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 statement (IDS) submitted on July 09, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on April 12, 2024 are accepted.
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 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 22 is directed to “a system” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e. a machine or manufacture.
Each of Claims 22-26 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claim 22 recites (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.), substantially as follows: “in response to receiving the compilation of blood glucose measurements, synchronizing date and time parameters based on the date and time of the compilation of blood glucose measurements;
determining a difference function characterizing discrepancies between the compilation of blood glucose measurements and monitored glucose level measurements; and
determining adapted glucose level measurements, the determining comprising adapting the difference function to new monitored glucose level measurements.”
The above recited steps are mathematical concepts, which is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Specification teaches that difference and variance equations are used to monitor discrepancies or differences in values measured. Spec. para. [0070 – 0080]. Computing these based on the feature points encompasses the use of mathematical equations, which has been recognized as an abstract idea (i.e., a mathematical concept). Patent Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. In sum, we determine that Prong 1 recites a judicial exception, and proceed to Step 2A, Prong 2.
Therefore, each of the above steps are grouped as mathematical concepts, hence an abstract idea.
Claim 22 recites (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows: “in response to receiving the compilation of blood glucose measurements, synchronizing date and time parameters based on the date and time of the compilation of blood glucose measurements;
determining a difference function characterizing discrepancies between the compilation of blood glucose measurements and monitored glucose level measurements; and
determining adapted glucose level measurements, the determining comprising adapting the difference function to new monitored glucose level measurements.”
The above recited steps can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. If a person were to visually examine, i.e., perform an observation, the glucose data, either in a printout or an electronic format, he/she would be able to perform the calculations to obtain the differences via pen and paper. He/she would further be able to obtain at least adapted glucose value, for example, a discrepancy and more accurate value, via visual examination, and further to estimate the glucose information. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in how the glucose information is to be identified. Therefore, a person would be able to perform the identification of peaks mentally or with a generic computer.
Prong Two: Claim 22 does not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites (1) “receiving a compilation of blood glucose measurements, each blood glucose measurement associated with a date and a time;”
(2) “outputting adapted glucose measurements”.
(3) “one or more processors and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, result in operations comprising:”.
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details).
The step in (2) represents merely notification outputting by a processor as a post-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
The steps in (3) merely recite generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea on, as tools.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the estimated bio-information is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claim 22 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of “continuously acquiring first vibration information of a supine subject from a first fiber-optic sensor placed under a back section corresponding to the fourth thoracic vertebra of the supine subject, so as to obtain a first vibration information waveform with a horizontal axis representing time, and a vertical axis representing the first vibration information of the subject after normalization processing and being dimensionless; continuously acquiring second vibration information of the supine subject from a second fiber- optic sensor placed under a lumbar section corresponding to the fourth lumbar vertebra of the supine subject, so as to obtain a second vibration information waveform with a horizontal axis representing time, and a vertical axis representing the second vibration information of the subject after normalization processing and being dimensionless;” “one or more processors and one or more computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon” “outputting, on an output device, the first and second vibration information waveforms, and/or the AVO feature point and the pulse wave arrival feature point, and/or the PTT”.
These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality.
The glucose information is obtained from essentially anywhere. These additional limitations merely represent insignificant, conventional pre-solution activities well-understood in the industry of glucose estimation, as the sensors recited are well understood, routine and conventional, as evidenced lack of recital of any sensor at all.
Accordingly, these additional steps and tools for measuring a glucose measurement, and outputting a notification amount to no more than insignificant conventional extra-solution activity. Mere insignificant conventional extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
The recited processors and computer-readable storage medium are generic computer elements (i.d. para. [0027] describing generic computers).
Therefore, none of Claim 22 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claim 22 is not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons:
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons:
Claims 23-26 further define the sensors used for insignificant extra-solution activity (data collection).
Claims 23 recitations merely recite data transmission to the output device discussed above as extra-solution activity (data output).
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
Claims 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peyser et al. (US 2014/0005505 A1) (“Peyser”).
Regarding claim 22, Peyser discloses A system, comprising (Abstract and entire document):
one or more processors and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, result in operations comprising ([0071], “processor” [0146]):
receiving a compilation of blood glucose measurements, each blood glucose measurement associated with a date and a time ([0123 – 0127], “In some embodiments, where the sensors are manufactured with the same specifications, sensor performance or failure can be identified by comparing the in vivo sensitivities, baseline, changes in sensitivity, or changes in baseline over time or at a certain time after implantation. In some embodiments the values between sensors are compared. In other embodiments the values of each sensor can be compared to expected known or in vitro values. In other embodiments, the values of each sensor are compared to the other sensor values and to expected known or in vitro values. Any differences or deviations in property values beyond a certain predetermined threshold level between the sensors can indicate that one or more of the sensors may not be working properly.” Comparing baseline over time, or historical measurements with date and time);
in response to receiving the compilation of blood glucose measurements, synchronizing date and time parameters based on the date and time of the compilation of blood glucose measurements ([0123 – 0127], “In some embodiments, where the sensors are manufactured with the same specifications, sensor performance or failure can be identified by comparing the in vivo sensitivities, baseline, changes in sensitivity, or changes in baseline over time or at a certain time after implantation. In some embodiments the values between sensors are compared. In other embodiments the values of each sensor can be compared to expected known or in vitro values. In other embodiments, the values of each sensor are compared to the other sensor values and to expected known or in vitro values. Any differences or deviations in property values beyond a certain predetermined threshold level between the sensors can indicate that one or more of the sensors may not be working properly.” The data across different modalities is synchronized);
determining a difference function characterizing discrepancies between the compilation of blood glucose measurements and monitored glucose level measurements ([0123 – 0127], “In some embodiments, where the sensors are manufactured with the same specifications, sensor performance or failure can be identified by comparing the in vivo sensitivities, baseline, changes in sensitivity, or changes in baseline over time or at a certain time after implantation. In some embodiments the values between sensors are compared. In other embodiments the values of each sensor can be compared to expected known or in vitro values. In other embodiments, the values of each sensor are compared to the other sensor values and to expected known or in vitro values. Any differences or deviations in property values beyond a certain predetermined threshold level between the sensors can indicate that one or more of the sensors may not be working properly.” Difference is calculated); and
determining adapted glucose level measurements, the determining comprising adapting the difference function to new monitored glucose level measurements ([0123 – 0127], “In some embodiments, where the sensors are manufactured with the same specifications, sensor performance or failure can be identified by comparing the in vivo sensitivities, baseline, changes in sensitivity, or changes in baseline over time or at a certain time after implantation. In some embodiments the values between sensors are compared. In other embodiments the values of each sensor can be compared to expected known or in vitro values. In other embodiments, the values of each sensor are compared to the other sensor values and to expected known or in vitro values. Any differences or deviations in property values beyond a certain predetermined threshold level between the sensors can indicate that one or more of the sensors may not be working properly.” If sensor is not working, then other sensor is used and forms an adapted glucose level).
Regarding claim 23, Peyser discloses The system of claim 22, the operations further comprising: outputting a representation of the adapted glucose level measurements ([0127] and [0144 – 0145] discussing displaying adapted glucose measurements).
Regarding claim 24, Peyser discloses The system of claim 22, wherein the one or more processors and the at least one memory are part of a continuous glucose monitor ([0127] receiving the in vitro measurements and further discussing closed loop analyte sensor systems, like cgm).
Regarding claim 25, Peyser discloses The system of claim 24, wherein the continuous glucose monitor receives the compilation of blood glucose measurements from a blood glucose monitor ([0127] receiving the in vitro measurements and further discussing closed loop analyte sensor systems, like cgm).
Regarding claim 26, Peyser discloses The system of claim 22, wherein the adapted glucose level measurements are applied to one or more of a specific user, a specific device, and a plurality of devices ([0127] the adapted measurements are provided for specific sensors as part of specific devices worn by specific users).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasson et al. (US 2017/0000391 A1) (“Wasson”) in view of Peyser.
Regarding claim 1, Wasson discloses A system, comprising (Abstract and entire document):
a microneedle array comprising a plurality of microneedles, wherein at least a first microneedle and a second microneedle of the plurality of microneedles are configured to sense glucose levels in dermal interstitial fluid of a user (FIG. 1 and [0040], “Some or all of the plurality of sensors may include transdermal sensors such as first sensor 132 and second sensor 134. Such transdermal sensors may include one or more respective microneedle arrays 133 and 135 configured to contact a dermal skin layer 144.”); and
one or more processors and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, result in operations comprising (FIG. 1 and [0046], “The controller 120 may include a processor 122, a non-transitory computer-readable medium 124 (e.g., memory) that may store program instructions 126 and data 128. The program instructions 126 may be executable by the processor 122 to cause the controller 120 to perform operations, as discussed below.”):
determining that a first difference between a first glucose level measured by the first microneedle and a second glucose level measured by the second microneedle exceeds a first threshold ([0095] – [0096] discussing averaging the first and second sensor values, determining difference and correlation between them and if there is a threshold difference between the first and second sensor data, or glucose level);
discarding the first glucose level measured by the first microneedle in a resultant glucose level outputted on a user interface ([0058], “The controller may discount or dismiss data values that fall outside the predetermined number of standard deviations.” And [0076], display, alert messages, output user interface).
Wasson fails to disclose transmitting, to a blood glucose monitor, an instruction comprising a request to receive a glucose measurement;
determining, in response to the glucose measurement received from the blood glucose monitor, that a second difference between the first glucose level measured by the first microneedle and the glucose measurement from the blood glucose monitor exceeds a second threshold; and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Peyser teaches transmitting, to a blood glucose monitor, an instruction comprising a request to receive a glucose measurement ([0110], “The first and second signals are used to determine the glucose concentration and/or other data. The electronics can also apply various data analysis techniques to compare or otherwise assess the signals. In some embodiments, the sensor electronics include a transmitter that transmits the first and second signals to a receiver, where additional data analysis and/or calibration of glucose concentration can be processed.” And [0127] receiving the in vitro measurements and further discussing closed loop analyte sensor systems, like cgm);
determining, in response to the glucose measurement received from the blood glucose monitor, that a second difference between the first glucose level measured by the first microneedle and the glucose measurement from the blood glucose monitor exceeds a second threshold ([0127], “In some embodiments the values between sensors are compared. In other embodiments the values of each sensor can be compared to expected known or in vitro values. In other embodiments, the values of each sensor are compared to the other sensor values and to expected known or in vitro values. Any differences or deviations in property values beyond a certain predetermined threshold level between the sensors can indicate that one or more of the sensors may not be working properly.”); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as taught by Wasson to include transmitting, to a blood glucose monitor, an instruction comprising a request to receive a glucose measurement; determining, in response to the glucose measurement received from the blood glucose monitor, that a second difference between the first glucose level measured by the first microneedle and the glucose measurement from the blood glucose monitor exceeds a second threshold as taught by Peyser to indicate improperly working sensors ([0127]).
Regarding claim 2, Wasson as modified discloses The system of claim 1, Wasson as modified further discloses wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are equal (Peyser [0123 – 0128] discussing the threshold and sensors having variations, detecting them within the same divergence).
Regarding claim 3, Wasson as modified discloses The system of claim 1, Wasson as modified further discloses wherein the first threshold and/or the second threshold are user-defined and/or user-adjusted parameters (Peyser [0123 – 0128] discussing user defined thresholds/parameters).
Regarding claim 4, Wasson as modified discloses The system of claim 1, Wasson as modified further discloses wherein each of the first microneedle and the second microneedle comprise a working electrode (Peyser [0094], working electrode).
Regarding claim 5, Wasson as modified discloses The system of claim 4, Wasson as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of microneedles further comprises a counter electrode and a reference electrode (Peyser [0094], counter electrode and a reference electrode).
Regarding claim 6, Wasson as modified discloses The system of claim 1, Wasson as modified further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: incorporating the first glucose level measured by the first microneedle in the resultant glucose level in response to determining that the second difference no longer exceeds the second threshold (Peyser [0131], “sensor failure can be a temporary failure, or a long-term or permanent failure.” The sensor can be detected as back to working and relied upon again).
Regarding claim 7, Wasson as modified discloses The system of claim 6, Wasson as modified further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: in response to a determination that a threshold period of time from which the second difference exceeds the second threshold has elapsed, discontinuing use of the first microneedle (Peyser [0131], “sensor failure can be a temporary failure, or a long-term or permanent failure.” The sensor can be detected as failure too long and determined as a permanent failure for example).
Regarding claim 17, Wasson as modified discloses A system, comprising (Abstract and entire document):
a microneedle array comprising a plurality of microneedles, wherein at least one microneedle is configured to sense glucose levels in dermal interstitial fluid of a user (FIG. 1 and [0040], “Some or all of the plurality of sensors may include transdermal sensors such as first sensor 132 and second sensor 134. Such transdermal sensors may include one or more respective microneedle arrays 133 and 135 configured to contact a dermal skin layer 144.”); and
one or more processors and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, result in operations comprising (FIG. 1 and [0046], “The controller 120 may include a processor 122, a non-transitory computer-readable medium 124 (e.g., memory) that may store program instructions 126 and data 128. The program instructions 126 may be executable by the processor 122 to cause the controller 120 to perform operations, as discussed below.”):
Wasson fails to disclose determining a baseline representation of the glucose levels of the user, the baseline representation comprising a representation of the glucose levels versus time;
identifying, from the baseline representation, a characteristic of the baseline representation, the characteristic corresponding to a defined category of data relationships relevant to glucose level measurements; determining, based on the characteristic, a notification to be generated; and
transmitting, to a blood glucose monitor, an instruction, the instruction comprising the notification.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Peyser teaches determining a baseline representation of the glucose levels of the user, the baseline representation comprising a representation of the glucose levels versus time ([0125], the analyte sensor can be configured to transmit signals obtained from each electrode separately (such as, for example, without subtraction of the baseline signal). In this way, the receiver can process these signals to determine additional information about the sensor and/or analyte concentration. For example, by comparing the signals from the first and second electrodes, changes in baseline and/or sensitivity can be detected and/or measured and used to update calibration (such as, for example, without the use of a reference analyte value). In another such example, by comparing fluctuations in the correlating signals over time, changes in sensitivity can be detected and/or measured. Additionally, divergence or deviations between the signals may be indicative that the one or more sensors are failing to work properly. For example, if the signals diverge by, e.g., about 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% or more, the difference can indicate that one or more of the sensors are not working properly.”);
identifying, from the baseline representation, a characteristic of the baseline representation, the characteristic corresponding to a defined category of data relationships relevant to glucose level measurements; determining, based on the characteristic, a notification to be generated ([0125], the analyte sensor can be configured to transmit signals obtained from each electrode separately (such as, for example, without subtraction of the baseline signal). In this way, the receiver can process these signals to determine additional information about the sensor and/or analyte concentration. For example, by comparing the signals from the first and second electrodes, changes in baseline and/or sensitivity can be detected and/or measured and used to update calibration (such as, for example, without the use of a reference analyte value). In another such example, by comparing fluctuations in the correlating signals over time, changes in sensitivity can be detected and/or measured. Additionally, divergence or deviations between the signals may be indicative that the one or more sensors are failing to work properly. For example, if the signals diverge by, e.g., about 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% or more, the difference can indicate that one or more of the sensors are not working properly.” Determining not working properly and need to transmit notification); and
transmitting, to a blood glucose monitor, an instruction, the instruction comprising the notification ([0110], “The first and second signals are used to determine the glucose concentration and/or other data. The electronics can also apply various data analysis techniques to compare or otherwise assess the signals. In some embodiments, the sensor electronics include a transmitter that transmits the first and second signals to a receiver, where additional data analysis and/or calibration of glucose concentration can be processed.” And [0125], “In some alternative dual-electrode or multi-electrode system embodiments, the analyte sensor can be configured to transmit signals obtained from each electrode separately (such as, for example, without subtraction of the baseline signal).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as taught by Wasson to include determining a baseline representation of the glucose levels of the user, the baseline representation comprising a representation of the glucose levels versus time; identifying, from the baseline representation, a characteristic of the baseline representation, the characteristic corresponding to a defined category of data relationships relevant to glucose level measurements; determining, based on the characteristic, a notification to be generated; and transmitting, to a blood glucose monitor, an instruction, the instruction comprising the notification as taught by Peyser to indicate improperly working sensors ([0127]).
Regarding claim 18, Wasson as modified discloses The system of claim 17, Wasson as modified further discloses wherein the characteristic comprises one or more of a pattern, a trend, a time in range, data anomalies, mealtimes, sleep events, and medication events (Peyser [0125], “or example, by comparing the signals from the first and second electrodes, changes in baseline and/or sensitivity can be detected and/or measured and used to update calibration (such as, for example, without the use of a reference analyte value). In another such example, by comparing fluctuations in the correlating signals over time, changes in sensitivity can be detected and/or measured. Additionally, divergence or deviations between the signals may be indicative that the one or more sensors are failing to work properly. For example, if the signals diverge by, e.g., about 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% or more, the difference can indicate that one or more of the sensors are not working properly.” Discussing fluctuations or changes over time).
Regarding claim 19, Wasson as modified discloses The system of claim 17, Wasson as modified further discloses the operations further comprising: receiving a data stream representative of another type of data, the other type of data having an impact on the glucose levels of the user (FIG. 1, “other sensors 138”, see also [0052]); and
integrating the data stream with the baseline representation (Peyser [0125 – 0126] the data from multiple sensors is integrated).
Regarding claim 20, Wasson as modified discloses The system of claim 17, Wasson as modified further discloses wherein the instruction further comprises parameters of the notification to be generated, the parameters comprising a time to generate the notification and a type of notification to generate, the type of notification comprising an illumination of one or more light emitting diodes, a text representation, an audible signal, and/or a haptic feedback (Peyser [0145] discussing a type of notification and when to display).
Regarding claim 21, Wasson as modified discloses The system of claim 17, Wasson as modified further discloses wherein the microneedle array and the microcontroller are at least partially contained in a wearable housing, the microneedle array extending outwardly from the wearable housing so that the at least a portion of the microneedle array reaches a dermal interstitial fluid of the user when the wearable housing is applied to the user (Peyser FIG. 1 and [0021 – 0022]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schwenker et al. (US 2020/0281538 A1) (“Schwenker”). Which additionally discloses relevant teachings towards systems for determining glucose values and checking accuracies between sensors and is pertinent to the present claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A TOMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7:00-16:00, F 7:00-11:00(Eastern).
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, Robert Chen can be reached on 571-272-3672. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH A TOMBERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights