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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II, drawn to a body surface estimation system and a medical imaging device of claims 14-15 in the reply filed on 4/8/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one sensor device” in claim 14, which corresponds to “a 3D camera” or “an ordinary (2D) optical camera” (see para [0021] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “a processing device configured to receive sensor signals from the at least one sensor device,” in claim 14, which corresponds to “a computer, such as a personal computer, a cloud computer, a server” (see para [0022] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); and “an output device configured to output derived information from the processing device,” in claim 14, which has no corresponding structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 21-38 is/are 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.
For claim 14, the claim language “an output device configured to output derived information from the processing device” 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant had possession of the claimed since an applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991). However, those evidentiary bars are not met with the current written description. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
Dependent claim(s) 15 and 21-38 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 14, thus claim(s) 14-15 and 21-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 21-38 is/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.
For claim 1, the claim language “an output device configured to output derived information from the processing device” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim language cannot be ascertained since it is unclear what structure(s) is/are included in the claimed subject matter and what structure(s) is/are not. The claim is examined as meaning any structure capable of performing the recited function.
Dependent claim(s) 15 and 21-38 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim 14, thus claim(s) 14-15 and 21-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 21-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 14 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 14 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “sample a subject … to acquire sample data of the subject,” “transfer the sample data to the processing device,” and “apply at least one algorithm to the sample data in order to determine a body surface area of the subject based on the sample data.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “at least one sensor device,” “a processing device configured to receive sensor signals from the at least one sensor device,” and “an output device configured to output derived information from the processing device.” However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by Fig. 2 and para [0079] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0066877 to Gluncic et al. (hereinafter “Gluncic”). Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 14 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 15 and 21-30 and 32-38 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 14 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas and/or further limitations on abstract ideas already recited. Dependent claim 31 fails to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 14 because the further limitations of claim 31 are not significantly more in view of para [0079] of Gluncic. Thus, claim(s) 14-15 and 21-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 14, 21, 26, 31-32, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0301214 to Znamenskiy et al. (hereinafter “Znamenskiy”)
For claim 14, Znamenskiy discloses a body surface estimation system (Abstract) comprising:
at least one sensor device (6) (Fig. 1) (para [0068]);
a processing device (8) (Fig. 1) (para [0069]) configured to receive sensor signals from the at least one sensor device (para [0069]-[0070]); and
an output device configured to output derived information from the processing device (“any suitable output component(s), including but not limited to a display screen, one or more lights or light elements, one or more loudspeakers, a vibrating element, etc.,” para [0073]), wherein the processing device is configured to cause the system to:
sample a subject with the at least one sensor device to acquire sample data of the subject (para [0068]),
transfer the sample data to the processing device (para [0069]-[0070]), and
apply at least one algorithm to the sample data in order to determine a body surface area of the subject based on the sample data (para [0069] and [0136]).
For claim 21, Znamenskiy further discloses wherein the processing device is configured to cause the system to: create a virtual avatar model of a surface of the subject based on the sample data and a statistical shape model (para [0116]-[0117], [0120]-[0123], and [0135]-[0136]), such that a shape of the virtual avatar model and a pose of the virtual avatar model is a fit to the sample data (para [0116]-[0117], [0120]-[0123], and [0135]-[0136]), the fit adhering to boundary conditions defined by the statistical shape model (para [0116]-[0117], [0120]-[0123], and [0135]-[0136]), the statistical shape model including a database of a range of standard subject shapes and poses that define a range of shapes and poses the virtual avatar model is bound to adhere to (para [0116]-[0117], [0120]-[0123], and [0135]-[0136]); and calculate a surface area of the virtual avatar model and use the calculated surface area of the virtual avatar model as an estimate of the body surface area (para [0116]-[0117], [0120]-[0123], and [0135]-[0136]).
For claim 26, Znamenskiy further discloses wherein the virtual avatar model is a three-dimensional geometric mesh of the body surface (as can be seen in Fig. 4).
For claim 31, Znamenskiy further discloses wherein the at least one sensor device comprises at least one of an optical sensor or an acoustic sensor (para [0068]).
For claim 32, Znamenskiy further discloses wherein the processing device is configured to cause the system to acquire three-dimensional sample data by triangulation (para [0136]), by moving the sensor device or the subject, or by applying a time-of-flight measurement of the subject by the sensor device.
For claim 36, Znamenskiy further discloses wherein the virtual avatar model is a mesh of triangles (para [0136]).
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.
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) 22-25, 27-28, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Znamenskiy in view of “DARWIN: Deformable Patient Avatar Representation With Deep Image Network,” by Singh et al. (hereinafter “Singh”).
For claim 22, Znamenskiy does not expressly disclose wherein the processing device is configured to cause the system to: allocate landmarks to at least some characteristic parts of the subject in the sample data using a first trained neural network, the virtual avatar model being created by a second trained neural network being caused to map the virtual avatar model to the landmarks.
However, Singh teaches wherein the processing device is configured to cause the system to: allocate landmarks to at least some characteristic parts of the subject in the sample data using a first trained neural network (see section entitled “2.1 Body Pose Classification and Landmark Detection”), the virtual avatar model being created by a second trained neural network being caused to map the virtual avatar model to the landmarks (i.e., the “SCAPE model” described in the section entitled “2.2 Patient Centric 3D Body Shape Estimation,”) (also see Abstract, which teaches that estimating the body surface mesh is done with “deep convolutional networks” and section entitled “3 Evaluation,” which teaches that “[t]he deep convolutional network is used to obtain pose and initialization for our final fitting”).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Znamenskiy wherein the processing device is configured to cause the system to: allocate landmarks to at least some characteristic parts of the subject in the sample data using a first trained neural network, the virtual avatar model being created by a second trained neural network being caused to map the virtual avatar model to the landmarks, in view of the teachings of Singh, for the obvious advantage of overcoming “lack level of detail of the estimated patient body model, fail to estimate the body model robustly under clothing cover, or lack sufficient evaluation over real patient datasets” (see Abstract of Singh).
For claim 23, Znamenskiy does not expressly disclose wherein the first trained neural network is trained to allocate the landmarks despite the subject being at least partially covered by covering elements, and the first trained neural network is trained on applied training data, the applied training data including at least some input sample data in which the subject is at least partially covered by the covering elements.
However, Singh teaches wherein the first trained neural network is trained to allocate the landmarks despite the subject being at least partially covered by covering elements (see section entitled “Addressing Clothing Cover”), and the first trained neural network is trained on applied training data (see section entitled “2.1 Body Pose Classification and Landmark Detection”), the applied training data including at least some input sample data in which the subject is at least partially covered by the covering elements (see section entitled “Addressing Clothing Cover”).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Znamenskiy wherein the first trained neural network is trained to allocate the landmarks despite the subject being at least partially covered by covering elements, and the first trained neural network is trained on applied training data, the applied training data including at least some input sample data in which the subject is at least partially covered by the covering elements, in view of the teachings of Singh, for the obvious advantage of taking into account a patient’s clothing when modeling their body mesh.
For claim 24, Znamenskiy does not expressly disclose wherein the processing device is configured to cause the system to: apply a model-fitting algorithm after the system is caused to map the virtual avatar model to the landmarks and before the system is caused to calculate the surface area of the virtual avatar model, such that the virtual avatar model is adapted to fit to the sample data within the boundaries defined by the statistical shape model.
However, Singh teaches wherein the processing device is configured to cause the system to: apply a model-fitting algorithm after the system is caused to map the virtual avatar model to the landmarks and before the system is caused to calculate the surface area of the virtual avatar model (see section entitled “2.2 Patient Centric 3D Body Shape Estimation”) (also see section entitled “3 Evaluation”), such that the virtual avatar model is adapted to fit to the sample data within the boundaries defined by the statistical shape model (see section entitled “2.2 Patient Centric 3D Body Shape Estimation”) (also see section entitled “3 Evaluation”).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Znamenskiy wherein the processing device is configured to cause the system to: apply a model-fitting algorithm after the system is caused to map the virtual avatar model to the landmarks and before the system is caused to calculate the surface area of the virtual avatar model, such that the virtual avatar model is adapted to fit to the sample data within the boundaries defined by the statistical shape model, in view of the teachings of Singh, for the obvious advantage of overcoming “lack level of detail of the estimated patient body model, fail to estimate the body model robustly under clothing cover, or lack sufficient evaluation over real patient datasets” (see Abstract of Singh).
For claim 25, Znamenskiy does not expressly disclose wherein the statistical shape model comprises degrees of freedom allowing to modulate joints and a current orientation of joints of the subject.
However, Singh teaches wherein the statistical shape model comprises degrees of freedom allowing to modulate joints and a current orientation of joints of the subject (see section entitled “2.1 Body Pose Classification and Landmark Detection”).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Znamenskiy wherein the statistical shape model comprises degrees of freedom allowing to modulate joints and a current orientation of joints of the subject, in view of the teachings of Singh, for the obvious advantage of taking into account the current position/pose of the patient when applying the model(s).
For claim 27, Znamenskiy does not expressly disclose wherein processing device is configured to cause the system to apply a convolutional neural network trained to derive an estimate for the body surface area based on the sample data.
However, Singh teaches wherein processing device is configured to cause the system to apply a convolutional neural network trained to derive an estimate for the body surface area based on the sample data (see section entitled “3 Evaluation”).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Znamenskiy wherein processing device is configured to cause the system to apply a convolutional neural network trained to derive an estimate for the body surface area based on the sample data, in view of the teachings of Singh, for the obvious advantage of overcoming “lack level of detail of the estimated patient body model, fail to estimate the body model robustly under clothing cover, or lack sufficient evaluation over real patient datasets” (see Abstract of Singh).
For claim 28, Znamenskiy does not expressly disclose wherein the processing device is configured to cause the system to generate an orthographic projection of the sample data and apply the convolutional neural network to the orthographic projection.
However, Singh teaches wherein the processing device is configured to cause the system to generate an orthographic projection of the sample data and apply the convolutional neural network to the orthographic projection (see Fig. 3 and section entitled “3 Evaluation”).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Znamenskiy wherein the processing device is configured to cause the system to generate an orthographic projection of the sample data and apply the convolutional neural network to the orthographic projection, in view of the teachings of Singh, for the obvious advantage of overcoming “lack level of detail of the estimated patient body model, fail to estimate the body model robustly under clothing cover, or lack sufficient evaluation over real patient datasets” (see Abstract of Singh).
For claim 35, Znamenskiy does not expressly disclose wherein the statistical shape model comprises degrees of freedom allowing to modulate joints and a current orientation of joints of the subject.
However, Singh teaches wherein the statistical shape model comprises degrees of freedom allowing to modulate joints and a current orientation of joints of the subject (see section entitled “2.1 Body Pose Classification and Landmark Detection”).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Znamenskiy wherein the statistical shape model comprises degrees of freedom allowing to modulate joints and a current orientation of joints of the subject, in view of the teachings of Singh, for the obvious advantage of taking into account the current position/pose of the patient when applying the model(s).
Claim(s) 15, 33-34, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Znamenskiy in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0230310 to Xie et al. (hereinafter “Xie”).
For claim 15, Znamenskiy further discloses the body surface estimation system of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14).
Znamenskiy does not expressly disclose a medical imaging device.
However, Xie teaches a medical imaging device (para [0011]-[0012]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Znamenskiy to include a medical imaging device, in view of the teachings of Xie, for the obvious advantage making the treatment being performed in Znamenskiy (see para [0001]) a medical treatment.
For claim 33, Znamenskiy does not expressly disclose wherein a medical imaging device is used as the sensor device, the medical imaging device being configured to provide medical image data as sample data or as part of the sample data.
However, Xie teaches wherein a medical imaging device is used as the sensor device (para [0011]-[0012]), the medical imaging device being configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language/intended use, i.e., capable of)provide medical image data as sample data or as part of the sample data (para [0011]-[0012]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Znamenskiy wherein a medical imaging device is used as the sensor device, the medical imaging device being configured to provide medical image data as sample data or as part of the sample data, in view of the teachings of Xie, for the obvious advantage making the treatment being performed in Znamenskiy (see para [0001]) a medical treatment.
For claim 34, Znamenskiy does not expressly disclose wherein the sample data is three-dimensional sample data of the subject.
However, Xie teaches wherein the sample data is three-dimensional sample data of the subject (para [0011]-[0012]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Znamenskiy wherein the sample data is three-dimensional sample data of the subject, in view of the teachings of Xie, because such a type of sample data is a suitable type of sample data that leads to the predictable result of being usable for determining body surface area, which is what Znamenskiy wants to do.
For claim 38, Znamenskiy further discloses wherein the processing device is configured to cause the system to: create a virtual avatar model of a surface of the subject based on the sample data and a statistical shape model (para [0116]-[0117], [0120]-[0123], and [0135]-[0136]), such that a shape of the virtual avatar model and a pose of the virtual avatar model is a fit to the sample data (para [0116]-[0117], [0120]-[0123], and [0135]-[0136]), the fit adhering to boundary conditions defined by the statistical shape model (para [0116]-[0117], [0120]-[0123], and [0135]-[0136]), the statistical shape model including a database of a range of standard subject shapes and poses that define a range of shapes and poses the virtual avatar model is bound to adhere to (para [0116]-[0117], [0120]-[0123], and [0135]-[0136]); and calculate a surface area of the virtual avatar model and use the calculated surface area of the virtual avatar model as an estimate of the body surface area (para [0116]-[0117], [0120]-[0123], and [0135]-[0136]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 29-30 and 37 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights