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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on April 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
This office action for the 18/652123 application is in response to the communications filed April 14, 2026.
Claims 1-12 were initially submitted May 01, 2024.
Claims 1-12 were subject to restriction requirement March 05, 2026.
Claims 1-11 were elected without traverse April 14, 2026.
Claim 12 has been withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-11 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.
As per claim 1,
The claim recites the limitation of “recommending the next diagnostic or therapeutic step for the asymptomatic individual”. The element of “the next diagnostic or therapeutic step” lacks antecedent basis and is therefore considered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as “recommending a next diagnostic or therapeutic step for the asymptomatic individual”.
As per claims 2-11,
These claims depend from a base claim that was found to be indefinite. Accordingly, these claims are also found to be indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 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.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a process.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of a method for forecasting near-term sudden cardiovascular events, comprising: recognize text associated with sudden cardiovascular events cases reporting sudden cardiovascular events following a medical exam appointment at which one or more of a coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan, a coronary CT angiography (CCTA), and chest CT, a blood sample, an electrocardiogram were obtained; collecting cases reporting sudden cardiovascular events following a medical exam appointment at which one or more of a coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan, a coronary CT angiography (CCTA), and chest CT, a blood sample, an electrocardiogram were obtained; based on the coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans, a coronary CT angiographies (CCTA), chest CT, blood markers, and electrocardiograms of the collected cases and the control cases; obtaining relevant data regarding an asymptomatic individual comprising one or more of a coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan, a coronary CT angiography (CCTA), chest CT, blood markers, and electrocardiogram; providing the relevant data of the asymptomatic individual; receiving a forecast of the chance of near-term sudden cardiovascular events in the asymptomatic individual; and recommending a next diagnostic or therapeutic step for the asymptomatic individual. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recite a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“computer-implemented”, “pretraining a large language model transformer architecture using a processor with an associated computer memory device to”, “using the trained large language model”, “training a computer-implemented artificial neural network” and “to the trained computer-implemented artificial neural network” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Paragraphs [0005] and [0009] of the as-filed specification describes that the hardware that implements the steps of the abstract idea amount to nothing more than a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“storing in a database on a computer memory device the obtained coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans, a coronary CT angiographies (CCTA), chest CT, blood markers, and electrocardiograms” and “storing in the database coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans, a coronary CT angiographies (CCTA), and chest CT, blood markers, and electrocardiograms for control cases of patients not experiencing sudden cardiovascular events following a cardiologist appointment” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“storing in a database on a computer memory device the obtained coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans, a coronary CT angiographies (CCTA), chest CT, blood markers, and electrocardiograms” and “storing in the database coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans, a coronary CT angiographies (CCTA), and chest CT, blood markers, and electrocardiograms for control cases of patients not experiencing sudden cardiovascular events following a cardiologist appointment” which corresponds to storing and retrieving information in memory.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 2,
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 2 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“visualize chambers volume in non-contrast cardiac CT scans” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“further comprising using a deep learning algorithms to” and “which human eyes cannot detect.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 3,
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 3 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising using a metric related to a HEART Score to determine at least in part the therapy administered to the patient.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 4,
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 4 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising using a metric related to vasa vasorum density to further assess the risk and to determine at least in part the therapy administered to the patient.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 5,
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 5 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising preparing for optimizing coronary revascularization procedures based at least in part on the forecast.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 6,
Claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
“A system configured to perform the method of claim 1.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 7,
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 7 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein individuals categorized potentially as high risk based on one or more of a coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan, a coronary CT angiography (CCTA), chest CT, blood markers, and electrocardiogram are …continuously monitoring ECG and other markers of CVD event risk.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“administered a wearable cardiovascular monitor that allows for” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 8,
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 8 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the wearable monitor is an implantable ECG loop recorder that” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“alerts patients and providers on dangerous electrical signs of a CVD event.” introduces additional elements that is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more:
Step 2A Prong 2: In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“alerts patients and providers on dangerous electrical signs of a CVD event.” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Step 2B: As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“alerts patients and providers on dangerous electrical signs of a CVD event.” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 9,
Claim 9 depends from claim 7 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 9 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the wearable monitor continuously monitors a serum or blood biomarker” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“alerts patients and providers on increased levels of the biomarker for a CVD event” introduces additional elements that is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more:
Step 2A Prong 2: In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“alerts patients and providers on increased levels of the biomarker for a CVD event” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Step 2B: As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“alerts patients and providers on increased levels of the biomarker for a CVD event” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 10,
Claim 10 depends from claim 7 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 10 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the wearable monitor is a combined ECG and blood biomarker monitor that” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“alerts patients and providers when certain thresholds are met.” introduces additional elements that is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more:
Step 2A Prong 2: In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“alerts patients and providers when certain thresholds are met.” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Step 2B: As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“alerts patients and providers when certain thresholds are met.” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 11,
Claim 11 depends from claim 7 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 11 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“continuously monitors physiological data such as heart rate, blood oxygenation, vascular resistance, and other hemodynamic markers.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the wearable monitor” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-11 contain subject matter free of prior art.
The Examiner has conducted a thorough search of the prior art and could not find a single reference, or combination of references with adequate rationale to combine, to teach the limitations of “training a computer-implemented artificial neural network based on the coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans, a coronary CT angiographies (CCTA), chest CT, blood markers, and electrocardiograms of the collected cases and the control cases; obtaining relevant data regarding an asymptomatic individual comprising one or more of a coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan, a coronary CT angiography (CCTA), chest CT, blood markers, and electrocardiogram; providing the relevant data of the asymptomatic individual to the trained computer-implemented artificial neural network; receiving a forecast of the chance of near-term sudden cardiovascular events in the asymptomatic individual; and recommending a next diagnostic or therapeutic step for the asymptomatic individual”. The closest prior art that the Examiner was able to find to teach these limitations were:
Zimmerman et al. (2023/0245782; herein referred to as Zimmerman): which teaches a machine learning model trained on ECG data from historical sources, receives patient ECG data and uses the trained machine learning model to generate recommendations for treatment for the patient. However, Zimmerman does not teach that the trained machine learning model is trained on the coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans, a coronary CT angiographies (CCTA), chest CT, blood markers, and electrocardiograms of the collected cases and the control cases. While it might be understood or even obvious that additional heart related information would have been helpful to include in such claimed information, there does not appear to be any specific mention of these forms of cardiac information in Zimmerman. The Examiner would have needed to rely on impermissible hindsight reasoning to find it obvious that the specific data of the coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans, a coronary CT angiographies (CCTA), chest CT, blood markers, and electrocardiograms of the collected cases and the control cases be trained into the machine learning model of Zimmerman.
Cook (US 20240126794): which teaches an LLM that extracts patient information, including ECG data, to predict a future state of medical data for a patient. However, this LLM does not appear to include specific recommendations for treating patients.
Naghavi (US 2023/0352181): which teaches the use of AI models to utilize coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans in determining whether a patient should be discharged from medical care. However, This reference does not include any specific LLM to determine the state of the CAC scans, nor does this AI model appear to be trained on the coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans, a coronary CT angiographies (CCTA), chest CT, blood markers, and electrocardiograms of the collected cases and the control cases.
Chen et al. (Chen, S.-F., Loguercio, S., Chen, K.-Y., Lee, S. E., Park, J.-B., Liu, S., Sadaei, H. J., & Torkamani, A. (2023). Artificial Intelligence for risk assessment on primary prevention of coronary artery disease. Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports, 17(12), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-023-00731-4; herein referred to as Chen): which teaches the use of LLMs to determine the risk of cardiac events pertaining to patients with CAC scores. However, there does not appear to be any trained model based on the coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans, a coronary CT angiographies (CCTA), chest CT, blood markers, and electrocardiograms of the collected cases and the control cases.
As can be seen, none of the prior art references found teach the limitations of claim 1, alone or in combination. Accordingly, claims 1-11 contain subject matter free of prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A NEWTON whose telephone number is (313)446-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM (EST).
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, PETER H. CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/CHAD A NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights