMT) exercises); receiving, by the one or more processors, data from the user device, the data identifying interactions by the user with one or more of the subset of the plurality of user interfaces (Forbes [0020], e.g., In addition, the therapeutic content may be interactive, prompting input or responses from the patient. The interactive therapeutic content may further obtain feedback passively……… monitoring facial expressions (such as using computer vision processing) to perform emotion recognition, performing eye-gaze tracking (such as to determine whether the patient is consuming the therapeutic content), and the like); determining, by the one or more processors, whether In some embodiments, statistics regarding the responses provided by the patient may be obtained. The statistics may be used to determine an effectiveness of the EFMT exercise, an engagement level of the patient……… Delay times that are deemed long may indicate that emotion expressed by the rendered image may be unclear, indicating that the image may need to be removed from the EFMT exercise, updated, or otherwise adjusted to improve the image’s therapeutic effectiveness); and providing, by the one or more processors, to the user device, access to a full implementation of the digital therapeutic comprising the plurality of user interfaces to present an entirety of the digital therapeutic content to the user, responsive to determining that the interactions satisfy the criterion (Forbes [0047-0048], e.g., The responses for a given EFMT exercise may be analyzed to determine response patterns, anomalies, or other aspects of the response, which can be used for improving the therapeutic treatment……… Therefore, appropriate therapeutic interventions may be identified by the HCP and provided to the patient……… Accordingly, the value of N may be adjusted (either increased or decreased) to allow the patient to advance through the EFMT exercise, or a series of EFMT exercises, while remaining challenged at a level that is appropriate for the patient; [0078], e.g., some embodiments may include enabling a patient to access certain exercises and/or lessons at various points throughout the treatment schedule. For example, a patient may be able to access an anchor lesson and any point throughout treatment schedule 600 even if a different psychotherapy lesson or no psychotherapy lesson is scheduled to occur on that particular day).
Regarding claim 2, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1. Forbes further teaches wherein determining that the user satisfy the criterion further comprises determining, based on the data, that the corresponding portion of the digital therapeutic content is effective at addressing the condition associated with the user within the time period or determining, based on the data, that engagement satisfies a predefined threshold (Forbes [0054], e.g., The length of each CBT lesson may be carefully configured to maximize effectiveness, receptiveness, and impact……… In some embodiments, a lesson’s length may be adjusted (such as extended, shortened) so as to improve the effectiveness of the lesson’s content. Also see [0047], [0057]).
Regarding claim 3, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1. Forbes further teaches determining, by the one or more processors, whether the full implementation In some embodiments, statistics regarding the responses provided by the patient may be obtained. The statistics may be used to determine an effectiveness of the EFMT exercise, an engagement level of the patient……… Delay times that are deemed long may indicate that emotion expressed by the rendered image may be unclear, indicating that the image may need to be removed from the EFMT exercise, updated, or otherwise adjusted to improve the image’s therapeutic effectiveness).
Regarding claim 5, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1. Forbes further teaches wherein providing the user device access to the initial implementation t least one the initial implementation or the full implementation DTx 100 may monitor a progression of a patient through the therapeutic process to determine which psychotherapy lessons 106 have been consumed by the patient to determine which additional psychotherapy lessons 106 are to be provided next to the patient; See also [0047], which discusses updating EMFT exercises wherein the subset correlates with the original EMFT exercises).
Regarding claim 6, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1. Forbes further teaches wherein the user is on a medication to address the condition, in at least partial concurrence with at least one of (i) provision of the initial implementation full implementation The therapeutic content of the DTx may be provided as a standalone treatment for a mood disorder, such as MDD, or as an adjunct to other types of treatments, such as antidepressant therapies (ADTs), [0022], e.g., The techniques described herein provide an improvement over existing mood disorder treatments in that the combination treatment targets both improved neural function through memory task exercises and strengthening such improvements through specifically designed psychotherapy lessons that condition the patient to utilize the improved neural function).
Regarding claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1. Forbes further teaches wherein the condition comprises at least one of: substance use disorder, opioid use disorder, chronic insomnia, alcohol use disorder, schizophrenia, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, bipolar, posttraumatic stress disorder, acute and chronic pain, migraine, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, irritable bowel syndrome, specialty gastroenterology, cancer, or cardiovascular disease (Forbes [0021], e.g., The therapeutic content of the DTx may be provided as a standalone treatment for a mood disorder, such as MDD).
Regarding claim 8, Forbes teaches a method of controlling access to user interfaces, comprising: identifying, by one or more processors (Forbes [0093], e.g., Computing device 800 includes a processor 602, memory 604), a plurality of user interfaces of a digital therapeutic to present digital therapeutic content to a user to address a condition using one or more of the plurality of user interfaces (Forbes [0019], e.g., In some embodiments, the DTx is configured to render and process therapeutic content that is specifically tailored to treat mood disorder……… Depending on the patient’s progress, different therapeutic content may be selected and provided to the patient); providing, by the one or more processors, to a user device associated with the user, access to an initial implementation of the digital therapeutic comprising a subset of the plurality of user interfaces to present a corresponding portion of the digital therapeutic content to the user (Forbes Fig. 2, e.g., elements 204, 208, [0024], e.g., therapeutic content 102 of DTx 100 may include one or more components, such as memory task exercises 104, psychotherapy lessons 106, and messaging 108, [0041], e.g., In some embodiments, memory task exercises 104 of DTx 100 may include emotional face memory task (EFMT) exercises); receiving, by the one or more processors, an indication to provide access to the entirety of the digital therapeutic content to the user (Forbes [0029], e.g., DTx 100 may monitor a progression of a patient through the therapeutic process to determine which psychotherapy lessons 106 have been consumed by the patient to determine which additional psychotherapy lessons 106 are to be provided next to the patient); and providing, by the one or more processors, to the user device, access to a full implementation of the digital therapeutic comprising the plurality of user interfaces to present an entirety of the digital therapeutic content to the user, responsive to receiving the indication to provide access (Forbes [0047-0048], e.g., The responses for a given EFMT exercise may be analyzed to determine response patterns, anomalies, or other aspects of the response, which can be used for improving the therapeutic treatment……… Therefore, appropriate therapeutic interventions may be identified by the HCP and provided to the patient……… Accordingly, the value of N may be adjusted (either increased or decreased) to allow the patient to advance through the EFMT exercise, or a series of EFMT exercises, while remaining challenged at a level that is appropriate for the patient; [0078], e.g., some embodiments may include enabling a patient to access certain exercises and/or lessons at various points throughout the treatment schedule. For example, a patient may be able to access an anchor lesson and any point throughout treatment schedule 600 even if a different psychotherapy lesson or no psychotherapy lesson is scheduled to occur on that particular day).
Regarding claim 11, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 8. Forbes further teaches selecting, by the one or more processors, from a second plurality of user interfaces, a second user interface to add to the initial implementation DTx 100 may monitor a progression of a patient through the therapeutic process to determine which psychotherapy lessons 106 have been consumed by the patient to determine which additional psychotherapy lessons 106 are to be provided next to the patient); and providing, by the one or more processors, to the user device, access to the second user interface determine which additional psychotherapy lessons 106 are to be provided next to the patient; See also [0046-0048], which describes updating and improving exercises, as well as identifying therapeutic interventions and providing it to the patient).
Regarding claim 13, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 8. Forbes further teaches wherein receiving the indication further comprises receiving the indication responsive to an approval by a remote service of the provision of the entirety of the digital therapeutic content to the user (Forbes [0040], e.g., In some embodiments, the delivery of memory task exercises 104, psychotherapy lessons 106, and/or messaging 108 may follow a predetermined treatment schedule that may be prescribed by an HCP or recommended by the provider of DTx 100. The delivery of therapeutic content 102 of DTx 100 according to the treatment schedule may be clinically validated for the treatment of one or more symptoms of depression. It will be appreciated that aspects of the treatment schedule may be adjusted or changed based on recommendations by the HCP and/or the specific circumstances of the patient utilizing DTx 100).
Regarding claim 14, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 8. Forbes further teaches wherein the user is on a medication to address the condition, in at least partial concurrence with at least one of (i) provision of the initial implementation full implementation The therapeutic content of the DTx may be provided as a standalone treatment for a mood disorder, such as MDD, or as an adjunct to other types of treatments, such as antidepressant therapies (ADTs), [0022], e.g., The techniques described herein provide an improvement over existing mood disorder treatments in that the combination treatment targets both improved neural function through memory task exercises and strengthening such improvements through specifically designed psychotherapy lessons that condition the patient to utilize the improved neural function).
Regarding claim 15, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 8. Forbes further teaches wherein the condition comprises at least one of: substance use disorder, opioid use disorder, chronic insomnia, alcohol use disorder, schizophrenia, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, bipolar, posttraumatic stress disorder, acute and chronic pain, migraine, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, irritable bowel syndrome, specialty gastroenterology, cancer, or cardiovascular disease (Forbes [0021], e.g., The therapeutic content of the DTx may be provided as a standalone treatment for a mood disorder, such as MDD).
Regarding claim 16, Forbes teaches a system for controlling access to user interfaces, comprising: one or more processors coupled with memory (Forbes [0093], e.g., Computing device 800 includes a processor 602, memory 604). The rest of claim 16 recites a system of the method of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites a system of the method of claim 2, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites a system of the method of claim 3, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites a system of the method of claim 5, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites a system of the method of claim 6, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites a system of the method of claim 7, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 23, Forbes teaches a system for controlling access to user interfaces, comprising: one or more processors coupled with memory (Forbes [0093], e.g., Computing device 800 includes a processor 602, memory 604). The rest of claim 23 recites a system of the method of claim 8, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites the system of the method of claim 11, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites a system of the method of claim 13, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites a system of the method of claim 14, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites a system of the method of claim 15, and is similarly analyzed.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 9-10, 12, 19, 24-25, 27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes in view of US 20200160739 A1 to Smith et al. (Smith).
Regarding claim 4, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1. Forbes does not explicitly teach, but Smith teaches generating, by the one or more processors, an access code to provide the user device access to the full implementation full implementation the full implementation With reference to FIG. 7, a patient can access the learning modules 56 of the platform 40 autonomously (i.e., without HCP guidance……… registering on the platform 40 from their mobile phone, laptop or tablet device 14 by using the access code 36……… The platform 40 activates the entered code 36 for a selected time period (block 108……… The user can view the selected topics as many times as desired within the selected time period……… The platform 40 is configured to terminate access to the learning modules and topics upon expiry of the code and until another code is obtained by the patient (e.g., from a product or from the patient's HCP) and activated by the platform 40 (block 112……… the platform 40 can allow the patient to register his HCP through the patient's registration page and profile. The HCP, if registered by the patient, may choose to support the patient by accessing the platform 40, making assessments of that patient's learning, and working with the patient to support recommended further learning with HCP selections of recommended lessons 56 and topics 58; Note that initially, users are able to access unmodified (subset) content through an access code. Users are also able to register their HCP, allowing for recommendations and support. When the time limit expires users are able to enter a new code to access the previous content along with the modified content recommended by the HCP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Forbes with the teachings of Smith with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit only allowing authorized users to access the content and also making the codes nonreusable (Smith [0138], e.g., The platform 40 activates the entered code 36 for a selected time period (block 108), and the code 36 will no longer be valid for use by another user).
Regarding claim 9, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 8. Forbes does not explicitly teach, but Smith teaches determining, by the one or more processors, that a time window for providing the user device access to the initial implementation As stated above in connection with FIG. 2, the platform 40 can allow users to see the learning modules and make selections (blocks 102 and 104) via the educational content menu web page 52, but not have access to the selected content until a valid code 36 is received (block 106). The platform 40 activates the entered code 36 for a selected time period (block 108)); and restricting, by the one or more processors, the user device from accessing the initial implementation The platform 40 is configured to terminate access to the learning modules and topics upon expiry of the code and until another code is obtained by the patient (e.g., from a product or from the patient's HCP) and activated by the platform 40 (block 112 ).
The motivation to combine is the same as that of claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 8. Forbes does not explicitly teach, but Smith teaches generating, by the one or more processors, an access code to provide the user device access to the initial implementation initial implementation initial implementation With reference to FIG. 7, a patient can access the learning modules 56 of the platform 40 autonomously (i.e., without HCP guidance)……… and registering on the platform 40 from their mobile phone, laptop or tablet device 14 by using the access code 36 found).
The motivation to combine is the same as that of claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 8. Forbes does not explicitly teach but Smith teaches generating, by the one or more processors, an access code to provide the user device access to the full implementation full implementation full implementation With reference to FIG. 7, a patient can access the learning modules 56 of the platform 40 autonomously (i.e., without HCP guidance)……… registering on the platform 40 from their mobile phone, laptop or tablet device 14 by using the access code 36……… The platform 40 activates the entered code 36 for a selected time period (block 108)……… The user can view the selected topics as many times as desired within the selected time period……… The platform 40 is configured to terminate access to the learning modules and topics upon expiry of the code and until another code is obtained by the patient (e.g., from a product or from the patient's HCP) and activated by the platform 40 (block 112)……… the platform 40 can allow the patient to register his HCP through the patient's registration page and profile. The HCP, if registered by the patient, may choose to support the patient by accessing the platform 40, making assessments of that patient's learning, and working with the patient to support recommended further learning with HCP selections of recommended lessons 56 and topics 58).
The motivation to combine is the same as that of claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the system of the method of claim 4, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites the system of the method of claim 9, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites the system of the method of claim 10, and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites the system of the method of claim 12, and is similarly analyzed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220005581 A1 to Brown et al. (Brown) discloses updating therapy content based on an efficacy value. US 20220165397 A1 to Chavaree et al. (Chavaree) discloses an onboarding system for new users through access code. US 20080244003 A1 to Springer et al. (Springer) discloses a life-style improvement system which requires a code to access media content.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE Q TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 5 pm 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, Kambiz Zand can be reached at (571) 272-3811. 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.
/LAWRENCE Q TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2434
/NOURA ZOUBAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434